Elon Musk is a nice chap

[Zero999]

Twitter was violationg first amendment on behalf of democrats (government is not allowed to impede with free speech).

You are confusing public company with the government. To the same extent you can claim that Fox News “violated” the 1st on behave of Republican administration when Trump was POTUS, and CNN “violates” it on behalf of Democratic admins.

It's you who are confusing something. It would be so be if they did it themselves. But they were doing so while being instructed by members of democratic party.

At the time, the Democratic Party were not the govt, so were no different to any other pressure group, & the 1st amendment stuff doesn't apply.
The fact that there was so much internal discussion does not look like anyone "instructed" them.
What Twitter might, quite wisely, have worried about was the possibility of getting sued.
Even in the USA, slander is a thing.

It makes no difference who the president is. The pressure comes from other government organisations such as the civil service. It's something Musk is currently investigating.

There have also been many posts which are just as bad, yet have not been deleted.

I know there is quite a bit of porn on Twitter. As long as that is not against twitter rules (and i assume it is not, since there is so much of it), and it is posted with consent of the involved persons, they do not need to be removed.

But there is a major difference with the links i found: it is quite obvious that the pictures where not posted by the involved persons themselves. The posters mostly had Chinese looking handles. Those posts should definitely be removed, when they are reported.

Combined with the fact that Biden was not "the government" when the posts were removed, i have no bloody idea why this is such a big topic.
Do you want to tell us that removing involuntary distributed private pictures is something "left" or "woke"? I can't imagine what kind of hell would have broken loose if similar pictures of a Trump family member would have been leaked.

I'm talking about illegal content such as child porn, death and rape threats, which weren't deleted, whilst perfectly legal posts contradicting the mainstream narrative i.e. the war & public health policy were removed.

[TimFox]

Quoted without further comment, a post to another site from a Twitter employee about the changes there:
https://www.askamanager.org/2022/12/update-i-work-at-twitter-what-do-i-do.html#comments

[RJSV]

   One person's take on this discussion:
   Firstly (1.).  I'm financially 'compromised', (mildly so), being with LYME Disease, since the Reagan years, and wished to obtain services from local disability aid office, a non-profit.  Let's just call them R.I.C.K. so as to be clear not explicitly trashing that ORG.  They've been VERY helpful, over the 30 years or so.

   Asking them, their 'remote staff person' a few questions, but had noticed that this remote work thing was causing SIGNIFICANT detriment to their work quality.

   I made a wise-crack, (admittedly),  that the remotely run office had shortcomings, (BAD DOG !).

   I followed with wise crack #2.)  Saying " The only thing I got, out of their 'WEB SITE' was statements about how DIVERSE they are, there."

( BAD, BAD DOG!  NO!...lol).

   Still waiting, I guess I got bumped off the list, for a free laptop.

Point (#2.). And this one I hadn't considered:
   Folks have begun to 'dispise' Silicon Valley, hissing in disgust, at the Twitter counter to American values around freedom of expression (refer to recent arguments in this thread).
   Folks have begun to, more visibly , denounce the Silicon Valley heritage players...i.e. Apple and co.
in the Chinese political struggles.  More hissing and expressed outrage.

   That's bad, for business, which we need,  seriously.

[james_s]

Twitter was violationg first amendment on behalf of democrats (government is not allowed to impede with free speech).

What kind of pressure? What are the consequences if they were to refuse? If they did actually refuse and got punished by the government then I would buy this argument.

[james_s]

While the first amendment is still mostly uphold in the US, the issue is really that corporations have become stronger than the US government. If the woke propaganda decides to shut you down, then you are done. You loose your job, and become a pariah. And they can do this just after accusations, no due process, or after a single tweet or other social media post that they don't like.

It's not really the corporations, but the mob of citizens that social media enables. Mob rule is dangerous and people are effectively tried, convicted and sentenced by the mob without due process. This sort of behavior is not new, it is just the scale at which it now occurs that has become possible with modern technology like social media.

[TimFox]

Twitter was violationg first amendment on behalf of democrats (government is not allowed to impede with free speech).

What kind of pressure? What are the consequences if they were to refuse? If they did actually refuse and got punished by the government then I would buy this argument.

I don't believe that the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." has ever been interpreted to require a newspaper to publish all letters to the editor that it receives, or to require publication of anything else (except maybe for retractions required by a libel suit, or similar specific items).

[vad]

It's you who are confusing something. It would be so be if they did it themselves. But they were doing so while being instructed by members of democratic party.

Which is absolutely legal, unless that party member was also a government official.

Do you have evidence that some member of Trump administration, while being Democratic Party member (which would be unusual for Republican administration), was abusing his/her power to pressure Twitter to clamp down on anti-vaxxers during Covid lockdown, or are you just parroting some propaganda from Russia Today news channel?

[tom66]

Not a long term study. I rest my case.

You would make a rubbish lawyer .

It's rather difficult to do a long term study ethically.  It would be a bit like comparing giving people cancer treatment versus no cancer treatment for a tumour - it's morally impossible to comprehend such a study.  Also, as far as we know, transgenderism is unique to humans (I can't imagine how you could measure a rabbit's preferred gender.)    This is why, when doing a drug test for a serious illness, it's uncommon to test against a placebo, unless there is no current therapy.  Instead, the drug is tested against the currently best-available alternative.

It's worth noting that gender reassignment has been around since the early 20th century.  There's plenty of evidence for its success and people wanting to undergo these surgeries with positive outcomes.  Denying the surgery has been shown to lead to negative outcomes.  There might be a better drug that solves the problem in a decade, but right now this is what we have.

Show me a randomised study, with a 10 year follow-up period. Given the permanence of these treatments it's vitally important to look at the long term prognosis to make good judgements based on the risk vs benefit.

I agree, and population studies have been done.  Here's a long term study.  All it can do is compare those who elect, for whatever reason, to not go ahead with treatment.  You can't compare people who've asked for surgery, would otherwise qualify but have been denied it, for instance. 
https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080

Broadly, it finds that gender reassignment has good outcomes, though hormone treatment on its own may not be sufficient. 

Woke ideology is a significant problem in academia and is infecting medicine too. The recently closed Tavistock Clinic was a classic example of this.

Sigh.  "Woke ideology".  What do you mean?  If being "woke" means being aware of what others feel rather than having your personal mindset then, fuck, call me a woke asshole, I don't give a shit.   I am tired of "woke" being used to dismiss anything that might go against someone's personal feelings, because facts are far more important than feelings.

Also - Tavistock was more NHS mismanagement than a judgement against GRS/GD. 

For mental disorders, surrounding one's perception of their body, treatment generally revolve around self-acceptance, not modifying their body to suit. There's no reason why sex should be any different. Heck, when I suffered from an eating disorder, diet pills probably would have made me feel happier during the short term, but would obviously have harmed me in the long run.

I don't know why you would make such a patently wrong comment.  Most mental illnesses require some form of intervening treatment, and even something like anorexia or bulimia requires psychological intervention; you don't simply tell the person to accept their condition.  Part of GD treatment is understanding whether people are happy to exist in their bodies with the minimal amount of intervention of therapy and maybe hormone treatment; surgery is seen as only a final outcome if other processes are not successful.  And, as shocking as it may be to you, different mental illnesses have different treatments, you don't apply the treatment of an eating disorder to that of gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria isn't always present in trans people. Male to female transitioners often have autogynephilia, sexual arousal, at the seeing themselves as female, hence the hypersexualised portrayal of biological women, by many transwomen. Female to male transistioners are more likely to have other mental health problems such as eating disorders and autism.

I have absolutely no idea what your point is.

