New York University released a study Monday that suggests conservatives face no bias on social media platforms.
The study, titled, “False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives,” claims that social media bias against conservatives is “a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it.” News outlets from The Washington Post to Politico boosted the study shortly after its publication.
However, the NYU study glosses over many major examples of the very conservative media bias it seeks to debunk.
The study defends Twitter for censoring the New York Post’s story on Hunter Biden’s laptop, which Twitter claimed was because it violated a rule against sharing hacked materials. But according to the owner of the repair shop where the laptop was left, the laptop was not hacked (a claim Hunter Biden himself does not dispute).
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey stopped short of defending the decision in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the matter, when pressed by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).
“We realize that and we recognize it as a mistake that we made both in terms of the intention of the policy and also the enforcement action of not allowing people to share it publicly or privately,” Dorsey said.
The study also fails to mention the fact that the New York Post was locked out of its Twitter account for two full weeks. Instead, the researchers concluded that this instance of censorship is “a case of reasonable decisions wrapped in mystifying processes.”
The study also claims that Twitter and Facebook were transparent regarding their ban of President Donald Trump’s account, despite that Trump never technically incited violence on either platform, according to the tweets cited in Twitter’s report.
The researchers did mention that while Trump was banned, Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran who has called for the complete annihilation of Israel is still allowed to tweet.
This is a clear double standard. But the study simply doesn’t think so. Researchers said that while Twitter should re-think its rules, this does not show anti-conservative animus.
But conservatives are banned and suspended from these platforms at a much higher rate than liberals, sometimes with no clear explanation as to why.
Last year, Steven Crowder had his Facebook live stream of the election coverage (with more than 8 million views) cut off with no explanation given.
The study glosses over examples like this as well, simply stating that “the right spreads more content that violates platform rules than the left. In light of this discrepancy, it stands to reason that right-leaning content would face labeling, demotion, or removal more frequently than left- leaning content.” But if no valid reason is given for many of these bans and suspensions, then how is this conclusion logical?
And a Pew Research study shows that most Americans think social media sites censor political viewpoints conservative ones in particular.
The NYU study was funded in part by billionaire and major Democrat donor Craig Newmark.
Newmark is the founder of Craigslist and donated $100,000 towards Biden’s presidential campaign. He also donated “$35,500 to the DNC in June 2020 tens of thousands of dollars to President Obama’s campaign, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,” according to the Daily Caller. Neither the Washington Post nor Politico mentioned Newmark in their articles on the study.
© Copyright © 2021, Accuracy in Media
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
This fake news tops all of the fake new articles in 2020. And the award goes to….
These are not the droids you are looking for…
Waives hand in air
I used to think that the Dem’s strongest power was their ability to get away with redefining what ever anyone said to fit their agenda. If they said something that came back to bite them, they’d say it was taken out of context. If someone said something damaging to them, they’d redefine the words said to mean the opposite of what was actually said. And the media would back them up.
But now I see that THAT was simply part of their REAL power: the power of “Because I said so.”
Three recent examples: A person is appointed to be a Justice, out of nowhere come a claim of previous sexual misconduct from a witness with no evidence, no witnesses, a dubious past and a memory full of hole, but MUST be believed because the Dems “said so.” After an election full of questionable activities that resulted in an even more questionable outcome, witness testimony and many vids of blatant misconduct are brushed aside and no one is allowed to pursue a challenge or even bring it up because the Dems “said so.” Now, after years of blatant stifling, censoring and banning of Conservative social sites, a new studies come out that says it never happened because…THEY “said so.”
The Democrat Party, not the party of because of this or that real evidence. They are the Party of “…because I said so.”
“New York University released a study Monday that suggests conservatives face no bias on social media platforms.”
To Democrats, Truth, Facts, Reality and History are all irrelevant if the Democrat doesn’t WANT to believe them or they don’t fit into their Lie or Con.
The Democrats will just make up their OWN truth, Facts, Reality or History to be what the Democrat WANTS to believe or fits their Lie or Con.
The most degrading offensive insult one can give another is to call them a “Democrat”.
That’s like having biden do a personal study on pedophilia and expecting America believe the findings. Although I’m quite certain his supporters would allow their own children to be part of the study.
“The NYU study was funded in part by billionaire and major Democrat donor Craig Newmark”. Craig, you certainly are not a biased liberal are you, with all of the money you sent to the Democrat communist party? Hey Craig, how often have you read Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” and “Manifesto of the Communist Party” aka The Communist Manifesto? Communists never promote “Fake News” do they Craig? Just remember, Craig, “Pravda” is “truth”, isn’t it?
The tobacco companies spend decades issuing studies claiming there was no link between smoking and cancer/heart disease/emphysema. Thanks to those fake studies large numbers of people continued to smoke. Those tobacco company studies kept the money rolling into the corporate coffers while helping smokers justify that there was no need to stop smoking. In the end those rigged studies cost many smokers their lives.
It sounds like this study is on the same order as those tobacco studies. The study is designed to make the offenders look innocent. In this case Big Social Media is allowed to silence the points of view with which they disagree.
And look at how many MASSIVE lawsuits big tobacco faced, when tides shifted.. I HOPE THE SAME HAPPENS to big tech!
The only portion of this article that contains any substance is the last paragraph, wherein it states that Craig Newmark, a devout Leftist funded the study, obviously to create a narrative.
What was neglected was the fact that the only research that was done, that could be done, was to ask Facebook and Twitter, both of which refused to provide any data. In other words what the study consists of is, they asked Facebook and Twitter if they discriminated and they said no! Wow, such extensive research must be exhausting!
In order to do any ACTUAL research, one would have to go back and find every post that was ever removed, why it was removed and who posted. A remarkable amount of work! Data they were denied!
What this “study” in reality is, would be a narrative purchased by Craig Newmark from NYU, meaning that NYU has absolutely no credibility, they are obviously willing to state what ever you pay for!
This is hysterical. It is so obvious that there is a bias, the social media sites are not even hiding that they are censoring and cancelling those that are conservative, and this study ‘proves’ it isn’t so? Give me a break. Or, as Biden says, “C’mon man!”
Ahhh…Ahhh…Ahhh…bullSHOOOooot..! ! !