Twitter To Get Even Harsher On Trolls (cnbc.com) 183
Twitter is cracking down even harder against trolls, including temporarily barring accounts that are harassing other users. From a report: In a blog posted Wednesday, Twitter's vice president of engineering, Ed Ho, announced more safety measures to stop abuse on its platform. One of the methods includes using the company's internal algorithms to identify problematic accounts and limiting certain account functions -- such as only allowing the aggressor to see their followers -- for a set period of time if they engaged in troublesome behavior. Twitter said it was also open to further action if the harassment continued. Other anti-trolling tools include new filters to let users see what kinds of content they want to view from certain accounts and well as allowing people to "mute" tweets based on keywords, phrases or entire conversations.
There go (Score:2)
Trump's and JK Rowling's accounts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I expected it as a new variant of the "fist prost"...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa - too far! (Score:4, Funny)
I can see banning harassers, etc., but trolling is one of the cornerstones of the internet.
Re:Whoa - too far! (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately once you grow to maximum-troll, the only way to remove that to attempt to keep growing is to prune hard, which will harm the business in the short to medium term. Just look at what happened to Reddit, their attempts to remove unsavory elements that were preventing growth caused the business to shrink. Perhaps they'll be able to grow, but I haven't been back to Reddit since the 2016 presidential election cycle got going, and I expect that it's still a wretched hive of scum and villany.
Escalation of Terms to Justify Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Disagreement is now harrassment.
Mockery is now hate speech.
Offense is now trauma.
Criticism is now abuse.
Compelling criticism is now violence.
Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll.
Anyone at random is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc if they say so.
The use of this alarmist (and usually, simply wrong) language is ubiquitous and deliberate. It's all a pretense to justify a disproportionate censorial "response," especially when they know no response is warranted at all. It's also a brazenly transparent tactic, especially since Twitter/Reddit/etc rarely seem to use it against users that properly align with their politics.
Re: (Score:2)
DemocraticUnderground festered nicely into nothingness on the eve of the last election.
Did I mention how nicely?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, go start your own web forum. If you don't like what Twitter does, there's a whole world out there
I remember when Diig and Fark said similar things. Funny old world. Facebook is still around, but the kids aren't really using it. Twitter is just an odd duck - people really seem to want it to survive, so they're trying to be helpful and explain
Someone already did (Score:3)
Well, go start your own web forum. If you don't like what Twitter does, there's a whole world out there. Go to it. But I guarantee you, if you simply allow the cranks to control your medium, it will fester into nothingness.
Someone did, it's called Gab.ai [gab.ai], and it's specifically a haven for free speech.
Their version of censoring is to let everyone censor what *they* see on the site. An individual can "mute" other users or specific words, so if someone keeps posting things that bother you you can "mute" them so that you don't see them. If individual words trigger an unpleasant memory for you, you can mute individual words and you'll never see them.
The thing about calling people racist/sexist/nazi is definitely real.
Kellyanne Con
Re: (Score:3)
Nice non-sequitur. But you didn't nothing to refute his points. Sure there are some actual neo-Nazis in the world, tiny groups here and there, but almost everyone labeled as a neo-Nazi on social media isn't.
So, not only is the censorship getting out of hand, but no one cares any more when you call someone a neo-Nazi. This has made the actual neo-Nazis, few though they may be, quite happy.
Re: (Score:3)
Trolling is a artform. At least the good trolling of the olden days. Iregardless of how I feel about the old definitions however, it, seems the definition is changing to simply mean "being a dick". That begs the question though of weather we should keep using the old definition. It's just like "cracker"---it used to be used for a good stuff, but the media has made it synonymous with hacker now, implying its uniformly bad. I guess I could care less though. Language changes.
Re: (Score:3)
Trolling is a artform. At least the good trolling of the olden days. Iregardless of how I feel about the old definitions however, it, seems the definition is changing to simply mean "being a dick".
Yeah, that's about it. Trolling has more or less become the province of griefers, who have no tact, cleverness, or subtlety. There's no craftsmanship to it anymore. It used to be a good troll could keep people going for days and days, but now it's akin to just taking a dump on the dinner table and running away.
Re: (Score:2)
YHBT HTH HAND
Re: (Score:2)
Well played sir. Hook, line, and sinker.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a moran. "Trolling is a art" is a classic troll, as are all the other things in that post.
Re: (Score:2)
Soon, only Blue Butt Ferries and unicorns will be allowed in Twitter posts.
I believe he understands (Score:3)
Yes, if this guy went through high school, I could imagine he knows what it means to be a target of abusers.
Fuck twitter. (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitter? You mean the internet company that doesn't understand the internet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
No Thank You. I don't need a Trust and Safety council anymore than a Ministry of Truth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Twitter? You mean the internet company that doesn't understand the internet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
No Thank You. I don't need a Trust and Safety council anymore than a Ministry of Truth.
Its really fascinating to me to watch this. Twitter like the Democrat party is doubling down on all of the things that are responsible for their decline.
When I was a teenager I was pulled over for speeding and had a list of excuses I decided to work through from top to bottom. After about 5 minutes the officer said to me calmly, "When you find yourself in a ditch the best thing to do is quit digging."
A lesson Liberals desperately need to learn.
Re: (Score:2)
A lesson Liberals desperately need to learn.
Liberals? No. Democrats? Yes.
Dear Democrats: have you forgotten what is is to be liberal?
* Identity politics: not liberal.
* Being a moral scold of any variety: not liberal.
* Dividing people into two groups, the "elite, with proper credentials from the right schools" and "dumb hicks who can't be trusted to know what's good for them": not liberal.
Yet those three points are all I've seen from the American left for over a decade now.
Re: (Score:2)
A Karl of Swindon video... I hate to ad-hom the guy, but I don't have the will to subject myself to him right now.
What matters to Twitter is the bottom line. They obviously think that trolling does them more harm than good. The fact that 4chan is dying suggests that they may be right.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter has never made a profit. They have lost $2 billion in 10 years [time.com].
Twitter is a weird mix of money-losing leftist propaganda machine and pyramid scheme. It's not a business that makes rational decisions.
Well, you're probably the expert on 4chan, but it isn't bleeding money at anywhere near the same rate as Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't normally post videos of any flavor of talking heads but that video is relevant to any discussion on Twitters censorship behavior. If there is an issue with that video I will hear you out but if all you do is dismiss it through ad hom then you add nothing to the conversation. If you have an issue with the arguments and evidence portrayed, name it or leave it. I don't need to know your opinion on the presenter and personally I don't care because I am not posting that video for the presenter.
The reason
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you like videos, this is a great one about the PewDiePie situation: https://youtu.be/GjNILjFters [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
He is so right. Nazi jokes are bad as are jokes about the holocaust. My grandfather died in a concentration camp in WW2 when he fell out of the guard tower. Anne Frankly, I am offended when anyone makes fun my families tragedy. We should say enough is enough with these nazi jokes because they make me fuhrerious.
But seriously...
WTF am I watching? A guy upset that he doesn't like certain types of satire, doesn't understand context like the WSJ, upset that pewdiepie is successful, doesn't understand humor and
Echo, echo, echo... (Score:5, Interesting)
Leave your dissenting opinion at the door please.
And nothing of value was lost (Score:2)
Twitter: The Confetti of The Internet
I just wish I had the inclination to piss away my time spurting out pearls of wisdom 140-characters at a time. Oh, wait, no I don't.
Re: (Score:3)
Old man waves his cane.
I can't wait for him to hear about/encounter snapchat. That should be hilarious.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't wait for him to hear about/encounter snapchat. That should be hilarious.
Follow me on Twitter and you'll be the first to get the benefit of my insightful opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
Well played, sir!
Sounds like they're driving. . . (Score:3)
. . . . more users to Gab [gab.ai], where the only filters on what you see, are the ones **you** set on your own account
Re: (Score:2)
. . . . more users to Gab [gab.ai], where the only filters on what you see, are the ones **you** set on your own account
The average celebrity has an order of magnitude more twitter followers than Gab has users.(Heck, even a spoof account does [twitter.com]) As much as I'd like there to be an alternative, a service with 0.04% the users doesn't feel like a challenger.
