Twitter permanently bans Gay Conservative Milo Yiannopoulos for mocking a Ghostbuster

[cbrunny]

Twitter is a private company, and can ban anyone it wants. That said, free speech is an important part of society. While it should be totally legal to ban Milo, if he did nothing more than say what I have found, then we should not support what Twitter did. We should as a society support free speech and free expression because a society without those things is very scary.

Banning Milo will mean little to society, but this type of thing if not criticized by people will become more and more popular.

fuck that garbage. terms of service exist. period.

 

[realibrad]

I agree - so for those who are against this, stop using and viewing Twitter. That won't happen of course.

Not using twitter is less effective than using the service while you can to criticize twitter.

 

[jman19]

Not using twitter is less effective than using the service while you can to criticize twitter.

Yes keep feeding the beast. They'll just ban you most likely anyway.

Anyway, most ppl against this won't continue to use Twitter so they can bash Twitter. They will continue to use it to track every insipid thought crosses the minds of celebrities etc.

 

[realibrad]

fuck that garbage. terms of service exist. period.

By that garbage, what is it that you mean? I am saying that Twitter should have very right to do what it did, but that we should say its bad that they do. So what garbage is it that you want to fuck?

 

[jman19]

fuck that garbage. terms of service exist. period.

Again, agreed.

 

[tynopik]

Of course it matters in what it's in response to.

If she had just published that persons details for no reason and told everyone to go her her it would be bad.

If she retweeted something offensive and against twitters rules then said go get her its not the same thing at all.

I see, so targetted attacks for the 'right cause' are super

it's only if the targetted attacks are for the 'wrong cause' that there's a problem

In fact it looks more like she's trying to get people to report the original post TBH.

BS

she clearly knows how to report posts to twitter and has done so repeatedly

this was strictly an attack call

 

[tynopik]

https://twitter.com/tos?lang=en#twitterrights



/thread. again.

and we have the right to criticize twitter's hateful, bigoted actions

/thread reopened

 

[cbrunny]

By that garbage, what is it that you mean? I am saying that Twitter should have very right to do what it did, but that we should say its bad that they do. So what garbage is it that you want to fuck?

pretending that twitter is equal to free speech is garbage.

 

[Double Trouble]

No one has the right to Twitter.

/thread.

No one has said that anyone has the right to twitter. Strawman?

https://twitter.com/tos?lang=en#twitterrights

/thread. again.

Congrats on missing the boat completely. They have the right to refuse service to whoever they want, but we also have a right to call them out on double standard bullshit when they engage in it.

 

[senseamp]

Conservatives can leave Twitter if they don't like it. Maybe Peter Thiel will start an alternative for them to whine on, being how he is such a supporter of free speech, as long as he approves of it.

 

[realibrad]

Twitter said, not me. Their rules to enforce as they see fit. Which they've had to do multiple times with this guy. My understanding is the actual posts in question were re-tweets of very offensive images by Milo that originated from other users. Now, when you're "internet famous" like this d-bag, and you have hundreds of thousands of mindless followers looking to anonymously impress their hero, it's not shocking for them to construe his behavior as inciting harassment. Actually, to expect otherwise is some powerful detachment from reality.

Edit: cbrunny beat me to it. And much more concisely.

You responded to a person who said that nobody can say what it was that he said that got him banned. You called him stupid and said it was a breach of TOS. That is stupid because you understand that he wanted to know what it was that Milo said. You did nothing to explain that other than to say he cannot read.

Can you show me where it is that you read that Milo was retweeting offensive images? That might be worthy of hate speech, but I have not found a single article that supports what you just said.

Also, if your argument is that people doing something in the name of, then you better be careful, because that puts you squarely in terrorists do x because of x religion. If you believe that Milo should be responsible for things he never advocated for, that is very dumb. Not sure if that is what you meant, but if it is that is very stupid.

 

[cbrunny]

No one has said that anyone has the right to twitter. Strawman?



Congrats on missing the boat completely. They have the right to refuse service to whoever they want, but we also have a right to call them out on double standard bullshit when they engage in it.

i feel sorry for people that don't have more important things to worry about than whether or not someone else broke terms of service on a free internet service.

 

[woolfe9998]

Congrats on missing the boat completely. They have the right to refuse service to whoever they want, but we also have a right to call them out on double standard bullshit when they engage in it.

I think that's totally fair. So long as you realize that a single case doesn't prove a pattern of bias.

After more than a decade on discussion forums, one of the things I've noticed is that banning patterns often seem arbitrary. You can always find cases where one person is banned but another person who did the same or even worse is not. I think a major factor is how many people complain and how loudly they complain.

In any event, there is no way to ascertain a pattern from this case.

 

[realibrad]

pretending that twitter is equal to free speech is garbage.

What? Twitter can be a platform for free speech. I dont understand your point that twitter is not free speech. Twitter as a platform is not free speech, but it can be used for free speech.

Am I missing what you are saying?

