Slashdot Mirror
Inside Twitter's Long, Slow Struggle To Police Bad Actors (wsj.com)
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has personally weighed in on high-profile decisions, frustrating some employees. An anonymous reader shares a report: When Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey testifies before Congress this week, he'll likely be asked about an issue that has been hovering over the company: Just who decides whether a user gets kicked off the site? To some Twitter users -- and even some employees -- it is a mystery. In policing content on the site and punishing bad actors, Twitter relies primarily on its users to report abuses and has a consistent set of policies so that decisions aren't made by just one person, its executives say. Yet, in some cases, Mr. Dorsey has weighed in on content decisions at the last minute or after they were made, sometimes resulting in changes and frustrating other executives and employees [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source], according to people familiar with the matter. Understanding Mr. Dorsey's role in making content decisions is crucial, as Twitter tries to become more transparent to its 335 million users, as well as lawmakers about how it polices toxic content on its site.
Last month, after Twitter's controversial decision to allow far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to remain on its platform, Mr. Dorsey told one person that he had overruled a decision by his staff to kick Mr. Jones off, according to a person familiar with the discussion. Twitter disputes that account and says Mr. Dorsey wasn't involved in those discussions. Twitter's initial inaction on Mr. Jones, after several other major tech companies banned or limited his content, drew fierce backlash from the public and Twitter's own employees, some of whom tweeted in protest. [...] "Any suggestion that Jack made or overruled any of these decisions is completely and totally false," Twitter's chief legal officer, Vijaya Gadde, said in a statement. "Our service can only operate fairly if it's run through consistent application of our rules, rather than the personal views of any executive, including our CEO."
Last month, after Twitter's controversial decision to allow far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to remain on its platform, Mr. Dorsey told one person that he had overruled a decision by his staff to kick Mr. Jones off, according to a person familiar with the discussion. Twitter disputes that account and says Mr. Dorsey wasn't involved in those discussions. Twitter's initial inaction on Mr. Jones, after several other major tech companies banned or limited his content, drew fierce backlash from the public and Twitter's own employees, some of whom tweeted in protest. [...] "Any suggestion that Jack made or overruled any of these decisions is completely and totally false," Twitter's chief legal officer, Vijaya Gadde, said in a statement. "Our service can only operate fairly if it's run through consistent application of our rules, rather than the personal views of any executive, including our CEO."
you mean "everybody who hurt my feelings and whom i don't like"
Then when questioned on the application twitter spokespersons seem to offer this as a explanation, "its the algorithm that decides". If this banning / not banning continues then sooner or later, twitter (and others) may soon learn the hard way what "Common Carrier" means.
Passionately Indifferent
Considering the fact that @Jack is a bad actor, I doubt they'll ever do anything about it.
Socialists and Nazi fascists were and are today mortal enemies, read more retard nazi apologist lol. No wonder they're kicking you off social media, you faggots are too dumb to continue to exist lol.
Facebook, twitter, etc should all (voluntarily) require all users to complete an identity verification process, and then real names should be used as handles.
If you aren't anonymous, then you are far less likely to be a jerk.
Most reasonable people are sick and tired of wading through filth whenever they read a news forum, entertainment forum, twitter feed, sports article, you name it. Many sites simply resort to shutting off comments altogether, which eliminates the angry hate filled trash, but also eliminates the relevant insightful commentary.
The solution is to get rid of the the angry hateful speech...regardless of political leanings. If eliminating the hate and trash happens to impact a certain shade of ideology, well maybe those ideologues should assess their own speech and consider why and how many consider it hateful, angry, and vitriolic. That's not our fault...and we're not going to apologize. Clean it up, or go away.
The Nazis murdered socialists, you dumbass
Dorsey didn't deliver on the Alex Jones ban. He chickened out and went for probation. That's breaking ranks.
He pays the price now. Pressure is going to get ramped up until Dorsey is ousted from Twitter. Media hitpieces week in week out until he crumbles or the stock implodes or both.
Because this isn't tech anymore. It's not even business. It's politics.
How does editorial control jibe with the DMCA safe harbor provisions?
Hitler got bull semen injections along with meth and vitamin cocktails. He was way, way ahead of Trump, ironically they BOTH managed to fuck themselves up completely in Russia. You would think after the first time.. nope, not a reader.
To some Twitter users -- and even some employees -- it is a mystery
LOL. No it's fucking not. It's really fucking obvious who gets kicked off the platform.
Are you a prominent conservative political figure that is currently in the focus of a lot of angry liberal people who like to mash the "report" button (for frivolous or false reasons) and aren't too big/connected that there will be business/corporate/financial retaliation if you get kicked off the site?
Congratulations, have a boot to the head! You're banned!
