Slashdot Mirror
Twitter CEO Dick Costolo Secretly Censored Abusive Responses To President Obama, Says Report (buzzfeed.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from BuzzFeed: In 2015, then-Twitter CEO Dick Costolo secretly ordered employees to filter out abusive and hateful replies to President Barack Obama during a question and answer session, sources tell BuzzFeed News. According to a former senior Twitter employee, Costolo ordered employees to deploy an algorithm (which was built in-house by feeding it thousands of examples of abuse and harassing tweets) that would filter out abusive language directed at Obama. Another source said the media partnerships team also manually censored tweets, noting that Twitter's public quality-filtering algorithms were inconsistent. Two sources told BuzzFeed News that this decision was kept from senior company employees for fear they would object to the decision. According to sources, the decision upset some senior employees inside the company who strictly followed Twitter's long-standing commitment to unfettered free speech. A different source alleges that Twitter did the same thing during a question and answer with Caitlyn Jenner.
I would have loved to see what was filtered out...
The following account has been suspended for violating our terms of service of not agreeing with us politically.
As an avid anti-Obama person I can't say that I really care. As much as I think he's been a poor excuse for a president, almost as bad as his predecessor, he's still the President of the United States. I think the office deserves respect even if the person holding it doesn't. If people can't express their displeasure without nasty, obscene and abusive language then I feel Twitter should censor them. If they want to practice their first amendment rights it is not incumbent upon Twitter to allow them a platform for it.
This way they can always point to the comments and say look how many people agree. It's part of a no-negativity culture. Helps hide the truth. Imagine finding out that your post with 1000 likes actually was hated by 100,000 people?
They don't do this for donald trump or any other figures who don't fit he agenda.
What?
Q: Do you filter out certain Tweets before they appear on Twitter? A: No
Our users now send a billion Tweets every four days—filtering is neither desirable nor realistic. With this new feature, we are going to be reactive only: that is, we will withhold specific content only when required to do so in response to what we believe to be a valid and applicable legal request.https://blog.twitter.com/2012/tweets-still-must-flow
I thought this falls under the aegis of "MOST OBVIOUS FUCKING THING EVER" though admittedly, to some people it might not occur to them that they'd do it, that only puts them in the running for "MOST OBLIVIOUS PIECES OF SHIT SINCE THAT GUY WHO DEFENDED HIS SON FOR RAPING A DRUNK GIRL" which admittedly, isn't the broadest of categories, but there's a sure load of people who can't figure out a damn thing.
I fail to see how silencing the GNAA trolls during a Q&A session is cause for great hand wringing. It didn't say they filtered "conservative viewpoints" or "reasoned criticisms"... they said "abusive responses." And it's Twitter's 1st amendment right to allow abuse (within the confines of the law) or not on their platform.
Nothing posted to
The Insult the President because he is an american hating Nazi Muslim that wants your guns forum is at Fox news. ( and Rush, and Beck)
This was a Question and Answer session.
The Vitriol would have made the trolls happy and got on of the participants questions answered.
They don't protect from abuse or harassment, they just protect the leftist narrative. Anything that challenges it, no matter how trivial, is deemed "abuse" or "harassment" for emotional appeal.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Given prior reputation with Twitter being aligned with the SOCJUS left, they'd let GNAA go nuts.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Naturally, you can't expect president snowflake, the only man to ever get a Nobel Prize for teleprompter reading, to see what we really think of him.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
he is the President of the USA and for that alone deserves at least some basic level of respect.
Fuck you. He signed extensions of the PATRIOT act multiple times. He deserves no more respect than any other power-grubbing scumbag who ever held that office.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Any public communication platform will, sooner or later, find itself at a crossroads where it must decide exactly how committed to free speech it is. A quick perusal over on Usenet or the Retroshare forums will yield plenty of generally-undesirable content, from bomb making instructions and targeted verbal abuse to racism and anti-semitism. A forum that allows truly free speech - as those networks do - will unfortunately attract those kinds of users. Twitter is stuck deciding whether it's better to start moving the line of acceptability as to limit speech 'for the greater good' (a case reasonably made for death threats and verbal abuse), but then be in charge of constantly deciding what falls on either side of that line, a task from which they will never be able to free themselves thereafter.
