Twitter is interfering in Irish abortion referendum by shadow banning Pro Life accounts

Kershaw

Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
6,862
Likes
10,764
Points
313
#14
How do you know you're shadowbanned?
Good way to check if you are shadowbanned is to tweet something and check the account of someone who follows you to see if it pops up their stream. Though twitter could limit a user's reach by only pushing their tweets into a percentage of your followers' streams.
However, I'd be cautious of definitively accusing them of shadow-banning you.
It's fairly difficult to get a tweet noticed on twitter especially for new accounts with few followers.
Most people probably see about 1 - 3% of the tweets posted by people they follow unless they sort the users they flollow into lists and check those.
When I log in to the main page, I'll just see the 10 tweets posted in the last 10 minutes until I check my lists or what people are talking about in my groups.
You can try and boost your signal by using hashtags or by being among the first tweeters who responds to someone famous.
Twitter really works best for famous people but it's a decent way to get a news stream too and snipe at opponents.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
2,683
Likes
984
Points
163
Location
Dublin
#19
Meanwhile Proborts on Twitter are offering to pay young fools to travel home and vote,
and are hustling for 'canvassing expenses'....

Both illegal in a Referendum....
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
2,009
Likes
1,610
Points
213
Location
Gombeenia
#20
Pot kettle here I think.

You lot have bullied the shit out of the very few pro choice advocates that dare to post on this very forum.

Personally I don't dare post any more on the "pro life" threads here for fear of further mobbing and personal attacks.

And the open hostility from certain "pro life" posters has spread beyond just those threads
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
5,135
Likes
7,615
Points
313
Location
The land of the golden potato
#21
Pot kettle here I think.

You lot have bullied the shit out of the very few pro choice advocates that dare to post on this very forum.

Personally I don't dare post any more on the "pro life" threads here for fear of further mobbing and personal attacks.

And the open hostility from certain "pro life" posters has spread beyond just those threads
The bullying comes from abortion militants picking on the most vulnerable and innocent of all the human family. A good fraction of those types would be dead if it wasn't for the 8th amendment, they've been left forgotten and nameless as items of medical waste. Then when normal people respond to these attacks on the nation's young with a clear view on what abortion really entails beyond the marketing jargon they get smeared by abortion militants. And when people get smeared, they don't sit on their hands and let that happen. And that's the pattern that has been emerging with these abortion disputes. When extreme views are aired, don't be surprised to get a shocked response in return. Particularly with people who espouse animal rights but regard babies in the womb as totally and utterly disposable.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
25,712
Likes
22,967
Points
313
#22
How do you know you're shadowbanned?
Good way to check if you are shadowbanned is to tweet something and check the account of someone who follows you to see if it pops up their stream. Though twitter could limit a user's reach by only pushing their tweets into a percentage of your followers' streams.
However, I'd be cautious of definitively accusing them of shadow-banning you.
It's fairly difficult to get a tweet noticed on twitter especially for new accounts with few followers.
Most people probably see about 1 - 3% of the tweets posted by people they follow unless they sort the users they flollow into lists and check those.
When I log in to the main page, I'll just see the 10 tweets posted in the last 10 minutes until I check my lists or what people are talking about in my groups.
You can try and boost your signal by using hashtags or by being among the first tweeters who responds to someone famous.
Twitter really works best for famous people but it's a decent way to get a news stream too and snipe at opponents.

You can also check your username with this,

Shadow Ban Checker
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
2,009
Likes
1,610
Points
213
Location
Gombeenia
#23
The bullying comes from abortion militants picking on the most vulnerable and innocent of all the human family. A good fraction of those types would be dead if it wasn't for the 8th amendment, they've been left forgotten and nameless as items of medical waste. Then when normal people respond to these attacks on the nation's young with a clear view on what abortion really entails beyond the marketing jargon they get smeared by abortion militants. And when people get smeared, they don't sit on their hands and let that happen. And that's the pattern that has been emerging with these abortion disputes. When extreme views are aired, don't be surprised to get a shocked response in return. Particularly with people who espouse animal rights but regard babies in the womb as totally and utterly disposable.
Well I suppose I should be grateful spud has managed to respond without totally peppering his post with personal insults, only managing the one unsubstantiated inference that the poster he is responding to is somehow abnormal. Perhaps we'll make a civil poster out of you yet spud! :p

Pity about the hyperbole though! And the false dichotomy.
And of course the misrepresentation of another poster's views.

Yeah babies in the womb are totally and utterly disposable. That's exactly what I said :rolleyes: /sarc

No mention of the 12 week limit of course
or the rights of the woman. Or rape victims. Or fatal fetal abnormalities etc etc.

From the very person complaining that I misrepresent him!! Irony!

This forum has 2-3 people at most who (openly) dare to oppose the 8th here.

Everyone else here seemingly is "pro life". Fine.
But how spud can, with a straight face, paint himself and the other "pro life" advocates as the victims
on such a forum when anyone and his dog can see that the opposite applies here, I fail to understand!

My views on the unborn are consistent for both animals and humans.
The rights of the mother always trump the rights of the foetus in early gestation

As the gestation progresses further, the argument for the mother
and her offspring having asymmetric rights becomes less and less clear cut.
A reasonable line needs to be drawn for practical purposes.
This will vary from species to species.

