Twitter Has Started Researching Whether White Supremacists Belong on Twitter (vice.com) 543
Twitter is conducting in-house research to better understand how white nationalists and supremacists use the platform. From a report: The company is trying to decide, in part, whether white supremacists should be banned from the site or should be allowed to stay on the platform so their views can be debated by others, a Twitter executive told Motherboard. Vijaya Gadde, Twitter's head of trust and safety, legal and public policy, said Twitter believes "counter-speech and conversation are a force for good, and they can act as a basis for de-radicalization, and we've seen that happen on other platforms, anecdotally."
"So one of the things we're working with academics on is some research here to confirm that this is the case," she added. Gadde, who, along with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, met with President Trump to discuss the "health of the public conversation" on Twitter last month, said Twitter is working with external researchers on the work, but declined to name them, and added that the researchers are under non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). "We're working with them specifically on white nationalism and white supremacy and radicalization online and understanding the drivers of those things; what role can a platform like Twitter play in either making that worse or making that better?" she said. "Is it the right approach to deplatform these individuals? Is the right approach to try and engage with these individuals? How should we be thinking about this? What actually works?" she added.
"So one of the things we're working with academics on is some research here to confirm that this is the case," she added. Gadde, who, along with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, met with President Trump to discuss the "health of the public conversation" on Twitter last month, said Twitter is working with external researchers on the work, but declined to name them, and added that the researchers are under non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). "We're working with them specifically on white nationalism and white supremacy and radicalization online and understanding the drivers of those things; what role can a platform like Twitter play in either making that worse or making that better?" she said. "Is it the right approach to deplatform these individuals? Is the right approach to try and engage with these individuals? How should we be thinking about this? What actually works?" she added.
If you are going to be a censorious asshole... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: If you are going to be a censorious asshole... (Score:2, Insightful)
Loving your own race doesn't mean you automatically hate other races.
Start the conversation there if you think you know anything before lumping everyone in the same group.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hate isn't illegal. (Score:5, Insightful)
And labeling anything as "hate" is entirely too easy.
You're a Twitter censor who doesn't like what someone says because it doesn't agree with your biases?
"Oh! That's HATEFUL!"
*BAN*
Fuck that.
Simply give people the tools necessary to filter for themselves.
End of discussion.
You know what else isn't illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's great until you set yourself up as the new public square.
Re: (Score:3)
And labeling anything as "hate" is entirely too easy.
You're a Twitter censor who doesn't like what someone says because it doesn't agree with your biases?
"Oh! That's HATEFUL!"
*BAN*
Fuck that.
Simply give people the tools necessary to filter for themselves.
End of discussion.
And what if Twitter doesn't want to be some sort of free-for-all where people have to learn how to avoid NAZIs.
What if Twitter wants to be a place for people to connect, share stuff, communicate, and generally not worry about dealing with toxic individuals?
There's lots of places for people to be assholes on the Internet, Twitter doesn't have to be one if it doesn't want to be. If they want a community where they kick out the individuals they deem problematic then good for them.
The reason they're being kicke
Re:Hate isn't illegal. (Score:4, Informative)
Simply give people the tools necessary to filter for themselves.
Remember when ggautoblocker came out? Someone gave people the tools necessary to filter themselves, and people started screaming about the free speech violations anyway.
No matter what they do, any effort to control content or help people ignore content will be called a violation of free speech.
Re:Leftists want this disruption and strife (Score:5, Insightful)
The comments for this submission are quite agitated. And that's exactly what the leftists pushing this sort of censorship want.
It's their aim to manufacture as many different subgroups as possible, no matter how artificial and nonsensical the divisions are, and to then pit these groups against one another in any way possible.
Yeah, them and those damn lizard people engaging in all sorts of giant conspiracies involving tens of millions of people not spilling the beans.
Leftism as an ideology can't withstand any sort of critical analysis. When examined, it immediately crumbles. That's why leftists need a distraction, like the strife they're fomenting online. When these manufactured groups are too busy fighting one another, nobody is focused on the flaws inherent to leftist ideology.
Hopefully more and more people will start to see what's going on, and how they're being played by leftists.
