Twitter Finds New Excuses to Shut Down Folks They Don't Like

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
49,713
I will just leave this here, but it just sounds like Twitter coming up with more excuses to create safe spaces and silence those it does not want to hear from. Of course I would never say anything on Twitter that someone would not want to read.


Chief Executive Jack Dorsey said Twitter now would try to find problematic accounts by examining behavior such as how frequently people tweet about accounts that do not follow them or whether they have confirmed their email address.

Tweets from those accounts will appear lower in certain areas of the service, such as search results or replies to tweets, even if the tweets themselves have not been found to violate any rules.
 

Daarken

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
103
When I saw that the twitter safety account was posting, I looked at the likes and replies. 1st post had 24 retweets, 2nd post had 16 and the 3rd had only 12 .
Probably all employees.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
here's a thought.

there is more free speech on 4chan than twitter.

gj jack.

there needs to be a competitor to twitter.

how is there not?

Here's a thought.... Read up on the 1st amendment and what it actually covers. I'll give you a hint, it does not apply to this situtation. Twitter is a private company, they can regulate speech on their platform however they see fit. Free speech protects you from the government.....
 

Master_shake_

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
12,347
Here's a thought.... Read up on the 1st amendment and what it actually covers. I'll give you a hint, it does not apply to this situtation. Twitter is a private company, they can regulate speech on their platform however they see fit. Free speech protects you from the government.....
did i say anything about free speech the law or was it more like free speech as being not deleted for your views?

i'll let you decide.
 

griff30

I Lower the Boom!
Joined
Jul 15, 2000
Messages
5,729
I don't use Twitter.
Though I do like how marginally offensive posts get banned unless you are celebrity.

I do read the Commander In Chief's tweets and thats about it.
 

Aireoth

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
3,806
Here's a thought.... Read up on the 1st amendment and what it actually covers. I'll give you a hint, it does not apply to this situtation. Twitter is a private company, they can regulate speech on their platform however they see fit. Free speech protects you from the government.....
That is not what he is saying. He is making a comparison of the degree of free speech offered on two platforms, not that Twitter has to offer it, beotch.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
939
Makes you wonder what they are afraid of or if they think we are not smart enough to determine for ourselves what is good or bad, so they need to do it for us. I don't like any form of censorship mostly because who decides what censored. In a democracy it should be the majority not an executive with an agenda. I've long thought the resolve is a thumbs down instead of just a like button would resolve a lot.
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
Don't like what the platform stands for? Don't use it....I don't.

As for deleting things they don't like, more power to them, it is their platform and service, they have every right to show or delete ANYTHING they want, just like this forum. If you don't like how they run it, look for something else and don't use the service, if enough people move on or stop using it, they will go under and something else take it's place or they will get the hint and stop pushing their own agenda to keep the users and money. People have to let you say whatever you like, that is freedom of speech, they however do not have to provide you with a platform for that speech.
 

kdh

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
806
I see zero problem in twitter banning or shadow banning accounts. Free speech isnt real on the internet. You using someone else's service is at the mercy of how that service decides to run their platform. If you don't like being censored on the internet, there are plenty of server hosting companies out there that you can rent a server from, and you can post just about what ever content you want on said rented server.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
That is not what he is saying. He is making a comparison of the degree of free speech offered on two platforms, not that Twitter has to offer it, beotch.
Well considering pretty much everyone that says 'free speech' is implying/referencing the first amendment, his statement was at minimum ambiguous.... It's a private platform, there is no 'free speech'. If you don't like their restrictions on who can post or what you can say, then don't use the service. You can't miss/worry/care about how a service restricts what people say if you've never used it. And I can think of at least 1 shiny fake gold example I would not mind them booting from their service....
 

ecmaster76

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
1,150
the real problem was that people used Twitter in the first place

if you don't feed it, it will go away
 

Powerage

Gawd
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Messages
827
Interesting that people on this forum of all places complain about people getting silenced/banned on private websites. Read the rules to this forum... free speech does not apply and your opinion on it doesn’t fucking matter.