I'm still waiting for publicly known harassers and perpetrators of violent hate speach to get banned from Twitter like: Randi Harper, Zoe Quinn, Manveer Heir, Sarah Jeong, Robbi Rodriguez and all those antifa goons. They are guilty of actions that are at the least worse than conservative entities on twitter are accused of doing and yet they get to spew things like "murder all white people" or send pictures of their hairy assholes to other people, or use twitter to orchestrate a network of followers to harass both online and in real life people whom merely disagree with their ideology.
Nazis weren't tolerant of homosexuality, it was something they were trying to wipe out, it's just that they were often willing to accept castration as sufficient means of dealing with the problem rather than execution.
Unlike Jews, Roma and other undesirables, homosexuals were often allowed that means of escaping the holocaust.
Not from a literal bull, mind you, but instead a muscular black man. And it wasn't so much of an injection as it was a cream pie (Hitler invented those, too).
Can you point out where he incited violence against anyone? I keep hearing this claim, and haven't seen anybody back it up yet. Too many lies these days get repeated constantly in the hopes that it'll "stick" and people will just assume it's true for it's own sake, and then base further "solutions" on the false premise.
And yet Twitter's executive suite doesn't really care if the service truly operates fairly, it only cares if it has the APPEARANCE of operating fairly... and that can be accomplished without that niggling "consistent application of rules".
You don't have to be a conservative in order to get censored on these sites. You just need to question the political agendas.
Link to data that disproves a shadow-government talking point? Watch the post get removed for "not meeting community standards"
It's just that conservatives disagree with the current talking points far more often than the neo-liberals that you see in the media lately, who are not to be confused with classical liberals who actually do care about freedoms.
I wouldn't call Alex Jones a 'far right wing' player. I'd call him a nutcase cultist. Back when I used to read the Drudge Report page (I quit frequenting it awhile back) if a link from Drudge took me to infowars.com I had a habit of instantly closing the page, because that site is a loony nest. This was particularly the case during the 2016 election, because you're not doing yourself a favor by hanging out in a loony echo chamber if you have sincere beliefs in a thought out political philosophy. There are similar fever swamps on the left, of course.
-------------------
This is an aside, but I was trawling around on the left political sites this weekend and noticed that the main Trotskyite newspaper in the US is now apparently defending Trump of all things.
Do you also believe tiger sharks are actual tigers? Do you think corn snakes are made of corn? It's in their name, after all.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Alex Jones incited violence against victims of previous violence.
You're a liar.
Jones never did any such thing.
Of course you will claim you are correct.
Let's put it this way : if you are so sure of your claim, would you agree to commit suicide if your false claim was proven to be false ?
Because if you are not 100% sure of your claim, you need to not make such claims, you stupid sack of shit.
Switch to Mastadon
The problem is that anyone to the political right of Bernie Sanders is often labeled as a Nazi. We have sitting Congresspeople wanting to impeach a President that they readily admit has not broken any laws, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors, because they believe he is a Nazi. So I guess you kick at least half the US population into the retard bin...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
He's guilty of more than that, you're a moron. No I'm not going to lay google results on a moron who can't search for that themselves and watch his insane-yet-retarded videos to cue up exactly where the multiple citations are on tape. GFY
Oh, why do I feel the need to respond to people who are about as likely to understand as my cat?
https://qz.com/1335125/infowar...
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Nazis sent homosexuals to the concentration camps and made them wear pink triangles.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Candace Owens was banned from Twitter for simply retweeting what racist NY Times editor/writer Sarah Jeong posted, but changing all racial references from white to black. And Candace Owens is black. Why was she banned? She's a conservative. And that's not allowed.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Who said he broke no laws? I don't think anyone is saying that, you're kind of a retarded abstraction layer to an otherwise easily observed factual record. Trump is guilty of multiple high crimes including tax fraud, conspiracy, campaign fraud, bank fraud, emoluments, being a moron who can't lay off twitter "officially" to the detriment of both his presidency and his legal defense when these things are tried in the Senate, ETCETERA ET AL. Bob Mueller will see you now, bitches.
Ha! Immediately above your stupid, trollish idiocy a sensible logged in user has directly refuted you.
You're a fool.
Cripes, the US labelled the last bunch of neo-liberals as neo-conservatives. We can't now have you introduce the neo-liberal term to represent another bunch of radicals.
My gods that's a stupid comment.
Almost every assertion is untrue.
Challenging someone to a boxing match or saying you want a political duel is hardly inciting others to violence. If those are the best examples you can find, your argument is pretty weak.
Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
I wound up on some stranger's profile - I forget how - and noticed he'd tweeted something anti-white. I saw that he'd also posted a picture with his son who was white. I called him an anti-white faggot. I didn't make any threats, I just called him a naughty name. Banned forever.
Fuck Twitter. Please give me my account back, faggots.
