Did Twitter Exec Censor #WhichHillary In Advance of Sunday Fundraiser, Key Primary? (dailykos.com) 172
An anonymous reader writes with the key claim of a story at The Daily Kos: In a truly egregious move yesterday, Twitter suspended the account responsible for #WhichHillary, activist @GuerrillaDems. Twitter also removed #WhichHillary from trending status, which is odd, considering the hashtag received more than 450,000 tweets in less than 24 hours. Twitter now says the suspension of @GuerillaDems was a mistake. Although this may just be a coincidence, it isn't the first time Twitter has exerted political control. Many users think it is a demonstrable conflict of interest, in light of Twitter Executive Chairman Omid Kordestani's Sunday, 2/28 fundraiser with Clinton.
The Daily Kos itself offers at least a perfunctory caution that it's unclear "whether it was intentional removal, or algorithmic coincidence."
It is intentional (Score:5, Informative)
Twitter also scrubbed #JeSiusMilo when they unverified Milo Yiannopoulos from Breitbart.
Re: (Score:2)
They have been doing this with lots of people. They also remove autocomplete for hashtags now.
Does make you wonder just how many people they can exclude before they lose the benefits of the network effect.
Re:It is intentional (Score:5, Insightful)
Does make you wonder just how many people they can exclude before they lose the benefits of the network effect.
Well they decided to do it with atheism, and with gamers, and now they're doing it against people who don't share their political ideology. Looks like they're doing a great job at making sure they want to become irrelevant like myspace. I wish them the best on that journey.
Re: (Score:1)
But was it a some kind of management decision, or one person, or an algorithm responding to people clicking the report button?
Twitter has a problem with harassment and abuse. Twitter has been trying to fix that, but in the process is bound to make mistakes. It's hard to draw conclusions from a small number of incidents about which we have little data. We also need to distinguish between accounts that were breaking the law and/or genuinely harassing people (like many of the GamerGate ones that were banned) a
Re:It is intentional (Score:5, Informative)
LOL you're full of crap. If Twitter wanted to prevent abuse they wouldn't have put Sarkeesian other abusers and doxers on the council. I can't imagine the level of mental gymnastics it took to overlook this.
Lets talk R.S. McCain here
https://reason.com/blog/2016/0... [reason.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well he'd be right along with the "it's localization not censorship." And would probably go out of his way to defend removing art as well, you know like this. [operationrainfall.com] Authoritarians as many people are finding out, really like trying to claim that "it's to help people" or "stop them from feeling bad" or some other BS.
Re: (Score:3)
We also need to distinguish between accounts that were breaking the law and/or genuinely harassing people (like many of the GamerGate ones that were banned) and those who are just saying unpopular things.
Going on two years, and I've been asking you for proof of that. You never show any, but repeat the same old lies. Then run away when I point out the people that you like to parrot are actively doxing, harassing, and threatening people. It must be really fun being so invested in your ideology that you refuse to question that you might actually "be on the wrong side of history." Oh, and none of the gamergate tags have been banned--they just don't auto-complete. There's a difference, in this case they b
Re: (Score:2)
Two years ago I have you a couple of links, which themselves have a huge number of references to verified, reliable sources detailing the harassment. For your benefit, I'll post them again.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G... [rationalwiki.org]
In anticipation of the inevitable ad-homs against those sites, can you say specifically which references they are built on that you take issue with? Again, I asked you two years ago and never got an answer.
I'd also like to see your evidence against Sarkeesi
Re: (Score:2)
Neither one of those are valid sources. The both heavily work via citeogenisis, and in the second case the article was heavily built by an ex-wiki editor who was banned for doing the same thing on wikipedia, not only for engaging in outright falsehoods but failing to maintain a NPOV. Several other key editors in both articles have also been banned from editing those articles, for exactly the same reasons. You go through the sources and what do you find? Nothing, it's all "they say..." there is no proof
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so again no specific complaints about any of the sources, just general vague ad-homs against the sources. In any case, here are the full, uncensored IRC logs:
http://puu.sh/boAEC/f072f259b6... [puu.sh]
http://archive.today/Ler4O [archive.today]
The second one was released by GamerGaters themselves. Documented here: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/... [arstechnica.com]
You can grep those logs yourself, and watch as they plan false flag operations, create fake social media accounts etc.
