Current Events > Twitter is finally banning the nazis

(+) Yeah! (+)

r4X0r posted...

Liberalism: When you champion the suppression of people who's views you disagree with, call them Nazis, but aren't intelligent enough to see the irony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Nazi_Party

they are banning groups like this, shut the fuck up.

There is no room anywhere for calling for violence.
---

The Admiral posted...

Callixtus posted...

A private company with that sort of influence should not have this power to limit speech. They aren't qualified to determine what is a hate group or not. And what do they mean by "violent"? It is quite open to interpretation.

Banning hate groups from a private platform is not a free speech violation. Those Nazis are allowed to start their own site and say whatever they want.

Like I said above, it's not the policy that's the issue, it's that Twitter doesn't always enforce their policies consistently when political ideology is involved. For example:

Wow that's bs. And the left wants us to believe that there's no bias against whites.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Darkman124 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

That's fair. Although I'd argue that any type of Marxist is dangerous to public safety, but that might just be my distaste for Marx speaking.

i think it probably is. and it's understandable. most who have read his work find it to have little understanding of human nature.

i'm a socialist (well, social democrat so socialist-lite) and i have significant distaste for marx.

you're probably not actually a socialist. keep in mind that people conflate socialism with Norway these days

even though Norway is a capitalist country lmfao

People's love of socialism starts to make sense when you realize that their understanding of it is "I'll get free stuff" and that's where it ends.
---

r4X0r posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Darkman124 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

That's fair. Although I'd argue that any type of Marxist is dangerous to public safety, but that might just be my distaste for Marx speaking.

i think it probably is. and it's understandable. most who have read his work find it to have little understanding of human nature.

i'm a socialist (well, social democrat so socialist-lite) and i have significant distaste for marx.

you're probably not actually a socialist. keep in mind that people conflate socialism with Norway these days

even though Norway is a capitalist country lmfao

People's love of socialism starts to make sense when you realize that their understanding of it is "I'll get free stuff" and that's where it ends.

Yeah, that's exactly right.

No sane and successful people are socialists lmfao
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Yeah, that's exactly right.

No sane and successful people are socialists lmfao

i think you know my support of it isn't based on the expectation that i'll get anything directly.
---

Oh wow, it really is godawful

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mZs-1XLw0s
---

r4X0r posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Darkman124 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

That's fair. Although I'd argue that any type of Marxist is dangerous to public safety, but that might just be my distaste for Marx speaking.

i think it probably is. and it's understandable. most who have read his work find it to have little understanding of human nature.

i'm a socialist (well, social democrat so socialist-lite) and i have significant distaste for marx.

you're probably not actually a socialist. keep in mind that people conflate socialism with Norway these days

even though Norway is a capitalist country lmfao

People's love of socialism starts to make sense when you realize that their understanding of it is "I'll get free stuff" and that's where it ends.

Darkman is literally a rocket scientist.

---

This also reinforces a ban on ISIS

https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/942743173230682113

good thread on the accounts being banned.
---

Hey now they can ban Trump based on like half his tweets.
---

Like others have said, I wholeheartedly support what Twitter is doing here, as long as its evenly applied to ALL people based on their guidelines. If it becomes a tool to shut out one side, though, then it's no longer a fair policy, but an instrument of manipulation.
---

Ill never understand why Proudclad needs to be so god damn radical about whatever his deeply held belief of the moment is.
---

Paper_Okami posted...

r4X0r posted...

Liberalism: When you champion the suppression of people who's views you disagree with, call them Nazis, but aren't intelligent enough to see the irony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Nazi_Party

they are banning groups like this, shut the fuck up.

There is no room anywhere for calling for violence.

Then how come when Black Lives Matter rioted screaming "fuck white people" while running around assaulting white people, they're called a "protest group" and Obama invited their leader to the White House? Certainly there's room for calling for violence, and committing it.

The problem with standards is that you have to apply them universally, not just to people you don't like.
---

r4X0r posted...

The problem with standards is that you have to apply them universally, not just to people you don't like.

That's hard to do when some liberals are walking around actually thinking you can't be racist against white people
---

You can't ban people just because they openly hate another ethnicity.
---

Solid Sonic posted...

You can't ban people just because they openly hate another ethnicity.

Yea, otherwise that Drexel professor that posted that "All I want for Christmas is white genocide" would have been banned a year ago and fired from his position at the university.
---

Solid Sonic posted...

You can't ban people just because they openly hate another ethnicity.

You absolutely can
---

r4X0r posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

r4X0r posted...

Liberalism: When you champion the suppression of people who's views you disagree with, call them Nazis, but aren't intelligent enough to see the irony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Nazi_Party

they are banning groups like this, shut the fuck up.

There is no room anywhere for calling for violence.

Then how come when Black Lives Matter rioted screaming "fuck white people" while running around assaulting white people, they're called a "protest group" and Obama invited their leader to the White House? Certainly there's room for calling for violence, and committing it.

The problem with standards is that you have to apply them universally, not just to people you don't like.

When did this happen
---

Darkman124 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Yeah, that's exactly right.

No sane and successful people are socialists lmfao

i think you know my support of it isn't based on the expectation that i'll get anything directly.

you sure youre a socialist?
---

Paper_Okami posted...

i know some of you will have a problem with this.

I don't see why. Privately owned sites aren't public property. They can enforce whatever arbitrary restrictions they want. It's the same as if someone trespassed onto my front lawn and started spouting hate speech at me. I'm well within my rights to remove them from my lawn for any reason.

I would like to know if proponents of Twitter hate groups would also defend my right to sign myself up for a fundamentalist Christian message board and post anti-Christian commentary without fear of having my account suspended. I really have no desire to do such a thing, but why shouldn't a privately owned message board be forced to offer itself as a platform for my viewpoints?

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Darkman124 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Yeah, that's exactly right.

No sane and successful people are socialists lmfao

i think you know my support of it isn't based on the expectation that i'll get anything directly.

you sure youre a socialist?

You seem to not understand socialism. I'm not a socialist or a leftist in general, but I understand that it's about more than "free shit"
---

StridentArremer posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

i know some of you will have a problem with this.

I don't see why. Privately owned sites aren't public property. They can enforce whatever arbitrary restrictions they want. It's the same as if someone trespassed onto my front lawn and started spouting hate speech at me. I'm well within my rights to remove them from my lawn for any reason.

I would like to know if proponents of Twitter hate groups would also defend my right to sign myself up for a fundamentalist Christian message board and post anti-Christian commentary without fear of having my account suspended. I really have no desire to do such a thing, but why shouldn't a privately owned message board be forced to offer itself as a platform for my viewpoints?

The question is: at what point does a privately owned company become a utility. Your example of a random forum is a fine one, but Twitter isn't a random forum. I could make the reverse argument about an electric company and their right to deny power to people who's opinions they don't support. Twitter is ubiquitous, and once it reaches a level of market penetration you need to start asking these questions. Otherwise what you're allowing is a monopoly on ideas.
---

s0nicfan posted...

The question is: at what point does a privately owned company become a utility.

Twitter is not a utility. I can safely say I have never had any need for Twitter in my life in any capacity.

StridentArremer posted...

s0nicfan posted...

The question is: at what point does a privately owned company become a utility.

Twitter is not a utility. I can safely say I have never had any need for Twitter in my life in any capacity.

A LOT of people get their news through twitter, and the president (for better or worse) uses it to DIRECTLY address the people of the nation. News agencies are held to different standards than regular television stations. Twitter is well past the point where it should be held to those same standards, one of which is fair coverage.
---

s0nicfan posted...

StridentArremer posted...

s0nicfan posted...

The question is: at what point does a privately owned company become a utility.

Twitter is not a utility. I can safely say I have never had any need for Twitter in my life in any capacity.

A LOT of people get their news through twitter, and the president (for better or worse) uses it to DIRECTLY address the people of the nation. News agencies are held to different standards than regular television stations. Twitter is well past the point where it should be held to those same standards, one of which is fair coverage.

