Another alt-Right fail
The alleged Stalin looks more like the last Tsar murdered by the Bolsheviks.
Twitter today started imposing rules designed to reduce hateful and abusive content on its service – to the delight of many, and fury of others. Among the accounts suspended within hours of the biz enforcing the new policy – as scheduled – were those belonging to Britain First members as well as its leader and deputy leader, …
Well done Twtr, or to put it another way, about time too. Or to misquote the late great Giles, "What kept yer, Percy?"
Anyone crying free speech, whining about censorship or the Whateverth amendment can reflect on the importance of the boundary layer around society's noses. You're entitled to your revolting, barbaric views, and LI are entitled to break out the Karcher and scrub those particular creeps off their platform if they so choose.
I'm not sure what refusal of service has to do with the matter. This is a company that is setting out to limit access to its service based on "association" with political "assholes" - you may think it's fine as long as it is those you find objectionable getting banned, but what if the pendulum swings and it is those you support that get banned in future, would you be celebrating as much? Consider the unlikely event that Trump bought Twitter, would you be happy with him making those decisions? Would you happily accept a Twitter ban of the Democrat Party because of Antifa riots? How about a ban of CAIR after the next time Hamas shoots a rocket into Israel?
"....Calm down...." Why is it the standard Lefty assumption that anyone that even points out an inconsistency in their "logic" must be raving angry? I'm more amused at the reflexive shrieking of posters here.
"....create a Twitter or buy it...." Sorry, not all of us are so dependent on social media for a life, thanks. Should Twitter reduce itself into a pretzel of PC do-goodness is actually of no matter to myself, but it is amusing to poke fun at those that assume they "know what is best for everyone", whether they are of the Left or the Right, when they do not realise that they are repeating the same fallacies as the Nazis and the Soviets. If you cannot summon the intelligence to be able to defeat the arguments of people like Paul Golding then I am not sure you should even be using a computer. Free speech is about facing up to bad ideas and defeating them with facts, not banning them simply because it is easier. Of course, if all you are doing is a bit of corporate virtual signaling then it is even worse to pretend to hold the moral high ground.
you may think it's fine as long as it is those you find objectionable getting banned, but what if the pendulum swings and it is those you support that get banned in future,
If the pendulum swings and we end up living in an alt-right society, we'll have bigger problems than Twitter.
@ Dan 55 "if the pendulum swings and we end up living in an alt-right society, we'll have bigger problems than Twitter."
Ditto if the pendulum doesn't swing and we end up living in an alt-left society. Both extremes have been responsible for the deaths of millions (over 80 million because of communism *in peace time* vs. 55 million during WWII because of nazism).
The old communist mantra of 'proletariat vs bourgeoisie' has now been replaced with 'victims vs. oppressor', but the ideology behind it - and the eventual results - are *exactly* the same. Do not let yourself be fooled.
The problem here is when you start labeling everything YOU don't agree with as 'hate speech', 'racism', 'sexism', etc..., even when it really isn't. Be careful thus that when shutting down opposite views you don't also end up shutting down common sense and the voices of reason.
>The problem here is when you start labeling everything YOU don't agree with as 'hate speech', 'racism', 'sexism', etc...
Bollocks. No-one is labelling "everything they don't agree with" in those ways. They are labelling speech and actions which demand such labels - by their very nature.
@Jonathan Schwatrz:"Would you happily accept a Twitter ban of the Democrat Party because of Antifa riots? "
False equivalence. You're not very good at putting together a coherent argument, are you?
Lol at your 'Antifa riots'... Some assholes with questionable beliefs got their asses kicked for being assholes and all of a sudden it's a fucking Democratic Party conspiracy. Ok snowflake, whatever you say.
".....False equivalence. You're not very good at putting together a coherent argument, are you?....' Actually, it's more likely just a more extreme example you found hard to process. Maybe you should find a responsible adult to help you? It is quite a simple connection - I bet even someone as blinkered as you appear to be might agree that a member of Antifa is much more likely to associate with Bernie Sanders voters than Trump supporters, therefore they are associating with the Democrat party (Sanders stood for the Dems rather than as an independent in the last election), therefore - under Twitter's new rules - the whole Democrat Party and anyone that associates with them are "guilty by association" every time Antifa riot. Since Twitter seems to be deliberately lose with their implementation of these new rules on "association" it is easy to point out the bias involved. Now, I might think that the people Twitter are banning deserve a ban (if I had any interest in the waste of bandwidth Twitter is), but if they are going to ban on political grounds then they should acknowledge that and not pretend at hypocritical impartiality.
