VICE was co-founded by Gavin McGinnis, who went on to found the Proud Boys. Right wing billionaires and corporate forces as diverse as Disney and Time Warner...in other words, not very diverse mega-media types and those with an ax to grind. Purportedly on the left side of politics, McGinnis' DNA is all over the place. As Lee Camp says, from VICE's founding it's theme has been "Take the money and RUN bitches!" So yeah, the source itself is undependable on a multitude of levels. But, I am a mere consumer. No doubt the better educated will prove me wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_Media#Business_operations Now, more details from the article itself to help make my point. HEADLINE: Why Won’t Twitter Treat White Supremacy Like ISIS? Because It Would Mean Banning Some Republican Politicians Too. OK. The headline assumes things not yet in evidence plus it makes a false equivalency. ISIS is an *organization* while white supremacy is an *ideology*. Additionally it at least implies that this is a problem limited to Republican politicians, something which I know to be wrong. First paragraph: At a Twitter all-hands meeting on March 22, an employee asked a blunt question: Twitter has largely eradicated Islamic State propaganda off its platform. Why can’t it do the same for white supremacist content? OK...nit picking I am sure, but "all-hands meeting"? Um...for an organization the size of Twitter, would that not be a very big meeting? I suspect it may have been an "all-hands in the coding and engineering department"...but that's just speculation on my part. Second: An executive responded by explaining that Twitter follows the law, and a technical employee who works on machine learning and artificial intelligence issues went up to the mic to add some context. (As Motherboard has previously reported, algorithms are the next great hope for platforms trying to moderate the posts of their hundreds of millions, or billions, of users.) That's just a bit of editorializing is it not? "Next great hope" to whom? To find out, I must lick their bait....I took a pass. Third: 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. Like all the rest, I wasn't there, so I can't contradict anything written. BUT, did he say Arabic language broadcasters would be caught up? That sounds specious on it's face. As if Twitter can't figure out who Al Jazeera is or even some local radio station with a Twitter feed. Blue checks and all that stuff??? Fourth: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. Now, my Spidey Sense tells me this is where ALL the above came from. The authors didn't observe the above, but are reporting what the employee said s/he observed. Maybe my Spidey Sense is all wrong tho. Again though, "in some cases might catch out Republicans" seems foolish. How many users are there in India? They are perhaps as concerned about Modi or who knows...Joe Biden??? Fifth, then I am done. Not paid. *Grin* The employee argued that, on a technical level, content from Republican politicians could get swept up by algorithms aggressively removing white supremacist material. Banning politicians wouldn’t be accepted by society as a trade-off for flagging all of the white supremacist propaganda, he argued. OK..again, was the writer there, seen documents, or going with a source? If their algorithms are in fact flagging white supremacist politicians, so what? I am tired of the buried headline: Is there bribery going on? If this is about keeping Trump on Twitter say so. What is the story actually about? I'll never find out because I'm five paragraphs in and don't care.

This is so bad, I am questioning if this was intentionally libel, or just libel due to ignorance.

Headline is political shaming, misleading

"There is no indication that this position is an official policy of Twitter, and the company told Motherboard that this “is not [an] accurate characterization of our policies or enforcement—on any level.” This article is speculation based on a leaked internal all-hands meeting. Twitter explicitly denies this.