Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Has Suspended 235,000 Accounts Since February For Promoting Terrorism (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the taking-a-stand dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Twitter has suspended 235,000 accounts since February for promoting terrorism, the company said in a blog post today. "Daily suspensions are up over 80 percent since last year, with spikes in suspensions immediately following terrorist attacks," the company wrote. "Our response time for suspending reported accounts, the amount of time these accounts are on Twitter, and the number of followers they accumulate have all decreased dramatically." The company said it's also expanded the team that works on flagging such content, and claims to have made progress on stopping accounts from starting again under a new handle. In a previous post from February, Twitter said it had suspended 125,000 accounts since mid-2015.

73 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Contra-Number? by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And how many people has it silenced who are against terrorism?

    I'd be more impressed if they didn't seem to have a little club that used a small cabal to decide who should be banned and who not... real trolls roam free on Twitter while people deviating from Group-Think are banned. It makes me question if the numbers they give are even real or just for show.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Contra-Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Free speech is not the issue when free association means no one will listen and you will have no opportunities to speak.

    2. Re:Contra-Number? by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      And as we all know, the worst "real troll" of them all is the no-true-Scotsman

    3. Re: Contra-Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can thank white, Western European Christians for creating the concept of free speech.

      I could also thank Jefferson Davis for causing the legal end of slavery, Adolf Hitler for showing the evil of AntiSemitism, and Sauron for ending the War of the Ring.

      White, Western European Christians crushed those who said things they found unpleasant and many cultures have standards of free speech from the longhouse to the forum.

    4. Re: Contra-Number? by tsqr · · Score: 2

      White, Western European Christians crushed those who said things they found unpleasant and many cultures have standards of free speech from the longhouse to the forum.

      He was talking about where the concept of free speech originated (Athens, ca. 5th century BC). He didn't say it was a concept exclusive to white western Europe,

    5. Re: Contra-Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Christianity was widely practiced in Athens during that time? Please tell me more.

    6. Re:Contra-Number? by clubby · · Score: 1

      If being kicked off Twitter makes you angry enough to murder strangers, probably your ex's comments about your sexual inadequacies will beat Twitter to the punch on that one.

    7. Re:Contra-Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is there anything white, European Christians won't take credit for? (undeservedly)

      Hell, in a generation, US Christians will probably be taking credit for marriage equality and LGBT rights.

      Why don't you try getting marriage equality and LGBT rights in a non-Christian county.

      Like Saudi Arabia.

    8. Re: Contra-Number? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2

      Wish I had some points to give you.
      Seriously, these white christian power people give stupid a bad reputation!

    9. Re:Contra-Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are so full of fucking shit! You don't have freedom from someone's speech, you do however have the freedom to ignore it. Milo did nothing wrong, he was punished because he was simply was right wing and gay which goes against the democrat narrative. The democrats are ruining this country by wrecking free speech. Remember, you can't have true free speech if you suppress "hate speech" because hate speech can be defined as anything you fucking want it to be defined as.

    10. Re:Contra-Number? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Plenty of non-Christian countries had LGBT rights literally thousands of years before white christian Europeans even existed.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    11. Re:Contra-Number? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Nope, you can thank the Native American tribes for the concept of free speech. That is where our for-fathers got the idea from, also freedom of religion came from them too.

  2. Nannybot 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm against the promotion of terrorism and all that, but do we really want tech companies policing our speech?

    This would like someone listening to all our telephone conversations to see if we were talking about terrorism. Oh, wait...

    1. Re:Nannybot 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I run a service, I want to be able to decide who uses it, yes.

    2. Re:Nannybot 2016 by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Phone companies can't do that. Your ISP probably can't. Where do you draw the line?

    3. Re:Nannybot 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hope you aren't breaking into baking, because I've got some bad news about your dreams of your control over your business...

    4. Re:Nannybot 2016 by GodelEscherBlecch · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Wrong. TOCs for these services have clauses stating myriad reasons why they may drop you, and they are typically phrased in such a way as to be effectively arbitrary. The only reason ISPs don't invoke these clauses as often as Twitter is that it takes law enforcement involvement to tie an online action to an ISP customer in the first place. Harassment is chief among the reasons your phone company might drop you, and the only reason this is less common is that troll types generally don't have the balls to make direct contact with their target. These services are not holy bastions of 'free speech' (as in the freedom to be an aggressive prick to others) either, they just have fewer incidents of revoking access.

