Twitter permanently bans Gay Conservative Milo Yiannopoulos for mocking a Ghostbuster

[PokerGuy]

Harassment, bullying, bigotry, and just plain rudeness have unfortunately become legitimized political speech in the US.

No, they are apparently only allowed if done by leftists. Otherwise, they are to be stopped.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

No, they are apparently only allowed if done by leftists. Otherwise, they are to be stopped.

You do know who the GOP presidential nominee is don't you?

And how he got there?

 

[senseamp]

No, clearly twitter wants a certain level of decorum only when it comes to conservative tweets. No such level of decorum is required for lefties posting vile things.

He can go on Peter Thiel's Facebook, they love free speech as long as it's not about them.

 

[PokerGuy]

You do know who the GOP presidential nominee is don't you?

And how he got there?

Ya, like they're going to apply the same standards to a guy who might become president as they are to other tweeters? You can't be that naive can you? Oh wait, nevermind, we know the answer to that

He can go on Peter Thiel's Facebook, they love free speech as long as it's not about them.

I have no idea why you want to keep bringing Thiel into it. Free speech does not mean you can do illegal things without getting sued in court. They fact that gawker was successfully sued into oblivion indicates they did something that was against the law and had to pay the price. That has absolutely nothing to do with twitter banning conservative tweeters over trolling while letting lib tweeters get away with advocating for murder.

 

[agent00f]

Maybe the problem is that these folks simply don't know what "harassment" means. I wonder if there's a smaller/shorter word that twitter can use to help them.

 

[PokerGuy]

Maybe the problem is that these folks simply don't know what "harassment" means. I wonder if there's a smaller/shorter word that twitter can use to help them.

I don't care what words they use, as long as it gets applied the same way to all users, not just selectively applied to conservative ones. Is that simple enough for you?

 

[Blue_Max]

Maybe the problem is that these folks simply don't know what "harassment" means. I wonder if there's a smaller/shorter word that twitter can use to help them.

These days it means very little. Like 'hate speech' it means little more than, "he said something I didn't like! Punish him!"

 

[SP33Demon]

Growth seems to have slowed but I guess that's because it's bloody massive as it is!

http://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/

Stop owning yourself with your own links.
Twitter: 310 mil active users.
IG: 400 million active users.

With more than 400 million monthly active users, Instagram is one of the most popular social networks worldwide.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/293778/us-instagram-penetration/

No wonder Twitter Twat is down 50%. It's getting owned (much like yourself in trying to defend a 50% drop in stock value in less than a year).

 

[senseamp]

Their stock went up after banning Milo, so try again.

 

[senseamp]

I have no idea why you want to keep bringing Thiel into it. Free speech does not mean you can do illegal things without getting sued in court. They fact that gawker was successfully sued into oblivion indicates they did something that was against the law and had to pay the price. That has absolutely nothing to do with twitter banning conservative tweeters over trolling while letting lib tweeters get away with advocating for murder.

Jack Dorsey can ban Milo from Twitter for being a troll, just like Peter Thiel can secretly sue Gawker out of business through third parties for reporting on him. Milo was cheering it on when the shoe was on another foot. Twitter doesn't need to ban anyone else, any more than Facebook board members don't have to secretly sue anyone else into bankruptcy.

He can go on Peter Thiel's Facebook, they love free speech as long as it's not about them.

 

[WelshBloke]

Stop owning yourself with your own links.
Twitter: 310 mil active users.
IG: 400 million active users.

You claimed that people have stopped using Twitter.

They have 310,000,000 active users and it's going up.

So you're quite clearly wrong there.

 

[SP33Demon]

You claimed that people have stopped using Twitter.

They have 310,000,000 active users and it's going up.

So you're quite clearly wrong there.

Yes, regale us with that whopping 2.64% increase in users (302->310) in an entire year (Q1 '15 to Q1 '16). But such growth! /sarcasm. And that's why it's down 50% in value. Further proof why you trying to comment on stock valuations is like Tom Brady thinking he can beat the NFL in court. Epic fail, just like Twitter will be if another company doesn't buy it out.