What about women's spaces? Do you really think men won't use the pretence of being trans as a cover to access female spaces? I personally know women who've been assaulted by men claiming to be women, in female toilets. A woman was raped in hospital by a male patient who was placed in a women's ward, because he claimed he was trans. To make matters worse, the police didn't believe her, because the hospital told the police there were no men on the ward.

This is undoubtedly a problem at a smaller scale, but I feel that if you're willing to get your dick snipped off so that you can go and harass women in a safe space, then you're pretty dedicated.  The reality is, nothing really stops anyone walking into a woman's toilet or safe space or wherever and assaulting women in there, and they certainly don't need surgery to enable it, if all it takes is makeup and a dress.  Why don't you worry more about the women who are literally abducted and murdered by certain evil men on their way home from a party or whatever?  This is a far bigger concern than safe spaces being invaded by allegedly faking-it trans women.  As for the prison issue, it's very likely transpeople will need to go into independent custody.

I'm not going to argue the transgender issue any more, because personally I have at best a marginal connection to it via a sibling of a friend, as well as a former colleague's now-daughter.  I'm going to continue to accept how someone wants to be addressed, which is where this all came from, and I hope you do so too.  After all, it would really just be a dick move to do anything other than that.

[Zero999]

Not a long term study. I rest my case.

You would make a rubbish lawyer .

It's rather difficult to do a long term study ethically.  It would be a bit like comparing giving people cancer treatment versus no cancer treatment for a tumour - it's morally impossible to comprehend such a study.  Also, as far as we know, transgenderism is unique to humans (I can't imagine how you could measure a rabbit's preferred gender.)    This is why, when doing a drug test for a serious illness, it's uncommon to test against a placebo, unless there is no current therapy.  Instead, the drug is tested against the currently best-available alternative.

It's worth noting that gender reassignment has been around since the early 20th century.  There's plenty of evidence for its success and people wanting to undergo these surgeries with positive outcomes.  Denying the surgery has been shown to lead to negative outcomes.  There might be a better drug that solves the problem in a decade, but right now this is what we have.

No where have I stated that gender reassignment surgery and hormones should not be used ever. The problem is they're now becoming the go to treatments, above talking therapy. My main concern is they're being used to treat children, who'll invariably grow out of it. Adults are a different case and even then, given the permanence of the treatments, it's something which should only be done when other therapies have failed.

I agree, and population studies have been done.  Here's a long term study.  All it can do is compare those who elect, for whatever reason, to not go ahead with treatment.  You can't compare people who've asked for surgery, would otherwise qualify but have been denied it, for instance. 
https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080

Broadly, it finds that gender reassignment has good outcomes, though hormone treatment on its own may not be sufficient. 

There's no randomisation and control for confounding variables. There will be differences between the two groups in that study. It doesn't support gender reassignment of children, just it worked out for those in the study, who elected to have it. Comparing it to cancer is absurd, because it's nowhere comparable in terms of death rate.

Woke ideology is a significant problem in academia and is infecting medicine too. The recently closed Tavistock Clinic was a classic example of this.

Sigh.  "Woke ideology".  What do you mean?  If being "woke" means being aware of what others feel rather than having your personal mindset then, fuck, call me a woke asshole, I don't give a shit.   I am tired of "woke" being used to dismiss anything that might go against someone's personal feelings, because facts are far more important than feelings.

I mean political correctness has infected the field of medicine and it's a bad thing.

Also - Tavistock was more NHS mismanagement than a judgement against GRS/GD. 

For mental disorders, surrounding one's perception of their body, treatment generally revolve around self-acceptance, not modifying their body to suit. There's no reason why sex should be any different. Heck, when I suffered from an eating disorder, diet pills probably would have made me feel happier during the short term, but would obviously have harmed me in the long run.

