Biased NYU Study Claims ‘No Reliable Evidence’ of Big Tech Bias Against Conservatives

Biased NYU Study Claims ‘No Reliable Evidence’ of Big Tech Bias Against Conservatives

Any doubts a conservative might have had about persistent claims from Republicans that Big Tech actively worked to censor conservative voices likely vanished after several tech giants took drastic actions in the aftermath of the Capitol riots.

Twitter and Facebook banned President Trump within days of the Capitol’s breaching. Twitter then banned more conservative accounts. The ones who weren’t banned saw the followings they’d worked hard to build dramatically purged, some in the tens of thousands, with Twitter alleging it deleted “QAnon”-affiliated accounts.  Google Play and Apple app stores removed social media platform Parler. It then subsequently lost its Amazon hosting services.

There was no mistaking what was happening at that point. Big Tech had declared total war on conservatives ahead of Joe Biden’s inauguration, and there was no turning back.

Amid the debate over how much power these companies have to control information flow, New York University (NYU) performed a study to examine allegations from conservatives that Big Tech platforms are biased against them. The study’s findings, which were released this week, were touted extensively in the mainstream media as supposed proof that the claims of social media bias against conservatives are “unfounded.”

“The claim of anti-conservative animus on the part of social media companies is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it,” the study curiously proclaimed.

One didn’t need to dive too deeply into the study to see that it was both dubious and deeply flawed, however. Billionaire philanthropist Craig Newmark, a heavy-hitter donor to Democrats, including Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, funded the study. Newmark, as Fox News noted, is a “tech titan” in his own right:

The study was “funded by Craig Newmark, a billionaire tech titan who donated $100,000 to Biden’s campaign victory fund,” wrote Daily Caller investigative reporter Chuck Ross, who first identified Newmark’s political leanings.

Ross noted that NYU did not disclose the Craigslist founder’s political views. Newmark has also donated to a variety of other liberal groups and causes, including the Democratic National Committee itself.

In addition to that, there’s also the issue of how platforms like Facebook and Twitter make it nearly impossible to be able to objectively analyze their data on throttlings, suspensions, and bannings, which even the study’s authors’ acknowledged on page 22:

The question of whether social media companies harbor an anti-conservative bias can’t be answered conclusively because the data available to academic and civil society researchers aren’t sufficiently detailed. Existing periodic enforcement disclosures by Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are helpful but not granular enough to allow for thorough analysis by outsiders.

In response to a tweet from the Twitter Comms team touting the study, Professor Jacobson called on the company to “open up its internal records to review” in the interest of transparency and accountability:

Why doesn't @Twitter open up its internal records to review so we can see exactly what it does? https://t.co/fV4EwLXWrB

— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) February 1, 2021

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley was similarly unimpressed with the study:

The study is neither conclusive or particularly compelling. It reads more like an extended op-ed with its own bias. It declares allegations of bias as "false" and "disinformation" while quietly noting that it cannot conclusively say whether there is bias. https://t.co/vyzWeFyp2z

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 3, 2021

…So the study is not actually based on a review of individuals and groups censored by these companies because the companies refuse to release the data. Much of the rest of study seems strikingly conclusory and at points apologist.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 3, 2021

…NYU calls allegations of bias against conservatives “disinformation,” the very term used as a basis for flagging or censoring material. But the study is largely conclusory and acknowledges that it is not based on any real hard data and is therefore “inconclusive.”

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 3, 2021

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, who has been a frequent target of the cancel culturalists on the left and in Big Tech, took a sledgehammer to the study last night:

This so-called academic study was, in fact, paid for by Big Tech. It was funded by a man called Craig Newmark, one of the many Silicon Valley billionaires who paid for the Joe Biden for President campaign. Now he’s paying for this.

One of the authors of this so-called academic study is a man called Paul Barrett. Craig Newmark is really Paul Barrett’s Lorenzo de’Medici, his patron. In September, Barrett released another study on why we should be very nice to Big Tech, as well as deeply respectful and always obedient. That study was also funded by Craig Newmark as well as by George Soros.

Are you following how this works? Is it becoming clear? In 2021, billionaires fund their own studies and in return for that investment, they get the conclusions they have paid for and the rest of us get to obey those conclusions. That’s called science, ladies and gentlemen, and suddenly it’s everywhere.

Watch:

#Tucker: “This so-called academic study was, in fact, paid for by Big Tech. How shocked are you? It was funded by a man called Craig Newmark. Newmark is one of the many Silicon Valley billionaires who paid for the Joe Biden for president campaign. Now he’s paying for this.” (3/3) pic.twitter.com/LdcT39ubYK

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 3, 2021

In short, a Big Tech liberal and billionaire Democrat donor funded a report that concluded that such claims about Big Tech giants are unfounded. Bezos-operated “news” outlets like the Washington Post then dutifully reported on the study as though the findings meant the debate was over. And conservatives are supposed to nod in agreement with the conclusions and move on?

Like hell.

— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.