Re: (Score:3)
As a 5-digit Slashdot user. . . .I'm amused. Slashdot wasn't originally a Thing, either (and honestly, no longer as much of a thing as it was in the days of Peak Slashdot).Gab is still in beta and has a waitlist. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention its overt political bent, both in intent and in user base. A site with a pepe-lookalike for a mascot infested with far-right wingnuts will never gain mainstream support.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, more centipedes in the den of centipedes, and less on Twitter. Everyone wins!
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone loses. The value of resolving disagreement through frank discussion instead of violence is quite high. It's also a core liberal value.
Re: (Score:2)
Hurling abuse at black celebrities etc. isn't a form of frank discussion. That's what these people are being banned for, for the most part. And you can't resolve anything through discussion when one party has "alternative facts" that they're sticking to despite the best evidence that they're wrong. At that point, it's like fighting with a pig: you'll both get dirty while achieving nothing, but the pig will enjoy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, there's a tiny percentage of the banning that makes sense. Most of it is blatant political bias, though.
The shareholder lawsuit is going to be epic (Score:2)
I can't believe that no law firm has tried to organize a shareholder lawsuit yet. I bet it would be fascinating to see the discovery period when Twitter has to show how much it spent in money and manpower to implement these features at the behest of SJWs and then explain to a jury how they planned to meet their responsibilities to shareholders by openly attacking half of their potential users. It is not an exaggeration to say that this is now in the same sport, if not league, as what was done to Nokia.
FFS,
Re: (Score:2)
The reality here is that if there was to be a lawsuit, it would be because Twitter didn't take stronger action sooner. It's pretty strongly suggested that Disney abandoned buying Twitter, which would have made a lot of shareholders a lot of money, precisely because Twitter didn't go after trolls more strongly. In fact, so far as I can tell, a lot of the reason that Twitter is now instituting much stronger measures is to make sure the next buyout isn't scuttled.
Re: (Score:2)
You can either be a platform for free discussion, or the sort of property Disney would want to own. You obviously can't be both. Twitter's mistake is that they keep trying to straddle the line. They would benefit from moving in either direction firmly, without looking back. Either moderation appropriate for a Disney site, or free speech. Being stuck on blatant political bias makes them toxic.
The real question (Score:3)
Are they blocking trolls or just people they disagree with? Also, why aren't the twitter users just ignoring accounts they don't like?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a good example of what they're doing: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1... [dilbert.com]
Supressing fake news, so that's good. (Was Adams always a douchenozzle or was that a recent development?)
Censoring criticism and creating a echo chamber (Score:2)
Seeking bodily safety from incorporeal text (Score:3)
Who else would want this but the crybully?
Their efforts are doomed to failure (Score:3)
It isn't even theoretically possible to formulate an objective definition of "abuse," and when all definitions are subjective, all decisions on who is abusive are subjective. There is literally nothing that anyone can say that won't offend someone.
There is only one thing they could possibly do to "stop the abuse," and that is to shut Twitter down.
I'd be fine with that.
If you have something to say that can be said in 140 characters, you have nothing to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus, kid, take a basic Philosophy 101 class, huh? This is basic stuff. Are you also going to say that there are no facts, as well?
Re: (Score:2)
The what's your objective definition of what is abusive? If it's that simple, the only reason for you to not provide it is that it's not that simple, and you're lying about it being that simple.
Take your time. We'll wait.
Outlook is poor (Score:2)
45 (Score:2)
I'll only believe their intentions are good if they ban Trump. He's the biggest troll on there right now.
Narrative Control Tools. (Score:2)
It's not "harassment", it's all about controlling the narrative against political opponents of Twitter's owners.
Re:oh no my hugbox (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to see the business that identifies "problematic accounts". In fact, if I were them I'd be very open about it. Otherwise it's censorship.
They can't be transparent, because they're targeting the political opponents of the twitter admins. The second they admit that -- openly or accidentally -- shit is going to hit the fan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:oh no my hugbox (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently you have no clue what censorship is.
Nobody's saying you have freedom of speech on Twitter.
That doesn't mean you still can't have issues with censorship.
And Twitter most definitely DOES.