In the case of humans 12 weeks is where the limit is normally set for a number of medical
and social reasons. It provides a balance between being enough time
for any reasonable human mother to become aware of the pregnancy, get tests and make their decision
and for medical and ethical considerations to be satisfied too.

Once born and independent of it's mother's womb, the entity gains full equal rights
to it's fellow creatures.

Sadly in the case of animals you seem to so despise, mostly these rights are virtually non existent
as folks like yourself think nothing of their systematic suffering and deaths in droves for everything from supplying you with cheap meat so you can stuff your fat face, to testing different shades of yet another "me too" makeup for skin irritation effects.

My ethics in this regard would seem far more consistent than your own laughable "pick and mix" charade.
You however persist in promulgating this risible false dichotomy between animal and human rights.
All species have a right to exist on this rock without unnecessary slaughter or torture.


Now once again I repeat my request spud.
Please put me on ignore and stop responding to my posts.

You are seemingly incapable of respectful informative dialogue as Tadhg and some others here are
and I don't wish to waste my time having to wade through your tedious pompous uninformative barbed responses.

You have indicated at various times that you believe I'm "hallucinating", "not normal", "chimping", "screeching" etc, and have persisted in lacing your posts responding to mine with these and a multitude of other similar insulting epithets.
So obviously you don't like my posts either!

So why then not do us both a favour and accede to my request?
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
5,135
Likes
7,615
Points
313
Location
The land of the golden potato
#24
Well I suppose I should be grateful spud has managed to respond without totally peppering his post with personal insults, only managing the one unsubstantiated inference that the poster he is responding to is somehow abnormal. Perhaps we'll make a civil poster out of you yet spud! :p

Pity about the hyperbole though! And the false dichotomy.
And of course the misrepresentation of another poster's views.

Yeah babies in the womb are totally and utterly disposable. That's exactly what I said :rolleyes: /sarc

No mention of the 12 week limit of course
or the rights of the woman. Or rape victims. Or fatal fetal abnormalities etc etc.

From the very person complaining that I misrepresent him!! Irony!

This forum has 2-3 people at most who (openly) dare to oppose the 8th here.

Everyone else here seemingly is "pro life". Fine.
But how spud can, with a straight face, paint himself and the other "pro life" advocates as the victims
on such a forum when anyone and his dog can see that the opposite applies here, I fail to understand!

My views on the unborn are consistent for both animals and humans.
The rights of the mother always trump the rights of the foetus in early gestation

As the gestation progresses further, the argument for the mother
and her offspring having asymmetric rights becomes less and less clear cut.
A reasonable line needs to be drawn for practical purposes.
This will vary from species to species.

In the case of humans 12 weeks is where the limit is normally set for a number of medical
and social reasons. It provides a balance between being enough time
for any reasonable human mother to become aware of the pregnancy, get tests and make their decision
and for medical and ethical considerations to be satisfied too.

Once born and independent of it's mother's womb, the entity gains full equal rights
to it's fellow creatures.

Sadly in the case of animals you seem to so despise, mostly these rights are virtually non existent
as folks like yourself think nothing of their systematic suffering and deaths in droves for everything from supplying you with cheap meat so you can stuff your fat face, to testing different shades of yet another "me too" makeup for skin irritation effects.

My ethics in this regard would seem far more consistent than your own laughable "pick and mix" charade.
You however persist in promulgating this risible false dichotomy between animal and human rights.
All species have a right to exist on this rock without unnecessary slaughter or torture.


Now once again I repeat my request spud.
Please put me on ignore and stop responding to my posts.

You are seemingly incapable of respectful informative dialogue as Tadhg and some others here are
and I don't wish to waste my time having to wade through your tedious pompous uninformative barbed responses.

You have indicated at various times that you believe I'm "hallucinating", "not normal", "chimping", "screeching" etc, and have persisted in lacing your posts responding to mine with these and a multitude of other similar insulting epithets.
So obviously you don't like my posts either!

So why then not do us both a favour and accede to my request?
And you have some cheek to be speaking of civility given your sectarian insults about religious people, your insults against pro-lifers and your crazed insults against disabled people. And then you run around and pretend that I've broken some covenant on politeness? I'm not having that, son. You can take your sectarian viciousness to the roof for all I care. It's how the internet ticks, I'm long acclimatised to it. But don't be flabbergasted that you get a few choice words in return nevertheless. The internet also rolls like that.

There's no real "12 week limit", it's full term essentially based on "mental health" grounds similar to the carnage Britain has. "12 weeks" is useful to the regime in pretending that there's some sort of restriction on it. But doctors are not going to refuse abortions when approached; that's the eventual realpolitik of this. It's all championed by FG austerity vampires, Soros and the O'Brien media and that should tell us all we need to know about where all this is going. Nor is there an intrinsic moral difference between a child at an early stage of gestation and a child asleep in the crib. The 8th amendment which values and saves both lives if is practical to do so. It even uses the word 'practical'. So women's lives are never jeopardised under the two patient approach if the 8th amendment is actually followed.

I don't use the ignore button. I'm happy and relaxed to correct any mistruths coming from you. Indeed, I'm morally obliged to do so. Countering abortion propaganda is my small way of helping both mothers and children.
 
Last edited: