Twitter silencing conservatives again - Woman who posted Trigglypuff shadowbanned

[Endus]

There is no evidence that they are 'doing this'. Just arm wagging and identifying oneself as a victim.

Maybe some tweeters got banned for being dicks? We don't know. And they don't have to tell us either.

And that's my real issue. Same goes here; users really don't have any idea WHY someone was banned, and don't have access to the full information. Maybe they sent a ton of hugely racist private messages or e-mails that generated complaints against them, just as an example. They're not going to show you those, because it reveals how legitimate the ban is, and there's no way for anyone else to have access to that, so there's no public "evidence" to "justify" the ban.

But they don't HAVE to justify those bans to the public. And it would be a breach of privacy policies to do so, anyway.

[TirielWoW]

If they don't like what she's saying...it honestly would be better to just ban her. Shadowbanning is kind of cowardly, imo.

[Revi]

I'm trying to reconcile the stance that such a huge and influential platform should be able to discriminate all it wants and caring about it is stupid/entitled, because it's private.

But an inconsequential private bakery discriminating is an atrocity and must be made illegal.

Genuinely not seeing the consistency in the stances here, is there any?

[Mormolyce]

Would you say what they're doing is ethical?

What, putting a muzzle on loudmouthed idiots? It's a public service.

[Barbariangreataxe]

I'm trying to reconcile the stance that such a huge and influential platform should be able to discriminate all it wants and caring about it is stupid/entitled, because it's private.

But an inconsequential private bakery discriminating is an atrocity and must be made illegal.

Genuinely not seeing the consistency in the stances here, is there any?

Thats because gays are wonderful and conservatives are icky :P

[Endus]

I'm trying to reconcile the stance that such a huge and influential platform should be able to discriminate all it wants and caring about it is stupid/entitled, because it's private.

But an inconsequential private bakery discriminating is an atrocity and must be made illegal.

Genuinely not seeing the consistency in the stances here, is there any?

Sexual orientation is a protected class, political orientation is not, basically.

And that's if we presumed that these were politically-motivated bans, which is not something for which there's been any real evidence presented.

[Cosmic Janitor]

I'm trying to reconcile the stance that such a huge and influential platform should be able to discriminate all it wants and caring about it is stupid/entitled, because it's private.

But an inconsequential private bakery discriminating is an atrocity and must be made illegal.

Genuinely not seeing the consistency in the stances here, is there any?

OT: Curious. I got a notice saying you quoted me when you didn't, I was wondering if that happens, now at least I know. I should probably not use the quote button myself for logging in in the future .

[Fencers]

And that's my real issue. Same goes here; users really don't have any idea WHY someone was banned, and don't have access to the full information.

This also feeds into the martyrdom (so to speak) of people who are being "censored". It's like a cycle of crazydom.

Okay, I'm just leaving this thread, not getting in another argument with Mods who don't like the proof given to them and turn another thread into "my opinion is right, I don't like your proof".

I hold to some unpopular views myself actually. Not everyone is the same in life. While I am not perfect by a long stretch, I do try to take measure of things equally and rationally.

If there was convincing evidence that a campaign against particular points of view I would agree with your claims of proof being present. To what end, whofuckingknows, because it would not make any sense for a company to do so in the long run. But hey, if you have the evidence (which you and no one outside Twitter HQ has because the law), I'm game to consider it.

Pending some scandalous memo being leaked by a young Snowden-in-Training at the Social Media Global Agency- that evidence will never exist. That 'proof' will never be verified. So conspiracy theories, persecution complexes and irrational sense of entitlement to express oneself on a platform they do not own abound... and so we are here.

[Deleted]

This whole thing just looks like a persecution complex. There's typically valid reasons for these bans on the individual level; it isn't because they're "conservative". It's generally because they're "acting like asshats".

Damn Endus... persecution complex and acting like asshats you say? It's almost like you're describing modern feminists, BLM, liberal collegue kids or anything from regressive left nowadays.

[Torgent]

Okay, I'm just leaving this thread, not getting in another argument with Mods who don't like the proof given to them and turn another thread into "my opinion is right, I don't like your proof".

Possibly because there's no proof. Just assumptions and victim complexes.

[Barbariangreataxe]

Sexual orientation is a protected class, political orientation is not, basically.

And that's if we presumed that these were politically-motivated bans, which is not something for which there's been any real evidence presented.

Hows the Bill Burr bit go?

That's what the law says!

[Torgent]

I'm trying to reconcile the stance that such a huge and influential platform should be able to discriminate all it wants and caring about it is stupid/entitled, because it's private.

But an inconsequential private bakery discriminating is an atrocity and must be made illegal.

Genuinely not seeing the consistency in the stances here, is there any?

1. There's no evidence that that is happening due to political reasons.
2. They aren't being refused service, they are being punished for reasons we don't know.
3. The size of the platform is inconsequential.
4. Plenty of consistency, as long as you pay attention.

[Yarathir]

Well, as much as I found the Trigglypuff stuff amusing, it still comes down to a person being used in a ridiculing manner on the internet. I don't lament it, but I can see why Twitter would do something about it. Is it hypocritical if they do that and don't take care of the.. well, hundreds of other cases of the same or similar things by people of other political leanings? I feel so, but still.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm trying to reconcile the stance that such a huge and influential platform should be able to discriminate all it wants and caring about it is stupid/entitled, because it's private.

It can't. It can, but this kind of stuff is part of why Twitter stocks are going down.

But an inconsequential private bakery discriminating is an atrocity and must be made illegal.

Genuinely not seeing the consistency in the stances here, is there any?

"B-b-b-but that's different!"

[Bushtuckrman]

You should see reddit also. These idiots ban and censor every news and comments regarding migrants, and when you create your own subreddit and get big, they ban that one entirely.
Im a well balanced nationalist but when i see shit like this, makes me want to vote with the most cultish and the most brutal far right there is.

You're right with what you say. This type of censoring only pushes people further to either the left or right.

r/The_Donald is still going strong on reddit, surprisingly. I have always chatted on the chan sites because they are mostly the only sites which allow true discussion of any topics. Not everybody agrees with everything said of course but at least on chans you can say what you think and have others debate you on it to reach a consensus.

[Wells]

Why is that surprising? Reddit has always been a safe haven for his base groups.

[xfloydex]

This also feeds into the martyrdom (so to speak) of people who are being "censored". It's like a cycle of crazydom.

I hold to some unpopular views myself actually. Not everyone is the same in life. While I am not perfect by a long stretch, I do try to take measure of things equally and rationally.

If there was convincing evidence that a campaign against particular points of view I would agree with your claims of proof being present. To what end, whofuckingknows, because it would not make any sense for a company to do so in the long run. But hey, if you have the evidence (which you and no one outside Twitter HQ has because the law), I'm game to consider it.

Pending some scandalous memo being leaked by a young Snowden-in-Training at the Social Media Global Agency- that evidence will never exist. That 'proof' will never be verified. So conspiracy theories, persecution complexes and irrational sense of entitlement to express oneself on a platform they do not own abound... and so we are here.

Can you express your view that Twitter can do whatever the hell they like another 55 times please, it hasn't sunk in yet.

[Deleted]

God bless this twitter account!

[Cricket22]

Under section 10 of their ToS. You don't have to violate them for the company to decide they don't want your particular brand of stupidity on their platform.

Sure, sure, and you can also sue them. I know Twitter has been sued for this but not surprisingly can't seem to find the cases on the Internet. My bet would be, they settled out of court, and had their attorneys remove the cases from being accessed via the Google search engine, which is relatively easy.

Oh, but here's a Facebook lawsuit, for basically the same thing.


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2376765,00.asp

If your Facebook account was suddenly disabled, how would you react? Panic attack? Twitter tirade? How about a lawsuit?

That's how one Staten Island man reacted after he discovered that he no longer had access to his account on the social-networking site. Mustafa Fteja has filed a $500,000 lawsuit against Facebook for essentially cutting him off from his social circle, according to the New York Post.

Mustafa Fteja said his account was disabled without explanation this past September, cutting off his access to friends and family around the world, as well as to personal memories and photos.

“That was how I stayed in touch with people,” said Fteja, who estimated he had about 340 friends when he was inexplicably cut off.

His suit seeks money damages – and the restoration of his account. “While the requested service is free, the plaintiff has spent timeless hours creating content and relationships [Facebook] benefitted from,” the suit says.

The 39-year-old has been without Facebook since September, when he was informed that his account had been disabled. Fteja said he has tried for months to get a response from Facebook about the issue, but to no avail. Fteja denies that did anything inappropriate or used his account for spamming purposes.

Fteja said he used Facebook to keep in contact with friends and family around the globe. According to the Post, his suit makes some pretty bold accusations - from communism to religious discrimination. He wants monetary damages and the restoration of his account.

Fteja joins a long line of bizarre, tech-related legal issue of late - from the woman who sued Google over walking directions that she claimed resulted in her getting hit by a car to the more recent story of the woman who walked into a mall fountain while texting and threatened to sue.

[Yarathir]

Really? Why care? If things keep going the way they're going, you might not want to use Twitter in a bit any way.

[Mormolyce]

I'm trying to reconcile the stance that such a huge and influential platform should be able to discriminate all it wants and caring about it is stupid/entitled, because it's private.

But an inconsequential private bakery discriminating is an atrocity and must be made illegal.

Genuinely not seeing the consistency in the stances here, is there any?

The bakery in question refused to bake a wedding cake for gay people, which is a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act.

You can't refuse service on the basis of who they are. Only for what they do in your store, within reason.