A Reporter Built a Bot To Find Nazi Sock Puppet Accounts. Twitter Banned the Bot and Kept the Nazis (nytimes.com) 648
Yair Rosenberg, writing for the New York Times: I asked my own Twitter followers whether it might be possible to create a bot that would reply to these impostors and expose their true nature to any users they tried to fool. Neal Chandra, a talented developer in San Francisco whom I've never met, replied, "I can try to throw something together this evening." And so, after a week of testing, Impostor Buster was born. Using a crowdsourced database of impersonator accounts, carefully curated by us to avoid any false positives, the bot patrolled Twitter and interjected whenever impostors tried to insinuate themselves into a discussion (Editor's note: the link may be paywalled). Within days, our golem for the digital age had become a runaway success, garnering thousands of followers and numerous press write-ups. Most important, we received countless thank-yous from alerted would-be victims. The impersonator trolls seethed. Some tried changing their user names to evade the bot (it didn't work). Others simply reverted to their openly neo-Nazi personas. A few even tried to impersonate the bot, which was vastly preferable from our perspective and rather amusing. Twitter sided with the Nazis. In April, the service suspended Impostor Buster without explanation and reinstated it only after being contacted by the ADL's cyber-hate team. Over the next few months, we fine-tuned the bot to reduce its tweets and avoid tripping any of Twitter's alarms. As the trolls continued to report the bot to no avail, we thought the problem was resolved. But we were wrong. This month, Twitter suspended the bot again, and this time refused to revive it.
Bots (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, Twitter has a bot policy.
https://help.twitter.com/en/ru... [twitter.com]
Re: Bots (Score:2)
Exactly.
CensorBot (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention that the title is pretty much a lie.
This 'reporter' selected a bunch of target accounts that they wanted to target, and pointed a bot at them than just spam-replied to attack those accounts.
The bot was doing no finding, no uncovering, nothing smart, it was just attempting to censor through spam.
The guy got exactly what he deserved - in fact was treated better than he should be, because their first time around he actually did manage to get his spam-bot reinstated - it was only the second time
Re:CensorBot (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think that was what they were after, I think they were looking to get banned.
What was curiously absent from the article is any mention of attempts to report the impersonators, twitter has a policy which states that impersonation is not allowed after all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He will try and spin victim-politics here, but the fact is that he feels the right to be the sole determiner of who should be removed from a platform he has nothing to do with. It doesnt reall ymatter if his targets are good, bad, or indifferent - he simply does not have that right.
Welcome to the cult known as social justice(this also includes the current flavor of 3rd wave intersectional feminism) and nazi hysteria. Here's your complimentary rage face(including tears), and a list of "nazi" accounts where you can go and contact their employers to try and get people fired. Keep in mind that nazi is anyone to the right of Trotsky though, and punching nazi's? Well if you don't, then you're also a nazi.
We're probably in the largest isolation bubble of our time because social media direc
Re: (Score:3)
And anyone who isn't black as midnight and currently chained in the depths of a slave ship is NAZI racist.
Sadly, an illogically accusatory nature is now what is considered left/liberal. It used to be a firm grounding in the matrix of individual liberty, a background in economic theory, superimposed over an encyclopedic knowledge of political science and history was what made a liberal.
These days all you need the ability to call Dr. Martin Luther King a hatemongering sexist homophobe with a straight face an
Re:Bots (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, Twitter has a bot policy.
https://help.twitter.com/en/ru... [twitter.com]
Yeah but Twitter's biggest problem is also how to clamp down on abusive trolls. A former Twitter employee called the platform: "a honeypot for a**holes”, even Twitter's CEO started worrying about the a**hole factor when celebrities got fed up with the trolls and started abandoning Twitter. It seems to me this bot might be the answer to Twitter's problems rather than one of their problems even if they only used it to monitor the abusers more effectively. They should be sending these people joboffers instead of ban notices.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You think bots spamming is the solution, really?
So you read my post, filtered out everything except the word 'bot' and instantly boiled over? From what I can tell this bot just monitored impersonator trolls and warned people about them. If Twitter used it to spam their abuse regulators instead of users with reports of what known trolls are doing, when they are abusing somebody and how severe the abuse is and then warned the users and suspended the troll once they had enough evidence I'd say that would constitute a solution to a certain very pervasive pro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bots (Score:5, Funny)
If you want me to pick between bot spam and Nazis, I'll take the bots thanks.
why not have both, like Microsoft's Tay, for example!
Re: (Score:2)
Except the only decision on whether the targetted "trolls" were Nazis is that the so-called "hunter" simply chose some people he didn't like and added them to his little list.
Were they Nazi trolls or just people with an opinion that he disagreed with?
Re: (Score:2)
Bots don't tend to try and entice people into supporting and defending white nationalism.
But I hear they're very much into Blackjack and hookers, so they're problematic either way.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fine, thanks. As long as people keep using Nazi slogans, Nazi symbology, and evoke the ideas of the Nazi party, I'll call the quacking, floating, duck-lookin' bird a duck.
I'm not sure what conversation you think you're helping by trying to make the distinction, but it's the not the conversation that ends up with people understanding and dismissing Nazi-style white nationalist fascism.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the parent poster is right in pointing out to use the correct definition. It's not about being for or against, it's about using the right words and terminology for what you want to say.
The problem, otherwise, is one of hollowing out the REAL meaning of those words and terms. By applying them to things they don't apply to, but only to things that 'looks' like it to you, one actually dilutes and diminishes the gravity of the words/meanings it has. It's like people claiming to have been 'raped' on the
Re: Bots (Score:4)
They're neo-nazis most specifically, but I find calling them nazis for short to be acceptable. The fact that they exist today inherently means that they're neo-nazis anyway.
There are vanishingly few differences between neo-nazis and "classic nazis" and whether they have a national party card in their wallets makes no practical difference whatsoever. So your semantic argument amounts to nothing but pointless ultra-pedantry.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Nazi party is long gone; there are no Nazis. Use the correct terminology or go back to Twitter.
So your argument is Since the formal nazi party ceased to exist many years ago, there have been no nazis since then. That is as ridiculous as claiming Since World War II was the last formally declared war, there have been no wars since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that between 1991 and 1994 there were no communists in Russia? There was no communist party so it must be true.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yeah, there's definitely nothing between those two things, such as a left-wing, socialist, democratically elected government like in Sweden. Good job.
Re: (Score:2)
None of that is true.
Re: Bots (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they could employ the bot themselves?
The challenge is blocking off accounts, without appearing to censor speech. Maybe they could create a behaviour flag and then let people decide if they want to ignore accounts with certain personality or behaviour types? They may have looked at this already, but then again I don't really know how much they care?
Re:Bots (Score:5, Informative)
Twitter also has a stalking policy. And I don't think it's got an exception for people claiming to just be chasing dem nazies.
I smell a fish (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I'm on board with a good nazi bash just like everyone else...but...
This smells fishy. They openly admit they spammed people, and they don't provide context to the discussion. Twitter is known for having a somewhat left-bias, so if these folks were identified and banned, twice, I'm already suspicious.
The linked article stinks of sensationalism, and that's what tripped my bullshit sensors from the start.
These assholes may be telling the truth, and they may be entirely justified in their outrage, but the article and the style in which it was written makes me highly suspicious.
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to post "is this for real?" too. But it's probably also worth noting that you can discredit a victim by attacking in an esoteric fashion.
Censorship through spam. (Score:4, Insightful)
It sounds a lot like they took a self-selected list of target accounts that they selected (or. People they personally chose to try and censor) and had a bot continuously spam any place those people tried to speak.
Perhaps it is just me, but doing that seems pretty damn 'nazi' (to use the modern interpretation of the word) and deserves a ban hammer at the least.
What they have done is basically told the world 'or opinion is RIGHT, and we will shout down any other opinions, because only our opinion is allowed to be heard, agree with us or pay the price'
In other words they are closed minded self riteous morons who want the world to be their own personal echo chamber.
It seems however the right thing was, almost surprisingly, done.
Re: (Score:2)
"It sounds a lot like they took a self-selected list of target accounts that they selected (or. People they personally chose to try and censor) and had a bot continuously spam any place those people tried to speak."
You can see this a lot on every post that President Trump posts. There will be five or 6 posts from the same bot posting pre-formatted replies against him before anyone else has had a chance to post anything.
It's kind of entertaining.
Re: (Score:2)
You can see this a lot on every post that President Trump posts. There will be five or 6 posts from the same bot posting pre-formatted replies against him before anyone else has had a chance to post anything.
It's kind of entertaining.
They're actually from people on his staff, trying to moderate the crazy stuff he says before he's had his coffee - I mean his first 3 Diet Cokes.
Re:Censorship through spam. (Score:5, Insightful)
And how would you feel if within seconds of you posting anything (and I DO notice I'm replying to an AC, so I mean the collective 'you' here) a reply would appear essentially yelling, "THIS GUY IS A CONFIRMED NAZI! DON'T ASSOCIATE WITH HIM EVER!"?
Doesn't matter if it's true. There's no way of proving innocence or guilt. There's just this bot hounding you, following you through username and account changes. Isn't that the very DEFINITION of harassment and stalking?
Is it okay to do that because some of the targets, hell even if they have 100% accuracy, agree with Nazi ideology? Do we REALLY need to start saying "First they came for the Nazis, and I said nothing because I wasn't a Nazi ..."?
Re: (Score:2)
As a trans person on Twitter, this happens to me all the time - in fact, one of the favourite hobbies of cis people on Twitter is to stalk my account and tell people not to associate with me.
At least this is based on things people provably say rather than anti-science nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Having just read the blurb here I may be wrong but my understanding this was telling people the one pretending to be someone else was a _known_ nazi provocateur.
And it isn't censorship. While there are of course real dangers of false positives which shouldn't be understated they didn't stop anyone saying anything. That's the definition of censorship. If we stop people telling others that someone is posting using a false-flag tactics then we _would_ censor those people.
Now there is a problem with people spam
Re: Censorship through spam. (Score:2)
Please turn off smart punctuation in your keyboard settings. Slashdot Will thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I found it impressive he was able to throw together a Turing Test capable chatbot in an evening and have operating as production software by the end of the week.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Twitter is known for having a somewhat left-bias"??
The most famous Twitter account in the world belongs to Donald Trump. Is he on the left in the world you live in?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How so?
The OP provided literally no evidence at all that there is a left bias to Twitter. He commented on an article that was about a right bias. I pointed out that the most famous Twitter account of all is used by the right wing US president (and to retweet videos from British far right parties, too). So tell me how that's a red herring?
Re: (Score:2)
I understand wanting to call people out when they say unreasonable things. But in this case, you're asking someone to source something that is well documented and that you could very easily search for yourself. If you want to call people out for saying ridiculous things, you need to first actually verify that what they're saying is ridiculous. Maybe simply check and see if someone has pointed out a bias you didn't know about. A very cursory amount of research online will reveal that yes, Twitter generally h
Re: (Score:2)
In this analogy, the OP hasn't actually proven there's even a beach yet.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but it still means the poster who said 'nice red herring' is correct. Even if one now claims the OP used a red herring as well, it still not invalidates the conclusion the response was also using a red herring.
The fact he then asked 'how so?' either indicates he lacks self-analysis, or is being deliberately obtuse and being a hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
Two things. One, yes, when one makes an assertion, one is generally expected to provide, or be able to provide, support for that assertion, not pooh pooh the questioner with 'it's all out there, find it yourself' or 'it is known, you sweet summer child.'
Second, I do believe he's referring to the overall political tone of major Twitter users, where others are referring to the politics and policies of Twitter the company, based on the posts involved.
Re:I smell a fish (Score:4, Insightful)
"Twitter is known for having a somewhat left-bias"??
The Overton window is a bitch. Silicon Valley Libertarianism is now considered left-wing.
Re: (Score:2)
we're talking about the "firing employees for writing factual-but-politically-incorrect essays" thing
I could have sworn that wasn't Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter , Facebook, Youtube are still businesses and they're not on the forefront of the censorship drive. They will be compliant to being pressured though. This is all part of teh pressuring.
User stats (Score:2, Insightful)
If you eliminate the troll accounts, you would find twitter is not experiencing the growth it claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Without trolls and sockpuppets, what's left is basically the Donald.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that actually be the last of the sockpuppet-trolls, albeit a real life one? ;-)
In today's world anyone can be called a nazi (Score:4, Insightful)
"You looked at me in a way that I didn't like - you're a nazi fascist sexist misogynist and you need to die."
Any and all reasons for calling someone a "nazi" are fair game. So much so that the word has now lost almost all meaning.
Re:In today's world anyone can be called a nazi (Score:5, Insightful)
It's unfortunate that the word's meaning got diluted over the years, e.g. we now have grammar Nazis and soup Nazis. But there are literal Nazis too, and in recent years they have seen a resurgence and gains in political power.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
You really think the defining characteristics of Nazi's was, that they posted a picture somewhere and were trolling?
As many posters have said: the term is being hollowed out. Even you do it. You're interchanging the general term of racism (or racist) for Nazism (or Nazi).
While Nazism was an ideology which had a high degree of racism in it, the reverse is not true. Aka: all nazi's are racists (well, the majority were, in any case), but not all racists are nazi's.
So, in actuality: yes, it is ridiculous
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, really. Heuristics are useful and practical, and insisting on formal proof in the teeth of clear evidence is both pointless and dangerous. If someone tweets in the way I've described, it's perfectly reasonable to call them a Nazi (especially given that this was but a single cite and their other tweets were just as vile and demonstrate a pattern of behaviour). If they are "merely" a troll and didn't actually mean to write what they wrote, then boo diddums to them for the false positive, and next time ma
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your response to someone acting like a Nazi is to (without any evidence) claim it was a false flag operation by the Jews.
Got any other nuggets of wisdom you wish to share with us about the Jewish people?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hint:
Anti-semitism is rising in Europe. Mostly from people not understanding Muslims aren't all Arabs. However they is still (accidentally) correct intolerant assholes given that Muslims tend to speak Arabic - the Koran is written in that language.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny how that particular example was the actual example being discussed in the actual article, eh? And he was talking about actual anti-semitic abuse of the most gross and vile kind, of the sort that Nazis and neo-Nazis indulge in. Baby and bathwater; wheat and chaff; baseless accusations of antisemitism and actual antisemitism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Constitution issue ! (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. 1st amend. applies to govt only.
Re: (Score:2)
What applies to the governments, applies to its citizens. Even if companies can not be hold to it, as a citizen, in principle, you have the right to free speech. Companies can give sanctions or have other policies, but they can't really *prohibit* free speech, as such, of anyone.
Re: Constitution issue ! (Score:2, Interesting)
You know what else applies to "govt"?
Obligation to protect the citizens from persecution by third parties.
Laminate tha, dipwit.
Re:Wrong approach, kill the nazi faggots (Score:4, Insightful)
We need to brutally murder these nazi cowards so they understand what the fuck their ideology means to honest, hard working citizens of America. Kill em all.
But commie shits are perfectly ok with you, right?
Re: (Score:2)
We should all follow the god of Islam and start covering our women and throwing gays from building then right?
So Progressive!
So, just like the far right Christians? Different identities, same attitudes.
BTW moderates of any creed tend to be okay, but not universally so
Re: Wrong approach, kill the nazi faggots (Score:4, Insightful)
America prides itself on being the great melting pot but 40 years of multi-culturalism has revealed that large ethnic immigration, like Europe is experiencing now, harms society.
I've seen studies showing that multiculturalism is indeed the problem, but with a caveat: "multiculturalism" understood as the specific policy the left began defending since a few decades of preserving cultures as they are by creating almost absolute barriers for meaningful cultural exchange, whose most recent example is the whole nonsense about "cultural appropriation". What this multiculturalism does is to create ghettos with invisible walls, and that in turn results in a permanente divide that only grow resentment and tribal identities.
Before those policies were enacted, the US and other countries did pretty well with immigration. Immigrants understood they were moving into another culture that expected them to fit, and tried their best to fit while preserving distinctive elements of their origin cultures, not the whole package. These elements in turn spread a little into the culture they moved in, resulting in a blend that for all practical purposes worked pretty well. It was a conservative mode of thinking that worked, and worked well.
The current model is the opposite of that, and its failures are showing more and more, and in even more dramatic ways.
Re: Wrong approach, kill the nazi faggots (Score:5, Insightful)
Homophobia and death threats. What makes you any better than them?
Re: (Score:3)
So in effect, anyone you brutally murder was a nazi coward. That's certainly an appealing model for society isn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wrong approach, kill the nazi faggots (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad "nazi" now means anyone who is not a leftist.
In this context, "nazi" means white nationalists, white supremacists... basically anyone at the "unite the right" rally who chanted nazi slogans. You know, nazis.
Not conservatives. Not libertarians. Just nazis.
Enjoy your civil war.
Racists caused the last one and racists, presumably because most of them don't actually know what a civil war actually is, seem to want one now. I don't know what a "race war" is, but I would prefer not to share a country with people who need one just so they can be proven right.
So if we can just peacefully persuade the racists to shut the fuck up (or if they are serious about white nationalism, fuck off back to Europe) it won't happen.
Re: (Score:3)
By doing that, you are hollowing out the term Nazi. In your vision, it just means 'racist'. It doesn't.
Re: Wrong approach, kill the nazi faggots (Score:5, Informative)
Correct. All racists are not Nazis, but damn near all Nazis are racists.
It's possible to be a racist and not believe in nationalism and autocratic rule.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, the main problem remains of the interpretation of what constitutes racism in the first place. And here I think comes the 'leftists' of the parent poster at play.
Clearly, to some degree this is an exaggeration - or more precise generalization - as well, but it's a fact a large part of the left has the tendency to label everything of certain subject-matters that goes against their core beliefs as being racist; for instance: a more stringent immigration policy is one of the archetypal issues. the mo
Re: Wrong approach, kill the nazi faggots (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of the "white nationalists" who marched in Charlotte were wearing swastikas, carrying Nazi flags, and shouting anti-Jewish sayings. The other white nationalists there didn't seem to mind the presence of these folks. As a friendly tip: If you are waving a Nazi flag and shouting anti-Jewish sayings while protesting, chances are you're a Nazi. If the people you're protesting with are carrying a Nazi flag and you don't see anything wrong with that, chances are you're a Nazi.
Re: Wrong approach, kill the nazi faggots (Score:4, Insightful)
If I'm at a free-speech rally and nazi's with flags, and arm-bands show up I wouldn't be rallying with them and I suspect the vast majority of the people wouldn't either and would probably react to them.
I don't have common cause with Nazi's and I wouldn't accept and protest with them for anything. There beliefs are the very definition of evil.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Wrong approach, kill the nazi faggots (Score:5, Informative)
Merriam-Webster can suck it. Oxford gets it better. [oxforddictionaries.com]
Nazi
NOUN plural nazis
1) historical A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
1.1) derogatory A person with extreme racist or authoritarian views.
1.2) A person who seeks to impose their views on others in a very autocratic or inflexible way.