 

[cbrunny]

What? Twitter can be a platform for free speech. I dont understand your point that twitter is not free speech. Twitter as a platform is not free speech, but it can be used for free speech.

Am I missing what you are saying?

no you got it. the difference is that i have a mouth. i can speech without twitter.

free speech in 140 characters or less doesn't sound all that free to begin with.

 

[realibrad]

i feel sorry for people that don't have more important things to worry about than whether or not someone else broke terms of service on a free internet service.

Lol you hypocrite. Jesus man, that is the very thing you are doing here.

 

[cbrunny]

Lol you hypocrite. Jesus man, that is the very thing you are doing here.

that's true. but i'm procrastinating. lol

 

[Double Trouble]

i feel sorry for people that don't have more important things to worry about than whether or not someone else broke terms of service on a free internet service.

Yup, just like I feel sorry for people that don't have more important things to worry about than whether someone else worries about whether or not someone broke the terms of service of a free internet service. :biggrin::awe:

 

[realibrad]

no you got it. the difference is that i have a mouth. i can speech without twitter.

free speech in 140 characters or less doesn't sound all that free to begin with.

Great, so speech is only spoken word. So two men kissing in public is not freedom of expression and should not be against the law to ban. Sexy clothes that some find offensive, also not spoken word. Congrats, you are now a conservative who wants to limit the freedom of people that you disagree with.

I on the other hand dont want to limit freedom of expression so long as it does not infringe on others rights. I guess you and I are different. #BanallthingsIdontlike

 

[tynopik]

i feel sorry for people that don't have more important things to worry about than whether or not someone else broke terms of service on a free internet service.

it's not about whether or not Milo broke the TOS as written, it's about Twitter's very uneven policy of enforcing the TOS

there's one set of rules for those they agree with and another set of rules for people they disagree with

Twitter is using the TOS as a club to selectively silence those they who don't follow the approved narrative

that's what this is about

 

[cbrunny]

Great, so speech is only spoken word. So two men kissing in public is not freedom of expression and should not be against the law to ban. Sexy clothes that some find offensive, also not spoken word. Congrats, you are now a conservative who wants to limit the freedom of people that you disagree with.

I on the other hand dont want to limit freedom of expression so long as it does not infringe on others rights. I guess you and I are different. #BanallthingsIdontlike

#noneofthosethingsarethingsthatisaid

 

[agent00f]

Where did you read that he was retweeing shopped images? That is new to this from what I have read. I see 3 things he said to her.

So far, of all the articles I have gone through, those are the only three things I can find. I have not seen anyone saying he retweeted photoshopped but I would be glad to read it. I honestly just want to know what happened.

It's something I recall from glanced over some random article, so I just googled Milo Jones fake tweets and got this: http://fusion.net/story/327103/leslie-jones-twitter-racism/

Frankly I don't particular care about this enough to dig any further so you'll have to excuse the brevity.

 

[cbrunny]

it's not about whether or not Milo broke the TOS as written, it's about Twitter's very uneven policy of enforcing the TOS

there's one set of rules for those they agree with and another set of rules for people they disagree with

Twitter is using the TOS as a club to selectively silence those they who don't follow the approved narrative

that's what this is about

so? twitter isn't democracy either. it isn't some pure unbiased non-agenda driven transparent box. no one is forced in. it is all opt-in. all non-mandatory.

 

[Pens1566]

You responded to a person who said that nobody can say what it was that he said that got him banned. You called him stupid and said it was a breach of TOS. That is stupid because you understand that he wanted to know what it was that Milo said. You did nothing to explain that other than to say he cannot read.

He obviously didn't read the thread. At the very top of this page, zin stated as much in post 101. Since we're not twitter and don't have insight into the exact post, we have to go on logic, past history, and the released statements. Point being, if the poster I quoted expected a specific link/example from someone other than twitter, they're a moron.

Can you show me where it is that you read that Milo was retweeting offensive images? That might be worthy of hate speech, but I have not found a single article that supports what you just said.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=milo+banned

Also, if your argument is that people doing something in the name of, then you better be careful, because that puts you squarely in terrorists do x because of x religion. If you believe that Milo should be responsible for things he never advocated for, that is very dumb. Not sure if that is what you meant, but if it is that is very stupid.

Please. You're delusional if you don't think that he understands what happens when he targets someone or something. You can leave the rest out as it's garbage.

 

[realibrad]

#noneofthosethingsarethingsthatisaid

Your point is that you can exercise you freedom of speech in other areas, so its totally okay. Just like black people in the south could eat at other restaurants so it was totally okay to ban them from some. Gay people can be gay in their bedroom, so limiting where they can be gay is totally okay. Women can work in some jobs, so its totally okay to limit where they cannot work.

If your argument is that this is not governmentally enforced, that is a shit argument. We should not use the government to get private companies to allow free speech, but we should 100% call out companies that do what Twitter seems to have done.

But hey, if you want to live in a world where a massive platform limits speech it does not like, then that is your right. I am going to call out bad shit for what it is in the hopes that I add one more glass of water to a puddle that I hope will turn into an ocean of support.