Suuuure. Instead of blabbing about "inherent flaws" and "critical analysis" and other phrases that you think will make you look clever why don't we actually examine some evidence?
Look at the last two Republican primaries. The parade of "not Romneys" falling flat on their face followed by the huckster who can't talk five minutes without repeating an already debunked lie.
Or the party that spent years giving contradictory promises and endless votes on how they'd repeal Obamacare while somehow keeping all the things people liked with Obamacare. And then getting a chance to do so... and failing since the bill broke too many promises and took too many people off healthcare.
Or the party that thought (pretended?) a giant corporate tax cut was going to spur economic growth when the economy was already humming at full speed and none of the economists thought that corporate taxes were the thing holding it back. As should surprise precisely no-one basically all of that tax cut went to the rich.
Or this asshole [cnn.com] laughing about what a hypocrite he is.
You really think modern US conservatism holds up to the slightest of scrutiny?
Re:Leftists want this disruption and strife (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't care about Homeland Security's opinion, all they care about is if someone violates their ToS.
Don't expect them to apply your arbitrary standard, expect them to apply their own rules.
Levels of hate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are white supremacists worse than other race/gender supremacists? If so, how is such a scale determined? Further, is there a chart somewhere to delineate the severity of the wrong think?
Re:Levels of hate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it depends on how violent they are. ISIS is pretty violent, so it's not surprising if they're banned. White supremacists are also pretty violent (responsible for many large terrorist attacks as well as small ones), so maybe they are also worth banning.
dom
Simple Answer: Bodycount (Score:5, Insightful)
Are white supremacists worse than other race/gender supremacists? If so, how is such a scale determined? Further, is there a chart somewhere to delineate the severity of the wrong think?
I am sick of this false equivalency nonsense. I have a simple answer for you...bodycount. In the United States, how people have been murdered in the name of antifa or other US-based liberal organizations? Dylan Roof alone murdered 21.
Are white supremacists worse? Yes. They murder people.
When the alt-right gets angry, weapons are drawn and on occasions, such as Charlottesville, people are murdered.
When the "radical left" gets angry, they say mean things on twitter, plus whatever antifa is up to (which TMK hasn't involved any murders). What are you even talking about with gender supremacists? Are there radical lesbians murdering heterosexual men at random? Until that happens, I just don't care.
How about as a scale that once you're linked to a murder in the name of your cause, you get intense scrutiny and risk a ban on twitter?
Sure there are assholes on both sides, but the bodycount for the radical right is much higher than the radical left in US in the last 20 years, so I consider them an immediate danger and the radical left a bunch of pompous pricks who I can easily ignore by not going on twitter and telling them to fuck themselves if I meet them in person. At least I know they won't shoot me.
Re: (Score:3)
I am not so sure about that. Call it "selective memory."
If you take into account just "terrorist attacks," the data does not seem to support you.
The web page linked at the bottom is a list of terrorist incidents in America. As near as I can tell, it seems to be unbiased. If you look at incidents since 2000, it would appear that "TER-left" and "TER-right" are both approximately equal. Even more interes
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Well, I'm just going to look at the most recent item on that list (which seems to be somewhat out of date now), the Pittsburg synagogue shooting. It was done by someone radicalized on Gab, who was an avowed neo-Nazi, with connections to right-wing groups in the US and the UK. It's not labelled as political at all in your list. That significant a deviance from reality means I'm going to dismiss your source.
Re: (Score:3)
You're a disingenuous liar. The right has a neo-Nazi problem, the left does not. The shooter was involved in many right-wing and alt-right groups. I understand using facts may seem strange or unfair, but it's not. You don't get to assume a blank state when we have evidence based on his political writings and evidence of his conversations with many other right-wing people.
Unhinged, violent people don't exclusively belong to the right, but the vast vast majority do. Assuming we confine ourselves to the
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't realize we had to pick one or the other. I'm not keen on anyone that runs around crapping all over other people. Sure, in an absolute sense people that kill people are worse than the people that just crap on others, but I don't want either of them at my dinner party.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Someone is such a special snowflake that someone calling them a Nazi on the internet makes them go kill people in real-life, and you think it's debatable we should immediately kick them off social media?