Re: Wrong approach, kill the nazi faggots (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you talking about absolute idiots or reasonable people? The former says crazy shit all the time no matter which political/religious/shoe size they have and can be ignored.
Reasonable people use nazi as a generic insult too but not for "anyone who is not a leftist", if they do that they are in the absolute idiot category. Strongly authoritarian right have common traits with national socialism but so have leftist authoritarians. That doesn't mean they _are_ national socialists of course.
But now we should study what _you_ wrote: you imply only "leftist" people use the nazi insult. Ludicrous! Either your world-view is skewed so extremely that everyone using the word nazi is per definition leftist (which indicates that you are a right-wing extremist) or that you are an absolute idiot and should be ignored.
So what is it?
--
People not realizing there are many more axes in politics than the simple "left"-"right" one scares me. Democracy requires thinking people understanding politics in order to function properly.
There are liberal left and there are liberal right, there are authoritarian left just as there are authoritarian right, there are religious leftism just as there are religious rightism.
Re: Wrong approach, kill the nazi faggots (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, it's funny. No one to the left of Orrin Hatch would mistake me for a leftist. This has gotten me into no end of political tangles and dust-ups in the places I go. And yet, I've never been called a Nazi. Not even in jest, except in direct response to me pointing out that nobody ever calls me a Nazi, and I think we can all agree that doesn't count.
How can this be, I wonder? If you and I -rightists both- are so similar, how is it possible that you get called a Nazi all the time, yet I never do, even as a joke? I suspect it comes down to one critical difference between us: you are a Nazi, and I am not. Godwin's Law aside, most people really are savvy enough to tell the difference.
Re: Wrong approach, kill the nazi faggots (Score:5, Informative)
The Nazis were left wing as well.
No, they weren't. They defined themselves as a "third position" distinct from both right and left, adopting a few elements from one side, a few from the other, and adding stuff of their own to the mix. This is why the right calls them left, the left calls them right, the center considers them extremists in one direction or the other, and also why all three are wrong. The center is correct only insofar as nazis are extremists, but they're extremists in a direction that doesn't fit within the left-right spectrum.
Also, internally the Nazi Party had several subgroups, including a left wing, a right wing, a monarchist wing etc. At some point the right wing of the party decided the left wing was being too troublesome and killed them all. Afterwards the economic policies of the party, that were somewhat "balanced" from the perspective of the left-right axis of the time, turned markedly to the right. But contrary to what the current left wants to believe on the matter, that still didn't turn Nazism itself into a right wing movement.
Nazism was and remained first and foremost nazi-wing. Any attempt at reducing that wing so as to fit the left-right spectrum, be it into the left side of the spectrum, as conservatives and libertarians want to do, be it into the right side of the spectrum, as liberals and socialists want to do, is and will continue being incorrect and doomed to failure.
Re: Wrong approach, kill the nazi faggots (Score:5, Informative)
The party was dismantled generations ago, there are no more Nazis.
So those chaps making Nazi saultes, chanting "blood and soil", wearing swastikas and so on---what would you call them exactly?
If you want a good argument about it, I suggest you try arguing with this chap:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Har... [twitter.com]
His take on it:
I guess I got confused when they gave the #Hitler salute and chanted "blood and soil" b/c it reminded me of who I fought in my youth.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"So those chaps making Nazi saultes, chanting "blood and soil", wearing swastikas and so on---what would you call them exactly?"
They're called Neo-nazi's.
Re: Wrong approach, kill the nazi faggots (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't call them Nazis because they aren't a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
So your argument is Since the persons are not formally members of the nazi party, they are not nazis. That is as ridiculous as claiming Since World War II was the last formally declared war, there have been no wars since then.
Re: Wrong approach, kill the nazi faggots (Score:4, Interesting)
False equivalence.
This is not an argument. This is your opinion presented as if it were a fact. You are by all means entitled to have your opinions, but please do not try to present them as facts. It comes across to me as a disguised attempt to appal to authority, with you being the authority.
