Twitter Responds To Conservative Censorship

Since the incident broke about Project Veritas exposing twitter employees who bragged about censoring conservatives, Twitter has responded by blaming the people exposed.

Twitter released these comments, “The individuals depicted in this video were speaking in a personal capacity and do not represent or speak for Twitter,”

“We deplore the deceptive and underhanded tactics by which this footage was obtained and selectively edited to fit a pre-determined narrative. Twitter is committed to enforcing our rules without bias and empowering every voice on our platform, in accordance with the Twitter Rules.”

“Twitter does not shadowban accounts,”

“We do take actions to downrank accounts that are abusive, and mark them accordingly so people can still to click through and see this information if they so choose… This makes content less visible on Twitter, in search results, replies, and on timelines. Limiting tweet visibility depends on a number of signals about the nature of the interaction and the quality of the content.”

  • JC

    I have stopped using twitter—until they publicly change their policy


      Don’t stop getting in the face of liberal outlets like Huff & Puff, Twitter of Facebook, it’s what they want! We conservatives must confront, expose and attack them with the 2 things they dread the most, truth and its free expression!

  • vladilyich

    I assume that there is a point to this article, but I fail to see it. As a free private service, Twitter is completely free to decide who is going to be allowed to use it.

    • Dobbie15

      Since it is a ”free” service that means that everyone in the public domain is allowed to use it according to the rules of usage in the contracts and disclaimers put out by Twitte r. As such, they are not allowed to censor free speech just because they do not share the same political views. If they persist in it Twitter should be dismantled ; shut down from any public forum and made non-existent.


      N,o they are not, comrade! A business cannot arbitrarily exclude anyone for race, religion or political leanings.

      • vladilyich

        If you re-read your constitution, you’ll find that it’s “race, creed or color”. It says NOTHING about political philosophy. Of course, in today’s politically correct society, it’s now “race, creed, color or ability…”

        • Dobbie15

          Just a reminder that the Judicial Arm of the government (under the prodding and arm twisting of the more Liberal politicians who sought to expand their voter base) has extended that to include a lot of other “-isms” like sexism, age-ism and whatever they can put under that ‘umbrella’.

    • Terry Butts

      While your statement is mostly true Twitter made a legally binding agreement with its users unless the user violates these TOS they can not legally censor them without violating that agreement.

      They can not say
      something is allowed in that agreement then CENSOR it because it does
      not fit the political views of the company without the company being in
      violation of that agreement.

      Remember there is a large gap between DISAGREEING with certain beliefs or behavior and calling for or committing violence against those who hold those beliefs or behave that way.

      For example to put it simply stating that the Bible defines some behavior as sin is NOT calling for violence or an act of violence against those who sin. Twitter however has in the past CENSORED speech connected to such by stretching the definitions making it seem that just DISAGREEING with what they openly support was such a violation.

      Now if they put in the agreement that those using twitter have to accept in order to use twitter that CONSERVATIVE, religious, or POLITICAL ideas they disagree with are not allowed then yes they can censor such content but since they have not put that in their rules and simply stretch the definition of threats or violence to cover nothing more than DISAGREEING with their views then they have violated their own rules as disagreeing with someone is not an act of violence or threat and thus NOT a violation.

      Keep in mind TWITTER THEMSELVES have used the free speech argument to try and keep some offensive and even threatening things on twitter that SUPPORT liberal ideology so they can not argue protected free speech to keep violators they approve of on twitter while stretching the definitions in the English language just to censor those that oppose the same liberal ideology.

      To answer the linked stories question they probably will never automate the process doing so eliminates the ability to blame their employees for the censorship. Despite the fact the few false positives would be easier to address than trying to deal with the thousands plus of reports of abuse allowing HUMAN error and personal opinions to make false positives.

  • DaveyJ

    Twitter does lean very heavy to the dangerous left!

  • Pat Travitz

    Come om Twitter Me Think Thou Portest to Much You know blame it on someone else as all LIBS DO

  • barbarakelly


    • Dobbie15

      Totally agree in suing them.
      And this was in no way an apology so much as a rationalization for their not doing anything by claiming that their people’s actions were their own decisions (as if there would not have been some clauses in whatever employment ‘contract’ there, would not include some sort of ‘fairness’ or ‘equality’ in treatment as one of the prerequisites of working. And why was this going on for so long when numerous complaints had been done previous to this) . They are even blaming “editing”” of the footage and the ‘underhanded’ way it was obtained more than they are naysaying the biased, prejudicial actions of their people

      • Terry Butts

        Wasn’t there a story where they fired an employee for being conservative. Even got sued for discrimination over it.