    5. Re:Nannybot 2016 by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      You draw the line if it's a vital service with no competing alternative. Like electricity, home phone lines, sewer, water, garbage, and probably internet service ... to name a few.

      Outside of that a company can refuse service to whoever they want. Twitter falls so far outside the realm of "vital service" that it's not even a question. Twitter's only concern is setting rules that maximize their use base (and hence profit). In this case obviously they've decided that it's in their interests to quell terrorism-related posts from their site.

    6. Re:Nannybot 2016 by jandersen · · Score: 1

      I'm against the promotion of terrorism and all that, but do we really want tech companies policing our speech?

      This would like someone listening to all our telephone conversations to see if we were talking about terrorism. Oh, wait...

      I guess we do, if by "we" you mean the majority of the people that use these public forums. And that's the nub of it, I suspect: the word 'public'. I don't use social media very much, but as far as I know, none of them guarantee that you are private, when you use them, on the contrary. They let you use their sites for free, because their business model needs the data you provide when you use their services; that is the way you pay them. They only want to keep it "private" in the sense that this is valuable raw material that they don't want others to get. For the users, it is as private as yelling to your friends across a busy city-square.

      In the case of snail-mail, analog telephone, and email: these are only private because there is explicit legislation that spells out your right to secrecy - and the same legislation also sets out the rules under which this right can be put aside.

  3. ...with spikes *after* terror attacks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Great, after they're done we can stop them from continuing.

    As good as this xkcd: http://xkcd.com/937/

  4. Freedom of speech by danbob999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So twitter is against freedom of speech?

    1. Re:Freedom of speech by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      The terrorists should declare themselves corporations, THEN they'll get freedom-of-speech.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Freedom of speech by shaitand · · Score: 1

      That's the gist of this.

    3. Re:Freedom of speech by Kierthos · · Score: 2, Informative

      The First Amendment guarantees that the government will not abridge your freedom of speech. (Certain limitations, among them threatening public officials, still apply.)

      It says nothing about private entities, such as corporations, being prohibited from abridging your speech.

      Look at it like this. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you a venue. It guarantees you a voice. No one has to listen, and no one is obligated to provide you a microphone.

      You can say what you want, but Twitter still has the option under their Terms of Service to ban you. You can still say the same things; you just can't say them on their service.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    4. Re:Freedom of speech by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Unless that microphone sits atop a cake for a same sex wedding wedding. You tolerant people sow our own destruction with your intolerance.

    5. Re:Freedom of speech by danbob999 · · Score: 2

      I don't live in the US so I couldn't care less about its constitution.
      Freedom of speech is not only a law (in many countries). It's also a principle. Twitter is free not to stand by that principle. They just better never say they defend and promote it.

    6. Re:Freedom of speech by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      The First Amendment guarantees that the government will not abridge your freedom of speech. (Certain limitations, among them threatening public officials, still apply.)

      It says nothing about private entities, such as corporations, being prohibited from abridging your speech.

      Look at it like this. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you a venue. It guarantees you a voice. No one has to listen, and no one is obligated to provide you a microphone.

      You can say what you want, but Twitter still has the option under their Terms of Service to ban you. You can still say the same things; you just can't say them on their service.

      I would add it also does not protect you from the consequences of speech. Yell fire in a theater is the mos quoted example, but walking into a biker bar and telling the biggest guy there his girl looks like a methhead skank and her crotch smells like the rotting cum from the last gangbang is well within your rights. No piece of paer is going to protect you from what happens next.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    7. Re:Freedom of speech by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      So? US laws doesn't forbid Twitter from breaching freedom of speech on its web site. What is your point? That freedom of speech can't be a broader principle than its legal definition in one country?

    8. Re:Freedom of speech by zedaroca · · Score: 1

      The first post of this thread is by danbob999, and doesn't mention the first amendment. When Kierthos misunderstood the concept for the American constitutional use of it, danbob999 corrected him. This thread is not US law, it's freedom of speech (it's written right there in the subject).

      BTW, Americans are allowed to use "Freedom of speech" as a concept too, they don't have to be limited by the American constitutional/legal use of the expression. The company is against freedom of speech in their lawn, and that is not illegal in the US (but it is in other countries), as we are all tired of reading whenever this subject comes up. Just because it's not illegal to block speech on their property, it doesn't mean people are wrong to say they are against freedom of speech, they would be wrong only if they claimed that this behavior is illegal in the US.

      Tip: if a post starts with "Re:" its probably not the beginning of the thread.

    9. Re:Freedom of speech by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      People are free to believe that what twitter are doing is wrong - but if they are not also inviting everyone to spraypaint slogans on the walls of their living rooms then then they are being hypocrites.

      I do not want neo-NAZIs spraypainting swastika's on my living room wall. That's my right as well. There's a reason why free speech laws end where they do - because ANYTHING MORE is automatically an infringement on equally important rights of other people, such as the right to freedom of association and the right to freedom of thought and the right NOT to express something you don't agree with.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:Freedom of speech by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You should read Karl Popper. Tolerating intolerant views (such as homophobia) is, in fact, a logical fallacy and NOT tolerating them does NOT in any way make you intollerant, you CAN'T be tolerant UNLESS you are refuse to tolerate those views - since tolerating them will lead to the destruction of ALL tolerance.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    11. Re:Freedom of speech by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      To add to your example. Lets assume the guy then starts beating you, you pull out a gun and shoot him. You claim self defense in court - you will be convicted of murder. Self-defence in almost all jurisdictions on earth is precluded as a defence for 'first aggressor' and no sane judge or jury would NOT consider your words there to make you the 'first aggressor' - after all, they are clear an example of "fighting words".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    12. Re:Freedom of speech by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      In a way it does - the US constitution is not unique - most countries have very similar laws, for a very good reason, it's just about the only *sane* way freedom of speech can work. Unless you are personally happy to let BOTH the local SJWs AND the local neo-NAZIs spraypaint slogans on your living room wall.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    13. Re:Freedom of speech by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      While that may be a good argument - twitter is concerned about their own risk. They were already charged with abetting terrorism in France this year - they were acquitted in the end, but that kind of case is bad PR, costs a lot of money and risks getting a bunch of laws passed you have to comply with.
      It's cheaper to pro-actively root out users who put your business at risk of such things.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    14. Re:Freedom of speech by zedaroca · · Score: 2

      I understand your point and agree partially with it. Since I'm Brazilian, and grew with different laws and slightly different values, I'll make some points that might add to the subject.
      We had a dictatorship not long ago and our post-dictatorship constitution and laws developed in a way that if you are in the communication business you cannot choose what people say. If some speech is illegal (like racism or crime incitement), then you should either get a court order to remove it (pretty fast), or alert the authorities and if they do their job, they'll order the take down.
      That is, if you have a house, you choose what people can write in the wall. If you have a newspaper, you choose what you publish. But if you have a phone company, you cannot choose what's in people's sms messages or calls. The same applies for Facebook, etc, that are effectively replacing the phone companies.

      No one thinks or claims (here) that an user's tweet expresses Tweeter's opinion or something they agree with. Hosting someone's opinion is not agreeing with it. If you don't want to host certain opinions, you should be in the publishing market, not in the communications market (here with our laws, that match my opinion, and of those that are against this kind of private censorship).

      The logic is that as means of association and communications change, people should still be able to associate and communicate, as long as they are not doing anything illegal. Otherwise we would let private entities that get a prominent position in the communications market choose what people say and, by consequence, think. We don't consider this an infringement of other rights, on the contrary, because of the position they get in the market. Being banned from these communication services is a severe limitation on one's association and speech capabilities.

      The upside on this position is that we can be subjected to gays, weapons, abortions, terrorists, republicans, democrats, etc on the communication services we effectively use, and end up thinking about the issues and the points they present. In American law to achieve something similar to what we have I think you'd have to regulate these communication platforms as utilities (IANAL, think based on the net neutrality debate).