Twitter is not a fucking news agency.
---

I also don't need Twitter. I don't need social media. I hope it never gets any legitimacy in US law because it sucks.
---

s0nicfan posted...

A LOT of people get their news through twitter, and the president (for better or worse) uses it to DIRECTLY address the people of the nation. News agencies are held to different standards than regular television stations. Twitter is well past the point where it should be held to those same standards, one of which is fair coverage.

If the president uses an iPhone to make those tweets, should Apple be regulated like a utility too? It just doesn't work like that.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

I also don't need Twitter. I don't need social media. I hope it never gets any legitimacy in US law because it sucks.

"I don't need social media" said the guy posting on social media.
---

r4X0r posted...

s0nicfan posted...

A LOT of people get their news through twitter, and the president (for better or worse) uses it to DIRECTLY address the people of the nation. News agencies are held to different standards than regular television stations. Twitter is well past the point where it should be held to those same standards, one of which is fair coverage.

If the president uses an iPhone to make those tweets, should Apple be regulated like a utility too? It just doesn't work like that.

Are you seriously conflating the means of transmission with the platform itself? They're totally different things.
---

NadYobWoc posted...

Ill never understand why Proudclad needs to be so god damn radical about whatever his deeply held belief of the moment is.

He has a developmental disorder.

r4X0r posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

I also don't need Twitter. I don't need social media. I hope it never gets any legitimacy in US law because it sucks.

"I don't need social media" said the guy posting on social media.

I hope you go around to everyone telling them how you're a hotshot on a big social media sites called gamefaqs.

Forums aren't social media.
---

s0nicfan posted...

A LOT of people get their news through twitter, and the president (for better or worse) uses it to DIRECTLY address the people of the nation.

Good for them. But until my tax dollars are being used to fund Twitter, I don't care what sort of content control its owners wish to enforce.

P4wn4g3 posted...

Hey now they can ban Trump based on like half his tweets.

Probably could with the talk of blowing up the houses with ISIS families
---

s0nicfan posted...

StridentArremer posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

i know some of you will have a problem with this.

I don't see why. Privately owned sites aren't public property. They can enforce whatever arbitrary restrictions they want. It's the same as if someone trespassed onto my front lawn and started spouting hate speech at me. I'm well within my rights to remove them from my lawn for any reason.

I would like to know if proponents of Twitter hate groups would also defend my right to sign myself up for a fundamentalist Christian message board and post anti-Christian commentary without fear of having my account suspended. I really have no desire to do such a thing, but why shouldn't a privately owned message board be forced to offer itself as a platform for my viewpoints?

The question is: at what point does a privately owned company become a utility. Your example of a random forum is a fine one, but Twitter isn't a random forum. I could make the reverse argument about an electric company and their right to deny power to people who's opinions they don't support. Twitter is ubiquitous, and once it reaches a level of market penetration you need to start asking these questions. Otherwise what you're allowing is a monopoly on ideas.

I think you're on the right track here. The paradigm of the First Amendment speaker is basically some bozo on a corner screaming at a dozen people and passing them pamphlets. It's very anachronistic in today's world.

I'd suspecy that the vast majority of debate is most likely conducted over the Internet, where the modern speaker can reach thousands if not millions of speakers over platforms like Twitter. The law should adapt to this new reality, because certain speakers will have access to these audiences based on the content of their views alone, not the force of their arguments. Private corporate censorship has the power to be far more suppressive today than any government ever was.

There is also some precedent for forcing private companies to remove limits om free speech, although in a very different context. Company towns, for example, could not limit the free speech rights of people who came there, despite it all being private property.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama?wprov=sfla1
---

Paper_Okami posted...

use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes

good. sjws can now piss off.
---

s0nicfan posted...

The question is: at what point does a privately owned company become a utility.

Weren't you anti net neutrality? Or am I mistaking you for someone else?
---

BulletWing posted...

s0nicfan posted...

The question is: at what point does a privately owned company become a utility.

Weren't you anti net neutrality? Or am I mistaking you for someone else?

Someone else. I firmly support net neutrality and posted across a great many topic on the day of the vote explicitly pointing out how bad things were before NN and how easy it would be to return to those problems.
---

This is good, but I find it really fucking said that dumb neo Nazis brought this when radical terrorists have used Twitter for years without much issue
---

s0nicfan posted...

BulletWing posted...

s0nicfan posted...

The question is: at what point does a privately owned company become a utility.

Weren't you anti net neutrality? Or am I mistaking you for someone else?

Someone else. I firmly support net neutrality and posted across a great many topic on the day of the vote explicitly pointing out how bad things were before NN and how easy it would be to return to those problems.

Apologies then.
---

BulletWing posted...

Apologies then.

No problem

---

The Admiral posted...

Callixtus posted...

A private company with that sort of influence should not have this power to limit speech. They aren't qualified to determine what is a hate group or not. And what do they mean by "violent"? It is quite open to interpretation.

Banning hate groups from a private platform is not a free speech violation. Those Nazis are allowed to start their own site and say whatever they want.

Like I said above, it's not the policy that's the issue, it's that Twitter doesn't always enforce their policies consistently when political ideology is involved. For example:

It's amazing how many people will believe random images of memes without any semblance of proof that they are actually real.
---

FWIW, your question is a good one. How prevalent in everyday life does a companies service have to be to be declared a utility or not?
---

BulletWing posted...

FWIW, your question is a good one. How prevalent in everyday life does a companies service have to be to be declared a utility or not?

it really, really is
---

The Admiral posted...
Banning hate groups from a private platform is not a free speech violation. Those Nazis are allowed to start their own site and say whatever they want.

Like I said above, it's not the policy that's the issue, it's that Twitter doesn't always enforce their policies consistently when political ideology is involved. For example:

Twitter doesn't enforce their policies consistently, period; it's not an ideological issue.
http://mashable.com/2017/10/06/unsolicited-dick-pics-twitter-abusive-behavior/
---

SkittyOnWailord posted...

Is there a failing alt right version of GameFAQs?

Yeah. It's called GameFAQs.
---

took em long enough
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Great news. Now they just need to ban Communists and Twitter might actually become usable.

BUH WUH BOUT DUH COMYUNISS

right on cue ffs
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Callixtus posted...

A private company with that sort of influence should not have this power to limit speech. They aren't qualified to determine what is a hate group or not. And what do they mean by "violent"? It is quite open to interpretation.

Banning hate groups from a private platform is not a free speech violation. Those Nazis are allowed to start their own site and say whatever they want.

Like I said above, it's not the policy that's the issue, it's that Twitter doesn't always enforce their policies consistently when political ideology is involved. For example:

It's amazing how many people will believe random images of memes without any semblance of proof that they are actually real.

*Shows physical proof*

*Replies denying proof exists*

And I suppose while we're at it we'll just pretend #KillAllWhitePeople was never trending. Just like #KillAllMen. Even though it was and still is all over the internet, we'll just pretend it's not there. No proof!

Bottom line is Nazi isn't a term exclusive to actual Nazi's anymore. It's become a catch all for any person you don't like, like "Facist", "White Supremacist", and "Misogynist".

Like Trump is rounding up Jews in concentration camps.

Like calling for a ban on all political parties other than Democrats isn't single party Facism.

Because only white people can be racist. That is a completely tolerant ideology to operate under. 10,000 people marching through New York calling for "Dead Cops Now!" is a benign and perfectly legitimate organization, and they never riot even when they do.

Men are dying exponentially faster than women in every single study, in the military, in the work place, in suicide. Women 20-35 years old graduate from college more often then men, with better grades then men, are making more money then men, and are in control of 60% of personal finances as well as 52% of the stock market. The majority of prisoners are men, the majority of the unemployed are men, and the majority of the homeless are men, but we live in a "patriarchy" that oppresses women at every single turn.

If Twitter wants to ban everyone who isn't AltLeft and call everyone else a hate group, that's their choice. I never liked Twitter anyway. Enjoy your echo chamber. I hope it brings you comfort as the world around you burns.
---

its funny how some people still think "alt left" is a thing
---