I don't know why you would make such a patently wrong comment.  Most mental illnesses require some form of intervening treatment, and even something like anorexia or bulimia requires psychological intervention; you don't simply tell the person to accept their condition.  Part of GD treatment is understanding whether people are happy to exist in their bodies with the minimal amount of intervention of therapy and maybe hormone treatment; surgery is seen as only a final outcome if other processes are not successful.  And, as shocking as it may be to you, different mental illnesses have different treatments, you don't apply the treatment of an eating disorder to that of gender dysphoria.

The problem is there has been a shift away from working on the mind, towards the body, with regards to gender dysphoria. There was such a strong push for affirmation at the Tavistock, clinicians feared questioning whether their patients had gender dysphoria and that might have other mental health conditions. Most worryingly there was an element of homophobia. Many homosexuals were wrongly deemed to be trans, due homophobia and gender stereotypes.

Gender dysphoria isn't always present in trans people. Male to female transitioners often have autogynephilia, sexual arousal, at the seeing themselves as female, hence the hypersexualised portrayal of biological women, by many transwomen. Female to male transistioners are more likely to have other mental health problems such as eating disorders and autism.

I have absolutely no idea what your point is.

Then look up autogynephilia.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22005209/

What about women's spaces? Do you really think men won't use the pretence of being trans as a cover to access female spaces? I personally know women who've been assaulted by men claiming to be women, in female toilets. A woman was raped in hospital by a male patient who was placed in a women's ward, because he claimed he was trans. To make matters worse, the police didn't believe her, because the hospital told the police there were no men on the ward.

This is undoubtedly a problem at a smaller scale, but I feel that if you're willing to get your dick snipped off so that you can go and harass women in a safe space, then you're pretty dedicated.  The reality is, nothing really stops anyone walking into a woman's toilet or safe space or wherever and assaulting women in there, and they certainly don't need surgery to enable it, if all it takes is makeup and a dress.  Why don't you worry more about the women who are literally abducted and murdered by certain evil men on their way home from a party or whatever?  This is a far bigger concern than safe spaces being invaded by allegedly faking-it trans women.  As for the prison issue, it's very likely transpeople will need to go into independent custody.

Plenty of males are unwilling to have bottom surgery, yet still want to be treated as women, along with access to female only spaces. In the past, it would have been sociallly unacceptable for a man dressed as a woman to go into the women's toilets. The danger is there is a push for it to become socially acceptable. Women's safety is a genuine concern and we shouldn't add another possible route for bad men to be able to abuse women.

I'm not going to argue the transgender issue any more, because personally I have at best a marginal connection to it via a sibling of a friend, as well as a former colleague's now-daughter.  I'm going to continue to accept how someone wants to be addressed, which is where this all came from, and I hope you do so too.  After all, it would really just be a dick move to do anything other than that.

I hope a close female friend, relative or lover are never abused by a man pretending to be a woman. You might change your position then.

You've nicely illustrated why being woke is bad because it means you won't debate something you find upsetting.

[Zero999]

Twitter was violationg first amendment on behalf of democrats (government is not allowed to impede with free speech).

What kind of pressure? What are the consequences if they were to refuse? If they did actually refuse and got punished by the government then I would buy this argument.

https://www.city-journal.org/did-the-government-pressure-twitter-to-curtail-speech
https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-becomes-a-tool-of-government-censors-alex-berenson-twitter-facebook-ban-covid-misinformation-first-amendment-psaki-murthy-section-230-antitrust-11660732095

[RJSV]

Come-on, people, PLEASE refrain the really bad curse words...that's not being sensitive to other parts, around the world, who's people refrain from cursing as a cultural deal...This is a world-wide site, to share.

  How about say: "Jimminey Crickets, that's a smelly argument!", instead of "shi*tty".  Kid's parents don't like it, either.

   At any rate, hey VAD: your last post a bit hard to follow.  And tom66, (SIGH...), sorry you got tired of hearing a lable, 'WOKE' tossed around.
Hmmm, let's see...have I insulted the whole bunch of 'WOKE's, with a slander-like character exaggeration ?
Welcome to Steve Bannon's world. thanks

[TimFox]

Woke, commie, nazi, fascist, socialist, social-justice warrior, etc. labels save the speaker the trouble of identifying what he is objecting to.

