Twitter Suspends Unplanned Movie Account, Refuses to Let Twitter Users to Follow the Account

If you disagree with how so many media sources have banned advertisements for the movie Unplanned, one way to protest is to go see the movie.  I plan to do so today.  And, tell others about it. 

Also, check out the Unplanned movie trailer. 

Of course, this is another of many examples of the Left not really believing in free speech. 

David R. Brumbelow

Three of my kids have seen the movie, and I'm smiling as I've just followed it on Twitter.  Doin' our part!

• Twitter uses software to try to determine objectionable content and violations of its policies. It is similar to how Google rankings work--good but not perfect. It never will be perfect.
• It is entirely possible that this Twitter account violated some Twitter policies or its followers did. We don't know why the account was flagged.
• Twitter does not owe anyone space on its platform. If it wants to ban Christian content entirely, that is its preference just as it is the preference of SI to ban Muslim content.
• In spite of the last point, Twitter graciously offers a platform to countless thousands of Christians who use its platform to promote Christianity.
• For those Christians that never tire of peddling conspiracy theories about faux persecution, I don't expect any of these facts to matter much.

Greg, the one place where I'd disagree with you in a major way is to note that when Twitter decides to censor accounts, it seems to be heavily weighted on the conservative side.  They do, yes, have the right to do this, and others have a right to let people know about their apparent bias.

Bert Perry wrote:

Greg, the one place where I'd disagree with you in a major way is to note that when Twitter decides to censor accounts, it seems to be heavily weighted on the conservative side.  They do, yes, have the right to do this, and others have a right to let people know about their apparent bias.

You have zero hard evidence to support that accusation. None, except anecdotal accounts of whining conservatives that accuse them of that. 

Nothing, Greg, besides comparisons of the rates at which conservatives are banned vs. liberals, the interesting way in which Twitter compelled hundreds of thousands to "unfollow" "Unplanned", and cases where those who were banned compared with those which were not.  For that matter, it's still unclear why "Unplanned" was suspended.

Now if I take the Twitter CEO's testimony at face value, yes, I'd come to about the same conclusion that you do.  However, it's worth noting that one contention of yours is outright false; that their censorship is purely a software function.  In reality, it works significantly on reports, which means that there's almost certainly some human interaction.  

More data needed?  Yup, and people are collecting it.  BTW, when you call people "whiners", Greg, all you prove is that you are either unable or unwilling to make a real argument.  

Bert Perry wrote:

Nothing, Greg, besides comparisons of the rates at which conservatives are banned vs. liberals, the interesting way in which Twitter compelled hundreds of thousands to "unfollow" "Unplanned", and cases where those who were banned compared with those which were not.  For that matter, it's still unclear why "Unplanned" was suspended.

One person's limited analysis does not prove your point. He does not have the data he needs to prove any point. I will not deny that there are lots of articles like that one that claim that Twitter is biased against conservatives. The data is simply not there to prove those opinions.

You have no idea what happened with this assertion that Twitter "compelled" hundreds of thousands to unfollow "Unplanned." That could have been any number of things whether technical or otherwise. I can think of a dozen reasonable possibilities from a technical perspective that have nothing to do with bias. It could be a caching thing; it could be a governor that limits followers within hours of a new/restored account coming online. It could be lots of things that Twitter does for very good reason. Without knowing more, people are just promoting conspiracy theories.

Bert Perry wrote:

Now if I take the Twitter CEO's testimony at face value, yes, I'd come to about the same conclusion that you do.  However, it's worth noting that one contention of yours is outright false; that their censorship is purely a software function.  In reality, it works significantly on reports, which means that there's almost certainly some human interaction.  

Um, good try with the strawman. I never said that their "censorship" is purely a software function. I said that software was involved. Yes, just as at Google, eventually humans have to get involved. And in this case, those humans apparently reversed the software's decision and restored the account (which makes me wonder why people are whining in the first place). 

Bert Perry wrote:

BTW, when you call people "whiners", Greg, all you prove is that you are either unable or unwilling to make a real argument.  

No, actually I am just calling a spade a spade. A Christian movie company wants to promote their movie on Twitter (probably for free) and Twitter has a technical hiccup which they quickly fix, allowing said company to keep promoting its message for free. But that is not good enough for the company and its fans. Without evidence, they claim persecution and bias.

Same company claims (without proof) that there is some grand conspiracy to prevent people from following their twitter account. At the moment, that page has 340K followers. So once again, I am not sure what the complaint is.