I guess we are not longer innocent until proven guilty?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Probably should have started with Jack Dorsey, the writing was on the wall the second they began allowing sponsored tweets. Something the dumbass user base never seems to get with social media: the platform doesn't belong to you, it belongs to them, and so does your ass if you overinvest your time or livelihood into it.
The Nazis murdered *communists*. Because (among other things) they were conflicting forms of socialism.
"It's just that conservatives disagree with the current talking points" - No, ACTUAL conservatives might but you? Are right up with Trump in Putin's asshole, face facts anytime. You ARE WALKING the talking points, pizzagater.
because that's what got Alex Jones banned. The final straw was when he mimed a gun shot talking about Mueller. The platforms are worked one of his listeners is going to go off and shoot somebody. This isn't idle speculation either.
I looked up a few of the ones you listed. Manveer Heir is walking the same fine line Jones did with what can only be described as a left wing dog whistle. You're right, he's hot garbage (just trying to make a name for himself stirring up controversy). But I couldn't find an implicit let alone explicit call to violence against white people. The rest are either opportunists or, in Sarah Jeong's case, a dumb kid saying angry things. Again though, couldn't find any calls to violence.
Banning Jones and the like isn't something these platforms want to do. Remember, they're corporations who sell advertising. All they care about is eyeballs. They could care less how they get them. Hell, the reason Trump's president is the media gave him $6 billion in free advertising so they could get eyeballs to do their own ads to. They're worried about getting sued if they don't act and one of Jone's listeners acts on his (pretty blatant and at times outright overt) suggestions of violence.
"Antifa" is blown out of proportion by media. They're the American equivalent of soccer hooligans. And the most the left does is "Punch Nazis". I've yet to see one of them mime a shooting or show up with guns.
TL;DR: The Left isn't getting banned because they don't lean on violence.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Oh, why do I feel the need to respond to people who are about as likely to understand as my cat?
https://qz.com/1335125/infowar...
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/...
Obviously you lack the intelligence to be able to discern the difference between rhetoric and an outright threat. The proof this is true is evident in the fact that Jones is not in prison. Actual threats will result in arrest, conviction, sentencing, and imprisonment.
Better luck next time, honey.
DMCA is for copyright. This isn't about copyright, this is about negligence. Jones' listeners already have a history of going off half cocked. My guess is google, Twitter, etc are worried about a negligence lawsuit the next time one of them fires a gun if it hits something.
They could hide behind common carrier, but that's a very high bar to meet. It means being a dumb pipe, like the telephone company. It wouldn't be worth it. They couldn't even ban trolls from flood posting and the like. No social network could survive that.
Instead they're policing their network as best the can. Make no mistake, they didn't want to kick Jones & his ilk off. His viewer's money spends the same as everyone else's and they'd be happy with the advertising dollars. The final straw was when he mimed shooting Bob Mueller.
If you want a sci-fi take on what they're afraid of go read this. I'm not saying Jones is trying to get somebody killed, but I'm saying words have power (as that Pizzagate business proved) and Jones is using them recklessly.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So first I searched for "reputation". Nothing. Maybe 60+ comments is too soon? Then I searched for "funny", but that's just the normal disappointment. Then I actually looked at the posts modded "insightful". That's just sad. Final searches for "solution" as in "constructive". Sadder.
Anyway, I'm still fixated on seeking constructive solutions. The approach that most probably applies to Twitter is MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation), though it would need some tweaking for that application.
In brief, trolls with earned bad reputations should be helped in rendering themselves less visible, and the more they like to act badly, the less visible they should become. I'm not saying it should be difficult to earn a good reputation, but there's no hurry, and if it's a slower process then the penalty of losing your reputation becomes more serious and worth avoiding.
ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Actually it's you who lack the intelligence to distinguish inciting violence (against innocent people as in this case) from actual personal threats of violence, not the same thing. He was kicked the fuck off Twitter for the former.
If he did the latter he should be in jail, but that's not how it works in practice. He'd probably get probation at worst. Getting kicked off Twitter and perhaps the air, however, is perfectly reasonable for such dumbass behavior.
No, you're being intentionally obtuse. Fascism and socialism or social-democratic-ism are not the same thing in any respect nor did the Nazis practice socialism.
There's a commonly attributed quote that Mussolini didn't actually say that anyone can cite, but the point was that Socialism and Fascism (or corporatism, same thing) were mortal enemies after the same pie.
Learn more please, then spout your defense of inherently retarded and historically trite (and more or less self-defeating in general) nazi fascism like what Trump preaches today. It's retarded and destined for the ash bin.
Because really, all bad actors are bad comedians...
You understand that criminals were criminals BEFORE the guilt was proven in court. It's not that you cannot point out their crimes because of presumption of innocence, you just want to pretend he's innocent for propaganda purposes.
The assertion that he's being investigate because he's being labelled a nazi, is false. He's being investigated because his campaign's Papadopoulos, got drunk and blabbed about Trump's Russian backing. And his campaigns Manafort received a mass of undeclared Russian money for his work in Ukraine, and his lawyer Cohen has long been money laundering Trump bribes. I don't just mean the hooker payoffs, I also mean the $66k/quarter paid to his bodyguards lawyer, shortly after the bodyguard testified to the Russia inquiry that he turned away hookers in Moscow.
etc. etc. etc.
https://imgur.com/0CToREC
Thank you for your delightfully insightful addition to this conversation. Your well-formed arguments, backed by factual references, has given me pause for thought and may eventually lead me to change my mind on this subject. I look forward to continued engagement that will be, I am certain, educational and enlightening.
If they are going to ban bad actors, william shatner is the worst actor of them all. I don't know if he should be banned though
I see, Trump is the victim, somebody called him a Nazi and because of that some sort of massive deep state/Democrat/media/FBI/Silicon Valley conspiracy is trying to impeach him.
The problem with that is all the evidence and all the guilty pleas and the convictions.
See these are crimes, and if you think Senators in the Republican party won't prosecute him after the election, well you don't think so highly of Republicans.
conspiracy
Do you even know what conspiracy is? Like, the legal definition?
emoluments
The new vocabulary word that everyone learned this year......even though they still don't know what it means.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Fascism and socialism or social-democratic-ism are not the same thing in any respect nor did the Nazis practice socialism.
Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are all top-down, command-and-control, redistributionist, collectivist, authoritarian ideologies that place little value on individual freedom over the interests of the collective. "Everything within the State, nothing outside the State." applies equally to all three. In none of them does the individual have "rights", only privileges allowed by the State that can be revoked anytime for any reason.
It's like Catholics, Protestants, and Methodists each accusing the others of not being Christian. They are all Christians that differ only on relatively minor points of doctrine. It's the same with Fascism, Socialism (and it's sub-variants like "Democratic Socialism" which is an oxymoron) and Communism.
Rather than "Left" and "Right" we should be discussing an "Up" and "Down", "Up" being larger government with the commensurate loss of individual liberty, and "Down" which is smaller, less powerful government with a commensurately larger amount of individual liberty.
With a less powerful government "Left" and "Right" would not matter as much nor affect individual liberty as drastically.
Get "Down" baby, and get free!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Twitter said that I have to verify my telephone number so I can continue using the Twitter service. Did not give any plausible argument why they kicked me off.
I simply stopped using twitter and will not come back. F*ck it.
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
You understand that modding an AC to -1 for an on topic, detailed explanation with supporting links, just ends up as a penalty in meta-moderation later. I don't mind expanding on the comments, if it'll waste -1 mod points!
It's not a complicated thing. 2012 and Russian spies visit New York offering property deals in exchange for political help in getting sanctions lifted, they operate out of VTB Bank in New York and are prosecuted. Him and Felix Slater (born Felix Mikhailovich Sheferovsky, a Russian mobster) broker a deal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5616219/Ex-Russian-spy-worked-Trump-Tower-Moscow-deal-Donald-ran-president.html
Trump did his run on the Presidency and was supposed to push a pro-Russian agenda, and he did that. His campaign staff were all approved by Moscow, many met the Russian Ambassador ahead as a sort of job interview, or had previous Russian business links. Even his lawyers for the emoluments clause were one of two companies approved to work in Moscow.
But stuff starts to go wrong, details of meetings leak out, money flows are not concealed properly, one of the launderers, Cohen flips, his campaign managers were sloppy in their communications, coordination with the Russians was sloppy, they say a meeting was about a property deal, he says it was about orphans, Trump himself is sloppy, in front of Whitehouse staff sworn to obey the laws first and their boss second.
And here we are today. *Republican* budget says Trump cannot recognize Crimea as part of Russia, and Trump adds a signing statement to cancel that. You can pretend he's being persecuted by political enemies, but he's not, he's being prosecuted by patriotic Americans.
I love it when you people let the mask slip. Thanks for politicizing Twitter and helping send it to the bottom.
Even if we can't prove Trump broke any laws, you just know he wants to. That's why we need to put him in prison.
The vast majority of my friends have been banned from Twitter, and they're nowhere near conservative. You're wrong. Twitter just bans thousands of account each day at random.
I don't work for Twitter nor do I give a fuck about Nazi faggots being kicked from it like a dog might kick fleas. Fuck your cultist faggot lifestyle, go to Hell on a white cock as Dorsey fucks you to sweet nazi faggot oblivion.
