Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Censorship Government Social Networks Twitter United States Politics

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Did Twitter Exec Censor #WhichHillary In Advance of Sunday Fundraiser, Key Primary?

Comments Filter:
  • It is intentional (Score:5, Informative)

    by NaCh0 ( 6124 ) on Friday February 26, 2016 @07:48PM (#51595591)

    Twitter also scrubbed #JeSiusMilo when they unverified Milo Yiannopoulos from Breitbart.

    • 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.

      • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashiki@@@gmail...com> on Saturday February 27, 2016 @12:46AM (#51596877) Homepage

        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.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          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)

            by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Saturday February 27, 2016 @06:31AM (#51597549)

            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]

            • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

              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.

          • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

            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

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              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

              • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

                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

                • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  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]

                  • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

                    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

                    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      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

                    • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

                      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

                    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      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

              • by allo ( 1728082 )

                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

          • by HiThere ( 15173 )

            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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

  • by wbr1 ( 2538558 ) on Friday February 26, 2016 @07:51PM (#51595603)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Didn't you hear from your local SJW? Being against Hillary makes you sexist. It was hate speech. ;)

    • by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Friday February 26, 2016 @08:31PM (#51595835)

      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.

  • 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.

    • by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Friday February 26, 2016 @08:15PM (#51595755)
      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!
      • 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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)

      by perlface ( 1776706 ) on Friday February 26, 2016 @08:08PM (#51595711)

      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.

      • 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?

        • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          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.

          • Or the shareholders will agree with the board that taking harassment seriously and demonstrating effectiveness in culling hate speech actually enhances the credibility of the service. At least that is how I would pitch it to them. And sadly, they and the general public might well agree that it's good to turn Twitter into a safe zone. Most people don't really want free speech, they just want to be able to say what they want and not have to listen to "undesirable" opinions.
            • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

              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'

          • "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)

      by Etcetera ( 14711 ) on Friday February 26, 2016 @08:35PM (#51595863) Homepage

      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]

      Twitter recently formed the Orwellian-named “Trust and Safety Council” to propose changes to the company’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.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        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.

    • by ShaunC ( 203807 )

      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.

      • by mellon ( 7048 )

        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.

    • by KGIII ( 973947 )

      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

  • Seems like they "fixed" part of the mistake, @guerrilladems is working again. But per hashtags.org #whichhillary is no longer on the list. I don't actually use Twitter, so I have no idea if there is an actual "trending" page or if it's all just inside the platform itself.
  • by Pseudonymous Powers ( 4097097 ) on Friday February 26, 2016 @08:12PM (#51595741)

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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

  • Twitter was already galloping towards MySpace-style irrelevance anyway. This only accelerates it on it's path. Nothing posted to Twitter matters; when was the last time YOU actually read ANYTHING directly from Twitter?
    • But news agency are finally starting to catch up on the "twitter craze". Think of the Mainstream Media!
    • by Sowelu ( 713889 )

      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)

    • 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.

      • 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

  • by fizzup ( 788545 ) on Friday February 26, 2016 @08:17PM (#51595763)

    Yes.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 26, 2016 @08:20PM (#51595781)

    to ask for forgiveness than to get approval.

    All these "coincidences" surrounding Hill's campaign?

  • Should we tweet this, or will it be magically deleted?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 26, 2016 @09:04PM (#51595995)

    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!!")
    Continually hashtags are suppressed with auto-completion not working or not being listed as trending topics.
    The /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.

    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" ...)

    • by Z80a ( 971949 )

      SJW is a word used to describe the fanatical ones.
      And the movement is getting crazier as the sane minds leave it.

      • by Boronx ( 228853 )

        "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".

        • by Z80a ( 971949 )

          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.

    • 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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

      • Ban them. [ibiblio.org] They're people from the same group behind geekfeminism and the former Ada Initiative. Entryism is their preferred tactic.

  • SJWs like to tell us that freedom of association died with the Civil Rights act, so let's take it a step further. If you offer a public accommodation like a social media site, you are held to the same standard as a diner in Alabama. Twitter should have no more of a right to ever censor or moderate or mess with anyone's posting on Twitter than a diner owner can turn away people of different races, men or women, different religions, you name it.

    It's long past time that political views became a protected class

    • 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.

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        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.

    • by Boronx ( 228853 )

      "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.

    • 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.

  • Not even close! Twitter has a political agenda going on many fronts. Just see what Twitter censorship looks like in Europe!
  • 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.

    • by DamonHD ( 794830 )

      [citation required]

      And no, picking some random "entertainment" outlet or blog doesn't cut it.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.)

  • Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237

1 Sagan = Billions & Billions

Working...