All Episodes
Aug. 2, 2017 - InfoWars Special Reports
07:41
Video - Twitter Confirmation Bias Exposed
| Copy link to current segment Download episode

Time Text
We have reached the great crossroads.
Humanity is awakening.
And all of you that have played your part in standing up to the censors, standing up to the bullies, and spreading the word are at the heart of this new renaissance.
That's why, for myself and the entire Infowars crew, I want to salute you all for what you've done in the information war and what you've also done on the streets peacefully.
And why I'm asking you now more than ever to redouble your efforts because victory is within sight.
So YouTube's announcing censorship of anything conservative, libertarian, or patriotic, or common sense.
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, they're all doing it.
And they're hiring these lynch mobs that are given the power to go out and declare things evil or racist so they can then be banned.
You know, like the word mother or father.
Now a professor who refuses to stop saying men and women exist has been banned from YouTube.
That's coming up in the next segment with Inesha D'Souza.
But first, there's a report on Twitter lynch mobs.
Twitter allows you to spread information instantly.
Tweets can go viral within minutes and narratives formed even faster.
Upon a cursory consideration, one might believe this is a positive thing.
However, it's often the case that narratives can spread first, while the facts trail far, far behind.
If a tweet appears to confirm our fondest hopes or darkest fears, it's only natural that we'd instantly hit that retweet button with little consideration for its veracity.
The ability to breed in-group solidarity with one click leads to an abandonment of basic evidentiary standards.
That's human nature, and it's understandable.
This tweet-first, think-later approach predictably leads to kangaroo courts of public opinion, essentially mob rule.
This phenomenon manifested itself on Twitter when 35,000 individuals retweeted a photo of a man that was accused of randomly pulling the headpiece off a Muslim.
The tweets read, This man at Baker Street forcefully attempted to pull my hijab off.
When I instinctively grabbed ahold of my scarf, he hit me.
He proceeded to verbally abuse my friends and I, pinning one of them against the wall and spinning in her face.
Over 2,000 users angrily condemned the man and claimed that they would like to violently attack him.
Many more called for his name, phone number, and work and home addresses to be published to presumably harass him for this most contemptible act.
One problem.
Though initially there were many calls to violence and harassment, there were not very many tweets to the tune of, perhaps we should wait till the police investigate, after all, we've only heard one side of the story.
Confirmation bias had swept thousands away, like an engorged river after heavy rainfall.
Not even verified Twitter accounts were safe as they began sticking their followers on the man.
This is so awful, I retweet it.
I hope they find this horrible person and lock him up.
Hundreds of thousands of cursory observers saw hundreds of tweets and articles pour in that made them feel morally righteous and tingly inside.
In their mind, it was an indisputable fact that this man was an unadulterated racist Islamophobe or something.
So naturally, it became their moral obligation to insert a valuable half-second into retweeting this.
But taking a few minutes to assess the preponderance of evidence would be, I think, a much more reasonable approach to this accusation than someone should have pushed him onto the tracks.
You see, a cursory investigation of the available information revealed that there was indeed another side to the story.
The man accused of attacking and tearing away this woman's hijab made this statement.
Quote,
So, two completely conflicting stories, one of which sounding patently more reasonable than the other.
Not to mention that this woman did not appear willing to stand by her tweet as it has now been deleted, banishing it into the twitlight zone.
Regardless, it would appear we'd need to see evidence before jumping to conclusions or engaging in a lynching.
Curiously, instead of alerting the police and allowing them to conduct an investigation, the woman urged everyone to grant her those delightful retweets because someone might recognize him.
Of course, this disregards the small, small detail that the man in question filed a police report so an angry mob was not needed to identify him because the police knew exactly who he was.
Given this fact, it would appear Ms. Abdul Qadir was merely jockeying for those sweet, sweet Twitter follows.
Even if this man had actually removed her hijab, perhaps it's not wise to leave indictments to pimply-faced keyboard warriors in the Twitterverse.
Now, you might be wondering why I'm addressing this seemingly small issue.
However, this incident is a microcosm embodying a larger issue that plagues our culture.
Confirmation bias on Twitter obviously affects both sides of the aisle, but the danger arises when Twitter users post photos of people they deem evil racists, especially without any evidence.
This leads thousands of irrational people to harass and even attempt to contact employers.
All of this, of course, without lifting a finger to ascertain both sides of the story, but most importantly, with a complete dismissal of the methods of dispute resolution that are immediately available to us all.
If we continue to retreat into our ideological comfort zones and use harassment as a tool of political coercion, we'll only sink deeper into the abyss of violence and stupidity.
www.fema.org
J.K. Rowling's saying that Trump wouldn't shake the little kid in the wheelchair's hand when he goes over first to him, hugs him, pats on him, talks to him more than all the other people basically combined.
Then later he's walking out, the little kid reaches for him.
Trump doesn't see it, so that's his fault.
Just like when the Polish president and his wife walk out, Trump's wife reaches out first, so the Polish president shakes her hand first, then Trump's.
Kind of like somebody walks up, you both stick your hands out, you shake the woman's first, then you shake the other one.
Isn't a diss.
But it's all about shunning, and it's all about keeping people in arrested development junior high mentality like we're in the third grade, and who is the cool kid?
After all, that's what modern leftism is, is creating arrested development, isolated, alone individuals who can be controlled by AI systems, according to Facebook's own documents linked to The Australian three months ago.
We're selling a product DNA force that is the very best nutraceutical that we can produce.
Dr. Group, you took years for you to develop DNA Force for us.
It's been something that I've been working on for a long time, Alex, because I think it's very, very important.
What the aging process is, is when the cell replicates, we lose a little bit of our telomeres.
Telomeres are the little cups on the end of our chromosomes.
And when it runs out, you start dying.
We chose the PQQ because it has over 175 different clinical trials.
It's one of the most effective substances in the world.
It works like an antioxidant.
It works to repair nerve growth factor.
So this is a formula to deliver the maximum amount.
It's in powder form.
We have so many five-star reviews.
I take this.
This is the product that I take.
Infowarslife.com and the profit we make.
We fight the Globals.
We fight the New World Order.
Export Selection