    15. Re: Freedom of speech by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Thats an interesting approach. Though where do you draw the line between publishing company and communications company ? Does a newspaper become a communications company if it published 'letters to the editor'? Can it filter which letters to publish ? And what happens if it is a foreign company with Brazilian users ? Must they forfeit the rights they have at home for visitors from Brazil ?

      In principle I am in favour of that approach but it seems rather fraught with legal complexity.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    16. Re:Freedom of speech by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      But if you have a phone company, you cannot choose what's in people's sms messages or calls. The same applies for Facebook, etc, that are effectively replacing the phone companies.

      And that's where you are wrong (and you are not alone). Facebook is absolutely not a basic utility. Just because people enjoy it doesn't make it essential nor a necessity.

      And if you disagree, that's fine, but Facebook is a US company and under US law it's operations are absolutely not governed in the same way as essential services like water, sewer, electrical, etc. If Brazil wants to try and go that direction with Facebook's operations in their country, you're going to find out what it's like to live without Facebook.

    17. Re: Freedom of speech by zedaroca · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure exactly were they draw the line. Letters to the editor are up to the editor to choose, I'm sure of that. I'm not sure about comment sections in a news website, but they do censor those so I guess it's still in their domain, but I cannot be sure because someone would have to sue and (un)fortunately we don't sue as much as Americans. I did a duckduckgo, google and jusbrasil (a legal cases database) search and couldn't find anything relevant, it might exist, but must be buried very deep. It's all Facebook cases.

      Foreign companies working in Brazil are bound by the same laws as everyone else here, so yes they forfeit the rights they have at home (like the right not to serve without explanation). The fact is that Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc (the companies that actually would get any attention), all have subsidiaries here that deal with their local legal problems. In theory any company serving a Brazilian is supposedly under our laws, but if the company does not have any subsidiary here, it would be very complicated to sue and hard to enforce any decisions.
      The kind of thing that Twitter is removing is illegal here (terrorist incitement), so we won't see a Brazilian suing to get their account back. Plus, they can refuse service if they provide a valid explanation, like "he was using the platform for committing crimes".

      I think the fact that companies cannot refuse service without explanation is what makes this approach "doable". We don't have to regulate the company as an utility or anything else, they are providing a communication service for people and if the users are not committing crimes with it they simply cannot refuse the service. If you publish an article on the Internet, you are not providing any services, there is no contract, so no protection for people's comments under it (I guess/assume).

      I actually worked in a case were Google was being sued because of a blog on blogspot, their defense was on the lines of the "only the judiciary can decide what shouldn't be written" and "we are a service provider". They won, it was fast and cheap, a "no-brainer" type of case. I estimate they have spent from 15 to 40 USD in the case (I'm an office clerk in the judiciary, it's a good estimation).

      I completely agree that the implementation is rather fraught with legal complexity (specially when it comes to comments on forums or foreign companies), there are plenty of things here that are like that. And I'm sorry I'm not sure of were they draw the line. Even being in the judiciary, that's not my line of work...
      OTOH, consider that the American way were Twitter, Facebook and Google gets sued because of terrorists is also rather problematic.

      While each company does have moderators that review content, The Next Web notes that it's a statistical impossibility to maintain that any company of such a size can review, or even find, all instances of offensive content.

      So these companies are answering legally for things other people said. With our method you are only sued for what you say. And don't have to hire an army of censors just to make it look like you shouldn't be liable when things go wrong in life. If someone is offended by some content, get the urls and ask the judiciary, they are legally required to know what shouldn't be allowed. It's free to do that BTW, people don't need lawyers for simple cases like these.

    18. Re:Freedom of speech by zedaroca · · Score: 1

      I think you might have misquoted me (because your argument is on the basic utility point). The part where you quoted me holds true. I was always talking about how things actually work here in Brazil 1. Phone companies cannot choose what people say. 2. the same applies to Facebook, etc 3. Facebook is effectively replacing them.

      On the point you made:
      We do not regulate or argue that they are a basic utility. The point about regulating as utility was only a comparison with the American law. It seems that in the US only utilities cannot choose who they serve and cannot censor content, that's why I said the thing about regulating it as utility, but they do not resemble basic utility in any way. I hope that the confusion is fixed, and I'm sorry if that was not clear. I don't think they are basic utility, essential nor a necessity.