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC is the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Government censorship is a kind of censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Government censorship is illegal. That's the big distinction.
Twitter users are not customers of Twitter. They are freely giving content. Nobody is forced to pay for Twitter or to use Twitter. You are forced to pay for the government. Nobody will stop you from creating an alternative to Twitter. If you want to form an alternative government, well, it was tried in the 1860s and didn't work out so well.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But it's possible for Twitter to still censor, even when the stuff being censored meets its criteria for acceptable content.
Simply because they're a private company doesn't mean they can't also be censorious outside of their AUP.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Government censorship is illegal. That's the big distinction.
That's a distinction. Other interesting distinctions are: desirable, moral, etc.
Twitter is a big platform. Their censorship is generally harmful and undesirable. We'd be better off without their blatant political bias, for all that they're legally entitled to it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Their censorship is generally harmful and undesirable. We'd be better off without their blatant political bias"
But how can I tell if what you are saying is true if you can't point to the comments that you say were unjustly pulled.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and those distinctions are best made by people's decisions.
So, we're back to, "If you don't like how Twitter works, don't use them."
Wrong (Score:3)
First of all, it's a private company doing it, so it's not censorship - you don't like Twitland, go back over to Faceplace - it's not like there aren't other alternatives. Same with the second comment - people who like the service will keep using it. Those who don't will find another platform for their trolling - I'm sure 2chan or something like that is still available. Free market in action, baby...
Twitter being a private company does not mean that they can't censor, in fact we know that Twitter and places like "Faceplace" as you so kindly put it, they do censor. The question is whether or not a private company can legally censor and should protections be put in place to ensure people know that information is censored.
I believe that they have the legal right to censor, but also believe that they should be required to provide legal notification on what they censor and why. There is a difference betwe
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
It's their platform. They can do as they please. Don't like it, find somewhere else to post.
It's fair game to criticize Twitter, if you feel they've done wrong, but I find the idea that you want some sort of mandatory regulation more than a little absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
They can do as they please.
Subject to the rules they must follow. Let us keep in mind that if they portray themselves in public, for example, as being the place where you can write what you think, and they censor you for writing what you think, then that's violating truth in advertising laws which a number of countries, including the US, have.
Re: (Score:2)
while i don't like it, i'd have to say that at some point, we're going to have to re-examine the role of social networks in the public life and public discourse.
it might not be today, it might not be tomorrow, but i think it'll be soon. we limit freedoms in a variety of ways ostensibly to promote a healthy society. and when social networks become large enough and vital enough, i think they'll need to get looked at in that regard too.
as a thought experiment, if twitter brand gum were a thing, and twitter re
Re: (Score:2)
All of a sudden you want to enforce "truth in advertising" laws? Do you love Big Government that much?
It's contract enforcement which is not "Big Government".
Second, the people who are being "censored" on Twitter are not the customers of Twitter. Nobody pays to post on Twitter. So, I don't see how the "advertising" even matters in regard to Twitter users.
It's quite irrelevant to the discussion what role a user plays in the business model.
While what Twitter is doing may be broadly defined as "censorship", there is absolutely no law against what they are doing. Not in the Constitution, not in the legal statutes, and not in case law. It still comes down to, "if you don't like the way Twitter works, don't use Twitter".
I already cited a counterexample which if you recall, you dismissed on the grounds that it was "Big Government", not that it was incorrect.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
So, Twitter can do "anything they please", huh? Let's examine your premise a bit.
First, censorship can happen on a lot of levels and in a lot of places. Just because the Constitution forbids only the Federal government (and, by extension in later amendments as well as by state government Constitutions, state governments) from creating laws to censor speech, doesn't mean that what Twitter is doing here (and Facebook, Google, et.al.) isn't censorship. It is. Let's be clear about that. These companies are engaging in censorship, and they can do a great deal of it. If you're unclear just how pervasive it can be, here is a primer for you [usnews.com] on how Google censors voices.
Next question, can they really do anything they want? Twitter and Google and other ISPs have certain protections from torts (lawsuits) through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, a federal law. It basically says that sites like Twitter cannot be held responsible for user-generated content hosted or available from their site or services. That's a HUGE benefit provided to these companies, that individuals do not get. But, the more an operator edits or manages the user content on their site, the more they expose themselves to being liable for that content.
