Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Bans, Removes Verified Status of White Supremacists (thedailybeast.com)
After updating the rules of its verification program on Wednesday, Twitter has begun banning and removing verified check marks from white supremacist accounts. For example, white supremacists Richard Spencer and Charlottesville "Unite The Right" protest creator Jason Kessler had their verified statuses revoked today. The Daily Beast reports: The verified check mark was meant to denote "that an account of public interest is authentic," the company said in a series of tweets on Wednesday, but that "verification has long been perceived as an endorsement." "This perception became worse when we opened up verification for public submissions and verified people who we in no way endorse," a company spokesperson tweeted. Users can now lose their blue checkmarks for "inciting or engaging in harassment of others," "promoting hate and/or violence against, or directly attacking or threatening other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease," supporting people who promote those ideas, and a slew of other reasons.
Pretty much how the media worked out and now it'll be on to other things.
Where's the left-wing mainstream media? We have fox news which is right-wing propaganda from a bunch of billionaires. Is George Soros going to launch his own channel?
The only two ways any of the other news networks can be considered liberal is if you're asking a conservative or if you're comparing it to fox. They couldn't even let people know the basic facts of the Iraq war.
That "certain point of view" being that people of other racial backgrounds are not inferiors, and that white Americans shouldn't seek to "cleanse" the land. Yup, just totally nothing more than a different opinion.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And where did a guy get the idea to bring a gun to a pizza shop and almost shoot up a bunch of innocent people, oh yeah, Fox News and their right-wing cohorts. But I guess that is just an aberration since they support your side. Same with the guy that ran over a protester in Charlottesville, an aberration because he was on your side right? Your simplistic thinking and hypocrisy is shining bright, oh wait, you are a Republican, that is your whole identity.
Monstar L
There can be no real debate about where exactly James Hodgkinson got the ideas that made trying to murder a dozen Republican politicians seem not totally unreasonable. He got them from perfectly mainstream political and intellectual leaders of the Democratic party.
If you have to tell us then it's obviously debatable.
Anyone with half a brain knew all along that it was only a matter of time before someone started taking their manipulative nonsense seriously, as well as the horrific results that would ensue.
Hyper-partisanship is a problem and yes, I know that violence is going to occur but not for the reason you believe. The truth of the matter is that the less representative the government is of it's people, the more prone people are to violence. Right now we have a very low-representation government. This has been done though a number of ways of filtering who and what people can vote for.
* First-past-the-poll voting is reductive and always result in a two party system. You can't vote for the people you want, just the people you agree with more.
* Gerrymandering heavily distorts representation to a minority.
* Keeping elections on a workday excludes many of the working poor by making it difficult as everyone rushes to vote at night.
* Adding registration excludes people by default and photo ID requirements exclude more poor people.
The problem is that's just for the voting system itself, not even how politicians campaign or are selected. Anyway, when you have a highly unrepresentative group in power, there are going to be people who feel cheated (because in a very real way they have been cheated out of accurate representation) and will express themselves with violence.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The alt-right has spent years infiltrating the GOP and manipulating opinion to make far right / supremacist views more acceptable and mainstream.
Look at the reaction to Charlottesville. You might have expected widespread, unequivocal condemnation... But POTUS came out in support of the Nazis. At least they failed to completely take over the GOP and have been left with an ineffective government that is tearing itself apart as the traditional conservatives try to reclaim their party.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Speaking of koolaid... That's demonstrable bullshit. The fucking Queen flies it, the government flies it, numerous people fly it. It's our national flag, why the hell would the police visit you for displaying it?
The same reason that your police have threatened people if they say "we don't want migrants in our town." Did you miss the case where police were told not to have the union jack on their uniform because "it might upset some communities" as well? That was a few years ago.
Even the Republicans are trying to steer him away from starting a new war. Where are you getting this nonsense? Specifically who is calling for war?
You mean all those democrats who were cheering him on when he bombed Syria? You really have no idea what's going on with north korea though do you?
And you can't see why people are slightly alarmed that he didn't specifically, unconditionally condemn the literal Nazis with their swastikas and their "blood and soil" chants, and literal murder? Especially when he instead tried to draw some kind of equivalence between the counter-protesters and the literal Nazis?
No. Because unlike you, I don't believe speech should be censored. I believe that no matter how abhorrent their views are, they should speak them and people should be allowed to see exactly how bad those views are. I believe that the line for free speech stops when there's an actionable threat, not before.
These are people who explicitly support an ideology that murdered 6 million people, genocide on an industrial scale. An ideology build on a foundation of white supremacy and racial purity, that started one of the worst wars in human history to force it on everyone.
And the people who were counter protesting them? You know antifa(that's actual communists FYI), local communist groups and so on? That's the ideology that murdered 100m people on an industrial scale, and built their foundation based on an ideology of the state. Was for the destruction of anything that the state deemed as forbidden. Whether it be knowledge, or a person having the wrong opinion.
And all Trump can say is that there were bad people on both sides. Even "I disagree with their policy of genocide" was too much for him.
You must have been pretty upset when he called for a national day for the victims of communism then.
Om, nomnomnom...
Did you miss the case where police were told not to have the union jack on their uniform because "it might upset some communities" as well?
No, but maybe you did... https://www.theguardian.com/po...
Because unlike you, I don't believe speech should be censored. I believe that no matter how abhorrent their views are, they should speak them and people should be allowed to see exactly how bad those views are. I believe that the line for free speech stops when there's an actionable threat, not before.
I believe that too. I've told you that fore, but you still keep on telling me I don't.
Where we differ is that you want Twitter to broadcast that speech, where as I support their right to not publish on your behalf.
antifa(that's actual communists FYI)
Citation needed on that one. If I were being unkind I'd suggest you are only trying to pretend they are communists because communism gives you a whataboutism for how bad the Nazis were.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC