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.
whining about how they're being persecuted for hating people.
So... now there's no way to verify that a white supremacist actually said that racist thing?
So, people think the check means Twitter is endorsing the verified person. So, now it officially does.
Considering the recent moves in the media, be it twitter, facebook, news articles, reddit posts, moderation across the web, youtube, shaming campaigns etc, it's extremely difficult to actually identify, clear, distinct, genuine racists.
The term has been wildly thrown around the web in the past 3 years (along with misogynist and other such things) to the point it's verging on meaningless.
Why take someones words and analyse them when you can just shriek and bray and imply they're saying something they're not. The accusation alone is enough to "throw a dead cat on the table" and totally redirect the conversation.
I myself am 'clearly racists' according to some comments I've got on reddit, because I have the gall to take issue with my countries *extremely high* immigration policy, which is impacting housing affordability, renting affordability and the jobs market (as well as general congestion, sustainability) - I need not mention a race mind you, but I'm clearly racist because I think maybe we should be thinking about this long term.
The wild labeling of any 'dissenter of our groupthink' is just causing more backlash. I can't help but take a cynical view now of anyone accused of such things and try to find the *actual truth* of what was said, to see if it's taken out of context or not.
In conclusion, basically, I'm not sure I really trust twitter to get this right, in the slightest.
NOTE / DISCLAIMER: (general rant, 2 people mentioned in article could *totally* genuinely be lunatics for all I know, but I'll be damned if I'd take twitter opinion as the final word on it, nor the average twitter users 'reports' either)
Saying that it's treated as an endorsement, they are acknowledging they use the checkmark as an endorsement now. So the 'Verified' checkmark means Twitter, as a corporate entity, is endorsing whomever they give it to. As a potential investor, I find it extremely off-putting a media organization would taint themselves with moderation of speech because there's no way to come out clean. Someone *always* disagrees with whatever you say, and Twitter decided to join the fray? That's *insane*!
> "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
Fuck those 3 white supremacist dudes, but it's ok for tens of thousands ANTIFA and similar to spew hate, insult and otherwise promote hate and violence ?
Everybody is aware of this.. just making sure it's pointed out, as it should be, every time they do something like this where they decide who gets to have a voice and who doesn't.
No, the moral of the story is best summed up by XKCD
I think this is the wrong thing for Twitter to do. They ought to reinforce the idea that verification is just that: verification of identity. It's no more an endorsement of the person than a driver's license is an endorsement of them by the DMV. Personally I like a flag that tells me whether an account really belongs to the person in question or a troll trying to get them in trouble. In the case of white supremacists and their ilk, I consider the verified checkmark to be a target selection aid. It helps me insure I'm taking offense at and responding to someone who deserves it, not someone who's gotten the MAGA folks annoyed.
How about they just make it actually mean "verified" and allow ANYONE to get verified by sending in identification verification? Problem solved and it isn't a special club anymore!
-SaNo
Yep, they removed the mark from these people BECAUSE they don't endorse them. So "if we don't endorse someone, we remove the check mark".
They did NOT remove the check mark from Black Panthers and Antifa accounts.
Twitter fucked up here. Once they start removing the check mark from people they don't endorse, obviously people will say "so why don't you remove the check mark from bad person)?" If they refuse to remove the mark, that now looks like an endorsement.
And also here: https://xkcd.com/1357/
The verified tag is nothing more than badge of social status. At which point, it's useless.
The mere fact of being DE-verified pretty much proves this.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
That always was a shit comic and for good reasons.
Om, nomnomnom...
Will they be next?
How many left wing nutjobs and so-called anti-fascistic fascists have had their twitter recognition and/or accounts removed?
Thought so. This is standard censorship where we block those voices we don't like hearing, leaving more room for those we do like.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
There's nothing wrong with the term. E.g. Wikipedia describes it as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values done primarily with the intent of enhancing standing within a social group.[1] The term was first used in signalling theory, to describe any behavior that could be used to signal virtueâ"especially piety among the religious.[2] In recent years, the term has become more commonly used as a pejorative characterization by commentators to criticize what they regard as empty, or superficial support of certain political views, and also used within groups to criticize their own members for valuing outward appearance over substantive action
Which applies to Twitter making a big fuss about removing the blue checkmark from someone like Spencer. Spencer is someone who can't fill a meeting room for a talk and is widely despised on the right and, as I said, removing his checkmark or even banning him will do absolutely nothing to change anyone's mind about him. Most people who know about him know he's a literal national socialist. His tiny fan club think that is a good thing and everyone else think he's almost as bad as the Communists.
If anything the left building him up to into a boogeyman, failing to counter his arguments and condoning AntiFa commies rioting outside his talks is helping him recruit people. Though, like I say, I think most people on the right are a lot closer to Ben Shapiro's Reagan Republicanism than the are to Richard Spencer's National Socialism and White Nationalism. And, given Spencer wants to expel Jews from his Ethnostate, I think it's fair to assume that you can't simultaneous like both. Given a choice, it's clear who most people on the right would pick.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
"I think Twitter is overstepping its bounds on determining what is offensive and what is not."
Read the fucking Constitution. Only the govenrment is barred fromcesoring.
Private companies like this just don't want to bake a wedding cake for racists, as it is their right.
"I think Twitter is overstepping its bounds on determining what is offensive and what is not."