 

[Blue_Max]

You claimed that people have stopped using Twitter.

They have 310,000,000 active users and it's going up.

So you're quite clearly wrong there.

Taqiyya alert!

He CLEARLY said usership/value has halved. 50%. Reduced.

YOU are full of crap by changing the narrative and claiming twitter use "stopped completely".

Progressive taqiyya - say/do anything to defend the progressive narrative. Yuck!

 

[agent00f]

I don't care what words they use, as long as it gets applied the same way to all users, not just selectively applied to conservative ones. Is that simple enough for you?

What makes you think it's selectively applied? I suspect selective doesn't mean what you think it does. Take for example this guy:

These days it means very little. Like 'hate speech' it means little more than, "he said something I didn't like! Punish him!"

Some actress is minding her business and gets bombarded with racist crap due to Milo, and the people responsible for it have the gale to jump up on the cross when they get slapped.

Which only goes to show twitter did the right thing much like a parent disciplining a particularly petulant child.

 

[glenn1]

Read the article I linked.

I did, that's what the post you quoted directly spoke to. Two of the 3 examples Milo complained about are the exploitation of private details of people's lives, sometimes for people who are not even in the public eye. Is there some sort of journalistic purpose in distributing someone's sex tape? Or private photos of their grandchildren?

 

[senseamp]

Milo's own words:
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/05/31/peter-thiel-free-speech/

Naturally, progressive web journalists aren’t taking news of Thiel’s secret war well. They think it’s a threat to press freedom. “Even Gawker haters should fear the strategy Peter Thiel is using to destroy Gawker” worried Vox, another progressive blogging empire whose political stances often mirrored Gawker’s. WIRED worried about chilling effects.
“As a libertarian, Thiel should support free speech,” complained Salon.

It’s a specious line of argument from supremely butthurt journalists upset that, with Gawker’s decline, the golden age of left-wing public shaming is over.

Now Milo himself engaged in right-wing public shaming, got himself banned, and it is now his butthurt supporters who are upset. Too bad, so sad.
With the obvious difference that Gawker actually reported the truth on Thiel, while Milo was engaged in pure trolling like calling an actress a man.

 

[PokerGuy]

Jack Dorsey can ban Milo from Twitter for being a troll, just like Peter Thiel can secretly sue Gawker out of business through third parties for reporting on him.

Thiel didn't destroy gawker, gawker's illegal activities destroyed gawker. It doesn't matter who funds the lawsuits -- if they have no merit then they won't go anywhere anyway.

There are people that abuse the legal system by simply burying someone in lawsuits to the point where they can't afford a defense. That's not what happened in the gawker case. Gawker got destroyed in court and lost their shirt. Regardless, they are two completely unrelated and completely different things. I have no idea why you'd want to try to relate them, it's like trying to tie the wimbleton outcome to a game of yahtzee you played at home.

Dorsey and twitter can ban (and have banned) Milo, and the public is right to call them out for being leftist hypocrite trash for doing so.

 

[agent00f]

Stop owning yourself with your own links.
Twitter: 310 mil active users.
IG: 400 million active users.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/293778/us-instagram-penetration/

No wonder Twitter Twat is down 50%. It's getting owned (much like yourself in trying to defend a 50% drop in stock value in less than a year).

Taqiyya alert!

He CLEARLY said usership/value has halved. 50%. Reduced.

YOU are full of crap by changing the narrative and claiming twitter use "stopped completely".

Progressive taqiyya - say/do anything to defend the progressive narrative. Yuck!

Can someone explain the reasoning/narrative here? Conservatives are leaving twitter for a picture posting service? Did 140 character become too much?

 

[senseamp]

I did, that's what the post you quoted directly spoke to. Two of the 3 examples Milo complained about are the exploitation of private details of people's lives, sometimes for people who are not even in the public eye. Is there some sort of journalistic purpose in distributing someone's sex tape? Or private photos of their grandchildren?

