Twitter Suspends American Far-Right Activists' Accounts (theguardian.com) 978
Twitter has suspended the accounts of a number of American "alt-right" activists hours after announcing a renewed push to crack down on hate speech. From a report on The Guardian:Among the accounts removed were those of the self-described white-nationalist National Policy Institute, its magazine, Radix, and its head Richard Spencer, as well as other prominent alt-right figures including Pax Dickinson and Paul Town. Spencer, who according to anti-hate group SPLC "calls for 'peaceful ethnic cleansing' to halt the 'deconstruction' of European culture", decried the bans as "corporate Stalinism" to right-wing news outlet Daily Caller. "Twitter is trying to airbrush the alt right out of existence," Spencer said. "They're clearly afraid. They will fail!"
Poor Nazis (Score:5, Funny)
It's so hard being a Nazi now a days, for some reason everyone seems to think your a vile repugnant monster.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are my mod points when I need them...
I salute you sir.
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:5, Funny)
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out because I was not a Nazi ...
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:5, Funny)
It's so hard being a Nazi now a days, for some reason everyone seems to think your a vile repugnant monster.
Everyone knows anti-Naziism is really just a conspiracy run by the hair transplant and wing industries. Twitter is secretly funded by Rogaine! #sethtescalpfree
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:4, Insightful)
While the left openly make death threats, BLM supporters openly call for 'white genocide' and other supremacist movements like islam and zionism get a pass? They're all equally vile!
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:5, Insightful)
And to a reliable source, not some right-wing wacko conspiracy site.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:4, Informative)
According to Harvard (in a letter helpfully posted below the first video) the first video was been purposely edited to make the speaker look bad, he was actually mocking his opponent's debate position (which had injected race into the debate) rather than making a serious argument.
Kids, don't believe everything you see on YouTube, especially when it's a short 1 or 2 minute edited clip from a much longer event.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk versus the left rioting. You can't see the difference?
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:4, Informative)
Talk versus the left rioting. You can't see the difference?
Of course they probably can't. It's the same reason why you'll see media(especially leftist media) in europe fall over itself supporting things like Antifa or not reporting on it at all, while their members beat the shit out of people or firebomb places while stating they're "anti-fascist." Or calling for the rape and murder of ethnic germans, sometimes just whites though.
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:4, Insightful)
When will those lies being told stop being supported. The left, the right, have no relevance beyond camouflage. You have corrupt corporatists and con artists, pretending to be left or right, when they only support themselves, neither left nor right, totally self centred and myopically greedy.
The problem with the political left and political right, is they allow those corrupt individuals to hide amongst them because of the few pretty words they wish to hear and then they ignore all the ugly words (note how those ugly words sound the same from those seeking to hide whether they pretend to be from the left of the right.)
When will people accept, that those who spread hate, whether they pretend to be left or right, have only two things to say, 'all about me' and 'I want more', pretty much, me, me, me, more, more, more and then in the typical lying sales fashion, a few empty compliments and you are ready to be screwed.
In the most stupid fashion imaginable those on the actual left and right go onto support, the corrupt corporatists and con artists, by claiming those they know do not represent the left or the right, as being left or right and thus sell them to the less informed members of the left and right. Stop doing that, do not serve their purpose. When the clearly do not support expected Liberal Progressive ideals or real actual conservative ideals, then do not call them left or right, call them lying bastards who seek to corrupt the left and the right to serve their own purposes (the left and the right should strive to work together to clear themselves of corrupt from within, betrayers should never be protected but be prosecuted in full display to everyone to prove the honesty of the remainder, the more the expose and prosecute the more honest they are).
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is the double standard because the media is in the tank for particular ideologies. If the media was doing their job with basic research, no one would care. People would be calling out the instigators. But that's not the case. The media is right there if some pro-nationalist group(not white nationalist), person snaps and punches anyone and it degenerates into a brawl. But if some left wing group like antifa jumps the same group, or attacks a group of KKK members(like in california). The media is right there blaming those KKK members, or nationalists for those people "losing control" and attacking.
The media is corrupt, the people who follow the same ideology are in charge of the largest social media platforms in the world. They go after only one type of ideology instead of applying it equally. It's not hard to be unbiased, apply things evenly. But it requires that the people can and know how to put their ideologies on a hanger. It's a learned skill. But that's not happening, it's the same reason why there was such a backlash against democrats in the US. And against Merkel in Germany, the rise of actual fascists in Greece. And why Brexit happened.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So you're just completely ignoring the Obama shooting targets that suddenly got popular both times he got elected, not to mention the people who actually hanged and burned his likeness hundreds of times, during the widespread protests?
How quickly people forget.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're just completely ignoring the Obama shooting targets
The Obama shooting targets are repugnant, but they are just symbolism, and constitutionally protected free speech. Comparing symbolic speech to actual rioting causing property damage and injuries, is silly.
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:5, Informative)
So we're just completely forgetting the actual rioting that happened both times Obama was elected?
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi... [thehill.com]
Re:Poor Liberal Nazis (Score:4, Insightful)
Your link doesn't relate. It cites one incident with one individual and some various minor events like church fires. Meanwhile, you look to the west coast where mobs of people are marching down the street smashing every window on every shopfront they can find, destroying vehicles, attacking passers-by. They don't compare. They are not at all alike. A church fire is not a riot. One individual assaulted by another in an isolated setting is not a riot. Worse, if the right were truly as violent and revolutionary as many suggest, there would have been mass shootings during riots the likes of which the country hasn't seen since the civil war. That didn't happen, not even remotely close. Some people carried some protest signs suggesting it, but it was protest. Unlike now, with mass destruction of property and violent assaults perpetrated by the angry mobs of protesters.
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:4, Informative)
A few 'interesting' news clips over the last two election cycles about violence targeted at people for their opinions:
A Thousand Oaks man got his finger bitten off by someone who didn't like the Anti-Obamacare Protesters.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co... [latimes.com]
Democrat tried to run down Republican with his car.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL... [cnn.com]
Left wing nut flies plain in to building.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02... [nytimes.com]
(interesting to note that he was 'originally' reported as a right-wing nut because... Texas. After his "note" was found, it was clear he was a left wing nut)
Man beaten and robbed by democrat thugs because he supports Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/poli... [cnn.com]
High school girl attacked for supporting Trump:
http://nbc4i.com/2016/11/11/vi... [nbc4i.com]
To be fair, there were also these bits:
Muslim women in CA and LA attacked by Trump supporters.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article... [ap.org]
Oh wait... no witnesses or injuries -- and one admits to lying about it entirely and is going to be charged for filing a false police report.
Trump supporters paint "Die Blacks Die" during protest:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016... [foxnews.com] (foxnews, but associated press provided).
Oh wait... it said "Die whites die". So silly of me.
Yes... and how willingly they ignore what's under their nose...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're very good at only picking and choosing articles that back up your prejudices.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi... [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Massive false equivalency. I certainly remember the "tea party march" - one of the most peaceful and non-disruptive protests I've ever seen or heard of in DC. And, no, I don't remember any burning going on at all. Maybe you have a citation?
Incredible that this is supposed to be "the same" as the riots we've seen lately, the smashed windows, vandalized public and private property, and even people getting beaten in the street. No, I don't remember Obama protestors doing anything like that.
Sorry, no, I don
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:5, Funny)
The push to persecute Nazis is a conspiracy started by the Jews.
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:5, Insightful)
What is an alt-right? He's someone that took the left-wing-identity-politics and applies the principles to European history.
Identity politics, cultural appropriation nonsense is stupid, inane and pathetic. It applies to all groups.
The Alt-Right is an unintended consequence of the modern progressive's university curriculum.
If the Alt-Right is racist then so are proponents of identity politics. Welcome to the world you created.
I, for one, think that identity politics is racist. Now if identity politics is not racist then the Alt-Right is not racist.
(This doesn't mean that there aren't Neo-Nazis and other out there. Only that the broad brush denunciation is inaccurate.
Common guys. Appreciate the nuance of it all.
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in the loosest, and frankly most American of ways, but you are correct.
The effect of sustained identity politics has driven a generation into a new kind of "white" identity, running against the course of individualisation of at least the last 50 years. In addition to the usual categorization of racial, sexual, and ethic groups, identity politics ranks groups by (lack of) privilege, and as far a this goes, "white" people who have the "most privilege" are constantly criticised -- and at this point it is fair to say -- demonized by the so called "social justice warriors" who comprise the loudest part of academia, and the greater part of the mainstream media.
It's an insane situation which has been allowed to develop, but effectively identity politics has re-divided Americans by race and in particular appears to be provoking a reactionary response from the "white" population. It's worth noting that historically, this group was not so encompassing, and modern day "whites" were once rigidly socially stratified into separate racial and ethnic categories within the USA and other countries. It doesn't appear that identity politics has applied these historical norms, and so the class they have in effect created, or provoked into being created or in the process of creation, is arguably a much broader one than a European or world historian would recognise.
I don't know whose bright idea it was to, in effect, "meme" a new kind of "white" mega-race into existence, but it's something profoundly unsettling to see forming in slow motion in response to the endless, overbearing, pontification from the media and academia on matters of race. I think that Dr. King would first be saddened, then appalled, and finally terrified by the new reality that identity politics has wrought on America. There doesn't seem to be any end in sight, and the media is just making things worse.
What ever happened to the ideal of egalitarianism?
Re: (Score:3)
That makes the alt-right attractive to degenerates like pick up artists, men's rights activists and other far right groups that want to go back to some idealised version of the 1950s.
The idyllic 1950's, a conservative's dream. There were a lot of bad things back in the 50's. Separate, and unequal treatment of minorities. For example, sit at the back of the bus, can't buy a house in a reasonably nice neighbourhood, women and minorities blacklisted from education and opportunities.
But there was good as well. Take 1954 for example. America was strong, the economy was great and the American worker could earn a living and have a great retirement without all of the socialism. It was also t
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The paradox of tolerance [Re:Poor Nazis] (Score:3)
I'm sorry but tolerating hate is not tolerance, it's cowardice
That's the paradox of tolerance [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Ideas have a right to exist.
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sorry but tolerating hate is not tolerance, it's cowardice
It doesn't matter, the USA has enshrined freedom of speech in its Constitution.
Or is this freedom only good when liberal elites use it to their advantage ?
Ob. xkcd (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry but tolerating hate is not tolerance, it's cowardice
It doesn't matter, the USA has enshrined freedom of speech in its Constitution. Or is this freedom only good when liberal elites use it to their advantage ?
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that a particular non-government platform has to tolerate your speech on their site.
here it is explained by Randall Munroe: xkcd [xkcd.com]
(don't forget to read the mouseover text).
Re:Ob. xkcd (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ob. xkcd (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of free speech is NOT being free from the consequences of said speech. If you act like an asshole (such as a business discriminating against gays, in this instance), you can be subject to public denouncement, boycotts and civil litigation from the affected parties and it can lead to you being shut down as a business, as it happened in this case. Also, the federal government has, and some states expand upon, a list of protected classes of individuals that you may not discriminate against based on certain criteria. You don't get to refuse to service anyone, rent them a home, give a loan, etc. on the basis of someone's race, for example, as that has nothing to do with their ability to pay, perform a service or do a job. If you discriminate based on these criteria (they're easy to look up), you're breaking the law in addition to the above possible consequences. So. TL;DR: Yes, you can be an asshole to black people, gay people, etc. just be prepared to suffer the public consequences.
Re:Ob. xkcd (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You can absolutely refuse to make a cake if the customer wants something you think is offensive written on it. You just can't refuse to make a normal generic wedding cake for someone who's gay.
What exactly is the difference? Some people find gays being married offensive. Some people find declawing cats offensive. Some people find abortions offensive. Some people find a 40 year old marrying a 4 year old offensive. Some people find religion offensive. What if I am offended by a cake that says
"Jesus is the only way"? What if I'm offended by someone wanting me to draw a giant penis on a cake? What if I'm muslim and I'm offended by a picture
of jesus on the cross or a picture of Mohammad? Shou
Re: (Score:3)
What exactly is the difference? Some people find gays being married offensive. Some people find declawing cats offensive. Some people find abortions offensive. Some people find a 40 year old marrying a 4 year old offensive. Some people find religion offensive. What if I am offended by a cake that says "Jesus is the only way"? What if I'm offended by someone wanting me to draw a giant penis on a cake? What if I'm muslim and I'm offended by a picture of jesus on the cross or a picture of Mohammad? Should a muslim have to violate their belief to draw a picture of Mohammad on a cake?
The difference is the cake vs the person buying the cake. You described a bunch of things to put on the cake.
If it was a generic cake then how exactly did they even know that they were gay?
Does it matter? Are you arguing it's not possible for them to find out the person's gay if they don't request a huge penis on the cake?
Wedding photographers even have to attend the ceremony.
Which answers one of your previous questions.
Try to organize a KKK meeting and see how many speakers, cake decorators, photographers, etc... that you can get to willing participate in your event.
This makes sense if they want people to take pictures of a burning cross and write "white power" on a cake. This isn't really that complicated...
Re: Ob. xkcd (Score:3)
Which circles back to can you censor ideas you don't agree with on your platform? If you say the cake maker has to serve people he doesn't like, then the cake maker must also put tweets on his cake even if he doesn't agree with it.
Re:Ob. xkcd (Score:4, Insightful)
At one point AT&T / 'Ma Bell' were private entity that could do what they like. Now they are regulated. Once society feels something is important enough / would hinder human interaction enough... it can indeed be regulated much like MOST non-gov entities in existance. Facebook and Twitter have already surpassed that standard. These companies make use of a publicly created and funded system: the internet. They can not have it both ways and claim to be private and still benefit from the public. Much like a taxi cab company can not use the public roads and discriminate against groups of people.
That or are you OK with the phone companies all not selling to black people, women, homosexuals, and other groups... as they are simply a 'private platform'?
Regulation, when and why (Score:4, Informative)
That didn't just "happen" to them. They got regulated in exchange for access to a market in which they would exercise a near- or complete-monopoly.
If you want to make an argument that Twitter has a near-monoply on... um, tweeting, or that Facebook has a near-monopoly on communicating among people in general, and you are able to reasonably contend that these things are important to society then you might want to make an argument for regulation and see if you can make it fly.
Both companies use their terms of service to say "you over here can participate, but you over there can't" one way or another, and in a fairly arbitrary manner. They also restrict what you can do if they do let you use their service. And they are both pretty much the only real serious game in town for their respective functions in society. So you might have an argument. But that's the way you have to present it if you want it to even have a chance of flying. Seems to me your chances are overall better with Facebook, as they really do have a stranglehold on general interaction and friendly-to-the-general-public networking, which does indeed affect society in general in a very broad and powerful sense. Tweeting... I don't know. Maybe. I can't see it, personally. If you take my 140 characters away from me, I will just laugh at you. I think I would take being cut off from the vast majority of the people I have met over my lifetime and my extended family much more seriously. If I used Facebook and cared, which I don't, either one. :)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry but tolerating hate is not tolerance, it's cowardice
But defining hate speech is problematic. Which of these is hate speech:
1) I don't think it's right for a man to marry a man. (A stance taken by many christians)
2) I don't think it's right for a man to marry a 4 year old. (A stance taken by most westerners but still practiced in some countries)
3) I don't think it is right for a man to have sex with a another man. (An old stance that was once common and still held by many christians)
4) I don't think it's right for a black to marry a white. (An old stance that was once common but mostly rejected today)
5) I don't think I should have to help a man marrying a man celebrate his wedding by baking a cake. (A stance taken by many christians)
6) I don't think it is right to refuse to sell a cake to someone because you object to their wedding. (A stance taken by many liberals)
7) I don't think I should have to sell medicine to countries that are going to use it for lethal injection. (A stance taken by many countries in europe)
8) I don't think it is right to kill an infant. (A stance taken by most today but was once common in some cultures)
9) I don't think it is right to kill a baby just because it hasn't been born yet. (A stance still held by most christians)
There is obvious hate speech but voicing your opinion on what you feel is right or wrong and/or not wanting to participate in something that
you feel is wrong is not hate speech. The problem today is that both sides of many debates have decided that their side is morally superior
and think that the other side is immoral or unethical if they have a different opinion.
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:5, Informative)
None of them are. They are merely expressions of hateful opinions. To be hate speech the speaker must incite others to hatred or violence against the object of his hatred.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously that one is not, on the face of it, a hateful opinion in either sense of the phrase. But most of them are, and I was addressing the OP's overall point.
Presumably the OP included it because it's the type of thing you often hear in debates over abortion. In that context it implies hate of the pro-choicer (child murderer!), an accusation most pro-choicer's would find hateful I imagine.
Re:Poor Nazis (Score:5, Insightful)
Germany has remained a pretty democratic nation since the end of the Second World War, even after the reuniting with East Germany, and it in fact makes it illegal for many kinds of Nazi and white supremacist speech to be disseminated. So the idea that censorship is the primary creator of Nazi-like regimes is absurd. I'm not defending censorship here, and I don't really even agree with Germany's stance (it made a lot more sense seventy years ago), but you're literally ignoring the most notorious aspects of Nazism and its fellow travelers in space and time. Nazism at its core was a nationalist and racist ideology that proclaimed the Aryan race to be superior and the rightful master of the other races, even to the point of taking upon itself the role of expunging ethnic groups it deemed unworthy or dangerous.
But as we all know, censorship, particularly in the US, is only a *legal* problem when it is the state trying to silence people. Twitter is a private organization, and is within its rights to determine who can and cannot use its service. It has decided that white supremacists and similar far right groups will not be able to use Twitter as a platform to disseminate their views. For the more extreme groups within the Alt-right, this is a problem, because if they're basically stuck on Breitbarts and even more far right sites, well, then they lose the efficiency that a platform like Twitter can offer them. But that really is there problem.
If I was running any kind of site or hosting service, and I had customers or users using my service to promote hatred of ethnic and racial minorities or promote white supremacist ideas, I don't care if I lost their business, I'd cancel their accounts and refund any money I might owe them. I have no desire to silence them, but I don't see why I'm obligated to provide them a platform.
Re: (Score:3)
It got translated that way because the Alt-right is dominated by white supremacists who want to normalize their bigotry by insisting that other groups are also bigoted.
Re: (Score:3)
Was that before or after they expropriated all foreign and Jewish owned businesses and got all the locally owned ones to step into line with threat of expropriation?
The Nazi's always paid lip service to Marxist principles. Which is all any government has ever done. They were as 'left wing' as Venezuela/Cuba/N Korea is today. All it really means is 'We will take your shit without so much as a day in court if our eyes fall on it. If you squawk we will kill you.'
Hitler was the richest man in the 20th cent
What about the far-left? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about the far-left? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a private company and they can do as they wish. They don't need to explain their actions to you or anyone else.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A private company in dire straights financially due to their disgusting fascist suppression and censorship. Good riddance to both them and individuals like yourself who use weaksauce excuses to turn a blind eye to it.
Re:What about the far-left? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple? They are both private companies, yet one gets to decide who uses their service based on political ideology.
At least with Twitter it can be argued that it is a platform for speech and as such the law should reflect Twitters impact on political discourse and outcomes on elections. Just like a town-square you cannot be kicked out for racist speech and yes it doesn't mean you have to listen it (walk away or block people. the power is in the individual not the state). AT&T was determined critical and cannot limit its service on political ideology so there is legal precedent.
Are platforms of speech critical to political discourse in the country and should they be protected? If not, then why is it different for a baker exercising their constitutionally protected religious belief with their private company?
Re:What about the far-left? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple? They are both private companies, yet one gets to decide who uses their service based on political ideology.
Nazis aren't a protected category. Also, being a Nazi is a choice.
Re:What about the far-left? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about the far-left? (Score:4, Insightful)
So people only have rights if you decided that they've been discriminated against -- as a class and not individually I might add -- in the past?
You know who else said that? Hitler. He rose to power based on a message that the Germans as a class were being oppressed and unfairly blamed for everything bad that happened in WW1. In his mind he was just as oppressed as you claim anyone else is, and you both place your arbitrary assignment of who gets to have rights or not based on that irrational subjective emotional perspective.
This is what happens when you decide that laws and principles don't matter just as long as you get to arrive at the emotionally-correct "result" where all those people you don't like can be sent off to the camps.
Just remember that Hitler literally agreed with EVERYTHING you are saying. He just swapped "gay" or "jew" with Nazi based on his subjective emotional feelings to come to his conclusion. His irrational emotions are just as valid as your irrational emotions, just as his stupid conclusion is just as invalid as your stupid conclusion.
Re: (Score:3)
I can think of a couple more:
1. You're overly aggressive and smug demeanor is a very unclear way to communicate
2. You simply aren't as smart as you think you are and are incapable of communicating clearly
3. You are actively being disingenuous and purposefully missing the point while labeling someone (possibly anyone) you disagree with as Nazi or stupid
I don't really know what drives you to be as active on slashdot as you are with your attitude. If you actually cared about progressing the issues you claim
Re:What about the far-left? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple?
Let's just try an experiment:
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a black couple?
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a Hindu couple?
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a Syrian couple?
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a dwarf couple?
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a Republican couple?
When the right to free speech conflicts with the right to equal protection, you have to decide which right wins. The correct decision is the latter.
Re:What about the far-left? (Score:5, Insightful)
You sure about that? [aclu-co.org]
I like this gem from that article:
Sara R. Neel, staff attorney with the ACLU of Colorado. “It’s important for all Coloradans to be treated fairly by every business that is open to the public – that’s good for business and good for the community.”
Now, flip that around to the current /. article.
Or:
“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.”
Let me do a little word swapping:
“While we all agree that freedom of speech is important, no one’s speech make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said staff attorney. “No one is asking Twitter’s owner to change their beliefs, but treating political opponents differently because of what they say is discrimination plain and simple.”
emphasis on changes.
Re: (Score:3)
Threats and harassment are already illegal. Hate speech and racism is not illegal. Twitter decides the policy by which their users can operate in regards to a right of the citizens. The baker and AT&T cannot.
No one is arguing if threats should be illegal. It is about the offensive 'hate speech' which is in question. just like AT&T cannot limit the service it provides based on political ideology because it was deemed critical, should twitter get a pass even though they have an impact on the elections
Re:What about the far-left? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What about the far-left? (Score:5, Informative)
The op and I were wrong.
Re:What about the far-left? (Score:5, Informative)
Being "private company" is, obviously, not enough of a defense, as Facebook just found out the hard way [slashdot.org], for example. Evidently, some violent hate-groups — such as BLM and the rest of the "anti-Trump" crowd — are more equal than others.
Has Twitter banned any of accounts calling for an assassination of the President-elect [nypost.com]? For killing all White people? Obviously [twitter.com] not [twitter.com].
But, hey, it is a private company... Maybe. A good illustration on why "hate speech" must remain legal — because any enforcer will be just as biased as Twitter is proving themselves to be.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Raising the bar, aren't you? Do you sincerely doubt, Twitter would've waited for someone to file a formal complaint before permanently banning anyone calling for murder of the President-elect Clinton?
Do you know, who filed such a complaint against Milo, when the "dangerous faggot" was banned by Twitter [washingtonpost.com]?
Dual standard much?
Re: What about the far-left? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is a private company? Twitter, sir/madam, is not private. And as a decently-sized shareholder, their actions affect me.
Then raise the issue at a shareholders' meeting. Good luck.
The important point is that Twitter is not the government. And because of that, they're not obliged to protect anyone's right to free speech. When you're in their dojo, you play by their rules.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: What about the far-left? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who is a private company? Twitter, sir/madam, is not private. And as a decently-sized shareholder, their actions affect me.
In other words, you think Twitter is a government agency because you own shares.
If Twitter can kick off Nazis, can Slashdot please kick off idiots?
Re: (Score:3)
Hating an individual is not a hate crime like hating entire groups for the color of their skin, who they love or how, or what their culture's top supernatural delusion is.
If Trump feels there's a real threat, he's free to contact the authorities and Twitter. Groups don't have that ability, as no one speaks for all, and needs society to step in.
And, of course, Twitter is in its full right to choose to be biased if they want to. That's a right that especially the right fights hard for, so I would think tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about the far-left? (Score:4, Insightful)
If leftist means being open to diversity, ...
If only.
"Leftists" celebrate all kinds of diversity of everything except thought. When it comes to thought, only right-think is allowed; wrong-think and thought-crime are severely punished. Look how the left attacks people in otherwise protected groups when they commit thought-crime. Milo, Anne Coulter, Michelle Maulkin, Clarence Thomas, Laura Ingram, Col. Alan West, Herman Caine... etc., etc.
(This should not necessarily be taken as an unqualified endorsement of any of these examples... Coulter, especially, seems to have run right off the rails in the past few years.)
Would be better public relations, appear more fair (Score:2)
That *would* be better PR, to remove extremist accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen news articles about a lot of hate and violent threats towards Trump and others by people, but they aren't banned. Twitter really is as biased as I see in articles, even the ones posted to Slashdot.
This is not a troll statement. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you remove accounts for far right do the same for the opposite. Remove accounts for the Black Lives Matter group and all their vitriol they spew. Large sums of college students can clumped into this as well since they refuse to acknowledge anyone who may have a differing opinion to their own.
Re:What about the far-left? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reference to the BLM policy supporting "inciting violence against white people and cops", please.
As for them protesting and practicing civil disobedience, I'm terribly sorry that their feeling the need to draw attention to the (statistically demonstrable) greater likelihood of an unarmed black person being killed by the police and similar issues is inconveniencing you. I'm sure they never would have done so if they had known that they might have made you late for a dinner party.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You're comparing a knee-jerk reaction to fear (Score:4, Insightful)
A bit of hyperbole is to be expected in the face of what's coming (hope you're health, you're about to lose pre-existing condition coverage unless you're rich enough to pay for COBRA).
Oh you mean one of the two parts of the ACA that Trump just agreed with and said he would keep on 60 minutes. I am not even a Trump supporter but the spread of misinformation and bullshit from the left at this point is absolutely horrendous. It went from sites on the right doing it to switching to the left. The man isn't even in office yet. By all means though don't let facts get in the way of your fear-mongering.
Irony (Score:5, Interesting)
One account suspended merely replaced the word "black" with "white" to show the double standard Twitter has with race. For instance, someone would tweet "Can't wait for white people to go extinct" and the account would replace white with black. The person using the "white" tweet was never suspended.
Re: (Score:3)
By 2040 they will stop being majority using official projections http://www.census.gov/populati... [census.gov]
The argument is that if there can be a gay pride, and a black pride, there must also exist a white pride and people being ashamed of being whites should go fuck themselves. The argument is consistent.
Disclaimer: Mexican,
Re:Irony (Score:4, Interesting)
don't know their right from their left (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This is not a troll statement.
Yeah it is, because it has little to do with the topic at hand. Twitter band some people for posting crap. It's impossible to riot on twitter because it requires a physical presence, and twitter has neither the authority nor the staff to remove rioters from whereever it is they are rioting.
Basically the post is dragging up irrelevant stuff to get a response, i.e. trolling.
Re: (Score:3)
This story happens to be about alt-right groups, but Twitter has begun taking all threats of violence seriously.
I guess that's why organizations like CON(which is supported by Feminist Frequency) are still on Twitter's "trust and safety council" right? Despite that they've actively harassed [heatst.com] and [oneangrygamer.net] doxed [wordpress.com] people. Which of course is why groups like BLM are still on there, after engaging in violence. Or why they don't really go after terrorist group accounts until it reaches a point that they can no longer ignore it. And then we can get into the various verified accounts which openly call for violence, doxing, and haras
Re: (Score:3)
When people talk about BLM engaging in violence, every time I look into it, it's just som
Twitter is now arbiter of truth (Score:5, Insightful)
As a nation we value our freedom of speech. We tolerate even the likes of Westboro Church. We tolerate this because unless deplorable people have the right to speak freely, there could be no freedom of speech. It must be that absolute. Unfortunately, it was made clear that Twitter doesn't share our national values.
Re:Twitter is now arbiter of truth (Score:4, Insightful)
That tolerance doesn't extend to private companies. You are free to disagree with a private organization, you are free to even refuse to deal with it, but they have a right to set the rules of remove anyone they don't feel they want.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is meaningless distinction.
Maybe in your mind, but not in the mind of the courts. The first amendment is a limitation on the powers of government, not a limitation of what a private company can limit speech.
And you're right, Twitter (as a company) DOESN'T share our national values on their platform. That's because they're a company, not a country or government. If someone came into your house, started yelling at you about white nationalism, you'd likely kick them out. Twitter has that same right.
N
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, when you silence an idea it only makes that idea grow and fester. The KKK has been religated to a few hundred die hard racists because everyone could see the stupidity for their own on display. But with actions we see from the left, like Twitter, you get people taking violent action to shut down peoples constitutional right to protest [latimes.com] which galvanize support and give them sympathy.
Let the racists speak and their stupidity is on full display. Silence them with violence and no-platforming tactics cre
Peter Theil (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I see an echo chamber that the far right creates their OWN version of twitter, kind of like how the right created their own "news" organization.
And so begins the true divide in the country, where the fox news people feed their own echo chamber via alt-twitter, and the liberals have msnbc and twitter.
And the two sides never speak to each other.
Twitter (Score:2)
Twitter is the confetti of the internet.
Ahh... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's so charming to watch the Liberal Left endorse censorship without the slightest trace of irony.
You guys really DON'T get it, do you? Or do you think the various actors and their sympathies today will /forever/ agree with your personal morality?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks Twitter. (Score:3)
Streisand Effect is in full play now. People I've never heard about because they have already been mainly marginalized are not FRONT PAGE of Slashdot.
Excellent work there.
misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)
Headline falsely implies that the accounts were deleted because they were alt-right or far-right, when they were deleted because they used hate speech. Not a bias in viewpoint, but a cap on hate speech.
Re:"I disapprove of what you say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you a progressive? Seriously.
Big picture stuff, like getting to Mars and so on. Self-interest and markets will take us only so far.
Re:"I disapprove of what you say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do both Ends of the Spectrum (Score:5, Funny)