Remember that this is a privately owned and operated forum. The first amendment/freedom of speech does not apply here.

Breaking any of the above listed forum rules can result in the loss of posting privileges and possible loss of your forum account. [H]ard|Forum also reserves the right to ban any user, at any time, and for any reason.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,026
Twitter has a pretty damn good block system in place. The hyper reliance on banning anything that even looks like it doesn't agree with the far-left agenda is ridiculous due to that. Beyond a myriad of constantly updated block bots it is really easy to simply filter out hashtags or even terms you do not want to see. People that go into panic attacks when they see someone that dares disagree with them (and that applies to both the left and the right, in case some asshat wants to say "but the other side does it too") have a lot of tools at their disposal to create their own safe spaces.
 

Zion Halcyon

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
2,108
here's a thought.

there is more free speech on 4chan than twitter.

gj jack.

there needs to be a competitor to twitter.

how is there not?

There is but it needs a little work still - gab.ai

Check it out. Not as user friendly as twitter, but closest thing out there to it.
 

ruffbytes

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
447
The internet sure is being nerfed. It wasn’t like this when I was a kid. To be honest, it was pretty good to have trolls challenge me and what I was saying, if only for a reaction from me. I think it helped me articulate arguments better in my adult years and also taught me that some people are assholes - you shouldn’t care what they say.

Don’t feed the trolls and they will go away!
 

jasondhsd

n00b
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
44
Here's a thought.... Read up on the 1st amendment and what it actually covers. I'll give you a hint, it does not apply to this situtation. Twitter is a private company, they can regulate speech on their platform however they see fit. Free speech protects you from the government.....
Where the hell does he bring up the first amendment? Also being against anti-free speech policies and censorship applies to every situation. Sure the first amendment only protects government from fining or jailing someone over their speech but that doesn't mean we aren't allowed to criticize & protest social media platforms for there censorship & discrimination against free speech. Seems like people today protest against someone's right to say something, rather than protesting what's being said the whole deplaforming thing. Free speech should be a core value for everyone regardless if the first amendment applies.
 

haste.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
1,651
Here's a thought.... Read up on the 1st amendment and what it actually covers. I'll give you a hint, it does not apply to this situtation. Twitter is a private company, they can regulate speech on their platform however they see fit. Free speech protects you from the government.....
Wasting your time. I've tried to get this thru the blinders of the usual suspects but they won't beleive it. There is a new interruptratation that hate speech is "free speech" lately.
 

haste.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
1,651
Because they know if they spouted the shit they say on there in real life, they'd get their asses beaten to a pulp.
By who? You? Just curious... much of the commentary against Twitter is just the opposite end of the spectrum. Full on hate. And these types of posts are the eye rollers that defeats your arguments before you can make a valid one against them. "I'll beat your ass cause I disagree with you". Both smh and no one believes you behind the anonymity of your computer champ ;)
 

Patton187

Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
666
Here's a thought.... Read up on the 1st amendment and what it actually covers. I'll give you a hint, it does not apply to this situtation. Twitter is a private company, they can regulate speech on their platform however they see fit. Free speech protects you from the government.....
This tired ass argument.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,736
Makes you wonder what they are afraid of or if they think we are not smart enough to determine for ourselves what is good or bad, so they need to do it for us. I don't like any form of censorship mostly because who decides what censored. In a democracy it should be the majority not an executive with an agenda. I've long thought the resolve is a thumbs down instead of just a like button would resolve a lot.
Elections are what they're scared of. The regressive left are also terrified that Trump's approval among black Americans is in the healthy double digits now.

And a dislike or thumbs down would hurt snowflakes' feelings. Look what happened to Netflix after Amy Schumer cried about the dislikes she was getting for one of her specials.
 

Aireoth

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
3,806
Wasting your time. I've tried to get this thru the blinders of the usual suspects but they won't beleive it. There is a new interruptratation that hate speech is "free speech" lately.
You need to check your reading comprehension, might I say you act with too much Haste?

