Twitter suspends American far-right activists' accounts, cracks down on hate speech

[Tennis]

Twitter certainly has every right to do this, but they're false in their promotion of Twitter as a free forum for expression. They should be honest about their product.

For everyone except the alt right and racists, Twitter is fine. Of course the racists and sexist people in society would have a problem however.

[Deathcries]

No, the operative part is the "fuck heads likes yourself" vs calling the far right shit heads.

Another operative thing is whining about moderation.

It's all good. I know this is a left leaning website with double standards. I've been coming here for awhile.

[Xarkan]

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...vists-accounts



About time! Seriously why did it take so long? The amount of hate speech that has been spewed by these people is insane.
It will be a welcome change to use Twitter and have to deal with so much less vitriol.

How do you feel about this change? Did Twitter go far enough?

If truth should guide opinon then the single worst thing that can happen is if people get their news only from sources that agree with them

In this case if you ban the hatespewing filth (or even worse those you perceive to be this) from sources of political communication then they will move to other sources and you get a seperation of information.

Perhaps in the name of enlightened democracy one should endure the filth.

Well on primary news outlets. Not on game fora

[Endus]

If truth should guide opinon then the single worst thing that can happen is if people get their news only from sources that agree with them

In this case if you ban the hatespewing filth (or even worse those you perceive to be this) from sources of political communication then they will move to other sources and you get a seperation of information.

Perhaps in the name of enlightened democracy one should endure the filth.

Well on primary news outlets. Not on game fora

One of the things you're missing is that news outlets aren't neutral. They're objective. That's not the same thing. If, to make up an example in an effort to not make this about current events, a local city mayor said he was passing laws to ban all black people from within his city limits, a decent news outlet is not going to give the mayor's view of things equal treatment to those opposing. Because an objective look at the facts makes it clear that kind of law is wildly racist and unconstitutional and won't stand. So the objective thing to do is to highlight this and excoriate the mayor in the news they produce. That's the objective, balanced position that news outlet should take.

News outlets aren't mindless vehicles. They're outlets for speech. By the reporters who work for them, and by proxy for their owners. They have an ethical duty to be objective and have justification for their stories, but there's no obligation to give every racist shitbag access to their outlet to spread their hatred. They can, and should, and do ban those people.

And yes; they'll go elsewhere. But that's fine, because the reason they were excluded was because there's no justifiable basis for their views. It would be unethical for news media to allow their network to be used to broadcast that stuff, because of that lack of justification and lack of objectivity.

And excoriating those racists, in that news media? That's what "truth" looks like.

[Xarkan]

One of the things you're missing is that news outlets aren't neutral. They're objective.

A more proper term is information outlets i guess since political information / indoctrination such as offered by political agitators and candidates are not really news.

But again once you have driven people off you expand on the currently existing issue, people to continually greater degrees get only the falsified / filtered news because their information outlets limits their choices of news outlets and even if your truth was objective it can be selective etc.

How is.. most "news" shared on facebook regarding the US election were false flag news?

Edit : Also "Perhaps" is not a random word

[Endus]

A more proper term is information outlets i guess since political information / indoctrination such as offered by political agitators and candidates are not really news.

But again once you have driven people off you expand on the currently existing issue, people to continually greater degrees get only the falsified / filtered news because their information outlets limits their choices of news outlets and even if your truth was objective it can be selective etc.

If anything, that's an argument in favor of information outlets better curating what they put out. Nobody is served by giving misinformation equal status alongside information.

[Xarkan]

If anything, that's an argument in favor of information outlets better curating what they put out. Nobody is served by giving misinformation equal status alongside information.

Depends entirely on what you want to achieve.
If you want to end up with opinions being potentially confronted by truth then you need people to debate where the truth is potentially known.
If you just want 53% of the population in one cave and 47% in the other and people in the 53% cave feeling certain their view is the only view and not bothering showing up to vote then go right ahead with the ban plan. (granted in my country it would be 9% in one cave, 4% in another, 8% in a third, 21% in a fourth etc)

[Mormolyce]

The internet isn't the wild west anymore. Your grandparents are probably on Twitter. They're definitely on Facebook :P

I think that in the coming years the level of leeway on mainstream sites like Twitter is going to wind up more in line with the outside world. There will still be plenty of bridges for trolls to hide under of course, but the big sites will be seriously moderated.

Makes no difference to me as I don't use any social media platforms and forums like this are already moderated. But I imagine a lot of kids who got used to the idea that anything goes on the internet will be upset about it. I can sort of sympathise on general principle... but frankly, looking at who the likely victims are... couldn't happen to a more deserving group of asshats.

- - - Updated - - -

Ohio man tweets death threat to Donald Trump, is arrested
http://www.chron.com/crime/article/O...s-10615881.php

Waterbury man arrested after threatening to bomb rally for Donald Trump
http://wtnh.com/2016/04/23/waterbury...-donald-trump/

I can't find either of those stories outside... let's say... "the usual suspects".

- - - Updated - - -

We haven't seen democrats this mad since Republicans took away their slaves.

Those Democrats now vote Republican, so consider this their push to get their slaves back

[Zarc]

We haven't seen democrats this mad since Republicans took away their slaves.

Those Democrats now vote Republican, so consider this their push to get their slaves back

Yeah, conservatives and other right-wingers who don't know that the Republican Party was the liberal party before the Fifth Party System are hilarious, Democrats were the conservative party. Abraham Lincoln was a Classical liberal, Theodore Roosevelt was one of several Republican Presidents who was part of the Progressive movement during what is called the Progressive Era from the 1890s to the 1920s. Roosevelt's transformative and long tenure of course changed all that as he was a Modern liberal, prompting a great realignment as conservatives moved to the Republican Party and liberals to the Democratic Party.

In fact, google "Jacksonian democracy Trump", with Jacksonian democracy being the movement accosiated with the founder of the Democratic Party, President Andrew Jackson. Which at the time was opposed by the Whig party, with whiggism being an antiquated or moderate form of liberalism, which was later succeeded by the Republican party and various parties opposed to slavery and secession. So, ironically, the Party of Lincoln has returned to the roots of... the Democratic Party as the Party of Trump.





On topic: Well done Twitter.

[Rennadrel]

I would rather have them not banned so you can spotlight what nonsense and hate they spew. If Twitter keep on this banning path they should try to enforce it equally to both political spectres.

I could say the same shit about far left feminists and their attempts to silence differing opinions. Banning people because you don't like what they say doesn't make your cause justified, if anything it makes you look like an immature twat.

[Deleted]

One of the things you're missing is that news outlets aren't neutral. They're objective.

They Try to be.
More importantly, since this relates to Trumps 'ban Muslim migration' - That's constitutional.
Something any objective reporter could find out in 5 seconds - There are literal SCOTUS rulings saying 'whatever the executive thinks is due process, is fine' - And even if they don't bother with that, the basics is still that the US constitution does not apply to people NOT in the US.
There are current bans against polygamists, anarchists, and communists - I think the Anarchist one is almost a hundred years old.
Yet all we heard was "Muslim ban unconstitutional!!!" - No it isnt.
Trump could refuse entry to any woman not 5'7-5'9, less than a 100 pounds, age 18-27, with nice tits, and green eyes.
He could make that the law, and it would be constitutional.

[Deleted]

Is Twitter still relevant?

They were in rapid decline last time I checked.

[Deleted]

Soooo are the lefties getting cracked down upon aswell? The ones that make everyone with different believes out to be nazi's?
Or are we just witnessing a new stage of Social Media where political bias of the CEO decides what's allowed to be posted?

[Endus]

Soooo are the lefties getting cracked down upon aswell? The ones that make everyone with different believes out to be nazi's?
Or are we just witnessing a new stage of Social Media where political bias of the CEO decides what's allowed to be posted?

It's not "a new stage". It's the same stage it's always been. Property owners can ban who they want, as long as they're not discriminating on a short list of factors. And "political views" isn't one of those protected classes, however much you might dislike it.

Twitter's legitimately allowed to ban all right-wingers, if they wanted to, in the same way a gun store owner is free to ban anyone who walks in wearing a Hillary t-shirt. Don't like it? Don't give that company your business.

[Spectral]

Has anyone ever been banned from Twitter and had their life get worse in any measurable way?

That aside, if Twitter wants to turn itself into an unabashedly leftist platform, I don't see why rightists are upset about this. If an organization hates you, you should not want to participate in anything with that organization. This strikes me as similar to the way I feel about putatively homophobic cake-bakers - if those bakers hate you, stop buying things from them.

Trying to force organizations, groups, or businesses to include people they don't like is a weird impulse, especially when it's an explicitly political thing - if a platform declares animosity for you, stop participating in it.

[Canpinter]

It's not "a new stage". It's the same stage it's always been. Property owners can ban who they want, as long as they're not discriminating on a short list of factors. And "political views" isn't one of those protected classes, however much you might dislike it.

Twitter's legitimately allowed to ban all right-wingers, if they wanted to, in the same way a gun store owner is free to ban anyone who walks in wearing a Hillary t-shirt. Don't like it? Don't give that company your business.

One could argue tho that a media platform whos major purpose is to allow people the ability to mass communicate has a moral obligation to use there power to ban people as sparingly as possible.

[Spectral]

One could argue tho that a media platform whos major purpose is to allow people the ability to mass communicate has a moral obligation to use there power to ban people as sparingly as possible.

That is not Twitter's "major purpose". Twitter's major purpose is to make a profit.

[zenkai]

That is not Twitter's "major purpose". Twitter's major purpose is to make a profit.

Yeah, all the right got to do is start boycotting things and you will see companies/celebrities start changing their mind real quick

[Endus]

One could argue tho that a media platform whos major purpose is to allow people the ability to mass communicate has a moral obligation to use there power to ban people as sparingly as possible.

Then you're wrong about a host of things.

1> Twitter's "purpose", as Spectral noted, is to make value for its shareholders. It isn't a charitable organization.
2> Even if they were, there'd be no such "moral obligation", unless they specifically stated that their goal was to support and allow all messaging. Twitter's TOS directly contradicts this concept, if nothing else; they have never suggested that was their goal.

[Venant]

It's not "a new stage". It's the same stage it's always been. Property owners can ban who they want, as long as they're not discriminating on a short list of factors. And "political views" isn't one of those protected classes, however much you might dislike it.

Twitter's legitimately allowed to ban all right-wingers, if they wanted to, in the same way a gun store owner is free to ban anyone who walks in wearing a Hillary t-shirt. Don't like it? Don't give that company your business.

If you could just permanently ban everyone from this forum that disagrees with your ideology, do you have a reason for why you wouldn't?