I wasn't in favor of it befo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are white supremacists worse than other race/gender supremacists? If so, how is such a scale determined? Further, is there a chart somewhere to delineate the severity of the wrong think?
I think that you have to answer that yourself.
You have to compare. Is a White Supremacist equal in maliciousness to say a Gender studies major that promotes domination of men?
Given the body of work, White Supremacists are much quicker to resort to violence. Ms gender studies for all of their bluff and bluster, aren't out killing people.
So for myself, there are two separate things going here.
First there is the Kook level of SJW's. We have the racist and sexist element like Brie Larson, we have the
Re:Levels of hate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Debated, without question. Why? Because people have a way of repackaging bad ideas in "sounds reasonable" containers. That's the whole point behind argumentative fallacies. By debating these toxic ideas in the open we can expose them for what they are, educating folks along the way and helping them develop the critical thinking skills necessary to combat these issues on their own.
Hide the argument, you are only encouraging ignorance. That's far more dangerous than any consequence of allowing the speak out in the sunlight and open area.
Re:Levels of hate? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a difference between discussing whether Hitler's demonization of "non-Aryans" was an intellectually vacuous lie told to rubes to rouse the rabble... successfully one might add... and encouraging propaganda be repeated verbatim, as if it still possibly appealed as something anyone with a brain could agree to, knowing what we know now. The only people spamming Hitler's speech are not debating it.
TLDR = Scholars can debate things without spamming them in entirety and calling that re-propaganda a debate. And you don't need Hitler in the room to know his thoughts, he wrote books.
The question is why are you so focused on trying to prove a fascist autocrat correct when history already judged him a syphilitic incompetent, including his own generals?
Debate your own motivations all you need to, but it's pretty obvious. Trump isn't on the fence either.
Re: (Score:2)
Hide the argument, you are only encouraging ignorance. That's far more dangerous than any consequence of allowing the speak out in the sunlight and open area.
Twitter isn't a public meeting square. It's a for-profit company. Their interest is in keeping the largest number of users. They'd ban puppies and kittens if that'd get more users. It's that simple.
Re:Levels of hate? (Score:4, Interesting)
Twitter isn't a public meeting square. It's a for-profit company. Their interest is in keeping the largest number of users. They'd ban puppies and kittens if that'd get more users. It's that simple.
True, it really is purely a business decision. I'm not suggesting that they be bound by the 1st.
However, if we're talking about what's healthiest for society as a whole, however, it's the free exchange of ideas.
Re: Levels of hate? (Score:3, Insightful)
If they don't want to be bound by the first and want to be free to censor speech that's fine, but then they don't get to pretend that they're just a platform. The moment they start engaging in censorship they should be considered a publisher, since they are exercising editorial control. That would put them in a whole different category legally speaking; one I don't think they would like much.
They don't pretend anything of the sort (Score:4, Insightful)
Twitter never once tried to protect themselves from copyright infringement suits using common carrier. They are not nor have they ever been a dumb communications line. Instead they rely on provisions of the DMCA wherein they are protected from copyright lawsuits so long as they remove reported content on immediately upon request.
Very few companies need or even want common carrier protection. They long since lobbied Congress for other forms of protection.
Re: (Score:3)
Common carrier law allows them to censor.
47 U.S. Code Ââ230:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
"any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
Re: Levels of hate? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no meaningful difference if the person censoring you is Jack Dorsey or Donald Trump.
No difference to you, or to the law? If the former, that's a personal matter between you and your internet habits.
If the latter, there are laws that prevent the government from censoring me. There are not laws that say iHop, Walmart, Twitter, or Johnson & Johnson can't censor me, in the their privately owned forums. Twitter is a privately owned forum with terms and conditions not based on US law (with some exceptions) but based on whatever Twitter thinks will retain the most users.
If you don't like Twit
Re: Levels of hate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You hear that quite a bit these days.
What if Spectrum or Comcast started cutting off the internet to people who disagreed with their viewpoints?
My local power company is a For Profit entity, but is publicly regulated. Otherwise they could cut off electricity to people whose viewpoints that disagreed with the power company's.
