Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Reinstates White Nationalist Leader's Account (buzzfeed.com)
An anonymous reader quotes BuzzFeed:
On Saturday evening, Twitter reinstated -- with verification -- the account of Richard Spencer, a leading figure of the so-called alt-right movement, and the head of the white nationalist think tank, The National Policy Institute. Spencer's account was suspended mid-November as part of a larger cull of prominent alt-right accounts... However, according to Twitter, Spencer was banned on a technicality: creating multiple accounts with overlapping uses. Twitter's multiple account policy was put in place as a safeguard to help curb dog piling and targeted harassment. [Twitter] offered to reinstate one of Spencer's accounts if he agreed to follow the company's protocols.
Vox says the move "raises the question of to what extent Twitter intends to enforce the 'hateful conduct' policy." But the suspension had also been criticized by David Frum, a senior editor at the Atlantic, who wrote that "The culture of offense-taking, platform-denying, and heckler-vetoing...lets loudmouths and thugs present themselves as heroes of free thought. They do not deserve this opportunity... today, a neo-Nazi has more right to build an arsenal of weapons and drill a militia than to speak on Twitter." But BuzzFeed points out that though the account's been reinstated, Spencer "is now tip-toeing around the company's three strike policy, which carries a permanent suspension."
Vox says the move "raises the question of to what extent Twitter intends to enforce the 'hateful conduct' policy." But the suspension had also been criticized by David Frum, a senior editor at the Atlantic, who wrote that "The culture of offense-taking, platform-denying, and heckler-vetoing...lets loudmouths and thugs present themselves as heroes of free thought. They do not deserve this opportunity... today, a neo-Nazi has more right to build an arsenal of weapons and drill a militia than to speak on Twitter." But BuzzFeed points out that though the account's been reinstated, Spencer "is now tip-toeing around the company's three strike policy, which carries a permanent suspension."
No, because then you make him a "free speech martyr" and he'll still end up getting his message out on another platform anyway.
The term "White Nationalist" is meant to evoke the term "Nazi" mixed with "KKK".
But really it's neither of those things. A nationalist (of any skin color) simply wants government to put the interests of his nation first, above those of other nations generally.
When put that way it doesn't sound scary (or even unreasonable) at all. A nationalist can still want to work with other countries, can still support legal immigration - it simply means they adopt the doctors credo "First do no Harm". That is why the chattering news must paint the term with a racial brush, to frighten children or the weak minded...
Note they never call out "black nationalists" even though there are plenty of them... that would be racist after all! But it's OK to try and evoke hate for people based on color when they are white.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
because these groups have been hitting the dog whistle so hard you'd think they picked up a coaches whistle by mistake.
And we called out Black Nationalists in the 70s. They mostly calmed the hell down and stopped being racists. The White Nationalists didn't do that when they were called out. They doubled and trippled down. Mostly because they're being used by a wealthy elite to win elections and stuff state legislatures with pro-corporate anti-worker politicians. That's what pisses me off the most about racism. It's just an excuse to give everything to the 1%.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yes, it is within their legal rights to enforce the fuck they want.
But it's still not a good idea, specially if your plan is to actually combat white nationalism instead of just sweeping it under the rug.
Yes, and then let this application grow and gain neo nazi moderators and turn it into a racist safe space.
Without free discussion, and real actual discussion instead of retarded namecalling we get shit like trump in power.
Just so long as he doesn't post, say, a non-explicit picture of a mother breastfeeding her child.
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
It's called stormfront
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Freedom of speech in your US constitution applies only to the state. You ignorant fuckwit.
The first amendment only applies to congress and state legislation, you dummy.
Actually it was Hillary Clinton's infamy and unfitness for office that elected Donald Trump, in a close contest of infamy and poor fit for the job. Trump outperformed Romney in non-whites across the board. Dems could have run just about anyone but Clinton and taken the office. But no.
Huh?
It's feminists who are pissed off about FB's ban on non-sexual images that (gasp!) involve a breast. Regardless of context. Things involving breast cancer are particularly frustrating. They banned a Swedish video on breast cancer awareness. They instituted a permanent ban on a tattoo artist who tattoos nipples on women who have gotten mastectomies. There's hundreds and hundreds of examples. Photographic? Artistic? Cartoony? Banned, banned, banned. Some people have taken to representing breasts and nipples as squares as a workaround.
The thing that's most annoying about it is that they're portraying things that are distinctly not sexual as if they're sexual. A mother breastfeeding her child is not a sexual act, and it's disgusting and insulting to act like it is. A breast cancer awareness video or a survivor of breast cancer are not there for sexual titilation - they're about survival from a deadly disease. Facebook's obsession about these things is a giant insult.
You went off on a most bizarre tangent there... what on Earth does Jenner have to do with Facebook's banning of breastfeeding / breast cancer images?
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
Twitter has gladly helped criminals, abusers, and racists - as long as they were leftists. Some of them even have the ear of Twitter's Ministry of Truth & Safety department.
When we start hearing of people on the left get removed from Twitter (permanently), then they might have some shred of legitimacy.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The only violation that matters is not being a proper leftist according to Twitter.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
These things, IMO, have resulted in the alt-right.
You lack historical depth. The "alt-right" has always been here, they just used to be the norm. It's only by standing up and demanding that they be recognized, that they exist and have the same rights that the so called special interest groups have managed to push society into no longer accepting the "alt-right" viewpoint as normal. Of course, they're only "special interest groups" in that they stand up to the bigots who would pretend they don't exist. When your entire philosophy rests on treating everyone who thinks differently from yourself as a sub-human with no right to exist, being stood up to does seem extraordinary.
Excellent post that points out the Left's hypocrisy. Generalizing a group based on a few of its members is bad and makes you a bigot, but it's okay for them to do it to white people who support individual freedom and free speech by painting them all as inbred hill-billies.
As opposed, I presume, to the black supremacist scum of Black Lives Matter?