Read the fucking Constitution. Only the govenrment is barred fromcesoring.
Private companies like this just don't want to bake a wedding cake for racists, as it is their right.
Did the OP even mention the 1st? Why is it an automatic assumption that if someone mentions freedom of speech or censorship they are referring to the constitution? Furthermore, why is it an assumption that a particular Twitter (or any other social/forum based platform) user should be conversant in the Constitution of the United States, when there's a good chance they aren't from the United States? To wit: 79% of Twitter accounts are based outside the United States
One can agree with the sentiment that twitter is overstepping its bounds, while having no interest in the "fucking" constitution as you put it.
Taking the first three panels from someone else's comic without giving them credit, and then pretty clearly ripping off their style to tell your own message is a dirtbag thing to do.
The comic you linked to is full of obvious errors. For example, it quotes John Stewart Mill, but completely misses the point he was making. He wasn't arguing that Twitter should not ban anyone ever because it's the new town square public forum, he was arguing for anonymous speech and for the availability of safe spaces where people could express unpopular views.
Basically Mill was an advocate of 4chan and privacy.
The other obvious flaw is that it says we risk leaving who can speak to who can shout the loudest, while also advocating that everyone be given a free megaphone. Mill understood this, his argument was not that everyone should get their own column in The Times, it was that as an individual one should seek to consider all points of view and arguments. In fact, he recognized that publications specializing in certain ideas were necessary to fully develop them, because otherwise you end up constantly defending the basics and never get to discuss the detail with like-minded people in a safe environment.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well it's alt-right(and alt-lite) sure, it's also conservatives, gamers, progressive muslims, gun owners,
Oh fuck this, gamers in general will not be lumped into the basket of deplorables over one incident involving a bunch of fedora-wearing MRA neckbeards who happen to play videogames. This shit will not stand, the sheer percentage of female gamers these days ensures it.
Progressive Muslims are also extremely wary of the same problem and would gladly tell you where you can shove this idea.
Gab.ai, minds.com, and so on
"So on" being the Daily Stormer and other hate sites. These aren't a new phenomenon. Mainstream sites should not attempt to cater to these userbases. Let them remain in the deepest darkest corners of the Internet, I say.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That always was a shit comic and for good reasons.
And other bollocks. Throwing in a bunch of quotes randomly combined with a complete misunderstanding of British history is not a rebuttal. The XKCD was not against free speech, it was pointing out that just because it's not illegal to say does not entitle you to a platform, let alone any platform you like. Also freedom without responsibility is anarchy, the same is true with free speech, free speech has never protected you from criticism.
People trying to defend racism (yes, white supremacists are racists, placing one race as superior to another... let alone all others is the dictionary definition of racism) are the ones who are destroying free speech. They are using this as a thought terminating cliche to silence criticism. White Supremacists are not some hard done by minority group fighting for equal rights or recognition, they are fighting to suppress equal rights for other groups they don't like. Using free speech to defend them from critics is devaluing free speech. Free speech does not mean what you say is right, it just means it is not illegal to say it. Using the free speech excuse to silence critics, especially valid critics, reduces freedom.
I'm a firm believer in playing the devils advocate, but one must always consider the nature of the devil for which one advocates for. Knowing who you are defending is key in defending it successfully. Often using the wrong defence harms you more than not defending them in the first place. Finally, using free speech as a defence is the worst possible argument, falling back on free speech means that the most compelling defence you have for what you said is that it is literally not illegal to say it.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
. Also helps explain why they didn't make a peep when Trump called for bringing back the fairness doctrine in all but name.
You weren't paying attention then, because if you were then you'd already know that people were automatically arguing against that as soon as he said it. That was right in the "trump heavy" subs, forums and so on. They're easy to find, you shouldn't have any problems. But if you're sucking your news from a couple of sources, I can see how you'd miss that. Just like how the media is all over Judge Moore, and not saying anything about the Menendez trial. I mean that literally. You know that he actually *did* pay for underage prostitutes, it's right there in the docket.
Om, nomnomnom...
Leftists get a blue check mark taken away from racists. They can still tweet, just without an emoji.
The right wing in control of all levels of our government make sure scientists can't report that climate change is happening because coal companies don't like it.
Clearly this country is being destroyed by leftist fascists...
When I comment, it's to point out hypocrisy. Like yours.
You seem to think I should spend my time here running down a laundry list of every bad thing that everyone does so I can earn your patronizing approval for being endlessly whiny about everything in the appropriately SJW tone. No, I don't bother. In a world of billions of people, there are billions of things that deserve contempt. But because the majority of the media in this country, which has a powerful effect on our culture and discourse, is displaying an ugly form of irrational pandering towards people who are trying to sell a bundle of lies in order to deflect from their own bumbling political losses, I'm very happy to put that tiny portion of my week that it takes to type a few sentences responding to that hypocrisy. Your own deliberate projection (in place of EVER addressing substance) doesn't really need more commentary since it's a personal failing you can't shake off. You might want to seek some help, but you won't get it here.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Why don't you learn a teeny bit about fascism? Fascist regimes often do censor, but lots of other ones do also. It isn't a synonym for censorship or repression or something you don't like.
Also, it looks to me like political groups don't like free speech. The most worrying suppression of free speech right now is taking place in the scientific areas of the Federal Government, and that's not liberals doing it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes