The End; a portend: Milo Yiannopoulos Banned from Twitter

[Bourne]

Support ISIS, call for the death of white people, do what you want on Twitter, but do NOT offend a minority woman as that is nothing but inciting hatred toward them.

The biggest stone in an Orwellian landslide similar to what goes on in Europe has now been dislodged in North America.

[poido123]

What. A. Time.


This world is a joke honestly. :sleeping



I don't like the mean things you say to me!!! You hurt my feelings! WAAAAA


But celebrating beheadings and terrorist attacks can pass :roll:

[masonanddixon]

Huxley already knew this would happen back in 1931.

[9erempiree]

They couldn't handle Milo. He was too much for the liberal media.

[ROCSteady]

What exactly did he say, like verbatim?

[HeatFanSince88]

twitter and facebook are just just liberal hugboxes full of fake fakkits.

[StephHamann]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA44q8W_Xt0

[Nick Young]

Twitter is owned by a Saudi Arabian and Anita Sarkeesian is basically acting as Supreme God Emperor Twitter Mod. She is head of the "Twitter Trust and Safety Council" How Orwellian does that sound XD

Are you surprised this happened?

No one should be at this point.

[FillJackson]

Support ISIS, .....
February 2016
Twitter suspends 125,000 ISIL-related accounts - USA Today

[step_back]

February 2016
Twitter suspends 125,000 ISIL-related accounts - USA Today

Suspended accounts. Just make new ones. Milo has a permanent ban.

[poido123]

February 2016
Twitter suspends 125,000 ISIL-related accounts - USA Today




:hammerhead:

[Dunaprenti]

I dislike the ban but all those talks about "1984", in this case, are a little bit too much. I believe Twitter are not doing this out of some ideology, it is looking for its monetary gain. I highly doubt Twitter did this without calculating the benefits. Now it is up to us to show them why this was a bad idea, if enough people stop using the platform because of its censorship, Twitter will be forced to change the direction.

[DukeDelonte13]

Twitter is owned by a Saudi Arabian and Anita Sarkeesian is basically acting as Supreme God Emperor Twitter Mod. She is head of the "Twitter Trust and Safety Council" How Orwellian does that sound XD

Are you surprised this happened?

No one should be at this point.


A business independently made a decision that they think is best for the company. What is so crazy and shocking about this?

[ArbitraryWater]

This is pretty disgusting... can he do something about the ban?

[Bourne]

I dislike the ban but all those talks about "1984", in this case, are a little bit too much. I believe Twitter are not doing this out of some ideology, it is looking for its monetary gain. I highly doubt Twitter did this without calculating the benefits. Now it is up to us to show them why this was a bad idea, if enough people stop using the platform because of its censorship, Twitter will be forced to change the direction.

Remember the Facebook thing where staffers were asked to target conservative news articles to make them less likely to show up in your news feed? Hiding things that interest people doesn't strike me as putting service ahead of ideology.

[UK2K]

What exactly did he say, like verbatim?

He wrote a review of her movie, and his followers tweeted things at her.

But stuff like this:

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/07/pigs_tweet1-640x480.png

and this:

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/07/BLMBatonRouge-640x480.png

are allowed to stay. As well as Leslie Jones' own racist tweets:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnwKV7xUsAABnDH.jpg

[Dunaprenti]

Remember the Facebook thing where staffers were asked to target conservative news articles to make them less likely to show up in your news feed? Hiding things that interest people doesn't strike me as putting service ahead of ideology.

Of course, my position will change if pressure from the Government has forced Twitter to do this. For now I don't have reason to believe this though. I do not use Twitter but from what I've seen it is full of SJWs and straight up dumbasses. The Facebook case is totally different and deserves to be in the "1984" category.
As I said, it is up to people like us to show them the error of their ways. Now is the time for some entrepreneur to give an alternative. People as famous as Milo won't be bothered by bans because it makes them even more popular, they could sustain their own websites.

[UK2K]

Of course, my position will change if pressure from the Government has forced Twitter to do this. For now I don't have reason to believe this though. I do not use Twitter but from what I've seen it is full of SJWs and straight up dumbasses. The Facebook case is totally different and deserves to be in the "1984" category.
As I said, it is up to people like us to show them the error of their ways. Now is the time for some entrepreneur to give an alternative. People as famous as Milo won't be bothered by bans because it makes them even more popular, they could sustain their own websites.

Zuckerburg is a super liberal. I would imagine most of his team is as well.

I would imagine the same applies to Twitter.

Suppress the media, and spread your own version of the news. Mass media is the easiest way to manipulate behavior. That's why dictators everywhere on this planet, past and present, use it to control their populations.

[JtotheIzzo]

******ry will not be tolerated

[Dunaprenti]

Zuckerburg is a super liberal. I would imagine most of his team is as well.