It leads one to wonder: If government has provided this awesome protection from liability to Twitter, wouldn't it be the responsibility of government to ensure they are providing an open platform (that is, NOT engaging in damaging censorship). The censorship Twitter and especially Google engages in is certainly damaging. There are many cases, and many lawsuits about Google silencing people. In Europe and other places with less protections for free speech, Twitter must comply with guidelines that require them to censor content, and they do just that. Governments have recognized that Google is so large and so pervasive that it is one of the few companies they can go to that can effectively censor content in their country. So clearly Twitter is much more than just some private entity among a large set of competitors. And for Google, using their "malicious website" lists, they can basically censor content at user's client computers.
Think about something else. The US government imposes a large number of regulations on businesses. Using the "public accommodation" definition, business are banned from discrimination, are required to accommodate the needs of the disabled, provide specific services for patrons on an equal basis, and much more. The FCC requires broadcasters to submit ways that they are of benefit to the community. We have common carrier rules that prohibit censorship over some communication channels. In many ways, Twitter is identical to a common carrier, but with even greater influence over communications.
With only 6 corporations controlling most of the media, and only 3 companies controlling most of the Internet, I think it's time we were a little more realistic about what is happening and what can be done about it. These companies can control the narrative and basically mind-control vast portions of the public.
Do we really want to just throw up our hands and declare "Well they're private companies they can do anything they want?" Even when the result could be controlling the opinions and minds of most of the country?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the preferred platform for POTUS to speak to people is not as important to the public as a baker... You're telling me that a baker has more impact on society and is forced by law to be impartial yet Twitter, the preferred platform of POTUS to speak to people, doesn't have an impact that demands the same impartiality?
You don't see anything wrong with that?
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's a good thing that the US isn't based on Petry's Beliefs.
Private enterprises such as Twitter control their own content. They are not obligated to tell you why they decided to block something. If you don't care for it, then find a different platform to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Private media companies are surely able to do as they please, but they also have a public obligation as a public facing company to present themselves _honestly_ to the public. Their TOS and EULA do not state that they banish people expressing opinions that don't fit their political leanings, which would surely have impact on how many people join, or continue to use, that service.
I have no problem with businesses who interface with the public being biased, controversial, or even portraying things I disagree
Re: (Score:2)
Their TOS and EULA do not state that they banish people expressing opinions that don't fit their political leanings, which would surely have impact on how many people join, or continue to use, that service.
They have Twitter Rules in their TOS(https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311#), and those outline what is and isn't acceptable. They are not banishing people for expressing a different political opinion than of those carried by the operators of the service. They suspend/ban accounts that break their rules of appropriate behavior. They will not allow the harassment of other users, and if there's a particular group on the political spectrum that are more prone to harassing others, that is not singling out
Re: (Score:2)
They suspend/ban accounts that break their rules of appropriate behavior.
Right, so the mass of Conservative and Traditional Liberal (Sargon of Akkad) accounts were banned simply due to breaking rules. Anyone looking at bans can see is completely arbitrary and based on political opinions Twitter execs feel is a threat to their leftist leanings. Evidence does not support your claim, and the TOS does not admit that they ban people on the Conservative side simply for being Conservative and arguing against Leftism. You, like them, are being dishonst. Shame on you.
Re: (Score:2)
If Brietbart is alt-right then so is every other media outlet. Alt-right is an arbitary term which is tacked on to anyone that does not support Leftism, just like homophobe, xenophobe, islamaphobe, racist, bigot, rapist, and countless other terms. You have lost all credibility and can no longer use the term to any effect.
Funny how you people advocating leftism can cherry pick a few articles out of hundreds of thousands published to label one media outlet with right leanings, but ignore all of the leftist
Re: (Score:2)
Brietbart IS alt-right. The people who run it have specifically said so. They labeled themselves, not anyone else.
Also, Alt-right is not in fact a label applied to anyone who's not left-leaning, but if it makes you feel better believing such is not true, then so be it.
