Slashdot Mirror
Twitters Says It Will Ban Trump If He Breaks Hate-Speech Rules (qz.com)
Twitter has made a serious effort as of late to limit hate speech on its social media site, especially after Election Day where "biased graffiti, assaults and other incidents have been reported in the news." The company now faces President-elect Donald Trump, who has used Twitter for the past 18 months as a megaphone for his views and rants, which many would consider as "hate speech." According to the American Bar Association, hate speech is "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits." Quartz reports: While Trump's deceptive tweets may not violate Twitter's rules against harassment, threats and "hateful conduct," Twitter is still keeping an eye on his account for more egregious offenses. This week, the company told Slate it would consider banning key government officials, even the president, if its rules against hate speech or other language were violated. "The Twitter Rules prohibit violent threats, harassment, hateful conduct, and multiple account abuse, and we will take action on accounts violating those policies," a spokesperson wrote. Twitter confirmed with Quartz that everyone, including government officials, were subject to the policy: "The Twitter Rules apply to all accounts," a spokesman wrote. Trump may not have crossed that line yet, but he hasn't exactly refrained from making incendiary claims. Most recently, he claimed that Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who allegedly carried out an attack injuring 11 students at Ohio State University, "should not have been in our country." Artan was a legal permanent U.S. resident, whose family had fled Somalia for Pakistan in 2007. He arrived in the States in 2014.
Notice how the left ignored the Ohio State attack after it was revealed the attacker was both Muslim and didn't use a gun? The second it no longer fit their narrative, they completely ignored it even happened.
Actually no, they're not that simple. You can read them here.
I reaffirm: nobody is banning speech. Twitter is banning people who break their rules of conduct on their forum.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Plenty of dumb shits were calling for "Gun Control" even though it was a knife and car attack.
Their rules are one thing. How evenly they apply them is another.
There are people who have done a lot of experiments in the form of posting some variation on "I hate black people for voting for Hillary" and "I hate white people for voting for Trump" then reporting both accounts to Twitter.
Guess which kind of hatred they refused to ban?
The definition is very simple, even if you want to be obtuse and pretend you don't know: Saying someone is somehow inferior because of their skin color, gender or sexual orientation is hate speech. And Trump has crossed that line many, many, MANY times and continues to do so even now.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, Trump's followers (and a lot of others) complain that Twitter isn't honest about the rules they use. Also that a lot of Twitter's supporters are inconsistent in applying the values they claim to hold or as dishonest as Twitter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Oh, when was that?
"I think the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman," Trump said. He added that he favored a domestic partnership law that would give same-sex couples the same legal benefits as married couples.
Trump in 2000.
"I just don't feel good about it," Trump said. "I don't feel right about it. I'm against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage."
Trump in 2011
When asked about his own evolution on the issue of gay marriage, Trump echoed a sentiment he has said in the past: âoeI think Iâ(TM)m evolving, and I think Iâ(TM)m a very fair person, but I have been for traditional marriage. I am for traditional marriage, I am for a marriage between a man and a woman.â
Trump in 2013.
Tapper and Trump on his stance on same-sex marriage: âoe[TRUMP]â¦I'm traditional marriage. It is changing rapidly. [TAPPER]: But what do you say to a lesbian who's married or a gay man who's married who says, 'Donald Trump, what's traditional about being married 3 times?' [TRUMP]: â¦I don't say anything. I'm just for traditional marriage.â
Trump in 2015.
"If I'm elected, I would be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things," Trump said. "They have ruled on it. I wish that it was done by the state. I don't like the way they ruled. I disagree with the Supreme Court from the standpoint they should have given the state â" it should be a states' rights issue. And that's the way it should have been ruled on, Chris, not the way they did it."
Looking for a concise answer, Wallace asked Trump if he would "try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage."
"I could strongly consider that, yes," Trump said.
Trunp in January. Of 2016.
Fault Obama and Clinton if you want, they were tepid cowards to be sure, but Trump, uh, let's see, he clearly doesn't realize it was a violation of the full faith and credit clause. So he's actually quite waffling about it himself, he's just looking for the one argument, however illegitimate, that lets him pretend to be against it, without outright appearing to be a bigot.
Guess you'll need to own up to that mistake on your part. Maybe you were just confused. I could forgive you if you had only read his tweet bashing Roberts for Obergefeld v. Hodges. Is that what happened?
If Trump actually issued that order, I'd be on board. Instead he's expressed the desire to jail and strip citizenship of flag burners. Anybody who passed high school civics should see the problem with that. I was actually shocked to find out that SCOTUS ruled 5 to 4 that flag desecration is protected speech. So yeah, nevermind the abortion thing. We could actually end up with authoritarians on the court who don't care much for free speech.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Honestly, how stupid is Twitter's management? Here is one person who has helped Twitter actually eclipse the MSM, despite the fact that nobody want to buy them, and this is how they wanna treat him? Go right ahead, and he can dry up the Twitter swamp.
I think perhaps twitter look a bit wider and further ahead than to whether Trump and his followers want to use it; you guys are still a minority in the wider world, where twitter allegedly has some of its business. And of course, once he becomes president, his popularity is going to decline, we all know that, I think, because he is not going to deliver what his followers want, and the rest will see their expectations of his perceived incompetence confirmed. All in all, it won't matter whether he stays.
On another note, come Jan 20, Trump will own both @RealDonaldTrump as well as @POTUS. Now, they may ban the former, but will they ban the latter as well?
Of course - why not? Being the president doesn't entitle you to behave like a bigger moron than the average user - on the contrary. Just look to what the public did to Mr Clinton over his extramarital affairs, not to mention the impeachment: both were for things that would have merited very little in terms of legal machinery, had he not been president. Even bog standard celebrities are subject to scrutiny and criticism far beyond what ordinary people experience - why should Trump not be put through the wringer, then? If he doesn't like it, maybe he should retire to a more protected role suitable to his abilities.
Yes. I make the choice every time I choose who to have sex with.
If you want to screw guys and choose not to, you're closeted. You choose who you have sex with, you can't choose who you *want* to any more than the "pray away the gay" crowd can choose to not have those thoughts.
Why would you think it isn't a choice?
Because many people have tried and failed.
What sort of evidence do you have that this one behavior is not a choice as opposed to every other behavior being a choice?
Who says everything else is a choice?
Do you think people don't have free will?
Define "free will".
Do you think that people are so compelled to some actions that they cannot help themselves?
Try holding your breath for 4 minutes. It won't cause you any harm.It's just a choice to breathe.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Just three? My god, you've made this easy. * Claimed a judge could not operate without bias because he was Mexican * Said a protestor should be beaten up simply for sharing his message that black lives matter * Praised supporters who beat up a homeless Latino man as being "very passionate"