As for Sarkeesian doxing, I tracked down the original tweet: http [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you want specific complaints? Like the articles that engage in outright falsehoods, or the ones that out-right lied like xyz person left their home but actually didn't. But they still claim it's true. How about this, you pick an article that claims it's a source and I'll rip it to shreds for you. Useful tip: None of what I said was ad-homs. There were editors banned because they couldn't do their job properly, they were kicked out and banned by both sites. And they have and still do have their han
Re: (Score:2)
How about this, you pick an article that claims it's a source and I'll rip it to shreds for you.
What exactly does that mean? Are you asking for an article that is an interview with someone?
So you've found logs that make statements but offer no proof of what you're saying.
What do you dispute about the logs? Keep in mind that GamerGate released the Burgers and Fries channel log themselves. It's not quite as explosive as the other one, but even it contains lots of chatter about false flag ops and creating sock puppet accounts to do fake doxing of GG supporters.
Perhaps you should be spending that one minute looking at what the definition of doxxing is.
Doxing is posting personal information in a hostile manner, e.g. for the purposes of harassment. Since the details in the email
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly does that mean? Are you asking for an article that is an interview with someone?
It means exactly what it says. You claim the wikipedia article is legitimate because of it's sources, those sources however are not legitimate because they don't have any evidence.
What do you dispute about the logs? Keep in mind that GamerGate released the Burgers and Fries channel log themselves. It's not quite as explosive as the other one, but even it contains lots of chatter about false flag ops and creating sock puppet accounts to do fake doxing of GG supporters.
Except of course that you have no proof actually linking anyone in those logs of doing anything, all the boil down to is "words in a document." Neither one is explosive, and GG has had to deal with no less then 5 different groups trying to troll it.
Doxing is posting personal information in a hostile manner, e.g. for the purposes of harassment. Since the details in the email are not personal information (they are fake, and the fact that they are fake is quite relevant to the tweet so merit inclusion) and cannot be used to identify or harass anyone, it isn't doxing.
Doxing is the posting of any information in a manner where it's purpose is harass
Re: (Score:2)
You claim the wikipedia article is legitimate because of it's sources, those sources however are not legitimate because they don't have any evidence.
For the millionth time, which sources don't have any evidence? There are dozens of them. Some clearly do contain evidence, like the Ars article that links directly to and quotes directly from the IRC logs.
Except of course that you have no proof actually linking anyone in those logs of doing anything, all the boil down to is "words in a document."
The aforementioned Ars article, among many others, points to things that were discussed in the IRC channels and then shows the result of them being followed through, e.g. fake social media profiles with stolen/stock photos.
Neither one is explosive, and GG has had to deal with no less then 5 different groups trying to troll it.
So none of them are True Scotsmen?
Doxing is the posting of any information in a manner where it's purpose is harassment. You missed that part where she left the IP address? But if I use your reasoning, it really isn't harassment when someone tells her "she sucks" either.
Did you bother to resolve that IP address. You mig
Re: (Score:2)
Let's look at rationalwiki's rationality. A link away: Fake Geek Girl. I think most here know, what's meant by it. I do not even want to classify somebody as one or not, but look at the description:
> '''Fake geek girls''' is a [[snarl word]] developed by men with limited social skills used to describe women who partake in geek culture but are deemed sexually inaccessible to the average male geek
> by men with limited social skills
> deemed sexually inaccessible to the average male geek
[citation neede
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who never uses twitter...
It doesn't really matter whether it's intentional of algorithmic, what matters is the effect. It would only matter whether it's intentional of algorithmic if you were in a position to fix one or the other.
Now the real question is whether this will affect the popularity of twitter, but there've been so many other stories about bad actions by twitter that I expect it to be impossible to figure out which had what effect.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They pulled conservative folks also, after they hired Sarkeesian as the rad-fem Trust and Safety council head. Started banning conservative anti fems and pulling hashtags and stopping autocomplete when typing certain hasthags
Re: (Score:1)
Re:It is intentional (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think the Republicans were the ones responsible for suspending an account that pointed out the two faced nature of the Democratic candidate. I also don't think it was the commie Bernie. Maybe you need to look a little closer to home, either the Which herself or #WarlockBubba.
I find it funny you refer to Bernie as a commie, when it's been the last couple (plus the current) Presidents who keeps passing laws that are turning us more into commie russia then the freedom loving america we claim to be.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Despite the Authoritarian bent of the past and current presidents and most of the current candidates, authoritarianism is only an enabling mechanism for communism, not the goal itself. Bernie's rhetoric is pretty clearly of the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" variety, which is the goal of communism.
It happens that many authoritarians use communist rhetoric to seduce populations into ceding power to them, but that is not the only kind of rhetoric that achieves that goal.
BT
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm... Maybe I'm missing something. How are you defining communism? Also, how are you defining freedom?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You might be on to something. 'Cause I did pay attention in school and now that you point that out - it makes some sense. While you're certainly not "right" with the hyperbole, you're close enough. I'm pretty sure "all the people" can't actually be wrong. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
As near as I can tell, they'll throw the label "communism" on anything. They'll do the same for "socialism." They'll do the same thing for "fascism." Oh, wow!
That makes me curious...
Of the three (or pick yo
Re: (Score:1)
Ha! I'd a conversation with the missus earlier. It was short. She came into the bedroom and I was rooting around trying to find my keys and phone. I have a terrible memory at times, I'm okay with it. It wasn't a frustrated rooting or anything, just normal rooting for something I've lost - I'm old and kind of used to it. It always turns up eventually.
Anyhow, she tries to help me find stuff and I paused and I was working back in my head where I last so the keys and phone. I'm standing there pondering (head pr
Re: (Score:1)
Well, in fact, circles do have more than one side... an inside and an outside. :)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You are an American and can't differentiate between which and witch? That tells a lot...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't see why 'which' and 'witch' are used so often as an example of homophones. They sound similar, sure, but not identical like 'their', 'they're' and 'there'.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the Republicans were the ones responsible for suspending an account that pointed out the two faced nature of the Democratic candidate. I also don't think it was the commie Bernie. Maybe you need to look a little closer to home, either the Which herself or #WarlockBubba.
Sanders is not a commie. You don't have him suggesting overthrow of your corrupted government. A government where $ buys the congress, and where it's fuck the people.
Is your job or your neighbours still in the USA or has it left for parts unknown? Your future lies in India, Malaysia, Burma, China, Philippines, Mexico, Latin America.....
When Universities become "For profit" institutions, quality education suffers. Americans cannot compete with universities that provide quality Education as a priority. Want
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We'll have to setup a Republican Foundation... take bribes for access to Washington... refuse to send help for a few stupid diplomats...
Give us a few years, and we'll catch up to the Democrats... a few Decades...
Re: (Score:2)
What, Republicans doing "dirty tricks"?!? That's never happened before!!!
Right, and Democrats have never, ever played dirty tricks. Both parties are corrupt in their tactics, not to mention in other things.
Bow before the DEM anointed (Score:5, Insightful)
The Daily Kos itself offers at least a perfunctory caution that it's unclear "whether it was intentional removal, or algorithmic coincidence."
When ever did a twitter algorithm, remove a trending topic that was not hate speech?
This was almost certainly intentional. The only real question is was it paid for by Hillary or a staffer. We will likely never know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't you hear from your local SJW? Being against Hillary makes you sexist. It was hate speech. ;)
Re:Bow before the DEM anointed (Score:4, Insightful)
The Daily Kos itself offers at least a perfunctory caution that it's unclear "whether it was intentional removal, or algorithmic coincidence."
When ever did a twitter algorithm, remove a trending topic that was not hate speech?
This was almost certainly intentional. The only real question is was it paid for by Hillary or a staffer. We will likely never know.
Hate speech ? What's the opposite Good Think ? Think about it, if you still can.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all double plus good.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't call people I hate names. I smile at them and talk sweet while I plan their demise.
Re: (Score:1)
No, no it's not hate speech. Even if such a thing (hate speech) existed, it is not that
There is no such thing as hate speech. There's just speech. How you interpret it and what you do in response to it is up to you. Rather than try to muzzle others, block your ears.
Party Elites trying to shut down insurgents (Score:1)
In both GOP (like the fake attack on Trump by Cruz/Rubio) and the Democratic Party (by Clinton surrogates).
It won't work.
It is/was intentional.
America hates the Beltway Elites and their non-functional Congress.
Re:Party Elites trying to shut down insurgents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
In fact, the success of both the Trump and Sanders campaign are ample evidence that people are getting pretty fed up with this kind of bullshit. People don't like being TOLD who to vote for! This was the same phenomena that got me elected Student Government president in college; the corrupt dorm manager told everybody working for him and everybody living in the dorms to vote for his hand-picked candidate -- so they all voted for me instead!
Surprisingly, I was elected to SFU Student Council on the same kind of feeling. There were all these people running, and I made fun of how serious these PoliSci people were running to fill a general or Minor position on council.
Elites create the conditions that remove them, without realizing it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Given a choice between lies that reflect contempt for establishment wisdom and talking points and lies that are carefully crafted by focus groups: I'll choose the outrageous and unbelievable lies any day of the week.
If Donald Trump promised to invade Pluto, I would vote for him that much harder. If Bernie Sanders promised to nationalize the banks: I would vote for him that much harder. I don't believe we're invading Pluto, and I don't believe Bernie Sanders can single-handedly nationalize the banks, but bot
Re: (Score:2)
Two things, neither of which is important and then some conversational gibberish that's not really important at all.
1. Trump is bought and paid for. He's bought and paid for himself. That's a good or a bad thing, depending on your view.
I've been paying attention and it's very clear, as I've said multiple times, that I'm a Sanders supporter. I'm also pretty damned left (by US politics) but for vastly different reasons than the Dems.
2. And, as I've been paying attention, I've noticed there's actually an almos
Re: (Score:2)
(Disclaimer: I'm a Sanders supporter too.)
Some people seem to be supporting Hillary because they think she has good policies. More power to the people who believe this. Whether it's true or not (that she has good policies), this is a good reason to support a candidate.
Unfortunately, many people seem to be supporting her because "it's her turn" or because she's a woman and they want a woman President. (Search Twitter for #ImWithHer for twe
Re: (Score:1)
I could agree with that but, as near as I can tell, not too many people are even putting lip service to that. I hear nearly nobody saying that the support her policies - and I've been listening. Well, "nobody" is an exaggeration but it is slight. Very few and very far between... Hell, not even NPR is saying that, at least not often.
Then, and you know it's coming - I'm sorry to have to do this to you, how can they say such things and be truthful about it? Does anyone actually support her policies? The polici
Re: (Score:2)
I almost wonder what would happen if Hillary got the Democrat nomination, the GOP dumped Trump (through some backroom procedures, most likely) and went with Cruz or Rubio, and both Sanders and Trump ran (separately) as third party candidates. Obviously, Sanders would draw mainly from the Democrat side while Trump would pull mostly from the GOP side. Would their third party runs weaken one side more than another? Would the effect of two strong third party candidates make the election close enough that one
Re: (Score:2)
I definitely agree about run off voting and the electoral college. For the former, I'd love to say "I really want this candidate, but I'll take that candidate next, and if I really need to I'll hold my nose and vote for this third candidate." For the latter, I live in New York. No matter who I vote for, it's almost a given that my state's electoral college votes will go to the Democrat nominee. The problem with both is that the current system favors the entrenched parties and they will use all of their
Re: (Score:1)
Here's the truth, and you'll probably rage against it - Americans hate everybody, even (and especially) other Americans. This bizarre hatred has been cultivated in the populace for some time now since the US is needed as "hired muscle" by the global elite. Since you're raging against a sub-group, you're one of the manipulated. You can ineffectually rage all you want now, but that doesn't change anything.
Private entity (Score:1)
Didn't Citizen's United make it legal for a corporation to support a political candidate in any way they choose?
Twitter can refuse to provide service for the opposition (delete every post) if it choose to do so, and there ain't shit any one can do about it.
Re:Private entity (Score:4, Insightful)
Twitter has become a partisan hack site rather than a communication platform -- as is their right. Likewise, it is my right to have deleted my account. No worries.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Twitter owned by shareholders who will raise hell if the credibility of the service is trashed due to political biases of the employees operating it?
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't Twitter owned by shareholders who will raise hell if the credibility of the service is trashed due to political biases of the employees operating it?
Yep. One of the former founders who is now back running as CEO seems to be jumping all over the "criticism is harassment" bandwagon as well. Twitter's dump in stock price also seems to reflect investor lack of confidence in him and the company to act as an open platform which they claim to be. Then again, there's also the possibility that the current CEO and current executive board knows that the company isn't recoverable and is deliberately tanking it so they get bought out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, where's the hate speech in "you suck" or "show proof" or "you're presenting lies in your stories." Well, you'd say there are none. I'd say there are none, but according to the new twitter STASI council, those are all hate speech. But you're right...kind of, there's a lot of people out there that don't like their ideological bubble challenged. And there's an entire generation that's been fed that BS for the last ~20 years as well. One of the reasons why in a lot of political circles these days, you'
Re: (Score:2)
"Criticism is harassment"? And yet, when I and others were actually harassed on Twitter (by a psycho who believed god spoke with her and told her we all did some pretty disgusting illegal things), their response was that she's only "said" she was going to do things (like report us to the police or contact all businesses we deal with to warn them away from us) and hasn't actually DONE anything. And when she actually was kicked off Twitter, she just signed back in under a new account. (She's had something
Re:Private entity (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't Citizen's United make it legal for a corporation to support a political candidate in any way they choose?
Twitter can refuse to provide service for the opposition (delete every post) if it choose to do so, and there ain't shit any one can do about it.
Absolutely. That doesn't mean inhibition of speech shouldn't be called out though.
An enterprising lawyer might make a case about the Communications Decency Act and that entities seeking safe harbor shouldn't just be protected from liability when exercising discretion, but said discretion should be held to something higher than an arbitrary standard... Older FCC-style "equal time" discretion or something... But that probably wouldn't go very far. The market should and will decide these things.
FTR, it's not just "Hillary" stuff, the recent SJW wisdom has caused random Conservatives to get disappeared as well:
http://nypost.com/2016/02/23/twitter-targets-trolls-but-winds-up-silencing-conservatives/ [nypost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter recently formed the Orwellian-named âoeTrust and Safety Councilâ to propose changes to the companyâ(TM)s use policies. The goal, according to a press release, was to find a middle ground between permitting broad free speech and restricting actual abuse.
But practically none of the 40 people chosen to be part of the council are all that concerned about free speech. In fact, most of them work for anti-harassment groups and seem likely to recommend further limitations on online expression.
Wow, so much innuendo and speculation. It's funny how they complain about the lack of free speech, while not bothering to even contact Twitter for a quote. I guess that might have undermined their paranoia.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter can refuse to provide service for the opposition (delete every post) if it choose to do so, and there ain't shit any one can do about it.
Wouldn't that be true even without Citizens United? The equal time rule only applies to radio and television as far as I'm aware; no one is guaranteed a platform to speak on Twitter. I'm the last person to defend the Citizens United ruling but it seems irrelevant here.
Re: (Score:2)
The equal time rule doesn't apply here; if it did, the way it would apply would be to force twitter to torpedo all trending political hashtags.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Citizen's United make it legal for a corporation to support a political candidate in any way they choose?
No.*
Twitter can refuse to provide service for the opposition (delete every post) if it choose to do so, and there ain't shit any one can do about it.
Yes.
* No. Citizen's United v. FCC (assuming that's what you're talking about) in 2007 is often misrepresented and there's a lot of misinformation about the case and the ruling. As I'm unable to guess what you believe to be true (but can infer that you don't actually understand the case or the ruling), all I can do is suggest that you take a few minutes to get to understand it. It's one of those things that people seem keen on lying about and lots of people don't bother actually doing the research themse
Opps (Score:2)
now you see my true form (Score:5, Insightful)
A: Okay, Twitter is going to be a beacon of free speech. We're not going to censor it in any way, and we're going to fight anyone who attempts to like hell.
B: Great! I agree. This is going to be a great site!
A: Uh, okay, people are pretending to be other people for purposes of satire. We should probably add some sort of verification so that people can know tell the real person's account from the joke ones.
B: Makes sense.
A: Right, now let's just shut down those joke accounts, to minimize confusion.
B: Uh... wait.
A: And a bunch of people are being mean to other people. We'll just shut that down as well.
B: But--but--
A: Now, that may be unpopular, so we'd better organize a committee made up entirely of people on a single side of the political spectrum to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't.
B: Now just hold on a min--
A: Oh, and according to our committee, all the people on the other side of the political spectrum are the ones being mean. We'll just ban them outright.
B: [censored]
A: Actually, why don't we just start censoring things all the time for no reason, with no real justification or even a discernible pattern.
Re: (Score:1)
Beacon of free speech? You weren't on the ground floor then.
I joined twitter before smart phones really got a good grip on society. The purpose of twitter was to allow you to keep in contact with people on the internet via snippets in SMS. That's why there is/was a 140 character limit.
Nowhere did it say it was a beacon of anything but social networking right in your inbox on your phone. I agree this is underhanded and bullshit, but I never was promised anything.
I also quit using it a few years ago as it
So what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do use it when I want to keep up with news stories before they get posted to news sites. Also good for things where it's hard to find media actually covering it. (Early days of the oregon refuge terrorists for example)
Re: (Score:2)
When I read stuff like this, I really wonder if there is an alternative internet out there that some Slashdotters are on which is going to hell, because Im still seeing a healthy, useful Twitter - and the last time I read something directly from Twitter that matters was about 3 minutes ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I still like Twitter too. I think the key to Twitter is the same as the Internet in general. If you follow good people, you'll have a good experience. If you follow garbage, you'll have a rotten experience. If someone you follow starts posting garbage, you can just unfollow them to keep your feed clean and useful.
The trick is that what's good to one person is garbage to another. You or I could recommend people for others to follow but those others might say the recommendations stink. Not because the t
Did Twitter Exec Censor #WhichHillary? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes.
Re: (Score:3)
No, no, that's not how Betteridge's Law of Headlines works. In fact you have it precisely backwards!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh okay, fine!
Happy now?
It is Always easier... (Score:4, Insightful)
to ask for forgiveness than to get approval.
All these "coincidences" surrounding Hill's campaign?
So... (Score:2)
All the tinfoil crackpot conspiracy theories true (Score:3, Insightful)
Well close to it,...........
They continue to censor hashtags in the name of "anti-harassment" the /extreme/* SJW's continue to dox people, harass them, incite having people be fired. Fools like WilW promote his shared blocklist which censors 11,000 people (As someone who got on that list for a single, very harmless tweet, I assure you, his list is ridiculous as is the concept of sharing a blocklist, thereby getting blocked by hundreds of others you've never interacted with, because "groupthink!!") /extreme/* SJW's continue to get away with lies / libel / hypocrisy, if you disagree with them or say "god you're an idiot" the return will be "did you just say you hate niggers and threaten to rape me?!" they (/extreme/* SJW's) continue to misrepresent what people say and HATE being disagreed with.
Continually hashtags are suppressed with auto-completion not working or not being listed as trending topics.
The
The PRIMARY message of SJW's, overall is one of being nice, not racist, not sexist and so on. Therefore of course debating with them, it's easily implied you're against those things. Problem is the /extreme/* SJW's hijack the cause and take it to extremes. Censoring debate of any kind.
I wish I'd never discovered any of this but the more I look into it, the worse it gets, these people are smart, they build contacts within communities in the name of "anti-harassment" and helping, once they have their teeth in, they control what's being discussed. Anything that doesn't fit the status quo, in almost any capacity "must be harassment and needs to go"
* NOTE: I have the /common fucking sense/ to not label ALL SJW's as extremist loonatics, MANY of them are perfectly normal, nice, people who just want a bit of equality, the bad ones, using bad methods are the problem here. I am capable of distinguishing the fact that "not all SJW's" are loonies. It's a real shame that the loony SJW's don't have the common sense to stop claiming "all men are rapists" or any other such thing.
(I hate to bring up gamergate, but as someone who has spent a fair amount of time reading on this, it's incredible how much vitriol has been spit at this group, with only a small fraction of them being dicks, don't let that stop a HUGE group of people and the media endlessly claim that it's 100% without question internet misogyny terrorism of the highest order though)
Anonymous post again unfortunately, lest someone tryu and get me fired or arrested. ...)
(and the fact I feel compelled to post anonymously is a real issue on this, especially since "they don't harass"
Re: (Score:2)
SJW is a word used to describe the fanatical ones.