There are conservatives/republicans who disavow the alt-right movement for the same reasons that liberals/democrats do. Their behavior isn't accepted on either side.
As for the source I used, it provided the necessary evidence to show that the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
... right because impartiality of public accommodations is for chumps amirite?
How much influence on our political system does twitter have if that is the preferred means of communication of the POTUS? At what point does that platform need to be as impartial as a baker to ensure our public accommodations uphold the law and our values?
Twitter likes to hide behind the "we private company can do what we want" but then play the "we're a free speech platform we don't have to be impartial". It's a bad joke that a
Re: (Score:2)
Hey. The right got rid of the equal time rule in broadcast media a long time ago. Here you go and try to bring it back online. Doof.
Re: (Score:2)
Because twitter is anything like a radio or broadcast television? Hint; it isn't.
There is a difference when you say something compared to when you enable someone else to say something. Just like there are different rules when you drive a bus for the city compared to driving yourself around the city. The bus driver is a steward for the safety of the passengers and as such is operating under similar yet different rules (CDL v DL).
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how it could ever be enforced.
"Ok, we have now spent half an hour on that informed and well-researched lecture on the issue. Now, to speak for the other side, here is Professor McFartypants, who we picked up from the street and gave ten minutes to prepare. Half an hour each, fair and balanced!"
Re: (Score:3)
It IS censoring...it's just not against the law for a private company to do it on their private platform.
People should call them out on it because it is at odds with the intent of the platform.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, you just called them out. Now what?
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that. They're probably making MORE money when they dump the trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
it's a private company doing it, so it's not censorship
Another one who doesn't understand the difference between free speech and the 1st Amendment.
More to Free Speech Than the First Amendment (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, it's a private company doing it, so it's not censorship
Let's put this myth to rest. Free speech is a bigger concept than the 1st Amendment (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters).
The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment [aclu.org] wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:
https://www.aclu.org/other/wha... [aclu.org]
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
Was there a "Second of all"?
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, it's a private company doing it, so it's not censorship
False. Nothing else you write is worth reading.
Re: (Score:3)
One of them being Scott Adams. Welp, all the people claiming he was paranoid sure are looking like morons.
Re: (Score:2)
the more Pepe memes will slip through your fingers.
Well, if the slip through and on to other sites like voat, then they probably feel that's mission accomplished.
Re: (Score:2)
But they don't punish racism. If you post "kill whitey" they won't do a thing to you.
Re: (Score:2)
If you drive them away, and get more non-racist users a a result, then that is just what you want as a company.
Thing is, Pepe isn't a racist meme. If you drive them away, you lose the creative and interesting element of your platform,but the actual racists are still there. Don't #GasTheJokes
Re: (Score:2)
are you telling me there are people who hate to read his tweets but they follow him anyway? As I suspected, the average twitter user is a low watt bulb
Re: (Score:2)
If they were actually booting Nazis, that wouldn't be so bad. The problem is the left's Nazi detector has completely lost calibration and now identifies anyone to the right of the love child of Jane Fonda and Joseph Stalin as "literally double mega hitler." This makes them look insane to normal people.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's better to push "trolls" or whatever we're calling worthless hateful fucks who harass others online these days underground. A few will resort to more damaging behavior but most will just have to keep their toxic mind-sharts to themselves or confined to places that are already irredeemable cesspools of trolling/hate speech/whatever. The good outweighs the bad there.
Next, censorship by a private company is not comparable to censorship by a government. There are sites out there with all kinds of st
Re:Sets a bad precedent in many ways (Score:4)
whatever we're calling worthless hateful fucks
Funny, you're the only one I see spewing hate in this conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you forgot what this conversation is about them: It's about people spewing many forms of bigotry (most specifically misogyny, anti-semitism, islamophobia and plain ol' white supremacy) on Twitter. Or did you just turn a blind eye to it?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about that. It's about moral scolds like you falsely claiming that, because you enjoy a good moral scolding.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe it's about closet bigots like you falsely claiming that it's not, because you enjoy practicing bigotry.
See? Anyone can make a partisan knee-jerk dismissal. But mine doesn't require me to downplay well-documented bigotry.