I would imagine the same applies to Twitter.

Suppress the media, and spread your own version of the news. Mass media is the easiest way to manipulate behavior. That's why dictators everywhere on this planet, past and present, use it to control their populations.

Maybe he is liberal, I have no idea. What I am sure is that both companies make decisions with financial gains in mind. It is not like Zuckerberg is the only liberal in the world and is trying to turn them conservatives around. Most of the western world is "liberal", Twitter and Facebook are just part of the narrative. Fox News also manipulates, every media around the world spins news in accordance to their editors and CEOs views. It's up to us call them on their bullshit. It is OK if a private company decides to be SJW and a "safe place", I just won't take it seriously.

[Duderonomy]

Huxley already knew this would happen back in 1931.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/c5/6d/c8/c56dc8456c8edf05d57394dfbeef98ab.jpg

http://cdn.quotationof.com/images/brave-new-world-quotes-5.jpg

[Bourne]

Of course, my position will change if pressure from the Government has forced Twitter to do this. For now I don't have reason to believe this though. I do not use Twitter but from what I've seen it is full of SJWs and straight up dumbasses. The Facebook case is totally different and deserves to be in the "1984" category.
As I said, it is up to people like us to show them the error of their ways. Now is the time for some entrepreneur to give an alternative. People as famous as Milo won't be bothered by bans because it makes them even more popular, they could sustain their own websites.

To me, it doesn't matter if the government was pressuring them to do this (like how Merkel talked to Zuckerberg to suppress anti-immigration posts), since the real authoritarians in North America right now are the left (and to a lesser extent, a contingent on the right). Then most of the media, hollywood, etc etc etc starts to parrot their views as what is morally right, and then people don't want to incur the wrath of those parties and will do things like fire employees who said something wrong, change marketing campaigns, and lobby the government to make certain things punishable (fining christian bakeries).

I see the change in society as a machine, and the more cogs that are allowed to rotate freely, the more steady and strong is the motion. Things like what Twitter has done needs to be shamed, and severely.

The argument about whether Twitter is still a private entity is an interesting one. While I support the right of private businesses to do as they please within the law, Twitter is technically a public company and has some duty toward upholding the values that built our society. But I'm just thinking out loud, not trying to say I would force them to NOT ban people like they have, since it is akin to them expressing their beliefs.

[UK2K]

Maybe he is liberal, I have no idea. What I am sure is that both companies make decisions with financial gains in mind. It is not like Zuckerberg is the only liberal in the world and is trying to turn them conservatives around. Most of the western world is "liberal", Twitter and Facebook are just part of the narrative. Fox News also manipulates, every media around the world spins news in accordance to their editors and CEOs views. It's up to us call them on their bullshit. It is OK if a private company decides to be SJW and a "safe place", I just won't take it seriously.

Spinning news and suppressing news isn't quite the same thing. Everyone spins news, very few places suppress it.

If it was financially sound to fire all the fat people at your office to lower healthcare costs, would you be okay with that too? Of course, you wouldn't fire them for being fat, you'd fire them for performance reasons.

I wonder, if Zuck was a conservative and Facebook was suppressing positive articles on Obama and Clinton, if the country (and you) would have the same reaction.

I doubt it.

If that's the rules, then Trump needs to start throwing money towards news organizations 'charities' in exchange for them writing positive articles and stop reporting on anything negative. You'd have a problem with that, though, I would hope?

[Bourne]

Spinning news and suppressing news isn't quite the same thing. Everyone spins news, very few places suppress it.

If it was financially sound to fire all the fat people at your office to lower healthcare costs, would you be okay with that too? Of course, you wouldn't fire them for being fat, you'd fire them for performance reasons.

I wonder, if Zuck was a conservative and Facebook was suppressing positive articles on Obama and Clinton, if the country (and you) would have the same reaction.

I doubt it.

If that's the rules, then Trump needs to start throwing money towards news organizations 'charities' in exchange for them writing positive articles and stop reporting on anything negative. You'd have a problem with that, though, I would hope?

I don't know if your first statement is accurate. News suppression probably happens frequently. Fox likely doesn't report about all of the puppies Hilary Clinton saved, know what I mean? Breitbart probably doesn't write pieces on stories about the benefits of immigration. (I'm assuming, I could be wrong)

Remember, the stories Cuckerberg was suppressing were already stories - he just wasnt showing them on his platform.

I just don't like how people my age are so stupid and don't realize what is going on. They watch John Oliver, they read anti-conservative propoganda in almost every facet of entertainment or social platforms they engage in, and they truly believe over time that feelings should dictate actions and points of views, and that to consider logic too soon makes you a bigot or otherwise terrible person. What facebook does, what Twitter just did, solidifies this idiocy.

[FillJackson]

Suspended accounts. Just make new ones. Milo has a permanent ban.
I think you're just playing with semantics here, but MY was a repeat offender.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/07/slack_for_ios_upload.jpg

[UK2K]

I don't know if your first statement is accurate. News suppression probably happens frequently. Fox likely doesn't report about all of the puppies Hilary Clinton saved, know what I mean? Breitbart probably doesn't write pieces on stories about the benefits of immigration. (I'm assuming, I could be wrong)

Remember, the stories Cuckerberg was suppressing were already stories - he just wasnt showing them on his platform.

I just don't like how people my age are so stupid and don't realize what is going on. They watch John Oliver, they read anti-conservative propoganda in almost every facet of entertainment or social platforms they engage in, and they truly believe over time that feelings should dictate actions and points of views, and that to consider logic too soon makes you a bigot or otherwise terrible person. What facebook does, what Twitter just did, solidifies this idiocy.

The problem is they were not shown in the 'Trending News' category, even though they were, in fact, trending on Facebook according to Facebook's own algorithms.

So the 'Trending News' section wasn't really trending at all; it was 'trending' as long as we approved of the story.

[Bourne]

True, but to me that is still choosing what to present and what not to. It isn't like they squashed a story so that it never existed in the first place, or grossly distorted the facts of it

[UK2K]

True, but to me that is still choosing what to present and what not to. It isn't like they squashed a story so that it never existed in the first place, or grossly distorted the facts of it

Obviously they felt pretty bad about it after meeting with several prominent Republican voices, as well as sending their employees to 'non-bias' training courses.

You may not think it's a big deal, but clearly they do.

[Dunaprenti]

Spinning news and suppressing news isn't quite the same thing. Everyone spins news, very few places suppress it.

If it was financially sound to fire all the fat people at your office to lower healthcare costs, would you be okay with that too? Of course, you wouldn't fire them for being fat, you'd fire them for performance reasons.

I wonder, if Zuck was a conservative and Facebook was suppressing positive articles on Obama and Clinton, if the country (and you) would have the same reaction.

I doubt it.

If that's the rules, then Trump needs to start throwing money towards news organizations 'charities' in exchange for them writing positive articles and stop reporting on anything negative. You'd have a problem with that, though, I would hope?

I like how you are throwing me into the Obama and Clinton crowd without any reason whatsoever. IF you have read my previous post you will see that I wasn't "OK" with the government demanding information from Facebook. On the other hand I don't really care what a private company does with the platform it has created. Picking on the word "spin" shows your inability to debate properly, but let me paraphrase "Every news outlet spins and suppresses news stories.", arguing which one does it the most and which one I like or don't like is irrelevant.
One of the reasons Trump is so popular is because of the constant hate he gets from the liberal media.

My personal advice to you is: Don't assume you know what the other person is thinking. If you are curious about my opinion or if you haven't understood a statement I've made - just ask me.

[Bourne]

Obviously they felt pretty bad about it after meeting with several prominent Republican voices, as well as sending their employees to 'non-bias' training courses.

You may not think it's a big deal, but clearly they do.

I just realized I could have my words construed as a defense of facebook - i just violently threw up

[UK2K]

I like how you are throwing me into the Obama and Clinton crowd without any reason whatsoever. IF you have read my previous post you will see that I wasn't "OK" with the government demanding information from Facebook. On the other hand I don't really care what a private company does with the platform it has created. Picking on the word "spin" shows your inability to debate properly, but let me paraphrase "Every news outlet spins and suppresses news stories.", arguing which one does it the most and which one I like or don't like is irrelevant.
One of the reasons Trump is so popular is because of the constant hate he gets from the liberal media.

My personal advice to you is: Don't assume you know what the other person is thinking. If you are curious about my opinion or if you haven't understood a statement I've made - just ask me.

I didn't throw you into anything. I didn't claim you were a Clinton or Obama supporter. I just wondered, out loud, if your reaction would be the same.

And no, not every news outlet 'suppresses' news. They may not report on news, but when your 'trending news' list isn't actually what's 'trending news', that is called suppression.

Fox59 can choose not to report on a story. That's fine. They can't report on every story.

Facebook advertised their 'trending news' section as trending news when it wasn't. Their own algorithms prove it. They had 'trending news' that didn't make the 'trending news' list because it was a positive story on a conservative figure.

Furthermore, they inserted non-trending news (like BLM protests) into their 'trending news' list despite it not trending at all. Nobody cared, and yet, there it was, shown on the list as if people did care.

So they removed trending news about conservatives, and inserted news nobody cared about. And... you're cool with that? How can you claim it's 'trending news' when it's obviously not?

I don't think what they did was illegal, but what they did was obviously dishonest given their response, and was ethically wrong. Which they seem to agree with.