That is correct. Nazis were not socialists.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Twitter is being run by the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations led by Qatar's US-Islamic World Forum and Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal's business partners Suhail Rizvi and Jim Berk. Remember when Saudi Arabia arrested Alwaleed bin Talal and cut off relations with Qatar, before General McMaster fired and replaced Trump's entire national security council and then Alwaleed was released and things returned to normal? Ever wonder what that was about?
They were supported by the Rockefeller-aligned MacArthur Foundation who have staff on the boards of Wikipedia and the New York Times.
And hey look, it's the White House announcing a "global research and action network focused on youth-oriented hate speech online" run by the same exact people and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. But hey, it's not the government censoring you online, it's just the President of the United States whose college expenses happen to have been paid by one Alwaleed bin Talal, and his Homeland Security staff, and a front for al-Qaeda. No big deal!
These websites also want to ban conspiracy theories. I wonder why?
Socialism is an economic distribution model, not a government.
So there are no Socialist governments? Venezuela would like a word with you.
You're engaging in Post-Modernism. Why do you want to regress to something the West abandoned long ago for logic and reason during the Enlightenment which propelled humanity thousands of years forward in the space of a little more than a century?
Read about this stuff, Strat.
Back at you AC, and at least I have the confidence in my knowledge, principles, opinions, and facts to not post AC.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Venezuela is a "state-owned" oil-ocracy with semi-socialist distribution model that failed due to a singular export, oil, when prices fell /bbl, and had terrible financial decision making and political external factors both. You're being a moron strat.
You literally could read about these things and know more about them rather than assume Socialism as an economic distribution model has ever been faithfully achieved as a functional government unto itself. People who read know this.
The problem is that anyone to the political right of Bernie Sanders is often labeled as a Nazi. We have sitting Congresspeople wanting to impeach a President that they readily admit has not broken any laws, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors, because they believe he is a Nazi. So I guess you kick at least half the US population into the retard bin...
Uh oh, LynnwoodRooster's trigger is the N word, everybody back up and give her a safe space, remember it's not right when we use the N word, only they can.
Don't you mean "Nazis were not true socialists"?
The problem is that anyone to the political right of Bernie Sanders is often labeled as a Nazi.
Yes, but never by someone except alt-right strawmen.
Or are you a snowflake that can't handle being called a Nazi when you show support for people branding swastikas?
True, false or otherwise, they were not socialists. Nazis killed socialists.
Here's something else you can ruminate on: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea really isn't democratic. It's just a name.
Nazis were indisputably fascist. They arose out of a far right movement in Europe that was a reaction against leftists. The original name of Hitler's party was Deutcher Arbeiter Partei (D.A.P). It didn't become the N.S.D.A.P. until they were trying to steal socialist support (which they never got). There is not a single historian that will say the Nazis were socialists or leftists. It's the same today. You will notice that when the Nazis marched in Charlottesville, they didn't call their rally, "Unite the Left". They called it "Unite the Right".
Also, did you know that the Nazis hated being called Nazis? They have that in common with the Nazis of today.
You are welcome on my lawn.
In the first place, I completely agree with you. Nazis should get their hearing like anyone else.
In the second place, I'm not sure who this president is that you're talking about. I can't, offhand, think of one who meets even a small fraction of your description.
What is "illegal"? By whose laws? Adjudicated by whom?
Pink triangles and nothing else?
I bet they left Lieutenant Gruber in charge...
No. Nazis killed - and in turn were killed by - big-C Communists.
"Mr. Dorsey told one person that he had overruled a decision by his staff to kick Mr. Jones off, according to a person familiar with the discussion."
Ah, here we see another common tactic of the outrage industry: if we can't get X organisation to do what we want, then we'll just make up a rumour implicating one of the senior members, in order to personally pressure them into giving in.
Nice argument, time to empty your piss jugs
Let's stop calling them "snowflakes" and start calling them what they are: totalitarian shitlords.
If you say "socialism" and "Venezuela" in the mirror three times a socialist account will appear behind you to tell you Venezuela isn't actually socialist and anyway it was done wrong. (just like all of the others)
Strat is exactly right. Fascism was an attempt to avoid the economic collapse of Leninism while retaining the authoritarian control.
Well, to be fair, around 50% of the polulation has a below average intelligence.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
While I completely agree with everything you say, did you really just write "speach"? WTF? How American.
Socialist. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Twitter is just a a platform for crazy old Trump to spew hatred, deceit, paranoia, racism, and generally working on destroying America.
Do what I did, close your account.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Are you a prominent conservative political figure that is currently in the focus of a lot of angry liberal people who like to mash the "report" button (for frivolous or false reasons) and aren't too big/connected that there will be business/corporate/financial retaliation if you get kicked off the site?
Congratulations, have a boot to the head! You're banned!
All the evidence I have see suggests that is actually happens to progressive/left leaning users much more often. Especially on YouTube, but Twitter has issues too. A lot of this mobbing gets organized on 4chan, right out in the open, but it's very hard to get a human being at those companies to even notice, let along check the 4chan thread and realize what has happened.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You mean those pesky conservatives? Its not bias...its bad actors...mmkay
I love it when you go all homophobe.. lol
If content is not illegal, Twitter should not be restricting it in any way.
Name one business that uses "not illegal" as its required standard of behaviour for patrons.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The sad thing about this straw man is that it helps the actual literal swastika-displaying 1488-chanting domestic terrorist Nazis out there.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They called it "Unite the Right".
From what I can see about similar movements in my country is that these people have a right-wing view on issues as identity and immigration, but mostly a left-wing view on economic policies.
If twitter banned Alex Jones for his nut job conspiracy theories and lies, they'd also have to ban @realDonaldTrump for his abuse, lies, and conspiracy theories. So my conspiracy theory is that Alex still has access because otherwise Trump wouldn't.
Last time I checked, they were only interested in shutting down conservatives.
The point of policing is to identify people who harass and abuse, and/or post false or misleading information (lies and propaganda). Some people are too dumb to know when they are being manipulated ... and some people are so good at manipulating, that even smart people get conned.
Eat a cock rightards!
Buy your own rightard servers and coders if you want a platform
Speech = Money
FAGGIT!
Who is getting branded with swastikas?
I remember the bad old days, when police did the actual policing, and there was due process and stuff.
Oh well. Forward!
> Name one business that uses "not illegal" as its required standard of behaviour for patrons.
The phone company.
If content is not illegal, Twitter should not be restricting it in any way.
Name one business that uses "not illegal" as its required standard of behaviour for patrons.
Um, most of them?
Seriously, you have to pretty much be doing something illegal (shoplifting, disturbing the peace) to be kicked out of, say, a grocery store.
> True, false or otherwise, they were not socialists. Nazis killed socialists.
So because one group of Socialists turned on other Socialists for being the wrong kind of Socialists, you can claim they were not Socialists?
Lovely. How about you explain then why so many movements promising to give "Socialism" give us not-true-Socialism and murder lots of people? National Socialists are hardly the only time this happened. You guys screwed over Venezuela and a bunch of other countries. The closest you've come to a successful experiment is funding Socialism by selling oil to capitalist countries, but it's questionable that it will remain sustainable long term.
You guys hate the concentration of economic power and then ignore the concentration of political power when trying to address that inequality, leading to exactly the kind of tyranny you supposedly fear from the concentration of economic power.
For the 100th time, nazional-sozialists were socialists !! (bignannystate-mother-knows-best-social-engineers-stateruneconomy-true-socialists kind).
If you say "socialism" and "Venezuela" in the mirror three times a socialist account will appear behind you to tell you Venezuela isn't actually socialist and anyway it was done wrong. (just like all of the others)
LOL! Noice! Agreed, the socialists always trot-out that old, tired, "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy every time. People have gotten tired of hearing that BS to the point that even folks who aren't very politically-minded roll their eyes at those types anymore.
Strat is exactly right. Fascism was an attempt to avoid the economic collapse of Leninism while retaining the authoritarian control.
Thank you. Yes, Lenin even congratulated Mussolini when he took Italy Fascist, as Socialism and Fascism are both based on Marxist ideology.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
True, false or otherwise, they were not socialists. Nazis killed socialists.
So if I will you, i'm not a slashdotter ? Or a homo sapiens ? Typical neomarxist thinking....
He knows what it means, but just like his NSDAP cousins, he doesn't like being called what he is.
If content is not illegal, Twitter should not be restricting it in any way.
Name one business that uses "not illegal" as its required standard of behaviour for patrons.
Um, most of them?
Seriously, you have to pretty much be doing something illegal (shoplifting, disturbing the peace) to be kicked out of, say, a grocery store.
Try holding a track meet in a grocery store and see how far you get.
Tiger sharks and corn snakes didn't pick their own names.
But ok, you don't trust names, OK fair !, then you also think nazis weren't nazis or fascist (because hey FAKE NAMES....).. no ? no ? Or is it only fake name when it suits you ?
To paraphrase Carlin: Look at the average man, and realize half of them are dumber than him!
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
I may not agree with all of what Alex Jones has to say, but I have found that having people like him around is a good thing. Sure. He (and others like him) sometimes makes excellent points that few other people would. Now if you absolutely hate everything he says, no problem. But maybe you have people you listen to that I would hate everything they say. If so, shouldn't I be able to kick them out of the system? Who gets to make the decisions. The following quote stuck out for me:
". . Last month, after Twitter's controversial decision to allow far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to remain on its platform . . "
Who gets to decide something is "controversial"?
What if I did not like, say, the Huffington Post? Personally, I cannot say I like or dislike it. Others might. Can they kick it off the internet?
