Does Twitter fudge the numbers? Absolute power does corrupt absolutely.

Project Veritas is at it again. This time having another confession from an insider, this time with the claim that Twitter "shadow bans" people who do not walk lockstep with what the Establishment thinks is acceptable thinking.


International Business Times is spinning the narrative, trying to dismiss the claims, but as IBT has its own shady problems, they are not exactly reliable as an information source.

I do know from my own personal experimenting, that "numbers" and "rankings" of sites such as Twitter are dodgy at best.

As I have more than one computer and device, I often click on my own sites, and see whether my viewing actually takes.

Many times it does, but not always.

I have had people from certain countries tell me they read a posting, but the funny thing is, it does not register.

There are many reasons why Internet sites would deliberately suppress or inflate hits and rankings.

To draw in people or get ad revenue for themselves, it makes sense to spice up the numbers.

Or, to quash dissent or not have to pay for revenue to users, they can easily pretend the numbers are lower.

There may even be espionage or infiltration from vest interests who secretly hijack certain sites and quietly fudge the numbers to suit their own agendas.

Let alone outside interests hacking or a system glitching.

Besides, if companies and accountants can embezzle and fudge with numbers, why couldn't Internet companies?

If people inflate their own followers by buying fake accounts, we should not be surprised that the accounting may very well be fudged or flawed in other ways.

If it happens to me, it must happen to other people.

You can have tags on your web site and get traffic from search engines, and then suddenly, not get traffic from that source at all.

And that doesn't make any sense as the viewers are not people looking for you by name, but by topic.

Either clicks do not register, or amazingly, your web site gets shut out or ghettoized.

If it is controversial, it is very likely to happen.

If you run more than one site, but one that is not political never has the same peculiar trends as a more controversial one, you may very well have noticed that quirk as well.

It is really nobody's business what your ideology is. You are allowed to be as eccentric as you want to be.

For all the talk about embracing diversity and individuality, social media sites go out of their way to homogenize the look, feel, content, and structure of thought.

The Internet is a giant linear scroll. It never progressed. It stagnated.

So Twitter may make its clinical denials, but I have been skeptical of social media's numbers game for years. There is too much power and too much at stake, and it is very easy to "make" certain numbers work.

Censorship does not work, especially now. People can easily bypass the censors and Internet's gate-keepers.

And it is a good thing: when everyone thinks alike, no one thinks at all, and we need diversity of ideology to keep actively thinking, and not stagnate as we believe our dogma is divine and natural decree.

It isn't. We must be challenged. We must be questioned. It is the only way for civilization to actually progress.

Social media has a lot to answer for these days, and it is time North America holds them accountable as they are challenged and questioned vigorously.