And the movement is getting crazier as the sane minds leave it.
Re: (Score:1)
"SJW is a word used to describe the fanatical ones."
With fanatic usually defined as "anyone who calls me out for acting like a dick".
Re: (Score:2)
By some fanatical right wings wanting to cash off it yes, but in most cases are people that have completely insane ideas like sexist air conditioners, banning halloween costumes, anti free speech protests...
When its nutty enough to became the buttend of some jokes, its an SJW.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a VERY slippery slope, with several, several tempting things along the way.
Re: (Score:1)
You are not ALLOWED to disagree with the SJW Commissars. To disagree with their "enlightened wisdom" is a clear sign of badthink.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This must be posted anon. I've a forum that has a number of people. It's pretty active but has a limited scope. I never bring it up on Slashdot, nor is it relevant where the site is. I do not even use the same username on that forum.
Over three days four people joined and started being active participants except they don't have any domain knowledge. They literally don't know anything about the subject. Though, they've picked up a little bit now - at least terminology and whatnot.
Anyhow, they all joined right
Re: (Score:3)
Ban them. [ibiblio.org] They're people from the same group behind geekfeminism and the former Ada Initiative. Entryism is their preferred tactic.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good to me, personally I'd consider reading the PM's - see just how the collusion is going on entirely. (Do they make it known that they know each other?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Like many other mediums, once they start censoring, they should lose any Common Carrier status or equivalence. Thus, Twitter becomes responsible and liable for content they carry. Let's see how many paid moderators they can afford. The lawyers could get rich on this stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
That seems reasonable, or at least consistent with the laws of the last few decades.
I'm not sure I actually agree with that stance, but I'm rather sure that unless the general principle is overthrown that it's bad to allow some groups to censor communications without repercussions and not allow others. Now to what extent any groups should be so allowed...
The standard that if you control what is being communicated, then you are responsible for it and if you don't you aren't is at least intelligible.
Re: (Score:2)
"SJWs like to tell us that freedom of association died with the Civil Rights act,"
You're the first person I've ever heard say that.
Here's tidbit that will make your day: It's perfectly legal for you to make a whites only club! Just don't open a bar with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a SJW.
Commercial freedom of association died with the Civil Rights Act. That is just a historic fact. If you are running any kind of 'public accommodation' you don't have freedom of association in the USA.
So host your forums overseas.
First time Twitter Censorship? (Score:1)
So, Join The Crowd... (Score:2)
Big whoop. The commissars of the ominously named "Trust and Safety Council" have been trying to purge Twitter of all conservatives, or any users who are insufficiently communist. That may be PART of the reason why Twitter is shedding users and the stock price is cratering.
When Twitter goes bankrupt later this year, perhaps something more inclusive can be formed from the debris.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation required]
And no, picking some random "entertainment" outlet or blog doesn't cut it.
Yes. Yes they did. (Score:1)
Not only censor it.
But started autosuggesting whichtrump, whichsanders, and whichcruz when you typed in which.
I'm sure it's a concidence that twitter is a big clinton supporter.
(ironic. a clinton govt would do more to censor twitter itself than any other.)
Here is the only reason I need to not vote for her (Score:1)
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237
Democrats are so ignorant (Score:4, Insightful)
[derp-like typing detected] (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't have a dog in this fight but you point out spelling and then call him a juvenile. You call it juvenile name calling. You then call them a loser.
Yet, I bet you feel like you're better than they are. We can probably infer your political affiliation. As the adult in the room, I'd like to point out that you're reaping what you sowed.
At any rate... Do you not see the irony in your answer? And no, don't try the "it was intentional!" thing.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Am supposed to find the anti-vaxxers, environmentalist wackjobs, and SJW victimhood peddlers on the left "rational"?
Don't kid yourself. No political party has a lock on reason, civility, or moderation. It's only a difference of what they're being irrational reactionaries ABOUT. Does it really matter at the end of the day if the guy holding the "THE END IS NIGH!!!" placard and screaming that we're all gonna die is a bible-thumper fanatic or a global warming alarmist? I guess with one I could pointlessly argu
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it is whored out to garner votes.. "Vote for me! I care!! They dont"