"don't you dare refuse to serve me because I'm an asshole"
that happens on occasion (and the asshole is asked to leave, right?).
Perhaps the customers that are (irritatingly) _INSISTING_ on "their rights", particularly those who are activists looking for a business to use as a test case in the court system, need to apply that same scrutiny to themselves. Are they simply "being assholes" ?
But if it were my business I'd be asking whether they want pink or blue on the 2 grooms...
It's like this: the only 'color' that mattes is the color of money that the customer spends in your business. Apply that across the board to everything *else* that SJW's are whining about, and that's how I see it.
(so if a business doesn't sell to homosexuals, or members of a particular race or religion, let them lose the business and the business of anyone ELSE who's pissed off by that)
Commercial organisations have always picked and chosen what to publish. The Daily Mail and Express don't run positive pieces about progressive causes they don't support or agree with, as is their right. Is that censorship? Of course not; those organisations are perfectly at liberty to propounding their opinions elsewhere or through their own sites. And the public are free to put their eyeballs where they like. They don't, generally, like Nazis.
You're talking about opinion pieces. Unless I'm mistaken about how they're run these days, they'll still report news that's positive about liberals ("Obama saves cute puppies from burning building") or negative about conservatives ("Trump impeached") because that's news.
That wouldn't stop them from also running opinion pieces as well about how the puppies Obama saved may have had rabies and could bite an innocent child, or why Trump should not have been impeached.
It's not a requirement to have a twitter feed, not having one doesn't impose on your basic freedoms and human rights, if they want to use it they have to play by the rules. Alternatively they can set up their own. Look at it this way if your CEO, would you want to be tied in with those fools like Britain first, after all by letting them air people could say you were endorsing/ supporting them.
"It's not a requirement to have a twitter feed"
I completely agree but where does it stop?
So they ban some nasty right wing nut jobs. That's great nobody has an issue with that other than the right wing nut jobs.
You have now let Twitter decide for you who you should be allowed to see, you don't have to follow these people that's where the choice should be.
What next? Well, lets say someone disagree's with the government and the government puts pressure on Twitter to block them and they do. Are you still ok with this? You won't know when this happens btw but because you were ok with them making choices for you then you just opted in to this service.
It's simple, you either let others make choices for you or you decide yourself. Nobody is forcing you to follow these people.
As for twitter endorsing them, social media has always claimed to not be responsible for the users content so by admitting they were endorsing them and now banning them they are now saying they are, which is it?
I really do wonder how people seem to understand the simple concept of choice and whose it should be.
Once you take the choice away from the people are you any better than the fascists? Are fascists not the ones who use forcible suppression of opposition?
Does this not go against your stated aims? Think about that, you want them gone, disappeared, never to be heard of again, that's great but you just gave them a tool to recruit people, look we're the oppressed, they won't even allow us to put our viewpoint across, they block us from the media, the web.
I really don't like the far right and would love to see them no longer exist but you're going about it wrong and it will backfire.
The correct way to do it is to let them have their platform but shoot them down at every given opportunity and show them for the idiots they truly are. Alternatively send them underground where the echo chamber has no other voices.
" but where does it stop"
It stops when someone creates their OWN twitter-like system, maybe "right-wing-extremists.com" or something, complete with whatever social media schtuff they want.
that way they won't have a reason to gripe. But they probably _WANT_ a reason to gripe. They're as bad as the uber-lefties. I bet BOTH extremes are deliberately putting themselves into situations where they can burden the court system (and everyone NOT them) with whatever agenda they're advocating at the moment...
a) it's Twitter's network, they can filter and censor if they want to
b) if you want unfiltered/unmoderated, there's still USENET and IRC
c) censorship is bad, so it's likely that Twitter will suffer some business loss as a result of their decision. It may also be made up for with people who agree with their decision.
if it were me, I'd say "let them say what they want, put content warnings on it". Then people who choose to not be able to view content that has a warning on it (including children, by default) wouldn't ever see it.