        • Dobbie15

          I’m not sure. wasn’t that Google?

          • Terry Butts

            The linked one was though It was my understanding the companies are controlled by the same people.

            We have repeatedly seen both twitter and google censoring conservatives based on accusations with no evidence while actually going to court to protect the “freedom of speech” or “privacy” of their customers when the account was connected to terrorists or liberals ranting threats against the majority of this nation over the election results.

      • rivahmitch

        Why waste time. Just take own their names and wait until the SHTF!

        • Dobbie15

          Actually, I think this is the end of the waiting and the start of the SHTF period. ;^D And I highly doubt they will release any names unless they are actually sued and the lawyers start demanding names during the Discovery period of the litigation.


    I’m sure the Twitter twits don’t think the Trump pussy grabbing hot mic release (which failed!) or their ghost blocking are underhanded, LMFAO!!

  • Ironeyes Jones

    Yahoo does the same thing. When I contacted them about this, I got no answer. That tells me that they approved of the practice. Funny how Liberals are always labeling certain people as Nazis and then go on to act like Nazis themselves.

  • Terry Butts

    ““We deplore the deceptive and underhanded tactics by which this footage
    was obtained and selectively edited to fit a pre-determined narrative.
    Twitter is committed to enforcing our rules without bias and empowering
    every voice on our platform, in accordance with the Twitter Rules.””

    Yet you post videos from news media that have blatantly selectively edited interviews to fit their liberal agenda.
    You allow offensive Anti-American posts while censoring those who respond to said posts.
    And a long list of other things you have been caught doing for years.

    If I recall correctly did it not take threats to get the ISIS accounts pulled?

    Stated “the suspensions have been a result of increased media reporting, which
    in turn spurred public awareness, which has created more user-generated
    policy violation reports, the person said. It’s against Twitter’s
    policy, for instance, to make direct, specific threats of violence
    against others.
    ” odd how liberals making threats against Trump have avoided enforcement of this policy especially with all the threats during the presidential campaign and right after the election.

    The fact is if these individuals acted without following the RULES they are supposed to use so they could selectively censor conservative ideas and speech from twitter why are they still employed? If those RULES were followed then Twitter has done exactly what they were accused of doing and it was not “selectively edited to fit a pre-determined narrative” the way we have seen the so called news do.

    I recall a so called news program that supposedly interviewed the leader of a militia a few decades ago. In the satellite interview that was supposedly recorded for the show

    1) He never spoke to the individual the news claimed interviewed him. (he was asked questions by some other employee of the station)

    2) The questions were essentially the same question reworded repeatedly because he did not give the answer they could use as propaganda against militia groups.

    3) Was pictured with the multiracial members standing in the background.

    4) was finally asked the HYPOTHETICAL question “what would consider a government that snatched citizens in the middle of the night without trial” he gave the only Answer any intelligent American would give “ANY GOVERNMENT THAT DOES THAT IS nothing more than ” (the station omitted the capitalized words when appending that answer to the question they never asked “what do you thing of the American government”)

    When they show aired

    1) the INTERVIEWER he never spoke two asked questions he was never asked the answers he gave in the at least FOUR HOUR long satellite interview were SELECTIVELY EDITED and applied to those questions.

    2) They cropped the footage to show only his face cutting out the background. (going on afterwards about it being a white supremacist group despite the original video proving otherwise)

    3) did every trick they could to make him seem to be a nutcase.

    So MEDIA especially liberal media and groups like twitter etc. selectively editing stuff to influence people into believing what those groups want them to believe despite what is actual truth is nothing new. Neither is the DEFLECT the accusations by blaming your accusers of doing what you have done policy.

  • wtr


  • smithleeroy21

    Fine them 1,000,000.00 every time they are caught violating someone’s free speech rights. Give 500,000.00 to person censored and 500,000.00 to organizations that have proven they support conservative causes.

  • Ischgabibble

    All of the left wing outlets are manure holes that need to be shut down. That includes most of the messed up media as well. Just propaganda machines for the communist party. - 2015 | Privacy Policy