It used to be kicking someone off a site not done unless someone became abusive, used foul language, or promoted something obviously criminal. Then it was logical. Now, even I can see it is becoming to much of a "feel good" and "vengeful" process. This will backfire.
No, he means that Nazis were trying to co-opt the name for their own means. They aren't "true socialists" in the same sense that North Korea is not a true "Democratic Republic."
Everyone in this thread should just fucking kill themselves, stop bitching about the left vs right aspect of brutal authoritarian regimes, and come to the realization that if you are a brutal authoritarian regime, you probably aren't anywhere close to any mainstream economic model.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My god you have no idea how reality works, do you.
Try yelling racial slurs as you wander around the store and see how long it takes for you to get kicked out.
Or wander around yelling how your want to legalize paedophilia. I bet that will get you booted even faster.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Try going into McDonalds, getting on your soapbox and lecturing the patrons about almost anything. See how long their "not illegal" standard of required behaviour holds for.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well, I was half-joking, but "economic model" is ... vastly underestimating the scope of these ideologies.
Sure, they are "economic model", in the sense that everything you do involves money (even the communist USSR used money, just as the Federation uses gold-pressed latinum, despite the usual propaganda).
These "economic models" aren't just about how to handle your finances; they are about how you live your entire life (your "livelihood", if you will). The fact that totalitarian versions also include genocidal agendas (see: annihilation of the Maquis) doesn't quite set them apart enough to make them incomparable to their "gentler" counterparts.
Nice try. Everyone has seen the nazi/socialist argument a million times. A million times the issue is explored no deeper than the name because that's all the deeper it goes.
This is like if we found out that the murderous owner of "True Scotsman" brand whiskey was in fact Greek but you keep using him as your true Scotsman.
Good work.
Nazi's killed socialists (and anyone else) who disagree'd with or otherwise annoyed them. This is the way of ALL socialist, communist and fascist ideologies. They are all just variations of the same theme. The differences only exist in the minds of academics. As soon as any of these ideologies 'go live' the academics are brushed aside or put to death by the strong men who then take charge and employ ruthlessness and fear to achieve their ends within the political structure. The state 'knows whats best' for everyone else. Collectivist? The collective is always defined (and continuously re-defined) in favor of whatever tyrant currently holds power. In 3rd world countries it end up empowering tribalism on steroids. In the USSR and China it enabled/enables a totalitarian state to rule absolutely with the noble directive that 'whatever we choose to do is clearly what is best for everyone'.
Only capitalism and the rule of law lets the 'strong of mind' overcome the 'strong of arm'. Collectivists hate this because it shatters their vision of 'workers' uniting and sweating their way into a glorious future.
It comes down to, "where do you want to live?"
Do you want to live in the place where the smartest reign supreme? Kind of unfair to those who aren't as smart, perhaps? Gee, what to do about that?
Or
Do you want to live in the place where the strongest and most ruthlessly savage reign supreme? Kind of unfair to those who just want to put their pretty daughters into a good marriage or school instead of into the brothels of the warlords. Gee, what to do about that?
Can't have everything. Decisions have to be made.
Slashdot
At the personal level it comes down to this:
Some people can abide others having more than them, some people cannot. Those who cannot tend to take their surroundings for granted, never realizing until its too late (again and again and again) how quickly the seeming 'plenty' of free market capitalism evaporates when you try to grab it and redistribute it. Suddenly the rule of law is gone. Thugs are in the streets. Where is the food? The store shelves are empty and the windows are all broken. No more toilet paper! Wait, the thugs have toilet paper AND food, but want something (or someone) in return...
The fantasy dies hard. As soon as a society gets back on its feet, "Hey, he has more! Not fair! Something must be done!"
and not just the finger bang. Listen to him and his rhetoric. It's pretty much the 5 minutes of Hate from 1984 stretched out into an 2 hour program. He's made multiple references to blood libel. His audience has already been shown to be a little unhinged (maybe not 'a little'). This isn't me trolling. He's argued that Sandy Hook was a false flag for Pete's sake. He argued that chemicals in our water are turning us Gay.
Furthermore, Jones has many, many times hinted at armed rebellion. He's done this to people who he knows are armed and who have shown themselves to be more than happy to use "2nd amendment solutions".
Now, in Jones' divorce trial he admitted that he doesn't believe any of the nonsense he spouts. That it's all an act. But if anything that makes it worse. He knows the risks of what he's doing. He knows he could be pushing some nutter over the edge and he doesn't care. Google, OTOH, cares, because they don't want the lawsuit when one of them finally snaps and shows up at some QANON target and shoots the place up.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't recall Rachel Maddow miming shooting Trump, and I'm pretty sure if she had Fox News would make damn sure I knew. I don't recall her accusing Republicans of Blood Libel. I don't recall her suggesting armed rebellion against Trump. Jones has done all these things. He did all this while courting an audience that believes Sandy Hook didn't happen. He did all this while he knew (based on testimony given under oath at his divorce trial) that none of the crazy conspiracy theories he spouts are real (which is funny, it's biting him in the ass during his defamation hearing).