[MK14]

I think this thread, has gone, way, way off course.  The new subject area, is not entirely obvious.

It seems to have descended into a political, anything goes, type of thread.

Is it best locked?

[james_s]

Woke, commie, nazi, fascist, socialist, social-justice warrior, etc. labels save the speaker the trouble of identifying what he is objecting to.

They're also convenient, most of those terms have more or less well defined meanings, most people know what you're referring to when you use them.

[vk6zgo]

I think this thread, has gone, way, way off course.  The new subject area, is not entirely obvious.

It seems to have descended into a political, anything goes, type of thread.

Is it best locked?

Considering all the hassle around "off topic" subjects on the "TEA" thread, I am amazed that it would go on as long as it has.
Perhaps being "anti-woke" is more "ideologically pure" than a few comments about cars, woodwork, etc?

[tooki]

Musk Just opened up the -HunterBiden-twitter-dirty laundry  files

He's so desperate to divert attention away from his dire leadership, he'll try anything.

Twitter was violationg first amendment on behalf of democrats (government is not allowed to impede with free speech). Twitter employees were not even sure what rule to apply to block that information. Nothing to see there... Democrads good, Musk bad . Not to say your argument is just nonsencical, he gets attention to himself, not diverts it.

Repeat after me: Twitter (clap) is (clap) not (clap) a (clap) government (clap) agency (clap). Therefore, it by definition cannot violate the first amendment. Companies can restrict speech as much as they want.

A government can ask a company to do something. And there's ample precedent for government ordering companies and individuals to withhold information from the public.

From wiki:

The level of protections with respect to free speech and free press given by the First Amendment is not limitless. As stated in his concurrence in Chicago Police Dept. v. Mosley (1972), Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said:

"Numerous holdings of this Court attest to the fact that the First Amendment does not literally mean that we "are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship." This statement is subject to some qualifications, as for example those of Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942). See also New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964)."[136]

[tooki]

Twitter was violationg first amendment on behalf of democrats (government is not allowed to impede with free speech).

You are confusing public company with the government. To the same extent you can claim that Fox News “violated” the 1st on behave of Republican administration when Trump was POTUS, and CNN “violates” it on behalf of Democratic admins.

It's you who are confusing something. It would be so be if they did it themselves. But they were doing so while being instructed by members of democratic party.

The Democratic party (the DNC) has no legal power whatsoever. A request from the DNC has no more legal weight than one from any civilian.

[tooki]

No where have I stated that gender reassignment surgery and hormones should not be used ever. The problem is they're now becoming the go to treatments, above talking therapy. My main concern is they're being used to treat children, who'll invariably grow out of it. Adults are a different case and even then, given the permanence of the treatments, it's something which should only be done when other therapies have failed.

That's the BS that conservative, anti-trans media CLAIM is the case, when in fact it is not. I've known multiple trans people, and read or watched many more stories, and in ALL cases, gender reassignment surgery came after extensive psychiatric care, and years of living as the desired gender. It is in no way something that gets done on a whim!!!

My main concern is they're being used to treat children, who'll invariably grow out of it.

Gender reassignment surgery on minors is extremely rare.
As for hormones, what's done in kids who are seriously questioning their gender is to use puberty blockers (similar to hormonal treatments used for various growth disorders, by the way) to delay puberty, precisely because children are too young to make such permanent decisions. It allows, without any serious repercussions, delaying decisions until they're old enough to have the necessary maturity, while at the same time preventing physiological changes that make a future transition much more difficult. (The point is that if they delay puberty and the kid ends up realizing they're not trans, then little harm is done by the puberty blockers once discontinued: puberty still happens, into their original biological sex.)

who'll invariably grow out of it.

Invariably? Then how come transgender adults exist?


