Twitter Bans 'Hateful Conduct' (reuters.com) 492
An anonymous reader writes: Twitter has updated their site rules to prohibit "behavior intended to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence another user's voice." According to the new rules, "You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease." This follows criticism that Twitter (and other social networks) haven't done enough to prevent the ramblings of the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. "Tuesday's announcement did not disclose changes to Twitter's enforcement strategy. A company spokesman declined to say if any were in the works. The new rules also said that Twitter might respond to reports that somebody is considering 'self-harm' by contacting the person to express concern and provide contact information to mental health practitioners."
FTFY... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FTFY... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FTFY... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, we all hate it when other people disagree with us. So to be safe, maybe we should just ban all speech, period.
Better yet, just shut down Twitter altogether. Only way to be sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, those damn SJWs:
Their hypervigilant drive to hunt down any topic that, using the most tenuous of tangents, can be bent, crammed or shoe-horned into an excuse to make a screed against those that disagree with them
Their logical fallacies of calling those that disagree with them bigots whilst casting broad aspersions on generalized groups of people
Their false equation of somebody calling them out on their shitty opinions as an attack on free speech
Their desperate need to frame everything as being so
Re:FTFY... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone disagrees with you, so he's now magically a member of the aryan brotherhood and lives in the 1950s... Found the SJW. Maybe one day you'll see what a bigot you're being.
Re:FTFY... (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone disagrees with you, so he's now magically a member of the aryan brotherhood and lives in the 1950s... Found the SJW. Maybe one day you'll see what a bigot you're being.
Introspection is not part of the SJW mentality. Matter of fact they are probably mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it wouldn't because it doesn't criticize a protected caste.
Re: (Score:3)
That comment would be banned under Twitter's new rules. Heh
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly it wouldn't be banned. If you carefully read the summary you will note that it only covers personal attacks based on things like race, not general statements. So "black people are less intelligent because of genetics" is okay, but "you dumb fucking nigger" isn't.
I don't see how not being able to insult someone by calling them a faggot or whatever limits your ability to express you opinions. You can still say "I hate faggots and gay marriage is an affront to my imaginary friend".
Re:FTFY... (Score:4, Insightful)
Irrelevant - once the mechanism is there, it will be abused.
SJWs are yearning for complete arbitrary exclusion of any other opinion. Basically they think that if only the world would become a giant echo-chamber it would be a better place.
These are seriously sick people.
Just look at "WillAffleckUW" above. It is a fact that the 1950s meant (at least in the US) a period of great prosperity and low crime.
As a result "WillAffleckUW" thinks that everybody who has something good to say about the 1950 is a aryanbrotherhoodmemberwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
You see how they can easily imagine violence or threats?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Nor is it the times of slavery. Sample some current reality sometime.
Re:FTFY... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FTFY... (Score:5, Insightful)
Going out of your way to get someone fired/arrested/expelled isn't a "consequence".
It's you being a complete dick to someone who happens to not believe the same thing as you do.
PERIOD.
Re:FTFY... (Score:5, Insightful)
It deeply saddens me to see that the liberal movement that I once supported is now actively arguing against the very right to free speech that we used to champion.
You're using the very same arguments that the far-right used to use to try to silence us. The "There are some people who citizens simply shouldn't be allowed to criticize" argument is the very same one we used to hear when we criticized the President or the government.
Re:FTFY... (Score:4, Insightful)
It deeply saddens me that so many people still have no idea what the right to free speech actually protects you from....
Well, I can tell you that it sure used to not protect us against employers firing us for exercising our free speech rights, or from persecution by the local community for supporting civil rights, or from being arrested on false charges for attending a civil rights rally. We had to fight hard to get those kinds of protections--some with new laws, some with court cases, some with social changes.
Now this new generation is trying to reverse all that work, saying it's okay to persecute--just as long as it's *US* doing the persecuting. That is NOT what I fought for. I didn't march for the right just to flip the fucking tables and persecute the right instead of the left. That just makes *US* the assholes now.
Re: (Score:3)
For a guy who apparently considers me gullible, you spout an awful lot of unlikely claims without evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
The term actually usually refers to those who "fight for social justice" in the sense of critical theory and neo-Marxism.
Do you have a cite for that, or did you just make it up? Human rights is "social justice" so anyone who was for sufferage was an SJW. But you added in the caveat at the end, so you can no true Scotsman out everyone who was involved with Civil Rights or such as not SJW, and come back to a definition of "anyone I don't like". Again, you've said nothing that contradicts me, other than "Don't say that, I don't like it."
Re: (Score:3)
..and you act as though that's actually what's being done in the name of 'social justice.' It's not.
You can mask it by crying 'oppression', but it still is what it is: hatred and bigotry.
Quit acting like opposing it is evil, and supporting it is somehow right.
Re: (Score:3)
Tell me...
Am I treating others with respect when I infantilize people through speech; am I treating them as equal? Why are only skin color and identity only taboo when criticizing others? People are routinely regarded as stupid, even though IQ is mostly genetic, i.e. beyond their control.
Can you name a single instance where hatred and bigotry were reduced through the adoption of speech codes? I can point to several instances of the opposite, where free and open dialogue brought people to a better understand
Re:FTFY... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your personal definition of sjw is irrelevant. His definition of the term is the one in use. A sjw is someone pushing progressive social politics in an unyielding, uncompromising way.
Re: (Score:3)
A sjw is someone pushing progressive social politics in an unyielding, uncompromising way.
Ah, so now we come down to it. It seems then that it has nothing to do with the general concept of pushing politics in an unyielding, uncompromising way, which I think we can all agree makes you an insufferable asshole. It is just code for people who do so and with whom you do not agree, specifically those on the left. So, it is a not-so-clever little piece of Luntz-speak garbage that attempts to reframe a pejorative thought about a subjective opinion (I hate libtards) and turn it into a statement of objec
Re:FTFY... (Score:5, Insightful)
lol sjw are bad because i saw it on an internet forum
No, SJW's are bad because they get people kicked out their colleges, fired from their jobs, and even imprisoned simply for expressing opinions that disagree with their own radical ideology.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What Social Injustice Enthusiasts call "SJWs" are not actually some cabal of activists, but an anthropomorphism of the societal consequences that free speech may carry. Social Injustice Enthusiasts want special immunity from these consequences.
For some reason SIEs perceive the greater consequences in recent times, where both the targeted group and non-targeted groups get involved at a massive scale, as a completely separate phenomenon to boycotts and shunning in the past where only the targeted group and a
Re:FTFY... (Score:4, Insightful)
What Social Injustice Enthusiasts call "SJWs" are not actually some cabal of activists, but an anthropomorphism of the societal consequences that free speech may carry. Social Injustice Enthusiasts want special immunity from these consequences.
Wow, that is the most polite, erudite justification for the active persecution of dissenters that I've ever seen.
That would have been really useful back in the 1960's, when certain people were also learning that free speech has consequences. "What civil rights activists call "racists" are not actually some cabal of activists, but an anthropomorphism of the societal consequences that free speech may carry. Civil rights activists want special immunity from these consequences." Man that sounds so much better and more civilized than "If those niggers try one of their commie sit-ins in this town, we're going to string them up from the trees." Those Citizen Councils would have been well-served to have you on-board as a writer.
Re:FTFY... (Score:5, Insightful)
Haha so boycotts and legal, nonviolent shunning are the same as racially-motivated violence to you?
Trying to get people fired from their jobs, kicked out of universities, and even arrested goes way beyond a little civilized disagreement, and well into "persecution."
again suggesting that you should have special protection from the consequences of this speech - just like we protect people from racial discrimination.
Yes, that is ABSOLUTELY what I'm saying (if by "consequences" you mean "persecution"). I'm not sure what country you're from. But in the United States we do, in fact, have clear protections in both cases. Both the right to free speech and protection from racial discrimination are considered "civil rights" that all U.S. citizens enjoy (along with freedom of religion, freedom to assemble and many others).
again suggesting that you should have special protection from the consequences of this speech
Should a conservative be able to tell his or her employees that there will be "consequences" if any of them ever publicly supports any pro-homosexual cause? It's a private company so they don't deserve any special protection from "consequences," right? Something like: "You know, you boys are technically free to support those evil faggots trying to take our way of life away all you want--just so long as you understand there are going to be, you know, consequences...You boys understand that, right, that if you ever speak up for those queers there will be some consequences?" Some people (like me) might call that a case of an employer threatening his employees with persecution for exercising their right of free speech. But I guess a wise man like YOU recognizes that he's just warning his employees that there will be consequences for exercising certain forms of free speech.
But opinions are not like ethnicity.
Again, yeah they are. Both are important protected civil rights in the United States.
You can safely change them or keep them private.
LOL, so you're seriously arguing that we should be able to persecute anyone we want to for anything they can CHANGE? "Hey, I don't like the political party you're in asshole! Change it now or I'm going to get you fired from your job!!" Bloody hell!
Re: (Score:3)
But opinions are not like ethnicity. You can safely change them or keep them private.
You are not free if you cannot share your views.
Boycotts and organized shunning are legitimate free speech responses to send a message about continuing abhorrent actions or business practices.
But Boycotts and such should not be allowed as a method of showing mere disagreement with someone's opinion, what political views they have, who they choose to hire, or activities outside their business ----- the courts shoul
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and FUCK YOU right back, kid--for co-opting the liberal movement that I used to stand with and turning it into something just as oppressive and mean-spirited as the right-wing assholes who used to throw rocks at us. Thanks for taking a movement about equality and decency and turning it into a movement that just reversed who's doing the oppressing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
LOL SJW actually means over priviledged crybaby.
Re:FTFY... (Score:4, Insightful)
Up until recently, 'civilized' included things like respect for everyone's free speech, not just those with the 'correct' opinions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Social Justice Warriors are followers of Neo-Marxist ideology. Any sane person should oppose that bullshit.
Furthermore, opposition to SJWs and Neo-Marxists can hardly be called "reactionary", because that would imply that SJWs and Neo-Marxists already define the status quo in our society. Reactionaries is what countries call liberals and conservatives after socialist and communist revolutions.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
https://www.salon.com/2015/11/... [salon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No.
But this was about twitter's moderation policy, not about supporting open bigotry. Classic changing the subject. Twitter is not the Nation of Islam.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the anonymous coward
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease"
I don't see "political views" listed there. Also,
"You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people"
This is not a political viewpoint. Kill them is never a political viewpoint, its an irrational response to irrational actions. What you said is cute but ultimately incorrect and highly misleading. Should we advocate killing you for it?
Re: (Score:2)
On the bright side, in their full "The Twitter Rules" article, there is a separate bullet for "Violent threats (direct or indirect): You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism." Seems to subsume the "hateful conduct ..." bullet, but I'm not a lawyer, merely a reasonably logical person.
On the dark side, they don't define "targeted abuse or harassment". Of course this will be misused to abuse and harass people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:FTFY... (Score:5, Insightful)
"on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease"
I don't see "political views" listed there. Also,
Lol, so naive.
Don't you know that saying "I like Donald Trump" these days is the equivalent of saying "I hate all Muslims" and is therefore a hate crime? Or that going to a feminist rally and holding up a sign that says "I disagree with feminism" creates a hostile environment for women and is therefore not only a hate crime, but also a form gender discrimination and also rape?
I wish I were joking. That's how far the left that I was once proud to be a part of has sunk in recent years.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter ban 'dissenting political opinions'.
So Iran teaching it's schoolchildren to chant 'Death to America' is a 'dissenting political opinion' and you're OK with it, then? So-called 'Islamic state' assholes tweeting about cutting off people's heads is a 'dissenting political opinion'?
Re: (Score:3)
How cute that you think this will only be applied to ISIS. Naivete at its finest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How cute that you think this will only be applied to ISIS. Naivete at its finest.
Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize you live in the United States of Twitter, and that what the administrators of that site do is what you live and die by! Twitter is a business not a country. They can create and enforce any rules for using their FREE service that they want, and it doesn't infringe on your 1st Amendment rights whatsoever, you can always go somewhere else -- or is your life so sadly limited that without Twitter you'll wither away and die? If so then I pity you. Otherwise you can always 'vote with
Re: (Score:2)
Their house, their rules. If that makes the bigots vote with their feet, well, then Twitter will have to do without that revenue.
Re:Or maybe just abuse (Score:4, Insightful)
Far too many people believe that dissenting opinions are threatening and abusive in and of themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems odd you can’t voice a dissenting opinion without what amounts to threatening violence to express your political opinion.
For the sake of the argument, if I believe that the place of a women is at home, taking care of the kids while I support the family, ie. a traditional view of a nuclear family, that marriage is something religious between a man and a woman, that gun are tools to protect life, and that the US are based on Christian values (while being non-practicing myself) I would not be threatening anybody, yet, I would most likely get reported.
Re:Or maybe just abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems odd you can’t voice a dissenting opinion without what amounts to threatening violence to express your political opinion.
This rule won't be used to ban users who threaten violence. It will be used to ban those all who disagree with the orthodox radical-leftist ideology of Silicon Valley SJW's. "Hate speech" has long-ago been broadened on the radical left to not only include speech which ACTUALLY threatens violence, but all speech which the hearer BELIEVES to be threatening, or intimidating, or to create a "hostile environment," or to be even remotely critical of them, etc, etc.
In other words, it won't be used against posts saying "I'm going to kill you" (which are already illegal). It's going to be used against any post that disagrees with a very specific radical ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, strawman much?
Re: (Score:3)
A strawman is fictional. Let's see how long it takes for the usual-suspect feminists/race-hustlers/professional-victims to start using this rule to get their critics banned from, or censored on, Twitter.
If this never happens, I'll happily concede your point that it was just a strawman and will gladly rejoice that this rule was only used against the most vile terrorists, and not to promote a radical leftist ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
"America is the land of opportunity"
Is thought of as hate speech currently, and classified as a microaggression.
Re: (Score:3)
I wish you were exaggerating. But there are leftist thinkers out there who have gone so far off into la-la-land as to think a statement like "I'm proud to be a Christian" is a statement of religious hatred (since they believe it implies that no one should be proud to be a Jew, Muslim, atheist, etc.). And those thinkers aren't even considered that radical anymore, especially on college campuses (and not just Berkley, mind you, we're talking state colleges in even some of the most conservative states).
Re: (Score:2)
Hey look you, set you strawman nicely on fire!!
Well done.
Re:Or maybe just abuse (Score:4, Informative)
For anyone who thinks that the parent is exaggerating and who hasn't been following just how far down the rabbit-hole things have gone on the far-left (the ideology that dominates Silicon Valley these days, sadly), you should probably read up on topics like "Stare Rape" (and how it's not only hate speech, but also rape):
http://boysmeneducation.com/go... [boysmeneducation.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Recognize your privilege fool.
This is true. I've been using my white male superpowers to stare at women my whole life without even realizing I was a rapist.
Why wasn't this even mentioned at the secret white male meetings where we plot to keep everyone else down?
Re: (Score:2)
Bigotry is not a 'dissenting political opinion' and you're a fool for even suggesting such.
Of course it is. Politics is merely how we all get together to decide to run things without using violence, if there is violence involved we call it other things like terrorism or warfare. The statement "Gingers have no souls and thus should not get full citizenship" is both bigoted and a dissenting political opinion. (not to mention stupid, but it illustrates my point) I support the right of the anti-Ginger movement to disseminate their opinions even if I find them distasteful.
Re: (Score:2)
I support the right of the anti-Ginger movement to disseminate their opinions even if I find them distasteful.
Sure, but how much money are you prepared to spend to give them a platform?
Re:FTFY... (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly.
These rules are never universally applied, for example it is still allowed to harass, inimidate and demonize white people, Christianity and "traditional gender roles".
Similarily, in the official FBI crime statistics, "Hispanics" is a victim category but they are lumped into whites for perpetrators.
So when a Hispanic kills a white for racial reasons, the crime goes onto the books as a "racist white-on-white hate crime". (No joke, they really count that way in order to reach their anti-white race quotas - without Hispanics there are just too few hate crimes with white perpetrators.)
Most hate crimes are of course Hispanic on black and vice versa, so with that trick you get a ton of "white on black" and "black on hispanic" hate crimes even though whites have usually nothing to do with them.
You can call for genocide of white people in any politically correct medium and you will NOT get banned.
Will we prevent you from silencing others by... (Score:2)
Will we prevent you from silencing others by silencing you. Pray I do not alter the deal further.
Re: (Score:2)
Will we prevent you from silencing others by silencing you.
How's that morally any different from: "we will stop you from imprisoning people in your basement by throwing your ass in jail"?
irony (Score:2)
Tell me about the self-harm dpt. (Score:2, Funny)
My first thought is that twitter would implement it using a twitter bot. I think that would do more harm than good. Think about it anyone remember clippy?
I see you are contemplating self harm would you like to:
Chat with a certified chatbot?
Email twitter support?
Send a tweet with the hashtag #HELPME ?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because there have been no advancements in machine learning since Clippy. None at all.
So no Trump campaigning? (Score:3, Insightful)
Prohibiting "behavior intended to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence another user's voice"? Does that include the hate speech against muslims that has become a part of the Trump campaign's effort to get votes? The hate speech against "the great Satan" you get out of some in the middle-east? The hate speech again Israel you get out of millions of people worldwide? The hate speech against Palestine you get out of Israel? The hate speech against ISIS you get out Paris in the wake of the terrorist attacks? The hate speech against Parisian Jews you get out of Parisian Muslims?
Isolationist, anti-foreigner Joe McCarthyism, Anti-Semitism, Donald-Trumpism, there is always someone trying to use fear and hate as part of a power grab in a country's domestic political narrative. Do we really want corporate leadership at Twitter to be in charge of deciding when that's okay and when it should be censored?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Not at the cost of censorship, though).
Re: (Score:2)
Prohibiting "behavior intended to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence another user's voice"? Does that include the hate speech against muslims that has become a part of the Trump campaign's effort to get votes? The hate speech against "the great Satan" you get out of some in the middle-east? The hate speech again Israel you get out of millions of people worldwide? The hate speech against Palestine you get out of Israel? The hate speech against ISIS you get out Paris in the wake of the terrorist attacks? The hate speech against Parisian Jews you get out of Parisian Muslims?
In the best case, it will change people from saying, "I hate him" to "I don't like what he does."
In the worst case, it will be partisan, ideological censorship.
Best of luck with this. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice! (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, wow, so no more "Kill All Men" [twitter.com] hashtag or "I Drink Male Tears" images? Because those are pretty damned hateful, even though it's apparently socially acceptable to hate men in a way that it's not for women...
(Whisper, Whisper)
Oh, that's still ok? Huh. Well, at least, no more "Men are the source of all school shootings in the world" [archive.is] type posts, right? Because that's a bigoted, ignorant, statement that ignores...
(Whisper, Whisper)
Huh. Well, ok, then at least they're going to block ISIS accounts and the people perpetuating the fake "Max Temkin is a Rapist" hate-crime posts, right? Because the former is a ltieral terrorist organization and the latter is a discredited hoax that people are using to try and destroy someone whose only crime is he's young, male, and heterosexu... 0000%#N$! NO CARRIER
You have been blocked for Thoughtcrime against the Party, please delete your posts to be allowed back in.
All this is going to do is give the psychotic misandric and racist losers (the so called "Social Justice Warriors," the left-wing authoritarian hate-mob that has infested the Liberals in the US) an in so they can continue to use bots to mass-report dissenting opinions and get them banned. They're already doing so, this just codifies it as official Twitter policy.
Re:Nice! (Score:4, Insightful)
if you cant post your "dissenting opinion" without "threatening people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease", then you have some issues you need to work on.
Re: Nice! (Score:2)
So being so insensitive to the mentally unwell (and others who "have issues"). Someone might report you to the Twitter Police for hateful conduct.
Re:Nice! (Score:5, Insightful)
if you cant post your "dissenting opinion" without "threatening people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease", then you have some issues you need to work on.