Users expect Twitter to filter undesirable speech. Twitter expects users to do their own filtering. Back in the Usenet and IRC days, only the latter was technologically possible, and today it is only technologically possible for Twitter to perform the filtering because they've opted to be the repository of the content - a model that can make them money, but in doing so leaves them stuck trying to decide who's being thin-skinned, who's being genuinely threatening, who's exercising their freedom of speech, and who's costing them the good will of their userbase.
This is how you deal with things you don't like on the internet. Twitter users have forgotten this.
I was banned in a forum once for being abusing and was not. AFAIK, I've never been abusive, it's just not something I do and besides, usually have numbers and references to back up my view, which honestly, I wouldn't have if I didn't have some sort of background. I'm not smart enough to make up opinions out of nothing.
You know what? This is what happens when you put your speech in the hands of a private owner. They can take their liberties with what's in their control. Isn't really anything you can do, other than put your message into another channel of communications.
That said, I'm not ovewhelmingly sad to see the equivalent of intentionally insulting graffiti cleaned off of a private wall.
There's plenty of horrible corners of the internet if you just want to rah-rah your favorite politics-ball team.
Once when I was on unemployment, I discovered one remarkably horrible spot, where apparently a group opposed to poor people not starving seemed to spend all their time demeaning and insulting everyone asking for help with the unemployment system, where it was typical to spend hours waiting on the phone for their antiquated system, so folks went to the forum to see what they could do... and faced throngs of punch-down heroes extensively exercising their right to shame those in need during a recession.
Of course, since that was a conservative state, there was no 'censorship' of that free speech... but I really wouldn't have wept for it. Would have taken some effort in the name of reducing the shame of those in need though, so no chance.
I believe the word the linked poster was searching for was "edited", not "censored". When a private organization chooses what to print and what not to print on its platform that is editing.
sPh
So the rationale is: "Fuck the president, because he hasn't completely fixed all the fuckups from the previous president"?
Gotcha.
Regardless of your personal view of Mr. Obama, fact is he is the President of the USA and for that alone deserves at least some basic level of respect.
As soon as "made it to the Presidency" is synonymous with "almost certainly the wisest and most noble person available" then you won't have to ask for this kind of respect. It will occur automatically because it will be the most natural thing in the world. It is natural to respect someone who is inherently respectable.
Until our political system is entirely restructured and works an entirely different way than it does today, no one occupying the office deserves anything until such time as it is earned.
I was banned in a forum once for being abusing and was not.
There are a lot of "special snowflakes" who think "doesn't agree with me, and even worse, provides evidence to back his/her disagreement!" is the same thing as "abusive and offensive". They blame others for being better informed rather than blaming themselves for spouting off without recognizing the depth of their own ignorance.
I'm not smart enough to make up opinions out of nothing.
I've never seen an intelligent person do that.
Obama and Cat should be able to enjoy all the comments directed their way for what ever reason!
Let the comments live; Vive La Comments.
I used to think Quora was cool, but there was a day that they started censoring replies to Hillary Clinton's answers to question (well, probably her staff's answers).
I read through her answers and found one of them to be particularly deceitful...beyond normal political spin. So I replied with a stern but thoughtful and truthful post. I did not engage in ad hominem or say anything derogatory. I was clearly not trolling and the follow-up discussion under my thread was outstanding.
After about an hour, the post disappeared without a trace. No communication to say that the post was flagged or in violation of their terms of service. I've seen very edgy and far more provocative pieces stand in comparison to what I wrote.
It's become clear that they were only interested in being a mouthpiece for Clinton and her platform. Quora was unwilling to communicate about the censorship despite my repeated attempts to contact them, even to employees who had previously reached out to me. It was utter silence. Since then, I've seen extended invitation to the liberal side of the political aisle to promote their "answers" (read: agenda) into the feeds of their readers. They're supposed to be interest and preference driven, but oddly enough I get all of Clinton's rhetoric despite having signed up for math and science subjects.