      Over here companies doesn't have the "right not to serve". Companies from any sector and not just basic utilities. To refuse service a company must provide a reasonable justification. E.g.: on a store: "he didn't provide proof of means for paying for it", on a park: "he cannot do it safely", on the Internet: "he is committing crimes on the platform" (like in this case because crime incitement is illegal here).

      These companies actually like the Brazilian law, because unlike in the US, they cannot be sued for what the users say. There is no army of moderators and "moral" (financial) dilemmas on the corporation's opinions and stances, just profit. They can leave it on until the judiciary provides them with a link to remove. And it's the judiciary, not a dark DMCA lawyer company with thousands of automatic questionable removal requests.

      Brazil is almost 2/3 the size of the US, it's a decent market that pays premium for shit. The Facebook Brazilian subsidiary is a Brazilian subsidiary (since 2011) under Brazilian law. Brazil was already like this when Facebook came in our direction. They do obey our laws and are not threatening to leave the country.
      If Tweeter really has a problem with some types of comments (and it's not just a liability thing), they will be fine too because so far it seems that they only dislike the things that are illegal here anyway.

      Offtopic: I lived in China, living without Facebook is great (I still do, but here I have to explain why they are evil and why I don't compromise).

  5. Whack-a-mole. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    It's a good thing that there are absolutely zero terrorism-promoters who might have some level of familiarity with basic automated spamming techniques.

    Otherwise this would seem pretty futile.

  6. Trump's account is still active... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But Trump's account is still active... Along with Clinton's. There got both sides of the crooked fence for you guys. Sorry, but neither are Presidential material. But Clinton is a professional and Trump is a child.

    1. Re:Trump's account is still active... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you want a professional corrupt lying scumbag, or an amateur corrupt lying scumbag? That's one for the philosophers.

    2. Re:Trump's account is still active... by tepples · · Score: 2

      I don't want to waste my vote on either of them, which is why I donated to Gov. Gary Johnson's campaign.

    3. Re:Trump's account is still active... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      It's more like - do you want a professional, equivocating, truth-shading, politician, or an amateur, flat-out liar who says completely insane shit all the time along with its complete opposite from minute to minute.

      This Hillary and Trump are 'both liars' argument is a big part of the reason Hillary lies - and used a private email server in the first place. She's a 'liar' to the extent that you can play gotcha with things she says - and many do and have. And she tried to hide her email to prevent it from becoming fodder for the same gotcha games. But as a President, she's essentially pursuing the policies she says she is. As a President, God help us, Trump would be a blank slate, pursuing God knows what. The only thing we do know about him is that he'll say anything and it's polar opposite if you allow him to keep talking and give him enough time.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    4. Re:Trump's account is still active... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Donating to Johnson's campaign might make sense - assuming you want his message heard, and that your donation will help that. Actually voting for him is a vote for Trump if you would otherwise have voted for Clinton - and vice versa. There's no point claiming that your 'personal integrity' prevents voting for one of the two viable choices. Abstaining (which a Johnson vote essentially would be) isn't a particularly virtuous stance - no matter how much you flatter yourself that it is.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    5. Re:Trump's account is still active... by BundesSheep · · Score: 1

      Unless you truly don't like either of the two mainstream candidates and wouldn't vote for either one if they paid you. Then it's not a misplaced move in an overarching game, it's just a vote for the candidate you do want to win.

    6. Re:Trump's account is still active... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      If "Will they lie" was the only concern - the amateur would win.

      But since the question here is "which person should have the fucking nuclear launch codes" - I will choose to go with the person who isn't a fucking textbook example of antisocial personality disorder ("psychopath" in common parlance).

      Now in a sane world - this would be the time to vote third party - unfortunately no third party candidates in the US deserve a vote either. No really. Neither Gary Johnson nor Jill Stein deserves a vote no matter how much you may agree with either of their policies. Because neither of their parties are willing to the hard labour. You want a third party. Get candidates running at ground level. Run for dogcatcher. Run for sheriff. Run for town councilors (not just mayor). Get a few towns and show us how you govern.
      Then when you have a nice big track record with a few hundred towns - THEN start running people for state government, and not just governor, run for state congress and state senate.
      And when you have a track record of your policies and governance at state level THEN start running for the US congress and senate.
      And only then - when you have at least several dozen in each house, and governance records at every level of government from there-on down, THEN you can try running for president and deserve a vote. Then you will BE a major party. The US will actually BE a multi-party democracy. Then when you run for president you can say "Look how our policies worked in Bummsville Idaho. Look what we did to Alabama's unemployment rate", then you'll be a *real* party - then we'll vote for you.
      If any third party does that - you may have a viable third party candidate for president in 2040-something.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    7. Re:Trump's account is still active... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Why is paying for a vote illegal anyway ? It makes no sense. You can buy candidates. You can spend a fortune trying to sway elections.
      Why should only politicians get to be bribed to support something ? Why not let them buy voters too ?

      It would be the greatest piece of entirely voluntary wealth distribution in history. That may just make up for the insanity of who will rule.

      On the other hand, if you think that's crazy, welcome to the anti-money-in-politics side of the fence.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  7. it was a "social promotion" by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    not really

  8. So, does that mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...that Trump's account was deleted?

    1. Re:So, does that mean... by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Hillary is the one with an actual head count.

  9. Just the terrorists??? by haedus · · Score: 1

    What about all the horrorists out there? Who will stop their scourge of horror? I'm personally most worried about the 'discomfortists', day by day they erode the fabric of everyday human comforts and conveniences... Damn them... Damn them to hechell...

  10. First they came.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    First they came for the terrorist supporters, and I did not speak up because I was not a terrorist supporter.

    1. Re:First they came.. by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      Because clearly, promoting violence as a means of getting your way politically is totally equivalent to that quote.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:First they came.. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Sometimes there is a peace that can only be found on the other side of war. And if that war must come then *I* will fight it!

    3. Re: First they came.. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Some piss and some vomit. If your next move isn't picking your guts up off the ground you are actually ahead of the game.

    4. Re:First they came.. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If these people wanted a war, that would be great, instead, they advocate for violence against civilian targets. If you really want to support that, feel free, but I and many like me will just call you a coward, not a warrior.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    5. Re:First they came.. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "these people" are over 250,000 people twitter has silenced under the general heading "advocating terrorism" it is impossible to claim what they are advocating or to stand for or against it as we don't really know.

      What constitutes a civilian is also ambiguous when you are talking about an internal struggle against your own government. Suddenly police go from civilian to uniformed and armed agents of government and a civilian resistence can not obey the usual rules of war, with dramatically inferior resources they have to do whatever produces results. Outside of police, whatever agents of government need to be removed to successfully eliminate existing structure and chance of it coming back into power are also fair game but a city bus driver who isn't presenting arms obviously is not.

      Basically, our own criteria for selecting enemy combatants applied against our own domestic government by an armed civilian force engaged in civil war is in fact fair game. Bombing a bus just for the shock value is not.

    6. Re:First they came.. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Basically, our own criteria for selecting enemy combatants applied against our own domestic government by an armed civilian force engaged in civil war is in fact fair game. Bombing a bus just for the shock value is not.

      That is the point I am trying to make. The definition of terrorism doesn't cover what you are speaking of, it is about attacking helpless bystanders. Things like car/backpack bombs, attacking a mall in Africa, those types of things. People advocating for a new government shouldn't be considered terrorists, as they aren't engaged in terror attacks.

      The patriots in the American revolution weren't terrorists, the IRA were. The difference is entirely in the methods used to achieve the goals.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  11. BullShit by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They have suspended conservative posters simply because of posts of those people's followers, but they let ISIS supporters like Anjem Choudary continue to post.

    And while they might pretend to take some actions against terrorism. they seem to be doing nothing to silence posts promoting tourism.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:BullShit by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      We prefer to be called special.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  12. Wrong approach... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Banning speech just moves it from one platform to another

    I'd rather honestly know who the assholes are, instead of banning them and having them go underground.

    The best counter of hate speech is more speech.

    The best disinfectant for a society is the light of day.

