Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Claims Twitter Is Suspending 'OpISIS' Member Accounts (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Anonymous has claimed that Twitter mistakenly shut down several of its activist accounts in a widespread cull of pages belonging to terrorist supporters. In an effort to rid the site of an extremist presence, Twitter has recently suspended over 125,000 accounts for 'threatening or promoting terrorist acts, primarily related to ISIS.' However, the international activist group Anonymous is now reporting that among this number were multiple member accounts, which were actively supporting the fight against the Islamic State and helping to seek out terrorist supporters and recruiters online. Twitter has typically re-opened the Anonymous accounts within a matter of hours, bombarded with requests by hacktivists and the wider online community.
So the whole point of OpISIS is to shut down ISIS, and Twitter is shutting down ISIS.. I fail to see the problem here.
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
Judging from the suspension of the account of journalist Robert Stacy McCain, disagreeing with Anita Sarkeesian seems a far more serious offense to Twitter's "Trust and Safety Council" than openly supporting Islamic terrorists.
They also refuse to restore his account or even detail why it was suspended.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Sounds like Twitter forgot to take advantage of RFC 3514. More generally, I'd like to see this implemented more generally. It would make things a LOT easier!
Big difference is that ISIS members do not crap their pants when they see a mall cop.
Facebook started word based ban lists few weeks back, and old posts are removed if they have such a word. Tranny is on the list, which for many mechanics wonder wtf facebook was going on about their posts being against decency rules. Also Milo's "Dangerous Faggot Tour" posts are removed due to Faggot being banned. I wonder if there are any smokers who got their posts removed too. There there is the whole Twitter going after Milo, so social media censorship is getting out of hand.
I remember back when Microsoft banned usernames with Gay, and a bunch of people couldnt register if they had Gay in their names.
Its like 1990's internet all over again, banned words everywhere.
When private organizations (or worse even government) start trying to stifle debate, you hurt both both sides. And in America such organizations are hurting one of the basic freedoms that is supposed to distinguish America from places like Russia or China: The ability to have open debate on any topic, no matter how distasteful (note: threat is not debate). Yet without debate, we all just become mindless drones (which is what most governments like anyway). All of this is a modern examples proving what Ben Franklin said so long ago: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Killing open debate in this way (and killing opinions of people who may be in opposition of ISUS (ISUL) agendas in the process), doesn't create any additional safety: Supporters will just move on to other forums (and those supporting things like this seem to have no problem finding where other supports are), and the those against them will have a harder time dissuading them, because non-supporters of an idea don't find their opposites nearly as easily. "Like begets like" I think is the phrase here. We need a better way to influence through open debate rather than try to stifle it. Historically, it never seems to work anyway. Of course we can point out the obvious here: the KKK and Neo-nazis never had nearly big a reaction to their published statements, even when they were truly statements pushing for true domestic terrorism (as opposed to just speaking against current government practices which has often been labelled as "domestic terrorism" even when purely non-violent). But the reason for that is clear and sad: They were for the most part only threatening non-caucasian, so the powers that be didn't care nearly as much. We don't even seem terribly concerned that the KKK is supporting Donald Drumpf (trump via legal name change). We have such a long way to go before we truly become a "civilized" people...
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Friendly fire.
Anonymous should just be grateful that it's nothing like the real thing.
Have gnu, will travel.
Speech intended to incite crime (whether violent, like terrorism, or virtual, like unauthorized access to computers and information) is not protected.
Yes it is.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
ANY federal law that abridges freedom of speech is unconstitutional. Further, any law at a state or local level is also unconstitutional as the first amendment describes a right reserved for the people.
If you can conclusively prove that someone's speech directly resulted in violence you can prosecute them for their role in that violence.
However you cannot legally prosecute them for their speech, nor can you legally restrict their speech. The fact that people are prosecuted for their speech and do have their speech restricted is not evidence that speech isn't protected, it's evidence that judges who restrict speech are fucking idiots or tyrants (or both).
People care little about the US First Amendment rights apparently. You are allowed to say only things that they agree with. The assault on free speech with the shadowbanning of conservatives is an amazing thing to watch, but most people just shrug it off and dont realize how serious it is. All people are equal, but it appears some people or more equal than others.
