Twitter permanently bans Gay Conservative Milo Yiannopoulos for mocking a Ghostbuster

[agent00f]

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.

Twitter is a business. It's becoming clear that a lot of people don't know how businesses work.

 

[realibrad]

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.



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



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.

When you say he targeted, are you saying that because he spoke to her through twitter?

 

[blankslate]

Never heard of him or her...

Twitter. Who cares. Not I.

Count yourself lucky....

Some people actually tried to figure out what legitimate reasons #GG which he was involved in however tangentially in actually had... hours of life down a social black hole.



_____________

 

[cbrunny]

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.

#ididntsayanyofthosethingseither

 

[Double Trouble]

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.

You're right, one case does not a pattern make. I've seen plenty of blatant examples though on facebook, twitter and other social media outlets that are absolutely indefensible in terms of not applying the same rules to everyone. When someone continues to call for killing of white people and can freely continue to post, while someone else saying pretty innocuous stuff gets banned, it's pretty hard to argue that TOS rules are applied the same.

Boards, forums and social media moderation tends to reflect the ideals of those in charge. Since almost everyone in charge of twitter, facebook, instagram, snapchat are very much left leaning, the moderation of those services follows suit. Neither surprising nor inappropriate, but they need to be called out on in when they do that kind of stuff so the users know where they stand when they use the service.

 

[Pens1566]

When you say he targeted, are you saying that because he spoke to her through twitter?

Really? You call that "spoke to through twitter"??? Haha. Ok?

 

[tynopik]

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.

just because an action is legal doesn't mean it is above criticism

companies are criticized all the time for actions they take that are completely legal

disney forced their IT workers to train their replacements

completely legal yet they got a firestorm of criticism

no, Twitter isn't required to treat everyone equally, but is discriminating against some simply because you disagree with them the behavior we as a society want to see our largest and most influential companies displaying?

I would dare so no, that is an unhealthy attitude and we should protest and hold their feet to the fire and say 'No! That is not the kind of society we want to have!'

 

[realibrad]

Really? You call that "spoke to through twitter"??? Haha. Ok?

I am asking how he "targeted" her.

 

[agent00f]

Count yourself lucky....

Some people actually tried to figure out what legitimate reasons #GG which he was involved in however tangentially in actually had... hours of life down a social black hole.



_____________

I still can't figure out wtf that was about. But I do know that he used to claim video games caused violence, which goes to show how desperate his fans must be to find a semi-articulate figurehead.

 

[Pens1566]

I am asking how he "targeted" her.

I've given you the/a link. Use it. I'm not diving down into a bullshit semantic argument over the word choice so you can effectively ignore the bigger picture. You don't think he went after her? Fine. That's like your opinion man. Most of us can see it for what it is and not go off on a tangent to distract.

 

[agent00f]

just because an action is legal doesn't mean it is above criticism

companies are criticized all the time for actions they take that are completely legal

disney forced their IT workers to train their replacements

completely legal yet they got a firestorm of criticism

no, Twitter isn't required to treat everyone equally, but is discriminating against some simply because you disagree with them the behavior we as a society want to see our largest and most influential companies displaying?

I would dare so no, that is an unhealthy attitude and we should protest and hold their feet to the fire and say 'No! That is not the kind of society we want to have!'

I generally support speaking truth to power but as mentioned this is a pretty dumb case to take up for that cause.

 

[cbrunny]

no Twitter isn't required to treat everyone equally, but is discriminating against some simply because you disagree with them the behavior we as a society want to see our largest and most influential companies displaying?

don't you discriminate against large companies because you disagree with their behaviour too? i see no reason why it can't go both ways.

 

[Double Trouble]

Twitter is a business. It's becoming clear that a lot of people don't know how businesses work.

It's clear you don't understand how the world works. Twitter is a business, and they have a right to run it however they want, just like the public has a right to complain about them when they do bad things. Businesses generally don't want their image tarnished, and the possibility of that happening is one of the things that makes them less likely to engage in bad behavior even when it's legal.

 

[senseamp]

Peter Thiel sits on FB board. He secretly backed, and continues to back, frivolous lawsuits to send a news outlet (Gawker) he didn't like into bankruptcy. He has been invited as a speaker to the RNC. Republicans have no leg to stand on when complaining about free speech. Their position is money, and only money, is legitimate speech.

 

[Double Trouble]

don't you discriminate against large companies because you disagree with their behaviour too? i see no reason why it can't go both ways.

Nobody said they can't do it, or that they aren't allowed to do it. Can we put that strawman to bed yet?

 

[Double Trouble]

Peter Thiel sits on FB board. He secretly backed, and continues to back, frivolous lawsuits to send a news outlet (Gawker) he didn't like into bankruptcy. He has been invited as a speaker to the RNC. Republicans have no leg to stand on when complaining about free speech. Their position is money, and only money, is legitimate speech.

You mean the one where the plaintiff won and took Gawker to the cleaners? You mean that "frivolous" lawsuit?

 

[cbrunny]

Nobody said they can't do it, or that they aren't allowed to do it. Can we put that strawman to bed yet?

sure put it to bed. that's not it though.

lots of people said they should not have done it.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Twitter doubles down on its double standards

Image removed as the hate comments in it are not acceptable for posting here.

Actress/"comedian" Leslie Jones decided to play the victim on twitter instead of playing it smart and not feed the trolls.

Turns out she's 48 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Jones_(comedian) far older than I imagined. It's clear she's not as "hip" as she imagined. Anyways a cry for @jack and Milo was suspended, with outlets like buzzfeed getting the scoop even before Milo got his notice, no collusion there....

Milo Suspended Permanently by Twitter Minutes Before ‘Gays For Trump’ Party At RNC
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/19/breaking-milo-suspended-twitter-20-minutes-party/

Twitter Permanently Suspends Conservative Writer Milo Yiannopoulos (buzzfeed)
http://archive.is/j9Dw0

.@Nero on #Periscope: Milo live at Gays For Trump at #RNCinCLE #FREEMILO
https://twitter.com/bakedalaska/status/755613833570447360

Breaking : @bakedalaska on @Nero Twitter suspension
https://twitter.com/stranahan/status/755601585120608257

Protesters outside #FreeMilo event at #RNCinCLE
https://www.periscope.tv/PlayDangerously/1OdKrbdqPpXKX

More examples of twitter hypocrisy
"Kill all the White People" Says Another Black Lives Matter Supporter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYeYRwZXV-4


Twitter CEO @Jack Dorsey lying on national television about Twitter's unfair & biased censorship. #FreeMilo, NOW!
https://twitter.com/Gays4Trump/status/755625058651996160

currently trending, of course
https://twitter.com/search?q=#freemilo&src=typd


related "ethics"
http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/0...eaders-based-on-ghostbusters-troll-post/7814/

And you will miss him why?

 

[realibrad]

#ididntsayanyofthosethingseither

Do you believe its bad that twitter limits free speech on its service? I am not asking if its legal, it is, but I am asking you if it is bad.

 

[cbrunny]

Do you believe its bad that twitter limits free speech on its service? I am not asking if its legal, it is, but I am asking you if it is bad.

tricky to answer, but i'll give it a shot. given that there is a terms of service and that the service is free and opt-in and optional in every reasonably conceivable way, i do not think it is bad that twitter limits free speech.

 

[SheHateMe]

He was also banned for these fake tweets he either made or decided to spread around

 

[senseamp]

You mean the one where the plaintiff won and took Gawker to the cleaners? You mean that "frivolous" lawsuit?

Florida

 

[Zaap]

Who.....


















gives a flying shit?

 

[realibrad]

tricky to answer, but i'll give it a shot. given that there is a terms of service and that the service is free and opt-in and optional in every reasonably conceivable way, i do not think it is bad that twitter limits free speech.

Twitter can have any TOS it wants. If twitter wants to ban bronies, then they can should should be allowed to do that. Banning those sickos does not do much harm to society. Banning people for speech you dont like leads to long term problems though. To argue that the bronie banning is going to lead to the world ending would be dumb. Saying that banning bronie speech is bad is not dumb if you think free speech is important.

The only think I think people should do is speak out against censorship of free speech. Government does not need to be part of anything here. We should 100% always protect free speech in society. Letting it slip would be a very bad idea. Every step in the direction of censorship is bad, but to a degree.

So, I think its bad that twitter limits speech on their platform, but what was done here is not going to do much other than to further censorship which I dislike.

*Edit.
Also, I would assume you are for the cake shop not selling cakes to gays, as nobody forced the gays to buy a cake from that store, and they could go somewhere else. Buying a cake from that shop is 100% optional right?

 

[fskimospy]

Twitter can have any TOS it wants. If twitter wants to ban bronies, then they can should should be allowed to do that. Banning those sickos does not do much harm to society. Banning people for speech you dont like leads to long term problems though. To argue that the bronie banning is going to lead to the world ending would be dumb. Saying that banning bronie speech is bad is not dumb if you think free speech is important.

The only think I think people should do is speak out against censorship of free speech. Government does not need to be part of anything here. We should 100% always protect free speech in society. Letting it slip would be a very bad idea. Every step in the direction of censorship is bad, but to a degree.

So, I think its bad that twitter limits speech on their platform, but what was done here is not going to do much other than to further censorship which I dislike.

*Edit.
Also, I would assume you are for the cake shop not selling cakes to gays, as nobody forced the gays to buy a cake from that store, and they could go somewhere else. Buying a cake from that shop is 100% optional right?

This is discrimination based on behavior, which is permitted in every business in America. The anti-gay bakery was discrimination based on inherent characteristics like race or sexual orientation. They are not comparable.