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

haste. said:
See above. Private org focused on bottom line and not the fringe outsiders...
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are getting at with this comment. They changed because people were vocal about hate speech, or what they believe is hate speech. This is the same reason Facebook and Youtube changed policies as well. It wasn't just decided in a vacuum board meeting about money, it was because of what they felt was social pressure and even eventual government pressure to censor certain topics.
 
haste. said:
jpm100 jardows Joust - Guys I'm just always going to disagree with that point of view, and there is a lot of spin in the responses. I know I stirred the pot here with some people on [H], but its the same everytime something like this is posted (leftist, SJW, censors, Free Speech is an idea being stripped, etc.). Free Speech in and of itself refers to the 1st. That is most people's interruption. There are many different avenues where people with similar thought as those being shown the door at Twitter available where like minded people will encourage it. Twitter has decided to eliminate some terroristic or hateful speech, or for that matter any speech they deem harmful to the bottom line, from their platform. That doesn't mean there are not other places to voice your opinion... it just so happens that the majority of people utilizing a very large for profit system do not agree with most of that rhetoric. Saying that Twitter cannot decide to disallow that behavior contradicts your initial argument as they are expressing their right to say that is not welcomed. If there weren't a billion other places to spew whatever you want, it would be a problem.

They aren't shutting down the videos you watch with "video proof" other than Youtube and other some other massive organizations (dissociating from what they consider detrimental to their bottom line).

DuronBurgerMan - I don't really use Twitter or the like other than what comes up for sports news on a google search, but do know many friends that do. What we are forgetting here is that bigoted behavior is becoming common place. Awful, hate spewed bs we are just supposed to mute instead of call out. Prior to the "Twitter's", there wasn't a platform to hide behind and those that wish too can now be racist and hateful without repercussion (as well as communicate plans/recruit for orgs like ISIS). That's a slippery slope and Twitter has kinda been on the forefront of at least attempting to remove that soapbox.

I'll get ahead of the I'm just an SJW, lefty bullshit I'm sure this response will cause. I'm a right leaning centralist who can't even stomach a minute of CNN/MSNBC because they've become an "opinion news" site/channel and stopped reporting news - the ESPN screamo of news and both make me want to puke. BTW Kyle has a ban hammer for anyone he feels necessary at any time for anything. I was hit with that bad boy years ago on a temp. Are you going to call out Mr. Bennett too? Just asking... JPM is aware of that.
Click to expand...
While we disagree on some points (and probably not on others) I appreciate that you responded in a thoughtful manner and didn't simply flame.
 
Awful, hate spewed bs we are just supposed to mute instead of call out. Prior to the "Twitter's", there wasn't a platform to hide behind and those that wish too can now be racist and hateful without repercussion (as well as communicate plans/recruit for orgs like ISIS). That's a slippery slope and Twitter has kinda been on the forefront of at least attempting to remove that soapbox.
Click to expand...

Well I was banned from Twitter because the word "retarded" was deemed hateful and bigoted (presumably to people with Downs, even though I never mentioned them, and the insult is pretty generic). It's not a matter of ISIS or Neo-Nazis, or whatever - I doubt many people shed tears or worry overmuch about them. Twitter's ban hammer reaches Orwellian levels, at times.

Although it bears mentioning that I think Twitter is going about this all wrong in the first place. Why ban hateful people? Instead, call attention to them. Twitter is basically a platform for flame wars. 140-280 characters is not enough for substantial dialectic debate. It's perfect for rhetorical and insulting one-liners. So use this, I say. Advertise Twitter as the place you can go it you want to call genuine Nazis pieces of shit, the place where you can openly harass members of ISIS, or insult idiotic celebrities spewing dumb shit. Personally, I think that'd be a winning business model for Twitter.

...Are you going to call out Mr. Bennett too? Just asking... JPM is aware of that.
Click to expand...

If you reread my posts in this thread, you will discover that I differentiated between small forums and large social media platforms. If Kyle bans somebody, that is his business. There are dozens of other enthusiast forums where one may do whatever. The consequence to free speech is essentially nil. If Facebook bans you, that is something else again. The scale matters.
 