  13. 235,000? by BringsApples · · Score: 2
    I don't tweet, but I wonder what percentage of their user base that is. Maybe it's small, but I wonder what that does to the attitude of investors, and/or those looking to sell ads. This number seems really high.

    In other news, in the condition that the world is in these days, all that's going on, simply talking about what's happening, and sharing your thoughts makes it hard for others to NOT be able to look at what's been said as terror.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    1. Re:235,000? by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      As of the end of the second quarter of 2016, they had 313 million active monthly users.

      Now, how many of those are twitter-bots, I couldn't tell you.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  14. Al Qaeda Inc. documents its expenses by tepples · · Score: 2

    You think al Qaeda isn't a corporation? Someone read its expense reports.

    1. Re:Al Qaeda Inc. documents its expenses by Thud457 · · Score: 2

      Still better customer service than Comcast.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    2. Re:Al Qaeda Inc. documents its expenses by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Hey, if AQ gives better ISP service than the big telecoms, I'm signing the hell up!

      It's not more evil, just switching Devil brands.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  15. Wish we could ban terrorism in our media eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think a lot worse is done by our war promoting hate promoting mainstream media...

  16. But what about Donald Trump... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

    After all, hinting that gun owners might take matters into their own hands IF Hillary is elected (the time ordering and meaning of his sentences was very clear) sounds like promoting anarchy, treason, and terrorism to me.

    Also, if he asserts that Obama is the "founder of ISIS" then he has to acknowledge that he wanted to "found ISIS" in exactly the same way as he clearly an unequivocally stated in TWO CNN interviews. So let's call him -- by his own standards -- a "co-founder of ISIS".

    One can then work one's way down through whether or not calling for a "wall" to be built between the US and Mexico, prohibiting immigration of all Muslims, etc counts as "promoting terrorism" in the same sense that drawing Mohammed having relations with a camel or insulting whole swaths of the US population by calling them rapists and thieves might promote, rather than extinguish, acts of terror-level violence.

    No? Political speech and hence protected? Then precisely what IS the difference between this sort of twittering and public speaking and expressing extreme annoyance at the United States in general and Trump in particular?

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  17. World heat map? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would really like to see something like this, of the banned accounts by geolocation.

  18. Not true at all by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    People who deviate from group-think are banned in real-life too.

    People have real discussions all the time in public, at bars, at work - they are not banned, there is real conversation and people listen to each other (to a point). Even if you end up totally disagreeing with someone, you still carry on with them as an co--worker or a friend - I have many friends who are utterly in disagreement with a number of things I believe in, but we both just carry on knowing the other person is wrong.

    If you don't know anyone who disagrees with you, then I feel very sorry for you indeed. But that's the lives of most people, no-one agrees with everything someone else thinks and we all learn to get by with it.

    The difference is that online people are simply less tolerant, and vastly more closed minded. It's a shame to see Twitter codify that and bake in a preference in a matter that people are very much split 50/50 on.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not true at all by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The difference between online and normal social engagements is you are connected to a far broader and more diverse range of people ie in my younger days, regional towns in queensland had black hotels and white hotels and you did not go into the wrong hotel unless you wanted problems (this being a more extreme form of social separation, another extreme form being in prison versus not being in prison). What the online environment does to push many differing social groups to interacting together. So the problem with twitter is not the bullshit on twitter, the problem is the problems on twitter are spreading beyond twitter ie other communications channels spreading twitter madness. Want twitter to be less problematic simply ignore it, do not re-report anything from it, do not participate in it, let them climb their outrage trees and scream at each other all they want. If it shifts from screaming on twitter to actual confrontations let the police deal with it. From the beginning of twitter everyone was told exactly how it would turn out and all the problems associated with it and that it was best to leave it alone. The Marketdroids got hold of it and made it worse by linking it to main stream media as another marketing and public relations channel and made it far worse. Simply drop twitter.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  19. Deeply Disturbung by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    This is deeply disturbing.

    A private company is divining which of its users are in some way expressing opinions that it thinks might be divergent with that of the government of the country in which t operates?

    This is far beyond an act of fascism. Twitter did this of its own accord, not at the request of government. Twitter per-emptively bowed in obeisance due to its fear of a government demand,

    If you do not find this disturbing, then you have not read enough history.