Slashdot Mirror
Did Twitter Exec Censor #WhichHillary In Advance of Sunday Fundraiser, Key Primary? (dailykos.com)
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."
Twitter also scrubbed #JeSiusMilo when they unverified Milo Yiannopoulos from Breitbart.
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.
Silence is a state of mime.
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.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
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.
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.
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?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Yes.
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?
Don't you even understand that the site pointed out the two faced nature of the bitch? The Republicans would not be the one to try to silence anyone over this. Only the Which herself or #WarlockBubba would do that. Now that it has been explained to you, do you still consider it a violation of the First Amendment and a dirty trick, or has it somehow now become a virtuous act?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
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"
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 argue with him that Jeebus ain't coming back and the other I could pointlessly argue that a sea level rise of even the worst case GW scenario isn't going to even come close to "wiping out humanity." But neither one is going to listen.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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 since everything else is a protected class at this point.
Not even close! Twitter has a political agenda going on many fronts. Just see what Twitter censorship looks like in Europe!
SJW is a word used to describe the fanatical ones.
And the movement is getting crazier as the sane minds leave it.
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.
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.)
No, but it is whored out to garner votes.. "Vote for me! I care!! They dont"
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.
It's a VERY slippery slope, with several, several tempting things along the way.
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 at about the same time and out of nowhere. I've had a few PMs asking me if I knew them, who they were, where they came from. We're small but fairly active - only a few hundred people. They've never indicated why they showed up.
After a while at building up a reputation, such as it is, they've begun to make small suggestions. One of the things they're suggesting is that we need an AUP/CoC. They've all sent me PMs mentioning that there have been a few off-color jokes and innuendo. I should point out that there's no racism and no abuse. I'd not tolerate such - nor would the rest of the group.
Obviously they will never "gain power." Obviously, I will not be making changes. The only people who are offended are four people who are fairly new (no longer the newest) and they're a little annoying but not too bad, yet. They don't have proxy addresses - as far as I know. I've checked the IP addresses (admins can see that). It's almost certainly four separate people but there's a chance that it's just one person and they've never made one single mistake.
The reason for disclosing this (a first and probably only disclosure) is because community leaders should probably alert for this sort of thing. As near as I can tell, they joined simply to do this. I can not figure out, nor can anyone else that I've communicated with, what attracted them - we aren't big, noisy, or even widely known. We just all have a few things in common, a hobby, and that's it. We're not even all males, straight, or white.
I do not know if it's a concerted effort. I do not know if I was targeted. I keep a pretty clear and distinct line between myself and that identity but it's not like a secret identity or anything. I just don't think they were targeting me specifically, is the point. If you own a site and have an active community, you just might find a few people joining and then trying to control things.
I've had them, all four of them, PM myself or one of the other moderators with requests to be made either a mod or an administrator. They've said things like it looks like we could use some help (we've never deleted a comment, ever) because we're busy. They've even said things like they could run the place better and make it so that we'd attract new users. (We don't need/want more users and don't even have ads on the site.)
I'd just kick and ban them but I really want to see where this is going. I also don't want to deal with the backlash that may come from that sort of activity. They're not actively disrupting much - yet. It's slowly escalating and you can see it's a deliberate attempt to gain control and favor. It will probably come to a head at some point. We're okay with that. Then we'll tell them to stop and ban them if they don't.
Key point in this, as I know there are others here with forums and good communities, is to keep an eye out for them. If one of the moderators hadn't been alert, I might not have noticed.
Ban them. They're people from the same group behind geekfeminism and the former Ada Initiative. Entryism is their preferred tactic.
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?)
Another interested reader here. I'll read your updates too. I used to play with some phpBB forums with a buddy back in high school with active user counts in the low double digits. I'm concerned about this "entryism" tactic being used by any group of people, SJWs or anybody else.
Oh, about the forum and post count, I've learned that easily over half the posts will be in the off-topic forums. People might join a site to discuss a particular topic, but they will bring up everything under the sun wherever they are. Forums are social places (web 2.0?) and anywhere people meet, random topics occur.
About the PMs between each other: if you think these users are colluding, they aren't using your forum to do it. They might even be baiting you with the content of PMs. You say you have a "clear statement that you won't read PMs unless served a lawful warrant," and they might be testing that. So be sure to stick to your written policies. In my younger days I remember testing people's access to information by using the PM functions on forums.