I posted this question:

Does Twitter censor content with a double standard?

To which K Dog answered. There's reasons to down vote the answer, but it was a legitimate answer nonetheless. Though it is not a great answer, I believe it adds to a potentially good answer.

With the exception of self-deletion, I'd like it undeleted please.

| |
  • Not everyone can see the answer to judge for themselves. Would you mind explaining why you think it was not worthy of deletion? – called2voyage Nov 22 '16 at 17:47
  • 1
    @called2voyage Three things: 1) It is an answer, not a non-answer. 2) It adds value to a potentially good answer if the author were allowed the opportunity to edit it (says it he can't edit for some reason). 3) It wasn't even up for 6 hours. As the question author, I think I deserve the right to review it myself, which I was in the middle of doing when it was deleted. – fredsbend Nov 22 '16 at 17:58
  • 1
    Assuming this was another unilateral Mod-delete, because let's face, those are pretty freaking common here, I wonder why they have so little faith in the community to self-police. The system is designed to be community-run, not admin-run. So that's a 4th reason: It breaks the theory of moderation to let the community have an opportunity to self-police first. – fredsbend Nov 22 '16 at 18:00
  • Point 1 needs clarification. There is a gray area between answer and non-answer, and not all posts in that gray area are acceptable as answers here. Could you expand on what qualities of the post made it acceptable here? Point 2 seems good and perhaps a mod can clarify whether/why the answerer can't edit. Point 3 is not a great reason--the frustration is understandable, but posts which do not qualify as acceptable answers on this site should be removed swiftly. – called2voyage Nov 22 '16 at 18:02
  • Yes, the site is community moderated, but especially on sites with lower traffic like Skeptics, dedicated moderators are needed to fill in the gaps. These moderators' actions are audited, so this should not be unreasonable. – called2voyage Nov 22 '16 at 18:04
  • @called2voyage Wouldn't it just be easier to see the answer? This is like explaining a sunset to the blind. – fredsbend Nov 22 '16 at 18:45
  • @called2voyage I'm a long time SE user. I understand deletion on this network, how it works, and why it's done. I'm saying that giving a bunch of details about an answer is not going to help you understand it because you haven't even seen it in the first place, never mind that my memory is quickly waning and distorting, probably. Besides, as an under 10K rep user, you have no power to do anything about it. – fredsbend Nov 22 '16 at 19:12
  • I believe that if users, even under 10K, make a good point on Meta, that mods and 10K users may be influenced by these points. I understand if you think it is futile unless a mod/10K user speaks up first, but I disagree. – called2voyage Nov 22 '16 at 19:15
  • 2
    @called it's only futile because nobody can read the post. This is a catch-22 and one I'm pretty sure it has been noted before – fredsbend Nov 22 '16 at 19:41
  • 1
    Note the answer was just minutes old. – user36356 Nov 22 '16 at 22:15
  • @KDog You can see it still, right? Perhaps you can post it on this meta post, so the community can at least see it and decide the way they're supposed to. – fredsbend Nov 22 '16 at 22:26
  • Or, right after you post it, I'll add it to my meta post here, then it will be part of this question. Then you can delete your meta post. – fredsbend Nov 22 '16 at 22:27
  • Please do not post deleted answers here. – Sklivvz Nov 23 '16 at 6:56
  • @sklivvz I cannot discuss something I cannot reference. Posting it here, on this post, would not be strange nor novel, as other SE sites do it out of convention. – fredsbend Nov 23 '16 at 9:47

Your question asks if Twitter has a double standard.

The substance of the deleted answer was some details about a research project nicknamed "Truthy" from Indiana University, that tried to detect misinformation on Twitter. It had nothing to do with Twitter's moderation policies.

The answer in no way addressed the question, and off-topic answers aren't welcome here.

Note: The problems with the answer didn't stop there, but they aren't why it was deleted.

The answer started with an unreferenced attack on "the Left", on Obama's administration attitude to Free Speech, on the IRS, which was nothing to do with the question.

The answer made no attempt to show that this project had any effect on Twitter in practice.

The answer didn't present a balanced view of the project - it only quoted attacks on the project, without linking to the project itself, which contains copious resources explaining how the attacks were false and fabricated, and mischaracterised the nature of the project.

| |
  • 1
    Thanks, this elucidates the nature of the answer quite well! – called2voyage Nov 22 '16 at 19:41
  • Even if I agree with you, you should let the community have an opportunity to make the decision. The post was only up for 5 hours. – fredsbend Nov 22 '16 at 19:43
  • He also says he can't edit it. Could it have been locked also by mistake? – fredsbend Nov 22 '16 at 19:43
  • The truth is, there was a government funded group out there Truthy that was feeding Twitter suggestions for banning conservatives, but not liberals. That was directly part of the answer. Sorry the truth hurt you so much – user36356 Nov 22 '16 at 22:14
  • So of course, more conservatives got banned as a result. – user36356 Nov 22 '16 at 22:16
  • And the answer laid that out specific to Twitter practice. Again, not sure why you are saying that the answer didn't do that,when it clearly did: The web service has been used to track tweets using hashtags such as #tcot (Top Conservatives on Twitter), and was successful in getting accounts associated with conservatives suspended, according to a 2012 book co-authored by the project’s lead researcher, Filippo Menczer, a professor of Informatics and Computer Science at Indiana University. – user36356 Nov 22 '16 at 22:18
  • @KDog I was in the middle of a comment that pretty much asked you to clarify that before it was deleted. Swift and heavy mod actions ... don't even have a chance for community review. – fredsbend Nov 22 '16 at 22:28
  • 2
    @KDog You don't understand how Truthy works. It does not single out information based on politics. If there happened to be more action taken against conservative accounts as a side effect, it may be that there is more spam content targeted to conservatives than liberals. If there was indeed such a bias, further research should take place to see why it was so. But there is no evidence of intentional effort by Twitter or Truthy to target conservative accounts. – called2voyage Nov 22 '16 at 22:39
  • @called The question isn't about Twitter's intentions. Whether they censor with a bias on purpose is kind of irrelevant to whether it's actually done or not in the first place. – fredsbend Nov 22 '16 at 23:49
  • 5
    @KDog: "Sorry the truth hurt you so much" Your trolling isn't helping. – Oddthinking Nov 23 '16 at 2:15
  • "He also says he can't edit it. Could it have been locked also by mistake?" It's not locked. His account has no blocks that I can see. I don't understand why this would be the case. Perhaps a separate meta-question, so a Stack Exchange employee gets involved? – Oddthinking Nov 23 '16 at 2:19
  • 2
    Given the evidence provided by K Dog is disputed, it seems like some of the claims that were made would make a good Skeptics.SE question by itself. It would help show that the answer was not deleted for political reasons, but purely because it didn't answer the question. – Oddthinking Nov 23 '16 at 2:21

I was not involved in the act, however I want to publicly support it.

  • The post was not answering the question, at least not directly. Maybe the OP wanted to show evidence that Truthy had an influence on Twitter and that the influence was statistically significant, and that there are no other similar "influencers" with different political biases compensating. If that is the case, they can still modify the answer, but without it, the answer does not address the question.

  • The evidence presented was unfortunately quite poor, it was basically a repost of a conservative House of Representative press release about Truthy from three online news sites, two of which were politically aligned. It was not evidence of bias and the post was giving needlessly exposure to an opinion-based political position.

  • The attitude of the post needed fixing. It's not OK to post a 10 line political rant about Obama censoring people. While the OP is allowed to have their opinion, Skeptics is not a soapbox for political propaganda.

  • The moderators are part of the community and they are allowed to use their deletion votes like any other user. We may debate whether the deletion was correct or not, and act accordingly, but I strongly disagree on dividing the community in mods vs. the non-mods. The correct action is to vote to delete/undelete, and eventually have a discussion about it on meta, among people with the delete/undelete rights. I am pretty sure we should not wait until there's a consensus. That's not how SE works.

| |
  • 1
    No one under 10k can see the post. And only a few even saw it when it was live. How can we discuss something without being able to reference it? On other SE sites, we post the deleted content on meta. Don't you realize you cannot convince me from my memory, but you can from glaring fact? – fredsbend Nov 23 '16 at 9:45
  • 1
    @fredsbend the discussion should be limited to people that can see the post - it's a privilege earned by contributing to the site. I understand that you don't agree with this policy, but that's how SE works everywhere. – Sklivvz Nov 23 '16 at 10:18
  • 2
    @Sklivvz - there's no "undelete" link on the answer, so the fourth point is 100% wrong. Only another mod can undelete what a mod deleted, very often (I don't recall exact scenarios but this seems one of them) – user5341 Dec 16 '16 at 3:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .