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

[Canpinter]

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

By offering a platform of mass communication. Businesses like twitter Facebook and YouTube have found themselves in a position to control the public dialogue that no one could have predicted 10 or 15 years ago, that power carries with it the responsibility to let that dialogue be free and open even if it means a slight lose of profits.

[Kaganfindel]

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.

Would that moral obligation trump their moral obligation as people to leave the world a better place than they found it, though? Yeah, that one's open to interpretation, because one person's percept of a better place is another man's Hell on Earth, but there it is. When you make a tool for a purpose, and you see people using it differently, perhaps even contrary to that purpose, it's not just your right to stop providing that tool to people; it's your duty.

Now, if you disagree with the way they shape and maintain that tool, it's your right to stop using it. If enough people stop using it, then it ceases to be the signal booster it used to be, and dies. The will of the people keeps the thing aloft, and can thus sink it.

[Canpinter]

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.

even if it wasn't their goal they now have massive power over public discourse. That power even if it wasn't sought out comes with the responsibility to use it wisely and not for simple personal gain.

[Endus]

even if it wasn't their goal they now have massive power over public discourse. That power even if it wasn't sought out comes with the responsibility to use it wisely and not for simple personal gain.

I'm not sure you understand that Twitter is a privately-owned for-profit company.

Because they are.

If you don't like what they're doing, vote with your feet and don't use their service.

[Spectral]

By offering a platform of mass communication. Businesses like twitter Facebook and YouTube have found themselves in a position to control the public dialogue that no one could have predicted 10 or 15 years ago, that power carries with it the responsibility to let that dialogue be free and open even if it means a slight lose of profits.

This simply isn't an obligation that private companies have. If they choose to support the values you're espousing, that's great, but it's really not an obligation in any meaningful way. Their goal is to service their clientele; in this case, they've decided that the fringe right isn't consistent with the preferences of their user-base.

Surely you'd agree that there's some level of shitposting that they should ban, right?

[Canpinter]

I'm not sure you understand that Twitter is a privately-owned for-profit company.

Because they are.

they are but being privately owned and for profit dose not absolve them of moral responsibility.

[Endus]

they are but being privately owned and for profit dose not absolve them of moral responsibility.

The point is that this "moral responsibility" is something you subjectively imagined, and it isn't something that actually exists. You're just talking about how you want them to act, but there's absolutely nothing obligating them to do so. Legally or "morally".

[Canpinter]

This simply isn't an obligation that private companies have. If they choose to support the values you're espousing, that's great, but it's really not an obligation in any meaningful way. Their goal is to service their clientele; in this case, they've decided that the fringe right isn't consistent with the preferences of their user-base.

Surely you'd agree that there's some level of shitposting that they should ban, right?

some level sure but only when it actively shuts down open discussion, spamming so much that no one else can realisticly read a page for example

- - - Updated - - -

The point is that this "moral responsibility" is something you subjectively imagined, and it isn't something that actually exists.

no its not morals being subjective to individuals is simply wrong.

[Blur4stuff]

All this back and forth... haven't seen anyone defend a specific banned user and all of that user's tweets.

Which banned user was a mistake?

[Spectral]

some level sure but only when it actively shuts down open discussion, spamming so much that no one else can realisticly read a page for example

So they're basically just judging this at a different breakpoint than you are; their stance is that certain views are so caustic and derailing that it pervades conversations and makes the platform unpleasant for their users. They're banning those sorts of users. That's basically fine.

Look, I think Twitter is full of absolutely ridiculous nonsense and that if this was applied in an even-handed fashion, the awful #killwhites sorts of posters would be banned as well. These guys are obviously terrible and mostly aren't banned. Ultimately though, that's Twitter's right as a private entity to push the views that are more consistent with their values.

[Canpinter]

So they're basically just judging this at a different breakpoint than you are; their stance is that certain views are so caustic and derailing that it pervades conversations and makes the platform unpleasant for their users. They're banning those sorts of users. That's basically fine.

Look, I think Twitter is full of absolutely ridiculous nonsense and that if this was applied in an even-handed fashion, the awful #killwhites sorts of posters would be banned as well. These guys are obviously terrible and mostly aren't banned. Ultimately though, that's Twitter's right as a private entity to push the views that are more consistent with their values.

im not even arguing that what twitter did here was necessarily wrong in this case just the "its a private company therefor they can do whatever they want and its totally fine" mentality.

[High Marshal Sigismund]

There was a picture floating around that held a test, someone was racist against blacks in one post and racist against whites in another. You can guess which account was closed and which wasn't.

The left is absurdly racist. Their strong-arm, fascist-like hypocritical behavior is becoming almost too much to bear. The Repubs should strip the leftists of as much power as humanly possible in the next 4 years.

The left hates the right with their entire being. They want a civil war. They want to kill us. Enough attempts at moderating, at compromising. It's time to utterly crush the left.

Edit: Ah, here it is:

http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2016/11/equality.html?m=1

[Endus]

no its not morals being subjective to individuals is simply wrong.

They absolutely are. There's no such thing as "objective morality".

[Deleted]

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?

No not far enough at all. Let them go on this way, soon Twitter will be dead and that's a good thing for the world. You SJW's will realize there's really not that many of you, you're just circle jerking on Twitter the whole day nothing more.

[Canpinter]

They absolutely are. There's no such thing as "objective morality".

sure there is, its not something we can define perfectly but that dose not mean they don't exist. All moral judgments stem from a base of avoiding harm and promoting well being there is simply disagreement on what is harmful and what isn't, and as neuroscience expands our understanding of that will as well.

[IKT]

The left hates the right with their entire being. They want a civil war. They want to kill us. Enough attempts at moderating, at compromising. It's time to utterly crush the left.

Mate they just took away some peoples twitter accounts... no need to jerk yourself into a frenzy.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Seems like my comment was ignored, but just so you know, extreme left is also getting banned for hate speech. I thought, wrongly, that it was limited to the right, but here's where I learned otherwise:

https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/stat...38696743219200

So I investigated, and I can confirm that these screenshots are real:

https://twitter.com/PetiteMistress/s...69835681656833

https://twitter.com/michos_chris/sta...47261197697024

https://twitter.com/Y00NMlN/status/799432059194327040

I didn't bother finding them all, but it seems to me that perhaps it's fairer than expected.

[Spectral]

All this back and forth... haven't seen anyone defend a specific banned user and all of that user's tweets.

Which banned user was a mistake?

I guess it depends what you mean by "defend". I'm not going to defend Richard Spencer as a person or his views and (as mentioned) I think Twitter has every right to ban views they find odious, but it's obvious that a double standard was applied to Spencer that's not applied to his opposition. As near as I can tell (and correct me if I'm wrong), he was banned for his views alone rather than for trolling or targeting anyone.

[Deleted]

It's not "a new stage". It's the same stage it's always been.

No, because up to the last year(s) they have been unabashedly saying 'free speech!' - Its only Now they are going on about 'Muh feelz'.

[Spectral]

Seems like my comment was ignored, but just so you know, extreme left is also getting banned for hate speech. I thought, wrongly, that it was limited to the right, but here's where I learned otherwise:

https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/stat...38696743219200

So I investigated, and I can confirm that these screenshots are real:

https://twitter.com/PetiteMistress/s...69835681656833

https://twitter.com/michos_chris/sta...47261197697024

https://twitter.com/Y00NMlN/status/799432059194327040

I didn't bother finding them all, but it seems to me that perhaps it's fairer than expected.

What's pretty striking about that is that the involved are so used to saying shit like "I hate all whites" and "kill all men" that they're shocked and appalled that Twitter would remove that sort of content.

Good on Twitter if this is actually being applied in an even-handed (or something like it) fashion. It's hard to see any real upside to just having a public milieu of vile, over the top hatred.