I say this with the utmost respect and non-sarcasm: please, please, get to know some actual transgender people and listen to their stories. I feel that you are wildly uninformed and as a result, kinda judgmental and dismissive. Listen to them. And don't just focus on the handful that regret their transitions. The vast majority do not, and consider it a life-saving intervention.

[james_s]

I'm not going to argue the transgender issue any more, because personally I have at best a marginal connection to it via a sibling of a friend, as well as a former colleague's now-daughter.  I'm going to continue to accept how someone wants to be addressed, which is where this all came from, and I hope you do so too.  After all, it would really just be a dick move to do anything other than that.

I have a transgender friend, F to M, I accept how he wants to be addressed although it took a while to get used to but that isn't really the issue, in the back of my mind I know he is actually female, a trans-man, not an actual man. As a friend it doesn't matter, the gender of my platonic friends is irrelevant. I think in general most men don't really care if a woman sees them in a locker room or whatever but I can totally understand why a woman would not be comfortable having a biological man in that sort of space with them.

Anyway the whole debate that is raging about this stuff goes far beyond how someone wants to be addressed. I'm happy to use male or female pronouns, whichever they prefer, and I'm happy to treat them with the same respect I'd treat anyone, but I'm not going to believe that they are actually literally their preferred sex, to do that is to deny reality, which they are free to do themselves, but it is unreasonable to expect everyone else to also.

[MT]

As noted previously Musk Neurolink brain chip was sued now the FED is looking into this case. In all, the company has killed about 1,500 animals, including more than 280 sheep, pigs and monkeys, following experiments since 2018! Bad Elon monkey , bad Elon monkey, now go to sit in the corner with dunce cap on you naughty hairless monkey.

https://nypost.com/2022/12/05/elon-musks-neuralink-faces-federal-probe-employee-backlash/

[RJSV]

   Off the rails, for a while now, but several folks seem interested enough to continue...I've considered reporting MYSELF to moderator, ...but that's an old, old self-effacing Woody Allen joke.

   The point about the (deliberate) name calling sarcasm is that those labels get slung to smear, often.  Do we really need to hear about Steve Bannon, for example, in terms of 'greasey'?
   That particular instance, the big media author made sure it was a quote, from some 'anonymous' guy in a crowd, shouting.
They hide, they smear, tossing on labels, THATs my point.  
   How about: 'Morbidly Rich'.  A lot of folks might want to use that one, after doing search on US Congressional members.
   
   Instead of 'sigh', a very soft spoken put-down, why not utilize ' YAWN', meaning that the subject has been covered (greasy), 'yes I know, (greasy), and 'heard that'.
   Folks wanna 'sigh', and no threats or covert insults (not sarcasm), no harm.  But I like to counter with a similar soft-spoken 'lable'.  'Greasy' though, does sound a bit raw, coming from a large news ORG reporter.

[RJSV]

   Instead of solely complaining, maybe it helpful to mention my own view of what's a better way:

   Go ahead and 'yawn', when subject of Hunter Biden and laptop contents comes up.  Seen that, don't believe it...that's fine, your choice.
However: Please supplement that seemingly dismissive verbalization, by perhaps saying:
   " Yawn, seen that, don't believe it (unreported income, from...), but then also say:
   "Bring it on, that story has no legs, let's see what's the fuss, then".

   THAT, is free and open discourse, according to many court rulings, of course, not permission to say, literally, anything.
   Bringing up, asking for details about a Hunter Biden AIN'T about Hunter.

   I guess using the term '7th grade level gossip's is dismissive (sorry), so any decent suggestions would be helpful.
As in 'dialog so obvious and chock full of mild insults / dismissals as to resemble young folk's gossip.'