Finally, these companies are currently enjoying the best of both worlds. They are protected by the Safe Harbor laws so that can't be sued for anything someone say on their platform. Tec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced. In the past I have allowed myself that behavior; my argument became a proxy for my perceived value, so of course I wasn't going to be wrong, or even acknowledge the possibility. Made an ass out of myself a few times because of it. Sure, in the moment it looked like I was refusing to concede a better point had been raised,or that my argument was rationally unsound, but such arguments led me to where I am today; capable of admitting fault.
Ultimately I did change my mind on a lot of these
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Twitter does not make these debates work very well. When you see a tweet by someone criticising a white supremacist, you rarely see any engagement in actual discussion.
It's just two separate conversations, occasionally citing each other but only in a way that means you get which ever half of the arguments suit your existing point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
They should be studied to avoid another scenario like that in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
What hate speech is coming from the Black Panthers, other than declaring that the police is biased against minorities?
White Supremacy has a long history of violence behind it, not just a few scuffles when tempers flare. And Twitter is not the US government and so is not constrained by the first amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't Louis Farrakan banned?
Re: (Score:2)
1. Apparently white isn't a color. /s
**Facepalm**
2. There is only one "master" race:
The HUMAN race
Creating artificial hashtags is precisely part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you consider that worse than all the mass murders committed by white supremacists, then you're lost.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For reference, there were 29 incidents in the USA involving murders by Right-Wing extremists in 2018. Total dead from those: 50.
Which means they make up about 1/3 of 1% of the murders in the USA....
Re:Levels of hate? (Score:5, Insightful)
What proportion of Nazi mass murders would be unacceptable to you? 1%? 10%? 50%?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like laws, you can campaign to change them. Unless you've been murdered by a Nazi.
Murder is objectively worse. If you can't see that, you're lost.
Re: (Score:2)
It's that kind of short sighted thinking which got us to where we are today.
Murder is horrible, no one argues that. But what's more damaging to a society; pervasive and state sponsored broken families or a murder? Further, understand that anti-social behavior is predicated on broken family units, specifically on fatherless homes.
If you want to significantly reduce murders ( and other anti-social behaviors ), then you need to plan ahead and cherish the family unit, not work to undermine it.
And that's not e
Re: (Score:3)
You know what breaks up families and community in a really permanent way? Mass murders. Mass murder is worse.
I don't know what the fuck you're on about with "gynocentric courts". Mass murder for the cause of racial purity and terror makes the world worse. You can appoint new judges and change laws. Feel free to go campaign on that all you like. Nobody thinks that's worse than Nazi murder sprees. If you do, you're lost.
Re: (Score:3)
And where do an overwhelming majority of these mass murderers come from? Go look it up, you won't believe me.
Point is, if you want to solve your mass murder problem, you need to solve my problem first. Banning speech won't make a dent in the problem, if anything it'll make it worse.
Re: (Score:2)
If you really think that the solution to Nazi mass murders is a return to traditional family values and a more patriarchal court system, then you're lost. You're right that banning speech won't solve the problem. Banning Nazis, and making it difficult for them to communicate their hate, congregate, plan, and stopping them from buying weapons might keep them from increasing in number and murdering.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the solution to mass murderers is a more equal family court system. Not biased for men OR women.
I said nothing about "traditional family values" for good reason: A) Those never existed, and B) even if they did we'd never be able to go back to some magical time when everything was perfect.
What I'm advocating for is a fair and balanced approach to family law which values the health and safety of the child over the bigoted preferences of the judge/mediator. A system which doesn't allow abuse and favo
Re: (Score:2)
You don't belong here - you might be sane.
Whoa now, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Re: Levels of hate? (Score:2)
White "power" is not the power structure either. It is certain people who happen to be white. A whole lot of the people who came over to America from Europe came as indentured servants. Their status was that they were slaves until the debt of the cost of their passage here was paid. Lots of them were "white".