After all, if you let them say what they want to, they will be known by their own folly.
yeah, it's a libertarian argument.
But not so slippery of a slope, really, because it's a privately owned venue.
"....Twitter has, for several years, been lambasted for giving a platform to groups with highly objectionable views...." The thing is just about anyone can find someone on Twitter they find "objectionable", so who gets to decide who is "too objectionable" and who is not? Is the only guideline "we straw-polled a San Fran hipster coffee-shop and let them decide"? It seems so as there are many "objectionable" groups outside the "Alt-Right" posting on Twitter that have not been treated with equal vigour. It could just be the ultimate corporate virtue-signal given that Twitter have steered clear of banning people like Richard B. Spencer, probably because a bigger-fish like Spencer would have the time, knowledge and backing to sue Twitter for defamation (and Virginia has a criminal defamation law, § 18.2-417).
@Jonathan Schwatrz:so who gets to decide who is "too objectionable" and who is not? Is the only guideline "we straw-polled a San Fran hipster coffee-shop and let them decide"?
Certain ideologies, such as white supremacy or Nazism, are pretty much universally repugnant.
But you knew that already...
Comparing those who disagree with white supremacy or whatever to San Francisco hipsters is just a sad logical fallacy on your part.
"..........Comparing those who disagree with white supremacy or whatever to San Francisco hipsters is just a sad logical fallacy on your part." It seems you really like the term "logical fallacy", even if you don't seem to understand what it actually means, is it the latest buzzterm in Snowflakeville? The bit that flew waaaaaaay over your head is that Twitter has not outlined how it will judge either "undesirability" or "association", leaving Twitter the wriggle room to ban whomever they like, but also leaving them very open to accusations of bias.
".....are pretty much universally repugnant....." You really have to get over yourself - your worldview is very unlikely to be either universal nor unchallenged, even on Twitter. I know you Lefties feel super-comfortable whenever you can label an opponent as "racist" or "Nazi" as you think it means you can skip any form of supporting argument, but you have over-used it so much it's just become a meaningless whine.
"Ok, you think 'logical fallacy is a buzzword?...." No, I was implying that you think you don't have to supply an actual argument to support your point of view because you slapped down a trendy buzzphrase. You did not explain why you thought I had posited a logical fallacy, you simply said "I label your argument a 'logical fallacy', therefore I win!"
".....You can call it a 'thinking fail' or 'brainfart'...." Actually, neither of those is equivalent to a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is an argument that contains an error but still sways people to your line of thought (some people also insist the speaker must also deceitfully use the flawed argument whilst knowing of the error contained to make it a logical fallacy).
".....if adults who use big words make you uncomfortable..." Oh, I don't think you're in any danger of achieving an adult level of conversation.
"Sure snowflake, keep it going. You're really showing us all how smart your are..." And there you have simply reinforced the opinion that you have nothing to offer in defence of your viewpoint other than "snappy" comebacks.
You insist Microsoft should have done more, yet you cannot provide a supporting argument for that belief other than "'cos she is a woman". This makes me think you are either a mindless dolt that merely adopts the most populist viewpoint unquestioningly, or - ironically - a subconscious misogynist that assumes all women need to be protected as they are not strong enough to survive without your titling the scales in their favour, whilst thinking your tilting makes you too virtuous to be criticized.
So Trump's tweets are referred to as 'trumps' now? [that's kinda funny in its own right]
I like his tweets. It also helps to distract everyone from the 'fake news' bombardment. 'Covfefe' notwithstanding... I've nodded of at work before due to frantic/manic coding for hours, keyboard2$*(skas///// - CRAP - low caffeine alarm!
/me gets some more popcorn to watch the 'trump-storm' and the highly entertaining reactions
"accounts that affiliate with organizations that use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes."
So that would include organisations that bomb civilians in the course of furthering their cause against Islamist extremists? Such as certain military groups?
Nope, antifa are the ones who torch limos owned by immigrant entrepreneurs because only "the man" would have a limo. They also go about destroying property belonging to institutions that make up a large portion of grammy and grampy's pension fund because only "the man" has a pension. They aren't white supremacists, they're anti-immigrant entrepreneur, anti-grammy and grampy and anti-all similar fascist groups who need to be put down like a rabid dog.
@AC:"And that is the very essence of spurious logic designed to shut down debate. There's nothing wrong with pointing out craven hypocrisy.'
The only craven hypocrisy here is you pretending that you're trying to encourage a debate, when what you're really doing is changing the subject (through 'whataboutism') to someone else's perceived wrongdoing.
Of course, over in ultra-liberal Silicon Valley, the definition of "white supremacist" is anyone who doesn't follow along with forced multiculturalism and surrendering all power and sovreignty to the globalist elite. *Real* white supremacists are statistically so insignificant they don't really appear on Twitter's radar.
It's not a public service.
Free speech applies in this way, set up a shit load of kit, do the coding, run your own version of twitter.
In fact by imposing rules on the people running twitter and silencing their right to dissent against these racist groups you are actually calling for the suppression of their own rights of free speech.
The irony of using Martin Niemöllers poem about the rise of fascism and Nazi's in Germany to defend the rights of racists and neo-Nazi's in America.
I think this comment renders the use of this poem to defend anything any more completely null and void.
I weep for society, I really do.
My point was that racism is subjective. Yes, it's bad, but not everything is racism. Ask the far left social justice warriors and they'll give you a definition of racism that includes everyone white. Consult the dictionary and you'll get a different definition. Ask a racist and they'll give you a different definition, etc.
The Rotherham sex scandal was ignored and thousands of children were raped solely because the police figured investigating an asian sex gang targeting white girls could lead to them being called racist. In actual fact the gang wouldn't dare touch an asian girl but saw the white ones as subhuman.
The BNP membership collapsed when they ran a council because people heard their actual disgusting views clearer.
Free speech must remain paramount, whether you like what's being said or not. I will defend your right to have a different opinion and say it even if i disagree with it.
I wouldn't bother as I'm finding out with my posts the far left fascists are just as bad as the far right fascists.
Neither of them seem to understand their actions are as bad as each other.
Oppression is oppression no matter who you are oppressing.
That is not up for discussion, debate or any other interpretation because it is fact and if the people supporting oppression can't see that then I feel sorry for them as they are doomed to make the mistakes of the past.
Wait till they pass laws to outlaw the far right and put them in segregation camps, some Muslims don't like gays, lets throw them in, some Christians don't like the gays, throw them in as well, fuck it anyone that doesn't agree with our left wing Utopian view of society can go to the camp. They can give it a snazzy name like new world order if they want but it's exactly the same as the far right.
@Tigra 07:"Free speech must remain paramount, whether you like what's being said or not. I will defend your right to have a different opinion and say it even if i disagree with it."
I hate this hackneyed bullshit - you have no right to say whatever you want. There are limitations on freedom of expression, both under the First Amendment in the US and under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in this part of the world.
BTW, the actual quote you mangled is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". It's a line from a book written by Evelyn Hall, a work of fiction and not a notable quote by some fine upstanding citizen.
I will defend your right to have a different opinion and say it even if i disagree with it.
A very fine sentiment and one I agree with in principle, but no Law forces you to share your megaphone at Speakers Corner with that Person who's opinion you disagree with. And thats all twitter is - A Megaphone on Speakers corner. By taking away that megaphone, you are not stopping that Person from shouting out their views even if they can no longer reach the same number of people. You are not violating their rights to freedom of speech. They can still create a Website and espouse there views there. They can create their own twitter like App if they're dedicated or go and use one of the dozen of other alternatives that exist to Twitter. And they do exist. They may not have the reach of twitter, but they are there and they are options.
Twitter feel their brand and their ability to make money is being harmed, so they are entitled to take their megaphone away and only let the people they want to use it. That's Twitter's choice, they spent the money to develop the program, they can do with it what they want. If their choices, make the platform undesirable, People will vote with their feet - remember myspace? Second life? geocities?
Twitter have made the call that extremists who call for violence or celebrate violence have no place on their megaphone, it's their call to make. Free speech is not impinged here, just the belief among those who spout support for violence that they have a god given right to spew their bile from whatever Megaphone they wish. Hopefully, this might cure them of this Notion. but i doubt it.
I take the view that if i don't like someone's views then i avoid them and don't read anything concerning them.
I don't believe society should censor certain views because of where it ends. Today we ban wrongthink, tomorrow we ban dissent of the government entirely. And frankly, as a member of a minority i don't believe any other minority should be able to police another's speech or views and ban certain words.
"Free speech must remain paramount"
Amen to that! And if you are not going after all other potential platforms for those holding extreme views, you're simply displaying a pantomime. And if you are ... (*).
* Are we allowed to debate this here El Reg? I'm only about 6 years from getting my badge so wouldn't want to risk it based simply on a hypothetical debate which might offend someone.
Only if you insist that only the nationalist socialists are the only socialists that practices incremental tyranny. 25 million under Stalin--dead. 50 million under Mao--dead. One-third of the population under Pol Pot--dead. And from North Korea to Rwanda to Nicaragua to Venezuela socialists have continued tyranny by these methods.
It is only the speech of the impolite that needs protection.
What happened in England for years was anyone who mentioned the problems uncontrolled immigration was causing was instantly shot down with the 'racist' tag, stifling debate on the matter. The end result was years of the issues getting worse until enough people voted for Brexit.
If UKIP and it's supporters were banned from Twitter back then (which I think they would be if Twitter had started banning accounts back then), the Conservatives would not have been forced to offer a referendum on the decision to stay in. Brexit probably wouldn't have happened. Whether you think that is a good thing or bad is not the point though.
So Twitter has the ability to steer countries political direction by choosing what people can and can't see, which is bad. Is it doing it's owners bidding or being an American company, Americas bidding?
Think past the bigger picture of 'Group A' I disagree with = bad, 'Group B' that I agree with = good and agreeing with bans based on that simplicity.
Downvoted because some of us voted for Brexit because we don't want to become a vassal state of a United States of Europe.
Sovereignty was a bigger issue than immigration for many.
Further, to say that UKIP only had power because of Twitter, and not their 4 million voters is ridiculous.
For the record if they had a chance of winning they would have polled far higher. They took votes from both Labour and Conservatives.
I side with you on the UK sovereignty issue. But you yourself were probably were labelled racist by some because of your anti-eu stance if you said so publicly.
If you had aligned with UKIP or this Britian first in an attempt to get out of the EU as they were the only group/party interested in leaving the EU, then there is a chance your social media accounts could be deleted if Twitter or whichever platform going by these recent deletions.
Like it or not, Twitter and Facebook heavily influences voters. Censoring one point of view and not others influences votes.
UKIP getting so much support frightened the conservatives in to giving the referendum so as not to lose more votes. Social media played a big part in getting the referendum to happen.
Jesus, there are some dim people frothing away about this today.
Hey, you know what? You can still be as bigoted as you like on Twitter, as long as you aren't advocating violence or affiliated with an organisation that is. Hate Jews, muslims, blacks, whites, asians, women, men, righties, lefties, atheists, or anyone else who isn't you? Go right ahead and tell the world. Just don't write about wanting them attacked.
Also, stop fucking whining about people who are sick of listening to this venomous bullshit deciding to draw a line.
Twitter is not the news, and they are perfectly within their right to ban/memory hole any account that they like. Anyone banned is perfectly within their rights to demand a refund for every penny they spent to get their views broadcast on the service.
Other that that, Scroom all, left and right. Your freedom of speech does not include any right to publication on any media all. If your views are objectionable to a particular publisher for any reason, well, it’s their sandbox and their toys...play nice or get the phuck out. Go build your own sandbox, and start spouting your own views...then you get to ban anyone who disagrees with you, and everyone can just go live in their own self-validating echo chamber.
Amazing how 70+ years post WW2, all that education and technology since then has been wasted, and we are still divided into being Nazis on one side and Communists / Trotsky's on the other, this thread has both in equal measure...so does Twitter.
Banning any one group is merely one battle won in a long and ongoing war between these two groups.
The rest of us don't give a fuck, leave us alone, before you destroy the whole fucking planet, you arrogant fucking dicks.
I cannot believe how many times some ******* responded with "You don't like Twitter's actions? Start your own." Even worse is that they were never challenged. Google tried to take on Facebook. Failed. Microsoft tried to take on Google. Failed. No one making this argument is being honest.
Following the US Civil war, the majorities in many Southern states implemented aggressive social and even legal restrictions against blacks. "You don't like it? Leave." A lot did--Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh, Kansas City. Where can I go to regain the ability to speak like the rest of society should I be banned (or shadow-banned)?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019