Anyway, I know that Quora isn't Twitter, but it is alarming how hard these social media companies feel compelled to censor the dissent against their prospective. What are they afraid of? I also find it disgusting that they act so anti first amendment in the country and culture that allowed them to thrive. Flaming hypocrites, all of them.
I can say anything I want! You can say anything you want unless it offends me.
Liberals in this country have become dictators. Dishonest bunch of mooks are so upset that others don't think like they do, and they believe they know best and others are too stupid to get through life without them, so they use their power like the arrogant dictators and shut down all other ideas (while preaching to the unwashed masses from their ivory towers we should listen to other ideas and keep an open mind). Hypocrites who will be hung from lamp posts if they continue on this path.
What difference does it make? --Hillary Rodhamn Clinton
Actually, it seems reasonable to me to filter out abusive and hateful replies, since it's unlikely they'll add much to the discussion.
Are people spouting racial epithets or hurling insults going to encourage any thoughtful responses or materially improve the Q&A session? No, probably not.
I also think that general interaction with the president of your country should be conducted with some decorum by default, but maybe that's just me. Maybe I'm just out of touch.
Even the presidents and politicians whom I can't stand would get some basic civility and respect from me, in some cases the bare fucking minimum. In terms of the president, whether or not I like whoever it is, if we ever meet he/she will get some respect and civility from me.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Renewing the Patriot Act doesn't qualify as neglecting to do something. It's an active affirmative move. It involves the same amount of paying attention to what he was signing it as vetoing it.
That's the problem.
Donald Trump isn't POTUS.
He hasn't earned any respect at all.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Compare that to /.'s moderation system then.
That's a bit of a dick move.
If you abuse a right, you risk having it taken away from you
No, you don't. Rights aren't privileges. The right to free speech is inalienable.
Don't be a Dick
abusive means "not on the pre-approved list"
Just an FYI: That bill came to his desk, from a Republican-controlled Congress.
More like, fuck him, he didn't even attempt to roll back any of Bush's power-grabs. Not to mention, he decided that he's entitled to kill American citizens without so much as an indictment, let alone a conviction in a court of law.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Is that supposed to be an excuse?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
They have an algorithm that changes "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays" for 3% of tweets from certain geographics between Thanksgiving and Dec 25.
Because that's how the leftist SJWs control the narrative.
Normally I would go on a rant about how I am deleting twitter right now. But I am not even sure I still have it installed. I got a few dozen followers and then sort of found it all stupid. It was just "BUY MY CRAP" "I AM SO COOL" "BUY MY CRAP" "I AM SO COOL" "BUY MY CRAP" or and, "I am so witty"
Really only congress can roll back the power grabs. Obama at least put a stop to torture, but it won't make a difference to the next president unless Congress acts.
Play Command HQ online
We used to have a much freer and diverse web until about 7 years ago. We had separate social media platforms for everything from blogging to photo sharing to music. And we had (still have) the open RSS standard to combine feeds from various sources.
And yet people voted for a monolithic, closed web with Facebook and Twitter. 2 easy chokepoints that can be shut down at a whim, as seen in Turkey with the recent coup. Even if Slashdotters personally don't use these services, the vast majority of people do, and no online business/marketing strategy is complete without involving either or both of them.
Today Facebook is a single point of failure for the average user, one place where their entire online history and interaction is available for scrutiny if the account gets hacked. The internet is fast turning into a monoculture
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
he is the President of the USA and for that alone deserves at least some basic level of respect.
Fuck you. He signed extensions of the PATRIOT act multiple times. He deserves no more respect than any other power-grubbing scumbag who ever held that office.
-jcr
That's what Democrats do. That is why I voted for Obama, twice. That is why I am going to vote for Hillary.
Have a policy that we don't like? Guess what, we have a policy you don't like. Maybe we can compromise, and take the stuff you hate most out of my policy, and the stuff I hate most out of your policy, and pass them both together. That's what happened with Patriot Act under Obama. He agreed to water it down and keep parts of it, in exchange for other stuff that the Republicans Congress wouldn't other agree to. It is called "compromise."
No President in history has, and no General has ever asked for or recommended, a wartime policy where persons engaged in combat are excepted from being shot depending on what passport they have, are believed to have, or might have since you haven't searched them.
You're talking about people overseas in war zones. Nobody cares what fucking passport they have; if you go to war, you might die. If you go to war with the United States, you might die at the hands of US military equipment. That has absolutely fucking nothing to do with indictments, convictions, or courtrooms.
In the imaginary world you seem to believe exists, every rebellion would succeed, because there would be no way to get convictions before the rebels took over everything, and you couldn't even shoot them.
Try engaging even one brain cell before regurgitating crap you read in the letters section of the local free weekly paper.
The trouble with people today is we don't want to see, read, or hear what we don't like. We want a filtered world which provides us with Utopia. Obama as President clearly needs to respect others opinion because it's important as a President to get all thoughts from all the people. After all a government representative is supposed to support all people. You should not be censored for having differing opinions or saying something someone deems negative.
It becomes a problem when social media and even news media begins to decide what is correct and what is not. This violates freedom of speech like it or not.
Putting a spin on the news or communications is their decision. But lying about it and claiming that what you see was not edited is a problem.
You're talking about people overseas in war zones
Yemen was not a war zone that the US was participating in on the ground. The U.S. citizen(s) killed there was actively sought out and assassinated. Now, you can argue that that jackass was actively planning attacks on the U.S. I won't disagree with that. But, at some point there should have been a judge/jury (even in absentia) unless his death was required to prevent an imminent attack. And even then, the evidence should be required to be presented to the public to prove it wasn't an abuse of power.
Just another day in Paradise
corporations have rights
Let's compromise. You build the left half of the car, I'll build the right half of the car, and we'll stick it together with superglue.
persons engaged in combat
Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't in a war zone, and neither was his kid.
Try engaging even one brain cell before regurgitating crap
Follow your own advice, you bootlicking jackass.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I am just utterly shocked that anyone would think that a public question-and-answer session for the President would not be censored, whatever media was used.
Obama at least put a stop to torture,
You think so? Do you also think the media would mention it if he didn't?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
At the end of the day, this isn't a conspiracy to shield Obama. Its Twitter acting out of its own self interest and not wanting its abuse/trolling problem to end up on the 6oclock news. If you ran a platform that you knew was full of toxic folks and had no plans to address it, you'd sure as hell have a way to quickly cover that parts up for high profile events.
and even criticism. Is it any wonder The Zero is such a narcissist?
whatever abuse he gets. There are good reasons people are pissed at him and he needs to face reality.
The only questionable action was that it was kept quiet.
They should have just spelled it out in a Q&A policy announcement.
"We won't feed Trolls"
To add to this....distasteful, controversial and unpopular speech is exactly the type of speech you most want to protect.
With changing years, and opinions...you never know when the speech YOU feel is right and the most important, will be the one that the masses try to suppress.
It isn't the easy going, popular and non-controversial speech that needs protection.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If you abuse a right, you risk having it taken away from you
No, you don't. Rights aren't privileges. The right to free speech is inalienable.
Wow, so nobody has ever been put into a concentration camp? Or been enslaved? Or forced into prostitution? And all those school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram was just another lie?
Rights are taken away from people all the time.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I agree with you in principle, but the reality is different. Ask a guy in prison how his inalienable rights to "be secure in his person, houses, papers, and effects," "peaceably assemble," or vote are working out for him.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Can they apply this to everyone's account by default, with an opt out option? That would maintain freeze peach (everyone can see your tweets if they opt in) and make the platform nicer (people can avoid abuse trivially).
There are still prisoners in Gitmo. Doesn't matter whether it's Obama or obstructionists on the other side, it's still shameful.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Every single day that someone was in a concentration camp, their rights were being violated. That would not be true if the government removed their rights on day 1. The government didn't create their human rights, so the government can not remove them - the government, or anyone else, can only *violate* your rights.
The Constitution doesn't say "the government must *grant*" new rights, it says the government "shall not infringe" THE right of .... "The right of free speech, not "a" right of free speech - they are saying the right existed before the Constitution was written; that human rights are part of being human. Nobody grants them, therefore nobody can un-grant them.