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
You are completely correct and I was a little too brief in my comment and should have mentioned this. But it is still a completely fascinating thing to watch. It is amazing to see liberal minded people do an about face and deny other people the ability to voice their opinions. Screaming "racism" and labeling everything "hate speech" in order to make sure yours is the only voice that is heard is an interesting thing to witness. It is also very dangerous when powerful entities such as Facebook and Twitter engage in this behavior. I guess if you are a billionaire it's ok to attempt to force the world into your narrow view?
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
I guess if you are a billionaire it's ok to attempt to force the world into your narrow view?
Oh wow, so you must really hate Rupert Murdoch then, right?
Yes. Rupert Murdoch, the Koch brothers, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, etc.
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
Yeah, I don't know about that. Everybody in that list is trying to make an ever-increasing profit via a company or investment they control. Only some of the people in that list have a secondary goal to reshape the world in their narrow view (which coincidentally often involves them making more money). I don't think you can lump FB and Twitter in that second list, and the reason is very simple: their profits are directly and tangibly related in near real-time to the user's ongoing satisfaction and participation in their service.
Mark Zuckerberg just wants the maximum number of FB users possible. He has figured that in order to keep users they need to be satisfied with the service, and in order to maintain their satisfaction it is necessary to curb the behavior of certain users who have a tendency of making it an overwhelmingly unpleasant place for a larger share of other users. Notice I'm not making a value judgement about each class of user here, I'm just describing an algorithm. As the owner of the largest collection of user metadata / demographics / behavioral statistics in the history of time, I have to assume that Zuckerberg's algorithm is correct with respect to its end goal (saying nothing of its ethical merits). If this 'censorship' was adversely impacting their subscription counts, you'd best believe it would stop right quick, and it hasn't. Just like in real social circles, when somebody in the group has an unpopular view and just can't shut the fuck up about it or at least discuss it civilly, everybody has a similar choice to make: disband the group, ostracize the outlier, or everybody just be miserable. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, when you find yourself on the wrong end of this logic, that is not 'social justice' or 'suppression', it is math.
I am confounded by this ongoing conflation of social dynamics (almost never fair) with constitutional freedoms (fair, but people never seem to know when they apply). FB and Twitter are not critical infrastructure or utilities requiring guaranteed access. Net neutrality does not mean that everybody has to listen to your shit, only that you have a right to put it on the internet. There is literally nothing stopping an ostracized group from creating a new virtual (or real) social circle. If the group was, as claimed, being unfairly targeted by a mean ol' minority with an agenda at the old spot, then this new circle will surely flourish as a place of freedom, right? Or, it could be a sad masturbatory echo chamber, which really ought to serve as a clue to said group. Neither outcome has shit-all to do with freedom and censorship, and it is hardly the bellwether of tyranny as you seem to imply.
And seriously, objectivity aside, how can you not see the immense irony in this particular set of views, which seems so often to revolve around 'the world is not PC, deal with it you thin-skinned baby', crying their goddamned heads off about how everybody's being so mean to them? Behind all those professional liberal PC reactionaries we all love to hate, there are plenty of real legitimate cases of people in the actual physical world who have had their shit severely messed with over matters of prejudice in some form or another. You'll have to forgive me if my heart does not exactly bleed for the guy who got his twitter badge taken away for posting a 'bitch, make me sandwich' joke and then cried to the White House like they were supposed to do something about it (which no doubt would be called tyranny if they did, and the sides were reversed).
.
speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely
[...] But actually trying to incite hacking into systems right now, or actually trying to incite murder right now, are outside the boundaries of protection.
FTFY.
If I say, "Someday I'm gonna murder the mayor," I'm okay. If I say, "C'mon, everybody, grab your guns! We're gonna march on city hall and kill the mayor!" and people start doing it, the cops can come in and arrest me for my speech. But I would also assume that if I said that and everybody laughed and kept playing parcheesi, I'm okay.
As I understand it, you can say whatever you want. However, the first amendment does not protect you from the consequences of your speech. If you incite people to do something illegal and they actually do it, you can be held accountable for their actions. So if I suggest to my adoring fans that they go out and shoot someone and one of them does because I suggested it, I can be arrested as an accessory or some-such to the murder. As I understand it, it even goes as far as if I say, "I wish my boss were dead" and my adoring sweetheart goes out and kills my boss to make me happy, I can be arrested.
You didn't cotton on that the entire thing was making fun of the GP's ludicrous allegation? Or did you think I really think Anita Sarkeesian turned me into a newt? *facepalm*
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.