Elections are what they're scared of. The regressive left are also terrified that Trump's approval among black Americans is in the healthy double digits now.

And a dislike or thumbs down would hurt snowflakes' feelings. Look what happened to Netflix after Amy Schumer cried about the dislikes she was getting for one of her specials.
I am not a Trump fan, but the medias coverage of him has been ridiculous to a T, and they engage in all the body shaming, fun making, whataboutism, bile, that they claim to be against. The result is his triumphs are glossed over or ignored and coupled with the hypocrisy of the attacks, galvanize his support base.

Media needs some damn accountability today.
 

Joust

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
3,651
Wasting your time. I've tried to get this thru the blinders of the usual suspects but they won't beleive it. There is a new interruptratation that hate speech is "free speech" lately.
Setting aside governmental criticism and the like, speech that someone else disagrees with, which today is often (maybe always?) labeled "hate speech" is the only kind that needs protecting.

Think on that for a moment.

Oh, I find plenty of speech to be unreasonable, distasteful, inhumane, and wrong. However, it is not - and should not - be our policy to fine or imprision someone simply because of their opinions.

Now, that's not to say that one cannot be liable for what is said. "Fire!" in a movie theater, tortious interference with contract, etc etc. However, the government must regulate on a content-nuetral basis.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
Setting aside governmental criticism and the like, speech that someone else disagrees with, which today is often (maybe always?) labeled "hate speech" is the only kind that needs protecting.

Think on that for a moment.

Oh, I find plenty of speech to be unreasonable, distasteful, inhumane, and wrong. However, it is not - and should not - be our policy to fine or imprision someone simply because of their opinions.

Now, that's not to say that one cannot be liable for what is said. "Fire!" in a movie theater, tortious interference with contract, etc etc. However, the government must regulate on a content-nuetral basis.

Same here. People can say whatever the fuck they want. Doesn't mean they won't suffer consequences for it though. But crying 'OMG muh free speech' on a private megacorporations platform is just dumb. They can allow/restrict whatever they want, it's their service that they are paying for, and you can use/not use it.

The only irritating part of this is all the fucking twats coming here 'hur dur dem liburls are messing up the internet and taking away my free speech', when NONE of that is true. You don't have free speech on their platform, you follow whatever rules they feel like implementing. They could put a rule in place auto banning people for using the letter 'T'. That's still not taking away your 'free speech'.

But chances are anyway, the people getting banned are saying shit no one outside of their own racist uninformed (except for F(au)x news talking points) bubble wants to hear anyway. They're free to say it, and I'm free to ignore their stupidity.
 

Droc

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
3,328
You need to check your reading comprehension, might I say you act with too much Haste?



I am not a Trump fan, but the medias coverage of him has been ridiculous to a T, and they engage in all the body shaming, fun making, whataboutism, bile, that they claim to be against. The result is his triumphs are glossed over or ignored and coupled with the hypocrisy of the attacks, galvanize his support base.

Media needs some damn accountability today.
Agreed. I'm a Canadian watching this from the outside and its crazy how twisted things are. Networks are literally calling him Hitler over the Israel embassy thing...how its inconceivably evil to even consider the notion that Jerusalem is the capital....And I look back and remember that Obama, Clinton and Bush all said THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THING!


I get that Twitter doesn't have to abide by the same rules as its a private company, but they should absolutely be shamed for being so biased. You say anything conservative, you even think about suggesting that Abortion is wrong, or criticize radical Islam, or in my case, point out that Canada's Prime Minister is shoveling hundreds of millions at anyone who will give him a prize and turns around and says we dont have money for veterans. I got banned when I posted the hypocrisy of Trudeau complaining that the pipeline wasn't being built while he was using public funds to finance the groups blockading the construction.

Facebook doesn't mind radical Islam posting beheadings or child porn, but don't you dare suggest that the Black Panther movie wasn't a world changing film because THATS RACIST!

Twitter, and facebook, are such a liberal mess.
 