[SiliconWizard]

As noted previously Musk Neurolink brain chip was sued now the FED is looking into this case. In all, the company has killed about 1,500 animals, including more than 280 sheep, pigs and monkeys, following experiments since 2018! Bad Elon monkey , bad Elon monkey, now go to sit in the corner with dunce cap on you naughty hairless monkey.

https://nypost.com/2022/12/05/elon-musks-neuralink-faces-federal-probe-employee-backlash/

Yep. We should just let all the big names kill the monkeys, not Musk! How dare he. We own the monkeys and we want the world to know it!
Not that I don't find this Neurolink endeavour pretty questionable, but what I do know is that if it's not Musk, others will and it might be 10 times worse for all we know.
And the same people seem pretty silent when it comes to some big names killing a lot more animals and uh.. humans even.

[wraper]

As noted previously Musk Neurolink brain chip was sued now the FED is looking into this case. In all, the company has killed about 1,500 animals, including more than 280 sheep, pigs and monkeys, following experiments since 2018! Bad Elon monkey , bad Elon monkey, now go to sit in the corner with dunce cap on you naughty hairless monkey.

https://nypost.com/2022/12/05/elon-musks-neuralink-faces-federal-probe-employee-backlash/

Probing has nothing to do with "suing", there were some complains only. Not to say you cannot sue a chip .

[RJSV]

  There are ways, techniques, a person could employ, to begin to sort through things, when various accusations or seemingly 'rumour-mongering' is heard (in media).
  I say 'media' because, defacto, that's what this discussion is about, Twitter being effectively a large media info distributor.

  Statisticians know about this, and the more professional pollsters as well.  The approach could include seemingly trivial things to measure;  for example if you've spotted neighbor's CAT prowling, every day, in your yard and...God forbid, your birdcage gets raided one early morning.  You know it's not 'proof', sure, but you have the numbers, statistics- ish, to suspect.

  Bringing that CAT example closer to the Elon Musk debate, (here in this thread), by coincidence, it just hit the news, about Michael Avanatti...14 year sentence.  That's a useful event, place to start looking and measuring.

  I had done a curseary glance, not too familiar, but apparently Mr. Bannon was convicted of some money related wrongdoing...and so, first thing, first image was the handcuff thing:
  '...Steve Bannon appears in federal court to answer charges...' was the news headline .
  He gets to have his hand cuff shakles taken off, preparing for days court proceeding.

  Perfect, place to start analysis.  Because now, the next breaking news features Michael Avanatti, just sentenced to 14 years, yesterday.
Reason for the interest, is that those two former lawyers have been, heavily, associated with the two current 'camps'..., with varied coverage, as Musk has noted in similar events.

  First thing, I saw was that photo, Bannon in handcuffs, with two officers right there alongside.
  Tried to find similar court photo of Avanatti...No-go on that attempt.  What I did come across, in the cursury hour spent looking, was, first thing, Avanatti (2019 photo), 3 years ago now.  No hand-cuffs in court appearance.

Oh, and why such an old stock photo?  The sentence being yesterday (Monday).  I wonder how the handcuff dynamic played out YESTERDAY, and can't easily search that out.
  That's the differing, or seemingly, treatment effect, that Musk has pointed out.  You need not take sides, partisan style, to perceive that different handling.

  Avanatti " has done good things, in life", the judge stated, along with handing down the 14 year prison sentence, yesterday.
  No such quote coming up, in the Bannon conviction (my searches).

  Another note, attempting to see things in neutral or non-partisan way, for numerical measuring, this morning:
  In internet / news outlet TOP STORIES,
  In the 9 headlines:

  'Trump-linked' lawyer legal troubles...6 articles.

  'Democrat-linked' lawyer Avanatti lega troubles (14 year sentence, yesterday)...3 articles.

  Those are hard numbers, not some personal preference I brought to the search.  The professionals, surely know how to apply that measuring or 'sampling' method, probably far from perfect.

  But the professionals know how to filter somewhat, for factors I may have missed, like for example:
  The nature of the crime(s) being under court trial might be, legally, dictating when and when not to 'handcuff' a person under trial.

  Seemed to me, those two opposing camp lawyers were under very similar charges.