Re:Levels of hate? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a hard time believing white supremacy is the biggest global racism issue. I can't really think of anyone in the hundreds or thousands of white people I've met in North America who would say white people are better than others due to their skin color. On the other hand, I've seen numerous places in Asia where it is completely normal for them to think of their Asian neighbors as completely less-than-human scum. Then again, maybe those folks aren't on twitter. I wouldn't know, I avoid that cesspool as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, I'm having a hard time believing (Score:2, Troll)
And very, very few on the left with argue that. Instead what you have is a bunch of right wing corporate democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer & Joe Biden who use identity politics to distract from their right wing, anti-Middle Class economic policies. They are not the
There are also few white supremacists (Score:2)
In America at least there are relatively few non-white supremacists.
The same is true about for real white supremacists. There are only a handful across the country these days.
It's like this comic I saw with a picture of two houses, one on fire and a guy with a hose spraying down the house that wasn't burning. The caption read "All Houses Matter".
Ironically that is exactly what a fire department would do in a real fire where the original house was lost, try to prevent a fire from spreading.
You pick your ba
Google "Southern Stragegy" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
and in this world today the white supremacists are the ones I'm worried about.
This. People's actions are highly situational. If you're in South Africa right now I'm sure white supremacy is the least of your worries. But here in the USA we are currently in a world where black people are protesting at getting shot at, and white supremacists are protesting that black people dare to protest about it. The latter is far more dangerous to our society than the former.
One of the problems being.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"So one of the things we're working with academics on...
I remember when academics could actually be trusted and respected when it came to free through, free speech, cognative liberty, etc.
These days academics are no longer free thinkers themselves.
Disingenuous (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
They're censoring and banning along ideological lines and they know it. The only "research" being done is how to market their actions as something else.
Re:One of the problems being.... (Score:4, Informative)
I remember when academics could actually be trusted and respected when it came to free through, free speech, cognative liberty, etc.
Speech should not be banned.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when academics could actually be trusted and respected when it came to free through, free speech, cognative liberty, etc.
Then you must be at least 200 years old.
Either race matters or it doesn't (Score:2)
Let ideas be debated (Score:2)
It is better for these controversial ideas to be debated and brought out into the light.
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part, I agree, but there are topics where "debate" doesn't make sense. Back when I was in college (over 20 years ago), the newspaper ran an article from a Holocaust denier that claimed that the Holocaust never happened. When I asked the editor why he ran it, he said he wanted to "show both sides of the story." The problem with that is that there aren't "two sides" to everything. That the Holocaust happened is historical fact. If I decided to declare that the first President of the United States
Re: (Score:2)
but you'd never convince the hard core conspiracy theorist.
You seem to have the mistaken idea that "free speech" is intended to be used to convince "the other side" that they are wrong. It isn't. It's to allow a free and open marketplace where ideas are exposed to the air, both "correct" ideas and incorrect.
It is as important to know that George Washington was the first President of the US as to know that there are those who would deny this.
advocating violence
I believe you will find a long history of speech limits in this area, compared to the simple expression of ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're on the right track, but the leftist have recently redefined speech itself as violence. Ben Shapiro was called racist by Buzzfeed for quoting statistics from Pew Research. Hell, I think it was the New York Times that called him out as an anti-semite?
The question quickly devolves into, "How do you define white supremicist?" If I say blacks in America have some complicity in their own poverty, evidence by the outcomes of recent black immigrants that rise out of poverty in much larger numbers,
Re: (Score:2)
posting to undo mouse slip moderation.
#hashtag (Score:2)
Well, that's okay, the Trolls over 4Chan have figured out that the hashtag "#" is a perfect Nazi symbol. Split horizontally it makes "H H", looks a tad like a Swastika and so on.
So the last laugh will be on them, because twitter couldn't function without hashtags, and by targeting the hashtag ######### will destroy Twitter.
IMHO Twitter is already dead. It just doesn't know it yet.
Marketplace of ideas (Score:2)
.
I know everyone is going to want to jump on the "I'm a racist card, but I am not. I just don't like censorship in any form. I would argue just as loud for any point of
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I invest in a company that is forced to let white supremacists free reign? Platforms make a helluva lot of money off of advertiser's, and if they're forced to ignore investors and advertisers to please some nebulous notion of free speech on their privately owned platforms, then they'll probably go broke on fairly short order.