Joust said:
While we disagree on some points (and probably not on others) I appreciate that you responded in a thoughtful manner and didn't simply flame.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your response and feel I was still a bit inflammatory with my response which I apologize for. I'd guess we probably do align on many points - I just generally don't see these actions as "censorship" but more of "protecting the shield" (sorry for an overused NFL cliche).
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Well I was banned from Twitter because the word "retarded" was deemed hateful and bigoted (presumably to people with Downs, even though I never mentioned them, and the insult is pretty generic). It's not a matter of ISIS or Neo-Nazis, or whatever - I doubt many people shed tears or worry overmuch about them. Twitter's ban hammer reaches Orwellian levels, at times.

Although it bears mentioning that I think Twitter is going about this all wrong in the first place. Why ban hateful people? Instead, call attention to them. Twitter is basically a platform for flame wars. 140-280 characters is not enough for substantial dialectic debate. It's perfect for rhetorical and insulting one-liners. So use this, I say. Advertise Twitter as the place you can go it you want to call genuine Nazis pieces of shit, the place where you can openly harass members of ISIS, or insult idiotic celebrities spewing dumb shit. Personally, I think that'd be a winning business model for Twitter.



If you reread my posts in this thread, you will discover that I differentiated between small forums and large social media platforms. If Kyle bans somebody, that is his business. There are dozens of other enthusiast forums where one may do whatever. The consequence to free speech is essentially nil. If Facebook bans you, that is something else again. The scale matters.
Click to expand...
Only want to point out I separated your post from the top half of my /rant cause it didn't apply (nor did that last line about Kyle's massive ban hammer - of course everyone took that out of context, dirtballs ;) ).

I will say that retarded is extremely offensive to people with mentally handicapped children - a former employee of mine had a severely handicapped daughter who was going to be home bound for her entire life, she was able to "work" but, ya know, and I once made that same comment in passing conversation. It was an accident and I felt awful. I apologized and she immediately forgave me because she understood it wasn't malicious and an accident, but did explain how hurtful it can be. Unfortunately on Twitter or social media in general it's not possible to have that conversation.

You are 100% right though. Twitter is the perfect platform for flame wars. There isn't enough room, and we can refer to this thread as an example, for an actual dialogue so it devolves to name calling quickly. The big problem is most people that feel they need to stand up for what you are stating don't have the courage to do so and those who spew the hate walk all over them.
 
Biznatch said:
So you can't be kicked out of a public space for protesting/exercising your 1A rights. I'm not seeing how this relates in anyway to twitter banning accounts on their own platform.....
Click to expand...
Social media sites are the modern public square. Malls are privately owned just as Twitter is privately owned.
 
What they selectively chose to enforce or condone is the real issue with Twitter and social networks in general it enables them to discriminate based on leaning policies with a sliding rule of law.
 
Zero sum game you lose your privacy they data harvest your interests and habits and they market their legal identity theft data back at you that you consented to because they blackmailed you into it in order to gain access into their secretly open social cult network society.
 
NoOther said:
I am not sure what you are getting at with this comment. They changed because people were vocal about hate speech, or what they believe is hate speech. This is the same reason Facebook and Youtube changed policies as well. It wasn't just decided in a vacuum board meeting about money, it was because of what they felt was social pressure and even eventual government pressure to censor certain topics.
Click to expand...

It changed because Donald Trump was elected, and managed to get his message out using social media. It changed because the truth is persuasive and the truth is Hillary eats babies. Truth cannot be allowed to flourish again.
 
haste. said:
The "Fire" argument. Lovely. Do you not realize what I was referring to and the OP of that post? You have no rights to post whatever you want on a private organization's product just as for years "no shoes, no shirt, no service". Just because people now believe they can be bigots anywhere they please in our current silly society does not mean there isn't going to be repercussions. "Free Speech" protects you from government action, not a private party. And those arguing against this are usually far right that think pure capitalism is the answer... when here's an example of it at work.
Click to expand...

The 1st Amendment protects you from the Government. Free Speech is a concept, not a law. twitter is not a Free Speech platform. Twitter is a leftist operated platform dedicated to swindling ad dollars from ignorant marketing departments.
 
haste. said:
I will say that retarded is extremely offensive to people with mentally handicapped children - a former employee of mine had a severely handicapped daughter who was going to be home bound for her entire life, she was able to "work" but, ya know, and I once made that same comment in passing conversation. It was an accident and I felt awful. I apologized and she immediately forgave me because she understood it wasn't malicious and an accident, but did explain how hurtful it can be. Unfortunately on Twitter or social media in general it's not possible to have that conversation
Click to expand...

Why is it offensive? I understand the fact that many such folks are offended. It has never made much sense to me why it should be accounted this way. The point of language is to communicate. If someone calls someone else retarded, either in jest or as an insult/whatever... that typically is not being applied to mentally handicapped children. The intent, the thing being communicated, is to call somebody stupid. To offend, specifically, the individual so named. Unless that person is mentally handicapped, no offense to the mentally handicapped is intended.

Moreover, the people getting offended by it likely know the insult wasn't directed at them or their children. So to take offense is to deliberately misunderstand the speaker. Many people who get offended this way - about many words/phrases (not just 'retarded') - use other insults themselves. They might call someone stupid with another turn of phrase. I see no fundamental difference. The words are merely a conduit to the intended meanings, nothing more. And so if you ban 'retarded', people who wish to call somebody stupid in various ways will merely coin a new word that means the same thing. "Ride the short bus", or "special", for example. Mentally-challenged is sometimes used this way. I've even heard "handi-capable" spun as an insult with a mild application of sarcasm.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Why is it offensive? I understand the fact that many such folks are offended. It has never made much sense to me why it should be accounted this way. The point of language is to communicate. If someone calls someone else retarded, either in jest or as an insult/whatever... that typically is not being applied to mentally handicapped children. The intent, the thing being communicated, is to call somebody stupid. To offend, specifically, the individual so named. Unless that person is mentally handicapped, no offense to the mentally handicapped is intended.

Moreover, the people getting offended by it likely know the insult wasn't directed at them or their children. So to take offense is to deliberately misunderstand the speaker. Many people who get offended this way - about many words/phrases (not just 'retarded') - use other insults themselves. They might call someone stupid with another turn of phrase. I see no fundamental difference. The words are merely a conduit to the intended meanings, nothing more. And so if you ban 'retarded', people who wish to call somebody stupid in various ways will merely coin a new word that means the same thing. "Ride the short bus", or "special", for example. Mentally-challenged is sometimes used this way. I've even heard "handi-capable" spun as an insult with a mild application of sarcasm.
Click to expand...

I think being constantly reminded that you (either genetically or developmentally) failed to nurture a being of at least average intelligence would be upsetting. Imagine having a mother in law who constantly told you how much better your wife's sister had it because she married well.
 
Lenard said:
I think being constantly reminded that you (either genetically or developmentally) failed to nurture a being of at least average intelligence would be upsetting. Imagine having a mother in law who constantly told you how much better your wife's sister had it because she married well.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Yet the value of a human being is much more than just IQ. Sometimes, I think folks forget that and get too wrapped up in the "my kid is so smart" game, and the corresponding disappointment if the child doesn't live up to that expectation. It's a weird manifestation of keeping up with the Joneses, maybe. Either way, a mentally-disabled child may still be a wonderful and kind-hearted person; we may still be proud of them nonetheless.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Perhaps. Yet the value of a human being is much more than just IQ. Sometimes, I think folks forget that and get too wrapped up in the "my kid is so smart" game, and the corresponding disappointment if the child doesn't live up to that expectation. It's a weird manifestation of keeping up with the Joneses, maybe. Either way, a mentally-disabled child may still be a wonderful and kind-hearted person; we may still be proud of them nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Your kid will never be able to develop an iPhone App to promote diversity.
*Soul Crushed*
 
juanrga said:
Curiously there are server hostings that don't allow certain activities, which limits that freedom. And then it is all the government spy stuff.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying, but you vote with your money. Pick a provider that does. Which certain activities are you speaking about that they don't allow? Government spying is a completely different conversation. Either way, I'm deviating off topic. It goes back to my original point, free speech isn't free on the internet unless you find a way to own your own small little corner of it.
 
kdh said:
I hear what you are saying, but you vote with your money. Pick a provider that does. Which certain activities are you speaking about that they don't allow? Government spying is a completely different conversation. Either way, I'm deviating off topic. It goes back to my original point, free speech isn't free on the internet unless you find a way to own your own small little corner of it.
Click to expand...

I don't remember the activities, only remember years ago when looking for a server provider I found often a list of non-allowed activities.
 
Im with 1&1 and according to section 8 over here: https://www.1and1.com/terms-gtc/fileadmin/Terms/PDF_US/US_Terms_and_Conditions_December_2017.pdf, says pretty much porn, any kind of slandering, hate speech, pirating, hacking, warez dumps are not tolerated. That is 99.9% of all providers out there. Maybe when you were looking back in the day when providers were limited, but today its much different story. You can have a full blown vpc for 5$ a month now and can do pretty much what ever you want with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top