If you're gonna do Whataboutism can you at least try harder than that?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
who are both well armed and prone to believe absurd conspiracy theories? Did you do it _after_ one of those people from your audience showed up at a pizza joint with a rifle and fired rounds into it? If so then yes, I would ban you from my platform if I was google or twitter. If only out of fear of a negligence lawsuit.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
with the actual left. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer aren't part of the American Left. They're right wingers running in districts that won't vote for Republicans. There's been attempts to kick them out via primary but they've got so much money they beat them back. Go look up the "Justice Democrats" on google if you want to see the actual American Left.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The only real viable outcome of these hearings and all the brouhaha of banning and censorship, etc is likely legislation mandating that the terms and conditions for socials sites clearly outline specific behaviors that are prohibited, the penalties for violating the terms and conditions and requiring some form of due process for those who believe they have been wrongly accused and found in violation.
Can't really see the harm in that.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
and I am a Jelly Donut
"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service"
But Alex Jones BE StaBle GeniUS! No BaN HE! LibTaRDS!
Left wing on economic policies? Can you elaborate a bit?
The point of policing is to identify people who harass and abuse, and/or post false or misleading information (lies and propaganda). Some people are too dumb to know when they are being manipulated ... and some people are so good at manipulating, that even smart people get conned.
I too believe that that all social media site should ban all users.
If only someone would have seen this coming...
https://xkcd.com/743/
She's a conservative. And that's not allowed.
Bullshit. If that was true, Donald Trump would have been banned from Twitter years ago for all the racist shit he's posted there.
Jones does not like SOCIALISM in any form. He has talked about that fact a lot in his broadcast. He despices NSDAP.
But becouse national SOCIALIST german workers party (NSDAP) was socialist party and left wing, Jones and people on the right do not like it at all.
They're paid shills.
Government pay shit. Take from the working class. Destroy social fabric.
Pretty fucking simple.
So because one group of Socialists turned on other Socialists for being the wrong kind of Socialists, you can claim they were not Socialists
No, he can claim that because the NSDAP, by the time it attained any degree of political power was clearly understood as being a party of the right and was variously in right-wing coalitions who were desperate to keep the SPD (at all times until the Nazi takeover the most popular party) out of office. Moreover the NSDAP, more so than any other party of the German right was per se an anti-socialist party, it owed much it support (which came largely from small businessmen and shopkeepers) to the fact that it was the party attached to the SA which was the force out there on the street beating up socialists and communists.
Of course that actual picture is more complicated, especially when looking at the origins and early days of both the Italian fascists and the DAP/NSDAP (esp.before Hitler took over that party). The Italian fascists clearly originated out of an internecine conflict with the PSI. But again, because they were the ones seen beating up (and castor oiling) the socialists, their ranks were quickly swamped by men who joined for no other reason than to fight socialism. In the case of the NSDAP there were indeed some strains of thought (most notably Strasserianism which were avowedly anti-capitalist, pro-trade union, even socialistic. However, these tendencies did not long persist, the original policies of the NSDAP, (esp. those anti-capitalist points) largely fell away and in power there were no collectivisations of large German industry (socialism being the taking of the "means of production" into the hands of the state, supposedly for the benefit of the working class). Instead both the Italian and German "fascists" were very much the capitalist's friend.
Fascism at its essence, is a reaction to the threat of imminent socialist takeover* (though in the specific German case no explanation of Nazism can exclude the awful reality of anti-semitism), where protection is sought in a form of dictatorship ironically mimicing and inverting esp. Soviet forms of organisation, as the diametric opposite mirrors that it opposes. [*For which reason those who describe, for example, Trump as a "fascist," are making no historically rigorous comparison].
You guys screwed over Venezuela and a bunch of other countries.
Not sure who "you guys" are --you don't have to be a socialist to entertain a fact based understanding of German history --but in the case of Venezuela you have a clear example of a leftist regime. Perhaps the most incompetent and economically leftists regime to date (in contradistinction Scandinavian social democracy is perhaps the most economically literate and successful socialism to date), but undeniably a socialist regime acting, however ineptly and doomed to failure, with the intent of redistributing social wealth downwards.
There's Stalin too, Mao's cultural revolution, Pol Pot ... goodness if you want to throw mud at socialists there's so very much to chose from without having to reach for the anti-historical horseshit that the Nazi's were socialists. Please!
Don't you mean the KKK aren't true black liberationists?
FTFY