Ok, lets talk about what they claim, and how this will go down in reality. Because Twitter has a really bad track record of saying one thing and enforcing another.
For example. There is a delightful young transwoman named Sarah Nyberg who has been harassing gamers on twitter for months now. (But that's ok, because harassing neuroatypical white males is socially acceptable. Especially if they're overweight and straight, too.)
Sarah Nyberg is a pedophile. [youtube.com] She openly admits this. She also openly admits that she took photos of her 8 year old niece in her underwear and shared them online. She openly admits that doing so gave her an erection.
She admits all of this [medium.com], but that it was ok because some people were rude to her and that's somehow worse.
TALKING about this, due to Sarah Nyberg being part of the SJW clique, results in you being mass-reported by a botnet and your account auto-locked by Twitter's algorithms until you delete the "harassing" posts.
The people doing this openly brag about doing this. Twitter does not care.
Twitter can post all the fluff pieces about how this is going to combat trolls and harassers they want. People who have been the victim of this passive agressive "crybullying" know that the authoritarian nutjobs involved claim any disagreement with their socio-political views is "harassment" [reddit.com] or "Cyberviolence" [soundcloud.com] and that Twitter apparently agrees with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a suggestion... (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead of
"You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of..."
How about
"You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people." PERIOD
Re: (Score:2)
Politics
Profession (wouldn't want the vegans to not be able to call for the killing of cattle farmers)
Sports team affiliation (Can't lose the Football Hooligan Demographic)
Video games
Geographic location more specific than nationality
Economic class
Social class
Skin color in an intraracial context
Sexuality beyond gender preference & identification (Damn Furries)
Product consumption / brand preference
musical taste
Gangs
Past criminal record
See plenty
Re: (Score:3)
Can’t joke about violence: no freedom of spe (Score:4, Insightful)
I don’t joke about harming people. It’s stupid and rude. Hell, I don’t joke about harming terrorists. I just make statements about how they need to be stopped. And there are a few cases that I believe are criminal, like threatening to kill the US president. Anyone who threatens to commit voilence or even jokes about it deserves to be smacked around (but in a figurative sense, of course).
That being said, I think that explicitly prohibiting statements like this is a can of worms that you don’t want to deal with.
Actually, twitter prohibiting this kind of speech is totally legal, because it’s a private business.
But what I’m concerned about is any time a stupid joke can be taken too seriously by humorless people in authority, and some kid’s life gets ruined because they had a moron moment.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I believe that, with the exception of a few very rare cases, all speech should be protected, no matter how stupid it is.
And don’t get me started on this “safe zone” bullshit that’s been popping up at universities.
There's go any hope for subscriber growth (Score:2)
Friday kind of Wednesday (Score:2)
I guess with the holiday and all, we could just go ahead and consider today Friday, right? I mean, it's not like anybody's doing any work.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor Twitter (Score:2)
Oh the idiocy... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So Twitter is banning Twitter? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So Twitter is banning Twitter? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So may I presume that all SJW's who try to silence all dissenting opinions to their ideology will be banned?
I hadn't thought of that. There could potentially be a positive outcome to this news!
Re: "use fear to silence another user's voice" (Score:2)
Twitter intentionally excluded political orientation from their list of protected classes, so SJWs are free to call for killing conservatives and Republicans -- while reporting conservatives and Republicans as being hateful for asking that the US enforce immigration and employment laws.
Re: (Score:2)
They can censor anything they want to, or not censor anything they want to.
True. And a good thing, too. It's their business, and they can run it the way they like. If I think they're idiots, that's fine. Because they're welcome to think I'm an idiot too, and I'd like to preserve the right to run my businesses the way I want to.
This isn't a 'Free Speech' issue, so all the anti-SJW's can go back to their homes, nothing more to see here.
Alas, you're wrong on the important part here. The low-information special snowflake crowd will see this is a moral victory. It reinforces their tender little toddler-like world view, and emboldens them to be more blind to SJW hypocrisy, and seek more of t
Re: (Score:2)
The New and Improved Uncut Punk Rock Twitter!
I'd become a user in a heart beat.