This is like asking why NBC doesn't allow White Power Hour. Because it's a private company and it doesn't want it's own property sullied and devalued by Nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, the idea of excluding displeasurable groups isn't itself a problem (though consistency in terms of dealing with other similar gro
Ban all social media. Problem sorted (Score:2)
There is zero need or actual value in Facebook, Twitter etc
It's very simple. (Score:2)
Illinois nazis (Score:2)
SCOTUS made this decision for society in general. Without it, we might have missed out on one of the best scenes of all time [youtube.com], which was inspired by the actual case [wikipedia.org].
So. Let 'em tweet. They were, are, and always will be "all wet". I think we're strong enough to deal with it.
sounds like a marketing opportunity (Score:2)
Call it PhonicOx.en or IbexPoncho.com (anagrams of "xenophobic")
Keep them on FB (Score:2)
That's where they belong.
Re: (Score:2)
If twitter and facebook were nuked off the internet, all of the lollards, lickpennies and dolts that are attached to them would disperse. Many of them would come here. We don't need that.
Re: (Score:2)
If twitter and facebook were nuked off the internet, all of the lollards, lickpennies and dolts that are attached to them would disperse. Many of them would come here. We don't need that.
You forgot the twatwaffles. We sure as hell don't want Twatwaffles in here!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's ok to be white.
Re: (Score:2)
They go and congregate in their own echo chambers and amplify their ideals, which can help indoctrinate others by giving them a safe space to develop those ideals without challenge.
Social problems as such are difficult in that ideals spread and toxic ideals spread just as well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There should be no tolerance for the intolerant
OH! Contraire mon frere! The Democrats have no problem at all tolerating Ilhan Omar or Sharida Talib. I agree that they shouldn't be tolerated, but they seem to think differently.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
the american constitution does not apply to a fucking private company's social media platform.
Unless you count the power of Congress to write laws to be part of the Constitution. In that case, according to the laws written by Congress, Twitter would be exercising editorial control, meaning they are responsible for everything that is on their message boards.
Re:Ban the lot of 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
You can cry censorship and free speech all you want, no one owes you anything and the american constitution does not apply to a fucking private company's social media platform.
Don't complain when it's your opinion that falls outside the smaller and smaller window of accepted speech.
Re:Ban the lot of 'em (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
First they came [wikipedia.org] for the white supremacists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a white supremacist.
Then they came for the anti-vaxxers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a anti-vaxxer.
Then they came for the Christians, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Christian.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Re: (Score:2)
1. It's contradictory to the philosophy of democracy. The entire premise of democracy is for everyone to speak their own opinion, for everyone else to listen, and the more popular ideas gain more followers. Eventually if an opinion gains a majority of the population as followers* it can become enshrined in the democracy's laws. But if you feel you need to interfere with the process by which opinions are shared and spread (at any level
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me you're the receiver of the very hate and intolerance that those who preach against hate and intolerance claim to be against.
Let this serve as a buoy to those who bash others under the guise of fixing the hate and intolerance problem they themselves created.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a private platform. It's their property. They have as much right to censor content and throw people off as I do on my property.
Re: Ban the lot of 'em (Score:2)
Re: Ban the lot of 'em (Score:2)
But privately owned businesses have been found guilty in the courts for in some sense banning people. Christian bakers and bed and breakfast places spring to mind. So, itâ(TM)s not ok for them, but itâ(TM)s ok for such as social media companies? Ah well. Itâ(TM)s all about outrage these days. Nothing else appears to matter.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You can't debate someone who is trying to murder you or put you in a concentration camp.
People like Milo are trying to put you in a concentration camp ? You fought a war against people like him ?
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. You can't debate someone who is trying to murder you or put you in a concentration camp.
These nazis / alt-right / racial-purity people are like cancer. You don't debate cancer, you eradicate it.
We fought a world war against these pukebags and I personally see no reason to tolerate them in any way, shape, or form.
It must be remembered that these people trying to hide behind some notion of free speech would be the first to eliminate it once in power.
The only thing I like about allowing them to post is that it makes them easier to find when needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't get the memo? References to nooses or hangings is racist, you disgusting racist.
Re: (Score:2)
I've dismissed Slashdot as a wretched leftist circle jerk. Even if I'm wrong about it being 100% this. I don't care.
And yet, here you are.