I was never very interested in what all my friends were having for lunch, anyway. A censored lunch menu is even less interesting.
All you have to say is that you support traditional marriage and you will be branded as a homophobic racist bigot by the left. Your comments will be branded as 'hate speech' if you say you support the second amendment. If you are against aborting children, you are a misogynist who wants to put women in cages. The list goes on and on....
Simple Definition of inalienable - impossible to take away or give up. And full definition - "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred"
Nobody's talking about the US constitution here, which in fact did violate human rights in many ways (women, slaves, non-landowners).
However, now that you brought it up, the government regularly infringes on the right of free speech. Chelsea Manning, search warrants with gag orders, etc.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
For a man who had so much promise, what do we get? First, yes, "black" president who could have rewritten history books has done little substantive. What makes me more ill than anything else is this "grouping" along many political lines. I fear for our sovereignty, our freedoms (or what we have left), and the most immediate future. We, as the American culture, has failed to promote liberty for as long as I can remember. We, collectively, immigrants and all, are at risk of this behemoth, monolithic, corporatocracy. Everything recorded, everything censored, and no expectation of privacy anymore. Read your employee manual. I bet it will not only make you sick, but it will illustrate you and I are just batteries for harvest. Yes, I did make reference to the Matrix. No conspiracy theorist here, just observation over decades. (mic drop)
"According to sources, the decision upset some senior employees inside the company who strictly followed Twitter's long-standing commitment to unfettered free speech"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Damn, I haven't laughed this hard in a while. When I read that sentence my mind started flashing the "Unbelievable Bullshit" sign. There is nothing "unfettered" or "free" about the type of speech allowed on Twitter. That someone can say that sentence with a straight face...
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
You're arguing about rights as if they are some sort of Platonic ideal. It's important to reason about rights in this way, because they are part and parcel with our ideas of morality, and morality is not generally held to be subject to empirical revision. However, there is a difference between these absolute concepts and the actual real-world freedom to do something. Personally, I don't prefer rationalism or logic to empirical evidence. The concept of "inalienable rights" is simply not useful, since they are clearly violated wholesale, daily and globally. It would be nice if we could deceive ourselves to believe that we are progressing towards any of these ideals, but there is no evidence of that.
Your concept of Rights cannot be wholly dismissed. Still, while in my more honest moments I can't find a very sound basis to compare logical or moral truths with empirical ones, if your concept of the world conflicts with the world as measured and experienced, you should certainly recognize that you are not describing a real-world concept, and it could be argued that you are ipso facto wrong. Either way though, neither of you can win this argument because you're arguing about not only different truths, but different ways of determining what is true. Yet another argument that could be avoided by an undergraduate course in epistemology.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Apparently I was unclear, I didn't communicate well. I'm distinguishing between violating rights (infringing on them) versus "taking them away".
> the government regularly infringes on the right of free speech. Chelsea Manning, search warrants with gag orders, etc.
Suppose the government improperly searches your papers on Monday, then again on Tuesday, then again on Wednesday. The SECOND time that the government does an illegal search of your papers, on Tuesday, is it infringing on your rights again? How about the third, on Wednesday? Yes, of course each search infringes (violates) your rights.
THEREFORE we know the right *existed* on Tuesday.
The government *infringed* your rights on Monday, it did not remove them.
If the government had *taken away* your rights on Monday, it couldn't possibly infringe them on Tuesday. The government *violated* your rights on Monday, it did not take them away.
Therefore:
> Rights are taken away from people all the time.
Rights are *violated* all the time. FTFY
> you should certainly recognize that you are not describing a real-world concept, and it could be argued that you are ipso facto wrong
I'm describing the fact that rights are violated repeatedly. That's very real-world.
A slave has their rights violated every day. If we don't take action, their rights will be violated again tomorrow. That's real world.
If you think that that a slaves rights were *taken away*, then their rights are no longer being violated. You would say "they were enslaved, and that's sad, but now that they are enslaves they have no rights, and I have no resposibility to protect the rights they don't have anyway." That's also real world, people actually think that way and make real-world decisions on that basis.
