How about almost every climatology study done in the last forty years?
I tell you what. If you don't think AGW is real, why don't you explain where all the energy being absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere is going. Are you advocating the "magic heat sink back into space" theory?
It was a private web forum. The owner could have taken some initiative, banned the assholes and maybe saved the forum. As it is, the only people that ultimately enjoyed any speech were the trolls, who finally got bored and departed as well.
A successful posting forum of any kind needs to have and enforce standards of conduct. There are ways to express even unpopular opinions that don't amount to bullying and being hyperbolic to the extreme.
As an enforceable principle, at least in the United States, the First Amendment applies strictly to the State. There's no law in the US forcing newspapers to publish every letter they receive, or not to edit them for length or content, nor is there a law forcing Twitter to keep every account open. In fact, any attempt to do so would be violating the owners and managers of Twitter's 1st Amendment rights.
I'll repeat. Twitter does not owe Milo a forum on which to post. If they decide to terminate his account, then if he feels he has been unfairly treated, he can certainly try to sue them for violating some party of the user agreement he feels they breached.
Providing Twitter is not violating the EULA, where there might be some civil remedy for someone who feels they are unfairly treated, that's Twitter's business. If they apply their rules arbitrarily, they will lose users. That's the risk they take. Being banned from a web site, even unfairly, is not anything like the kinds of censorship the First Amendment was built to prevent.
Newspapers have done this sort of uneven censoring and banning for years. Often times newspapers will simply stop printing letters to the editor from particularly abusive or repetitive individuals. Is the newspaper being unfair in not printing John Q. Bitchy's latest screed on parking meters, the fiftieth in a year? From one perspective, I suppose so, but that little disclaimer "The editor reserves the right..." gives the newspaper the right to do it.
Don't like Twitter's uneven application of its rules, don't use it. That's your freedom as a citizen.
Slashdot doesn't generally ban people at all, and relies on its moderation system. But even the moderation system is a censorship of sorts, though one that readers can get around by reading the -1s.
And once again, "free speech" as a concept of liberty is one that is between the State and the citizen. Citizens are not obliged to obey the same rules. If I set up a message forum, and I decide that I don't like what you say, I can terminate your posting rights. You are free to disagree with that on other forums, or start up your own forum and use whatever rules you want.
Twitter doesn't owe anyone a platform. That's not to say it is beyond criticism, but private organizations have far more leeway in what they allow posted on their servers. The only limitation might be where indiscriminate or clearly biased moderation of termination in violation of agreed upon contractual rules violated someone's *contractual* rights, but I suspect Twitter has sufficiently broad language in their EULA that it covers their asses so someone can't sue if they are thrown off.
And one more time; the First Amendment protects citizens from State interference or censoring of their speech. It does not in any way confer citizens with the right to compel other citizens or groups of citizens to have to listen to that speech.
Anything can be misused, but social ostracism can't be banned, and won't be banned. You will never get your freedom from consequences. You want to be a repugnant monster on the Internet, then you will be called a repugnant monster, and you will be banned from private services.
Jesus Christ, the "ban hammer"? Twitter is a private company, short of you demonstrating that there was a breach of contract, if they decide to terminate your account, your shit out of luck. Go find a forum more to your liking. But, of course, for the likes of Milos, that won't do, because the kinds of forums that will permit his kind of ugliness are simply echo chambers. He's fundamentally a performance artist who largely gets paid to say vile things so loyal minions can clap and shout and declare "You got them SJWs real good!"
What you and your ilk want, as I've said many times, isn't freedom of speech, it's freedom from consequences of speech. Well, too fucking bad. You want to be an outrageous and vile asshole, be my guest, but you're going to get banned from many online services, and be generally loathed. I guess if that makes you feel special, then so be it.
What people around here are being bullied? What, because you can be called out and shamed for being a bigot or an asshole? Seriously, the level of entitlement and undeserved feelings of martyrdom make/. one of the most ridiculous places around.
No CEOs cannot say whatever they want in their own time. CEOs, like many employees, have to sign employment contracts that require certain standards of behavior even outside of work hours (and really, with management, particularly senior management, the notion of work hours is a lot bigger than 9 to 5). Violate conduct clauses in your employment contract, and you can be terminated. The same goes for sexual harassment. If company policies and your employment contract say "CEOs can't ogle employees" and the CEO is found to be ogling employees, he can be sacked.
Once again, freedom of speech as a constitutional concept is limited to the State's ability to intervene to prevent your right to express yourself freely. Call your neighbor a pedophile because your pissed at his kids running on your lawn, you will very likely end up in a court room being sued for slander, and very likely either losing or making an out of court settlement.
Oh, and I do enjoy how you work in one of those delightful homophobic attacks that so many extremist Libertarian types think should just be fine, and that no one should ever call them out for. You can't even defend your position without being a bigot.
By "guilt by association", you mean encouraging his Brown Shirts to harass Jones. And there's also the matter of the faked Jones tweets. Milo got nailed, and got thrown off. Twitter doesn't owe him a platform.
There's a reason Milo has so many fans around here. A lot of people want a version of free speech where no one can ever judge them for being fucking assholes, where there are no consequences for any kind of speech. These are the kinds of people who think a CEO of a company, that is its chief manager, can openly say homophobic things, even when many of the people working for him may be LGBTQ, because, "RIGHTS!"
All that freedom of speech guarantees is the State can't come and lock you up for saying unpopular, including bigoted things. It doesn't guarantee that your neighbors won't despise you, that your boss won't sack you, that your kids won't think your awful, and that you'll feel the narrow eyes of your fellow human beings on the back of your neck when you're buying some Corn Flakes at the store. The Founding Fathers knew very well that the best way to control nasty-mouthed people was via society's powerful levers of shame and shunning, and the State itself should never pick the winners.
My attitude is this. If Twitter won't let you say the kinds of things you want, go to a forum that does. But of course that's not what trolls like Milo want. They have no interest in echo chambers, because they fancy themselves provocateurs. They need to attach themselves to a wider audience that they can shock and irritate, and that way when they get called out, they can do their own version of "SJW", which is to whine like babies that they're being oppressed.
Maybe Twitter is doomed, but it's doom will come a lot faster if it does nothing at all. I've seen this repeated many times over the years; a web forum or newsgroup of some kind gets popular, then the trolls invade, the management and moderators either cannot or will not bring it under control, and then all that's left are the Milos of the world. Hell, that even happened to one of my community's local web boards. A few trolls were allowed to run rampant, everyone else left, and by the time the owner finally shut it down, the only people even logging in were the trolls.
No, trolls don't fucking do that. They're just mean-spirited sociopaths bent on making people feel bad. And quit the "snowflake" shit, your type have just as thin a skins.
Yup, the treatment of Jones by Milo and his hoard of nasty little gutter dwellers that lead to the banning. I don't even know what the fuck the problem was. If you don't want to go see the Ghostbusters reboot, don't go see it. Honestly, I felt very sorry for Jones, whose only crime was that she was in a reboot of a movie some pretty twisted individuals now apparently regard as some sort of holy relic.
There's never been a good way to deal with actively disruptive individuals (whether you call them trolls, flamebaiters, or whatever). I remember back in the old Usenet days a few of the more "serious" newsgroups either becoming moderated or creating moderated subgroups simply to try to deal with spammers and trolls. Not a job I would have wanted.
The problem is bigger now because the Internet is bigger now, and it's every bit as hard to find a good solution to.
My attitude is that Twitter can do what it likes. It doesn't owe the likes of Milo Yiannopoulos a platform. Of course it risks going the way that so many moderated newsgroup did a quarter century ago, abandoned by users who couldn't stand the restrictive policies and uneven enforcement.
Nobody has a right to hack anything, and yet the DNC hack was trumped by Republicans high and low. And yes, you're right, no one is obliged to release their tax returns, but the lack of Trump's tax returns will raise suspicions; not necessarily that he's a cheat, but more likely that he's not anywhere near as rich as he claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Edge is a steaming pile of shit. It has to be the worst browser by a major software developer in 20 years.
How about almost every climatology study done in the last forty years?
I tell you what. If you don't think AGW is real, why don't you explain where all the energy being absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere is going. Are you advocating the "magic heat sink back into space" theory?
I'd prefer it if trolls were hunted down by hungry dogs with steel fangs, castrated, and then sent to work in coal mines without air filters.
I guess neither one of us is going to get what we want.
It was a private web forum. The owner could have taken some initiative, banned the assholes and maybe saved the forum. As it is, the only people that ultimately enjoyed any speech were the trolls, who finally got bored and departed as well.
A successful posting forum of any kind needs to have and enforce standards of conduct. There are ways to express even unpopular opinions that don't amount to bullying and being hyperbolic to the extreme.
I'd log in on occasion. Didn't post. There was no point, as the trolls weren't interested in discussion.
If Milo didn't fake the series of fake Jones' tweets, then he went out of his way to make them appear legitimate.
As an enforceable principle, at least in the United States, the First Amendment applies strictly to the State. There's no law in the US forcing newspapers to publish every letter they receive, or not to edit them for length or content, nor is there a law forcing Twitter to keep every account open. In fact, any attempt to do so would be violating the owners and managers of Twitter's 1st Amendment rights.
I'll repeat. Twitter does not owe Milo a forum on which to post. If they decide to terminate his account, then if he feels he has been unfairly treated, he can certainly try to sue them for violating some party of the user agreement he feels they breached.
Providing Twitter is not violating the EULA, where there might be some civil remedy for someone who feels they are unfairly treated, that's Twitter's business. If they apply their rules arbitrarily, they will lose users. That's the risk they take. Being banned from a web site, even unfairly, is not anything like the kinds of censorship the First Amendment was built to prevent.
Newspapers have done this sort of uneven censoring and banning for years. Often times newspapers will simply stop printing letters to the editor from particularly abusive or repetitive individuals. Is the newspaper being unfair in not printing John Q. Bitchy's latest screed on parking meters, the fiftieth in a year? From one perspective, I suppose so, but that little disclaimer "The editor reserves the right..." gives the newspaper the right to do it.
Don't like Twitter's uneven application of its rules, don't use it. That's your freedom as a citizen.
Slashdot doesn't generally ban people at all, and relies on its moderation system. But even the moderation system is a censorship of sorts, though one that readers can get around by reading the -1s.
And once again, "free speech" as a concept of liberty is one that is between the State and the citizen. Citizens are not obliged to obey the same rules. If I set up a message forum, and I decide that I don't like what you say, I can terminate your posting rights. You are free to disagree with that on other forums, or start up your own forum and use whatever rules you want.
Twitter doesn't owe anyone a platform. That's not to say it is beyond criticism, but private organizations have far more leeway in what they allow posted on their servers. The only limitation might be where indiscriminate or clearly biased moderation of termination in violation of agreed upon contractual rules violated someone's *contractual* rights, but I suspect Twitter has sufficiently broad language in their EULA that it covers their asses so someone can't sue if they are thrown off.
And one more time; the First Amendment protects citizens from State interference or censoring of their speech. It does not in any way confer citizens with the right to compel other citizens or groups of citizens to have to listen to that speech.
Anything can be misused, but social ostracism can't be banned, and won't be banned. You will never get your freedom from consequences. You want to be a repugnant monster on the Internet, then you will be called a repugnant monster, and you will be banned from private services.
Jesus Christ, the "ban hammer"? Twitter is a private company, short of you demonstrating that there was a breach of contract, if they decide to terminate your account, your shit out of luck. Go find a forum more to your liking. But, of course, for the likes of Milos, that won't do, because the kinds of forums that will permit his kind of ugliness are simply echo chambers. He's fundamentally a performance artist who largely gets paid to say vile things so loyal minions can clap and shout and declare "You got them SJWs real good!"
What you and your ilk want, as I've said many times, isn't freedom of speech, it's freedom from consequences of speech. Well, too fucking bad. You want to be an outrageous and vile asshole, be my guest, but you're going to get banned from many online services, and be generally loathed. I guess if that makes you feel special, then so be it.
What people around here are being bullied? What, because you can be called out and shamed for being a bigot or an asshole? Seriously, the level of entitlement and undeserved feelings of martyrdom make /. one of the most ridiculous places around.
No CEOs cannot say whatever they want in their own time. CEOs, like many employees, have to sign employment contracts that require certain standards of behavior even outside of work hours (and really, with management, particularly senior management, the notion of work hours is a lot bigger than 9 to 5). Violate conduct clauses in your employment contract, and you can be terminated. The same goes for sexual harassment. If company policies and your employment contract say "CEOs can't ogle employees" and the CEO is found to be ogling employees, he can be sacked.
Once again, freedom of speech as a constitutional concept is limited to the State's ability to intervene to prevent your right to express yourself freely. Call your neighbor a pedophile because your pissed at his kids running on your lawn, you will very likely end up in a court room being sued for slander, and very likely either losing or making an out of court settlement.
Oh, and I do enjoy how you work in one of those delightful homophobic attacks that so many extremist Libertarian types think should just be fine, and that no one should ever call them out for. You can't even defend your position without being a bigot.
Twitter is a private company. It can do what it likes and your choice is not to use it.
Oh and there were white slaves in the Americas, shipped over from Ireland during the 17th century.
You must have missed some context there, because it doesn't make any sense at all. How is that mob baiting?
By "guilt by association", you mean encouraging his Brown Shirts to harass Jones. And there's also the matter of the faked Jones tweets. Milo got nailed, and got thrown off. Twitter doesn't owe him a platform.
There's a reason Milo has so many fans around here. A lot of people want a version of free speech where no one can ever judge them for being fucking assholes, where there are no consequences for any kind of speech. These are the kinds of people who think a CEO of a company, that is its chief manager, can openly say homophobic things, even when many of the people working for him may be LGBTQ, because, "RIGHTS!"
All that freedom of speech guarantees is the State can't come and lock you up for saying unpopular, including bigoted things. It doesn't guarantee that your neighbors won't despise you, that your boss won't sack you, that your kids won't think your awful, and that you'll feel the narrow eyes of your fellow human beings on the back of your neck when you're buying some Corn Flakes at the store. The Founding Fathers knew very well that the best way to control nasty-mouthed people was via society's powerful levers of shame and shunning, and the State itself should never pick the winners.
My attitude is this. If Twitter won't let you say the kinds of things you want, go to a forum that does. But of course that's not what trolls like Milo want. They have no interest in echo chambers, because they fancy themselves provocateurs. They need to attach themselves to a wider audience that they can shock and irritate, and that way when they get called out, they can do their own version of "SJW", which is to whine like babies that they're being oppressed.
Maybe Twitter is doomed, but it's doom will come a lot faster if it does nothing at all. I've seen this repeated many times over the years; a web forum or newsgroup of some kind gets popular, then the trolls invade, the management and moderators either cannot or will not bring it under control, and then all that's left are the Milos of the world. Hell, that even happened to one of my community's local web boards. A few trolls were allowed to run rampant, everyone else left, and by the time the owner finally shut it down, the only people even logging in were the trolls.
Ah, you mean Breitbart's fishing expedition which showed a few "white girl" and "white boy" comments.
Totally the same.
No, trolls don't fucking do that. They're just mean-spirited sociopaths bent on making people feel bad. And quit the "snowflake" shit, your type have just as thin a skins.
Blaming the victim. Very classy.
Yup, the treatment of Jones by Milo and his hoard of nasty little gutter dwellers that lead to the banning. I don't even know what the fuck the problem was. If you don't want to go see the Ghostbusters reboot, don't go see it. Honestly, I felt very sorry for Jones, whose only crime was that she was in a reboot of a movie some pretty twisted individuals now apparently regard as some sort of holy relic.
There's never been a good way to deal with actively disruptive individuals (whether you call them trolls, flamebaiters, or whatever). I remember back in the old Usenet days a few of the more "serious" newsgroups either becoming moderated or creating moderated subgroups simply to try to deal with spammers and trolls. Not a job I would have wanted.
The problem is bigger now because the Internet is bigger now, and it's every bit as hard to find a good solution to.
My attitude is that Twitter can do what it likes. It doesn't owe the likes of Milo Yiannopoulos a platform. Of course it risks going the way that so many moderated newsgroup did a quarter century ago, abandoned by users who couldn't stand the restrictive policies and uneven enforcement.
Milo is a sociopathic prick.
Nobody has a right to hack anything, and yet the DNC hack was trumped by Republicans high and low. And yes, you're right, no one is obliged to release their tax returns, but the lack of Trump's tax returns will raise suspicions; not necessarily that he's a cheat, but more likely that he's not anywhere near as rich as he claims.