Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Suspends American Far-Right Activists' Accounts (theguardian.com)
Twitter has suspended the accounts of a number of American "alt-right" activists hours after announcing a renewed push to crack down on hate speech. From a report on The Guardian:Among the accounts removed were those of the self-described white-nationalist National Policy Institute, its magazine, Radix, and its head Richard Spencer, as well as other prominent alt-right figures including Pax Dickinson and Paul Town. Spencer, who according to anti-hate group SPLC "calls for 'peaceful ethnic cleansing' to halt the 'deconstruction' of European culture", decried the bans as "corporate Stalinism" to right-wing news outlet Daily Caller. "Twitter is trying to airbrush the alt right out of existence," Spencer said. "They're clearly afraid. They will fail!"
The primary issue I find with all of these Nazi claims is that the actual Nazis were the ones using the popular media and personalities to silence and censor and were not the ones being silenced and censored.
Then maybe they should have banned those fucktards six months ago, because it's specifically stated as reasons why DIS and CRM pulled their bids for TWTR. http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/twitter-disney-salesforce/
Twitter's refusal to deal with the brigading and fuckery from the hard right and the hard meant that its shareholders got fucked to the tune of at least $5B given the widely rumored takeout valuation of $17-20B and its present-day market cap of $13B.
Being "private company" is, obviously, not enough of a defense, as Facebook just found out the hard way, for example. Evidently, some violent hate-groups — such as BLM and the rest of the "anti-Trump" crowd — are more equal than others.
Has Twitter banned any of accounts calling for an assassination of the President-elect? For killing all White people? Obviously not.
But, hey, it is a private company... Maybe. A good illustration on why "hate speech" must remain legal — because any enforcer will be just as biased as Twitter is proving themselves to be.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Exactly. The far left's crazies can do anything they want as long as they're only threatening white people.
Meanwhile the far right's crazies get portrayed as mainstream so everyone who's not for open borders with no rules at all gets lumped in with these idiots.
In Oregon LGBT is a protected class since 2007. The bakery did break the law.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Headline falsely implies that the accounts were deleted because they were alt-right or far-right, when they were deleted because they used hate speech. Not a bias in viewpoint, but a cap on hate speech.
http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Sit...
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Talk versus the left rioting. You can't see the difference?
Of course they probably can't. It's the same reason why you'll see media(especially leftist media) in europe fall over itself supporting things like Antifa or not reporting on it at all, while their members beat the shit out of people or firebomb places while stating they're "anti-fascist." Or calling for the rape and murder of ethnic germans, sometimes just whites though.
Om, nomnomnom...
So you're just completely ignoring the Obama shooting targets that suddenly got popular both times he got elected, not to mention the people who actually hanged and burned his likeness hundreds of times, during the widespread protests?
How quickly people forget.
Eat the rich.
So if you read that, you will see that the damages were awarded for the denial of service and not the release of the complainants information.
The op and I were wrong.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Have you actually read the rules?
https://support.twitter.com/ar...
"You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories. "
Hate speech and racism are allowed, unless they threaten violence, which as you note is illegal.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
A few 'interesting' news clips over the last two election cycles about violence targeted at people for their opinions:
A Thousand Oaks man got his finger bitten off by someone who didn't like the Anti-Obamacare Protesters.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...
Democrat tried to run down Republican with his car.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...
Left wing nut flies plain in to building.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02...
(interesting to note that he was 'originally' reported as a right-wing nut because... Texas. After his "note" was found, it was clear he was a left wing nut)
Man beaten and robbed by democrat thugs because he supports Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/poli...
High school girl attacked for supporting Trump:
http://nbc4i.com/2016/11/11/vi...
To be fair, there were also these bits:
Muslim women in CA and LA attacked by Trump supporters.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article...
Oh wait... no witnesses or injuries -- and one admits to lying about it entirely and is going to be charged for filing a false police report.
Trump supporters paint "Die Blacks Die" during protest:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016... (foxnews, but associated press provided).
Oh wait... it said "Die whites die". So silly of me.
Yes... and how willingly they ignore what's under their nose...
So we're just completely forgetting the actual rioting that happened both times Obama was elected?
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...
Eat the rich.
None of them are. They are merely expressions of hateful opinions. To be hate speech the speaker must incite others to hatred or violence against the object of his hatred.
That didn't just "happen" to them. They got regulated in exchange for access to a market in which they would exercise a near- or complete-monopoly.
If you want to make an argument that Twitter has a near-monoply on... um, tweeting, or that Facebook has a near-monopoly on communicating among people in general, and you are able to reasonably contend that these things are important to society then you might want to make an argument for regulation and see if you can make it fly.
Both companies use their terms of service to say "you over here can participate, but you over there can't" one way or another, and in a fairly arbitrary manner. They also restrict what you can do if they do let you use their service. And they are both pretty much the only real serious game in town for their respective functions in society. So you might have an argument. But that's the way you have to present it if you want it to even have a chance of flying. Seems to me your chances are overall better with Facebook, as they really do have a stranglehold on general interaction and friendly-to-the-general-public networking, which does indeed affect society in general in a very broad and powerful sense. Tweeting... I don't know. Maybe. I can't see it, personally. If you take my 140 characters away from me, I will just laugh at you. I think I would take being cut off from the vast majority of the people I have met over my lifetime and my extended family much more seriously. If I used Facebook and cared, which I don't, either one. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
According to Harvard (in a letter helpfully posted below the first video) the first video was been purposely edited to make the speaker look bad, he was actually mocking his opponent's debate position (which had injected race into the debate) rather than making a serious argument.
Kids, don't believe everything you see on YouTube, especially when it's a short 1 or 2 minute edited clip from a much longer event.
Fanatically anti-fanatical