An example in America is parts of the Patriot Act. Some people see that as past event - rights WERE taken away. It's a done deal, they think, because rights were removed. I see that rights are currently being violated under the Act, today. The rights are being violated today only because they still exist today.
How come the government didn't create people's human rights? There's no human rights if there's no government to codify them. Clearly they're a wholly artificial concept.
Ezekiel 23:20
Never use social media, and may the social media censors get fucked sideways.
The head of facebook meets the definition of a traitor, an oligarch, and a millienial douchebag all in one. This is 21st century business leaders at their prime.
The best thing for the president would be to hear what We The People really think of him and his 400-or-so group thugs.
Every Day, 24-7, including during sleep, in a large flashing font the u.s. government and the president should have to read what we want them to.
The side effect is that there would be no people that wanted to be the u.s. president. Which is a start to some desperately needed changes.
That line of thinking requires you to believe that there are actually no such thing as rights, only privileges granted and revoked by other people at their whim.
Governments infringe on people's rights.
That would not be possible if government was the source of rights and could take them away.
The right of free speech would be completly meaningless if it meant nothing more than "as long as nobody dislikes what you say, nobody will stop you from saying it". The right of religuon would be meaningless if it meant "you can believe what you want, only if the government approves of it." That's true of ANYTHING - if nobody dislikes what I put into the water supply, nobody will stop me. Is that a "right to poison the water"? No. The difference, what is meant by the word "right", is exactly that I can believe what I will REGARDLESS of whether the government or the majority approves. That's why we can speak of a "right to free speech" but not a "right to poison water" - because the government may control the water, and may not control my words.
Suppose for a moment that rights did come from government. Which law, which act of government granted you the right of free speech? There is none. No law says "you make speak freely". So you do not have the right of free speech if you're waiting for the government to grant it. Rather, the Constitution FORBIDS the federal government from INFRINGING on your pre-existing rights.
If you abuse a right, you risk having it taken away from you
No, you don't. Rights aren't privileges. The right to free speech is inalienable.
Right to free speech is only guaranteed by government and public venues. Twitter ain't it. I'm not saying anything pro or con Twitter's stance, but I'm drawing a line in the sand when it comes to force a private medium as if it were a branch of government, a street corner or public service. The ability for a person or company to build a medium and to apply its own version of censorship is a right on itself, a right closely related to freedom of expression.
If they want to practice their first amendment rights it is not incumbent upon Twitter to allow them a platform for it.
Precisely. Unless Twitter becomes part of the government or a platform owned by the people, it is disingenuous to demand Twitter to provide a platform it does not agree with. That's like force Joe down the street to put a pro Trump/Clinton/Whatever sign on his front yard, in his own fucking private property, against his political views or wishes. My freedom of speech ends where someone else's freedom of opinion, expression and privacy begin.
If I want to propagate a message, it is not my fucking right to force others to echo it, it is not my right to force others to listen, it is not my right to prevent someone from walking away should they wish not to hear me.
Freedom of speech is about being free to express myself. It does not give me the right to force others to listen to me against their wishes.
It's high time for some civility in our public discourse. If an owner of a private company decides to show the Commander-in-Chief some respect while he's using those services, that is to be applauded. God forbid that Trump should become president, but if he does, I will still show some respect for the office, even if I disdain the person in it. Unfortunately, the censor-able tweets in a Trump Q&A are more likely to come from the other side of the conversation.
If only we had an objective standard for "respectful" or "civil" that was applied equally.
Alas there is a very clear double standard which our media helps enforce.
There isn't? How about not using the n* word against the POTUS for starters? Or not calling him monkey? How about not using racism or well known dog whistles? Or not calling her daughters whores?
I'm sorry bro, but there are objective standards for being respectful and civil. Maybe it's just me or the way my parents raised me.
obama (the president of the united states) deserves to be treated and addressed with respect. twitter was the WRONG platform. but it wanted to seem like it was. but it's not. and unless they eschew free speech, it never will be.
Thanks to Ailes' departure, Fox has gone quite far in the MSM direction.
How about you explain why harassers have been given protection on Twitter when they're of the correct political bent?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Obama is guilty of TREASON.
persons engaged in combat
Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't in a war zone
Find a brain cell and look that up, moron.
Seriously. Look it the fuck up because you're just making shit up like a total asshole. People died, fuckwit. You think people die just to make political points for you that aren't even true?
You didn't know he was in a war zone? That means you didn't even read shit about what happened, what did you do, just repeat shit you heard at the bar? Fuckin' lame. You're just another aliterate moron who won't even look it up even after you're called on your shit.
You're talking about people overseas in war zones
Yemen was not a war zone that the US was participating in on the ground.
Strange equivocation. Why add in words about "on the ground?" Does that make a moral difference? No. Does it make a legal difference? No. Does it make any sort of known difference at all? No.
As your equivocation shows that you knew, Yemen was a war zone; and the recognized government of Yemen approved the operation. No, the US wasn't participating "on the ground" we were participating "from the air." From the air, to the ground.
Being against it is political. Making up lies about the conditions in order to make a faulty legal claim to stupid and pointless. People who make this decisions aren't going to listen to you because you made up some horse shit. You don't disagree that he was planning attacks, you seem to be aware that he was in a war zone, that isn't a gray area. They are clearly allowed to blow him up. All he has to do is be in a war zone, and be believed to be naughty, and it is legal and normal under the laws of war to kill him. That's what happens in a war.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Especially note that part that says:
He would be in a war zone even if he wasn't in Yemen. You don't have to like it. I certainly don't approve of the government declaring war on non-State entities. I think those should be handled as police actions. But that is a political complaint, not a legal one involving the laws of war. There is not actually any doubt that he was a member of one of the groups that war was declared on, so even if he had been in a different place he would still be a legit military target.
Where is this crazy idea that the military is expected to have legal documentation before shooting people? That is precisely the sort of thing that they don't need. That is the whole point of war, "OK now we're just going to shoot you guys." That's what war is. That is what it means. That is why "war is hell."
There are actual international agreements (aka "laws of war") regulating who you can shoot in war, and who you can't. If you can't shoot them in war, then that nonsense about judges would make a difference. No, nobody at war is required to go to a judge before killing somebody. And if they make a mistake, that is OK too. And if the enemy is parked next to a school, it is legal to blow them (and the school) up. War is hell, but that doesn't automatically mean that war is a war crime, or that hell is a war crime.
You did not understand what I wrote, evidently. Rights, at least by your definition, are inalienable. They only exist because people agree they do. You can argue that they are "real world", but that is not a particularly meaningful term as you have used it. They are absolutely not empirical -- you cannot measure your right to free speech, for example. And yet there is an empirical analogue which you may be said to possess, which can be taken away, granted, or restored. The appropriate word for this is likely 'freedom'.
It is not to say that there is anything inherently wrong with the idea that rights are independent of the real world, or with suggesting that they only have a notional existence: the same may be said for love, or morality, and all products of rational thought, including mathematics. Empiricism is also not without its flaws, though you'll pardon me if I encourage you to read more on the subject of epistemology rather than explain more fully. The point is that we must distinguish between these two types of truths, or you're likely to spend a lot of time arguing irreconcilable positions. Similarly, the difference in how truth is determined is the source of probably every argument of science vs. religion.
If arguing the undecidable is your entertainment, of course, by all means keep on as you are; one imagines a healthy level of ignorance would even help that endeavor. Even in that case, however, you may want to retain the idea that when two people are offering incompatible definitions of a concept, the chances are excellent they are not talking about the same thing.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
By all account of her standards, she was prejudiced against Milo for his background.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The Russian word "pravda" means "truth". Pravda is the government-controlled newspaper.
It would indeed be a waste of time to ARGUE with one person talking about pravda and the other talking about Pravda. They are two different things.
On the other hand, I believe it's worth remembering, and sometimes pointing out, that they are two different things. Where a conversation is seeking pravda (truth), I will mention it when someone seeks to answer the inquiry by citing Pravda (the government newspaper).
One reall can fall into the trap of thinking that the only truth is what the govt acknowledges as truth, and that the only rights are whatever the govt acknowledges as rights.