Hatriot

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
157
Well considering pretty much everyone that says 'free speech' is implying/referencing the first amendment, his statement was at minimum ambiguous.... It's a private platform, there is no 'free speech'. If you don't like their restrictions on who can post or what you can say, then don't use the service. You can't miss/worry/care about how a service restricts what people say if you've never used it. And I can think of at least 1 shiny fake gold example I would not mind them booting from their service....
Of course. Most cowards on the left want to corner the market on communication and suppress all disagreement as "hate". You say it is a private company but it is using publicly funded assets to provide their one-sided, biased left wing platform. According to your side's Obama Net Neutrality fantasy they should then be regulated. YouTube, Google, Apple and Facebook do the same thing while spending the entire time lying that they are not simply a propaganda arm of the DNC. Just own up to it is all we are asking. You on the left are the true fascist that want to regulate thought, regulate emotion, regulate speech, regulate ideas and I can give many examples. Quit being cowards and admit what your actual motives are.
 

jardows

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
1,837
Here's a thought.... Read up on the 1st amendment and what it actually covers. I'll give you a hint, it does not apply to this situtation. Twitter is a private company, they can regulate speech on their platform however they see fit. Free speech protects you from the government.....
Well considering pretty much everyone that says 'free speech' is implying/referencing the first amendment, his statement was at minimum ambiguous.... It's a private platform, there is no 'free speech'. If you don't like their restrictions on who can post or what you can say, then don't use the service. You can't miss/worry/care about how a service restricts what people say if you've never used it. And I can think of at least 1 shiny fake gold example I would not mind them booting from their service....
:banghead::banghead::banghead:

'Free Speech" was not invented with the 1A. The 1A exists because the founders of the USA wanted to protect free speech from the government's legal reach. The concept of free speech goes way beyond the 1A, and if you don't understand that, then you shouldn't be making such statements.

The real issue, is that platforms like twitter, FB, Reddit, et. al., promote themselves as open platforms for people to freely communicate and exchange ideas. Then when ideas are communicated and exchanged that they don't like, they change the rules at what seems like a whim, or are arbitrarily enforced. We have every right to mock, shame, or simply point out the hypocrisy.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
Of course. Most cowards on the left want to corner the market on communication and suppress all disagreement as "hate". You say it is a private company but it is using publicly funded assets to provide their one-sided, biased left wing platform. According to your side's Obama Net Neutrality fantasy they should then be regulated. YouTube, Google, Apple and Facebook do the same thing while spending the entire time lying that they are not simply a propaganda arm of the DNC. Just own up to it is all we are asking. You on the left are the true fascist that want to regulate thought, regulate emotion, regulate speech, regulate ideas and I can give many examples. Quit being cowards and admit what your actual motives are.

And now you're assuming that because I argue about the stupid polarized arguments from the right about 'liburals' I'm on the left.... I don't associate with either bullshit party, and there are things I agree/disagree with on both sides. But the right is doing FAR more damage to the average 'mucan (non-corporation/1%) than the left currently is. I'm not saying that can't/won't switch after the November midterms, but if you can't at least acknowledge that, you're part of the issue.



:banghead::banghead::banghead:

'Free Speech" was not invented with the 1A. The 1A exists because the founders of the USA wanted to protect free speech from the government's legal reach. The concept of free speech goes way beyond the 1A, and if you don't understand that, then you shouldn't be making such statements.

The real issue, is that platforms like twitter, FB, Reddit, et. al., promote themselves as open platforms for people to freely communicate and exchange ideas. Then when ideas are communicated and exchanged that they don't like, they change the rules at what seems like a whim, or are arbitrarily enforced. We have every right to mock, shame, or simply point out the hypocrisy.
Yes, but just about everyone on the forum referencing 'free speech' is inaccurately referring to the 1A. Free speech is not a protected right on a private platform. Feel free to hate it all you want, not use it, and mock it/them to your hearts content. But lets stop defaulting to the 'liberals are blocking the rights free speech' argument. It just obfuscates the actual issue and falls right back into the same right vs left bullshit everyone loves to focus on.
 
Tags
twitter
Top