Since Hogan was engaged in outright racism on that tape, and is a public figure, it is of public interest. If that lawsuit failed, Thiel had others in line, like the one from the guy who claims to have invented email decades after it was invented, whom Gawker called on his BS.
But the point is Milo was cheering on Peter Thiel for shutting down Gawker not because of Hogan, but because, in his own words:

Whenever someone considered making an un-PC joke, or antagonizing a feminist on social media, or criticizing the hot left-wing hashtag of the moment, they paused and considered whether a bored Gawker writer might turn them into a headline.

Yes, he wanted Gawker gone simply because they truthfully reported on what right-wingers said. In Milo's opinion, Gawker deserved to be shut down because they simply reported on what someone from the right said on social media. Because he believes he should be able to troll with impunity, but if someone else reports on it, they should be shut down.
Well, now he got shut down. Good.

 

[glenn1]

Milo's own words:
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/05/31/peter-thiel-free-speech/


Now Milo himself engaged in right-wing public shaming, got himself banned, and it is now his butthurt supporters who are upset. Too bad, so sad.
With the obvious difference that Gawker actually reported the truth on Thiel, while Milo was engaged in pure trolling like calling an actress a man.

You realize someone can be an asshole and still correct about celebrating the troubles of a site like Gawker who lost in a private lawsuit for doing illegal things?

Getting back on topic, if what Milo got Twitter banned for was only the three tweets I saw then that was a wrong decision; criticizing someone's grammar or appearance isn't harassment. If he had made 3,000 tweets doing that, used racist terms, or done something like faked Tweets from the actress that would be actual harassing speech and then I would change my mind.

 

[Pens1566]

Can someone explain the reasoning/narrative here? Conservatives are leaving twitter for a picture posting service? Did 140 character become too much?

Something about Twitter is failing (they're not) because they've started selectively banning only conservatives (they haven't). It's a perfect example of how distant some people are from reality.

 

[senseamp]

Thiel didn't destroy gawker, gawker's illegal activities destroyed gawker.

And Twitter didn't ban Milo, his trolling got him banned.

 

[Blue_Max]

Some actress is minding her business and gets bombarded with racist crap due to Milo, and the people responsible for it have the gale to jump up on the cross when they get slapped.

Which only goes to show twitter did the right thing much like a parent disciplining a particularly petulant child.

Except you missed all of HER many tweets before Milo even came along. She'd been blasting friendly criticism for hours, throwing out all kinds of nastiness and false accusations of racism, etc. This didn't just come out of "nowhere".

Of course, now the damage control crews are trying to claim she never wrote any nasty stuff - just a duplicate account with her exact name, etc.

As usual the progressives say, "WE can do this, YOU can't!"

 

[agent00f]

Thiel didn't destroy gawker, gawker's illegal activities destroyed gawker. It doesn't matter who funds the lawsuits -- if they have no merit then they won't go anywhere anyway.

There are people that abuse the legal system by simply burying someone in lawsuits to the point where they can't afford a defense. That's not what happened in the gawker case. Gawker got destroyed in court and lost their shirt. Regardless, they are two completely unrelated and completely different things.

Just fyi, you're really terrible at distinguishing unrelated things. For example, gawker only got buried due to thiel's money, since a similarly suit much less well funded probably would've lost or at most paid a pittance in penalties.

If you can't even see the connection in sentences right before going on about unrelated things, what makes you think that ability is competent elsewhere?

 

[Pens1566]

Except you missed all of HER many tweets before Milo even came along. She'd been blasting friendly criticism for hours, throwing out all kinds of nastiness and false accusations of racism, etc. This didn't just come out of "nowhere".

Of course, now the damage control crews are trying to claim she never wrote any nasty stuff - just a duplicate account with her exact name, etc.

As usual the progressives say, "WE can do this, YOU can't!"

Did you happen to miss the giant "Delete" button that was present in the screenshot from Milo's account? Now, how would he have that option on her tweet?