A Twitter executive was asked why, since they’ve been successful at eliminating Islamic State propaganda from the platform, they can’t likewise eliminate white nationalist propaganda. He delivered the answer I expected.
With every sort of content filter, there is a tradeoff, he explained. When a platform aggressively enforces against ISIS content, for instance, it can also flag innocent accounts as well, such as Arabic language broadcasters. Society, in general, accepts the benefit of banning ISIS for inconveniencing some others, he said.
In separate discussions verified by Motherboard, that employee said Twitter hasn’t taken the same aggressive approach to white supremacist content because the collateral accounts that are impacted can, in some instances, be Republican politicians.
I think I could accept the benefit of banning white nationalists at the expense of inconveniencing a few Republican politicians. Seems like a reasonable tradeoff.