This is Slashdot, not Twitter.
You have posted this or similar to several of your posts, and it comes across as an attempt to silence the other person and to try to be an authority ("such and such are the rules"). If you want to influence people, telling them to shut up or otherwise address them in a derogatory way is usually never a good idea.
But, to address the very quote (which I interpret to mean "While on twitter you might get away by saying whatever rambling comes out of your head, here on slashdot you have to provide valid arguments for what you write").
You have claimed that the arguments are not equivalent without backing that up with any arguments. So in a eat your own dog food opportunity, please explain exactly what you think the difference(s) between claiming Since the persons are not formally members of the nazi party, they are not nazis and Since World War II was the last formally declared war, there have been no wars since then is (are).
Re: Wrong approach, kill the nazi faggots (Score:5, Insightful)
So all of a sudden it's "acceptable" to be violent towards someone because they have different views than you, but only if it's a certain subset of different views.
Yes, autocratic white supremecists are bad. No, that is not a free pass for committing assault. Grow up.
Re: Wrong approach, kill the nazi faggots (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't call them Nazis because they aren't a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
If they look like a Nazi, quack like a Nazi, make heavy use of Nazy symbology and espouse the same values, it's reasonablt to call them Nazis.
If you want to engage in a game of mindless semantics where only you control the definitions, feel free, but don't expect anyone else to think you're being sensible.
you seem to think being called out for bad grammar, bad terminology etc. is some how unacceptable
Ah, I see you've entered the "just make shit up" part of the debate. That didn't take you very long I must say.
Where do you think you are? This isn't Twitter
On Twitter, you might have a chance of trying your arguments out with someone who has more than an armchair perspective, you know, someone who actually fought the Nazis.
I see you simply ignored that.
By the way, quoting the names of inapplicable logical fallacies, especially those you don't understand does not make an argument, and it does not make you sound clever.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Semantics wouldn't save me or my family if these people got into power and rounded us up because we're Jewish*. It wouldn't be any comfort to me to say "Sure these people stand for everything the Nazis stood for but since they haven't joined any 'National Socialist German Workers' Party' they aren't technically Nazis." These groups worship Nazis and want to pick up where Hitler left off. I've met one in p
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. The NSDAP doesn't exist anymore, so what? Do you define national socialist as being only the members of the NSDAP?
That's not the definition the Deutsches Reich used, it was not the definition countries external to the 3rd reich used.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you also report that old commie stooge @BernieSanders?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People really seem to struggle with this as a distinction, don't they. (Also the distinction between communist, socialist, left-of-centre, and liberal)
Re: (Score:2)
But the Annoying Orange is funny!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know twitter's policies against nazis per se.
I'm fairly sure however that twitter does not condone hate speech itself, even if they allow nazis themselves. My guess is that people are prima facie welcome until they violate twitter's rules, then they get banned just like anyone else.
What twitter does NOT allow however, most likely, is a non-human bot using an account. Were the intentions of the bot (or rather, its programmer) less benign it would be nothing more than a spambot.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations on uncovering that subtly hidden fact. It's not as if the journalist opened the story by discussing how he received lots of antisemitic abuse on Twitter and that was his motivation, is it? We have your amazing detective work to thank for bringing this to our attention.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, yes. Petty vengeance is always a good motivator for most people, true.
"I got abused so I will abuse myself." Great way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Given your replies from another sub-thread I wonder how this is relevant? You haven't proven that the actions are abusing the other users, you haven't proven the intent was to abuse other people and you haven't proven vengeance was the motivation.
So are you a hypocrite? Or perhaps things aren't so black and white after all?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need to sockpuppet, there's next to no brigading here ... except for the occasional random loon.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what there definitely is such a thing as these days? Stupid people saying stupid shit that they think is really clever. And you, AC, have just provided an excellent example of exactly this.