[SexSymbol]

The funny thing is what he wrote wasn't even that bad.

[Dunaprenti]

I didn't throw you into anything. I didn't claim you were a Clinton or Obama supporter. I just wondered, out loud, if your reaction would be the same.

And no, not every news outlet 'suppresses' news. They may not report on news, but when your 'trending news' list isn't actually what's 'trending news', that is called suppression.

Fox59 can choose not to report on a story. That's fine. They can't report on every story.

Facebook advertised their 'trending news' section as trending news when it wasn't. Their own algorithms prove it. They had 'trending news' that didn't make the 'trending news' list because it was a positive story on a conservative figure.

Furthermore, they inserted non-trending news (like BLM protests) into their 'trending news' list despite it not trending at all. Nobody cared, and yet, there it was, shown on the list as if people did care.

So they removed trending news about conservatives, and inserted news nobody cared about. And... you're cool with that? How can you claim it's 'trending news' when it's obviously not?

I don't think what they did was illegal, but what they did was obviously dishonest given their response, and was ethically wrong. Which they seem to agree with.

Ok, lets say this was a misunderstanding.
But I do believe that "every", or at least the ones I've seen, media suppresses in one way or another. I'm not defending Facebook, I actually wasn't aware of this trending thing and it is obviously wrong. I mentioned the sharing information with the government part, in my first post about Facebook.
The fact that they changed it proves my initial point - the power is in the customers hands. They did not change because they thought they were wrong, they changed because every conservative AND many others made a big deal out of it.
All I'm saying is let Twitter show how stupid it could be and it will destroy itself.

[Dresta]

I think you're just playing with semantics here, but MY was a repeat offender.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/07/slack_for_ios_upload.jpg
Look at this imbecile comparing a provocative political commentator to ISIS supporters.

:facepalm

I also know for a fact that the accounts of ISIS sympathisers were given free reign for years on twitter, because I would check their accounts to see how they were reporting events in Syria. If you don't think this politically motivated then you are a fool.


He also did none of the things that are given as justification in that message, which is basically holding him directly responsible for whatever racist abuse was sent to that woman (an absurd standard that no person could meet). The reason he was banned was because of a coordinated propaganda campaign by organised social media leftists to ban him, and which blamed him for the abuse that god-awful actress received. That he undoubtedly receives endless abuse of his own apparently doesn't matter. These people seriously have nothing better to do other than lobby twitter all day with reportings and complaints and slanderous insinuations--they are pathetic.


What exactly did he say, like verbatim?
He wasn't banned for what he said, but for what other people said--accusations of "incitement" without any evidence actually provided, which is rather convenient.

[Bourne]

Look at this imbecile comparing a provocative political commentator to ISIS supporters.

:facepalm

I also know for a fact that the accounts of ISIS sympathisers were given free reign for years on twitter, because I would check their accounts to see how they were reporting events in Syria. If you don't think this politically motivated then you are a fool.


He also did none of the things that are given as justification in that message, which is basically holding him directly responsible for whatever racist abuse was sent to that woman (an absurd standard that no person could meet). The reason he was banned was because of a coordinated propaganda campaign by organised social media leftists to ban him, and which blamed him for the abuse that god-awful actress received. That he undoubtedly receives endless abuse of his own apparently doesn't matter. These people seriously have nothing better to do other than lobby twitter all day with reportings and complaints and slanderous insinuations--they are pathetic.


He wasn't banned for what he said, but for what other people said--accusations of "incitement" without any evidence actually provided, which is rather convenient.

Watch the Paul Joseph Watson video linked to earlier in this thread - the actress has done the EXACT thing that Milo was banned for (not) doing.

[west_tip]

Tangential to the issue of censorship that this issue brings up I must admit I've never cared for or seen the appeal of twitter. I set up an account and tweeted once or twice, thought it rather pointless and never bothered with it afterward.

People might say insidehoops and other message boards are similarly pointless but I'd say you can facilitate a much better quality debate on this type of forum than you can where your posts are not limited to 140 characters. I also like the "community" feel that message boards have. Just curious, what would posters who use that platform on here say are its biggest selling points?

[Dresta]

Tangential to the issue of censorship that this issue brings up I must admit I've never cared for or seen the appeal of twitter. I set up an account and tweeted once or twice, thought it rather pointless and never bothered with it afterward.

People might say insidehoops and other message boards are similarly pointless but I'd say you can facilitate a much better quality debate on this type of forum than you can where your posts are not limited to 140 characters. I also like the "community" feel that message boards have. Just curious, what would posters who use that platform on here say are its biggest selling points?
Well, if you get involved in political journalism you pretty much have to have a twitter account these days; almost everyone has one. I agree with you, though, that its format doesn't really encourage constructive dialogue, but rather simplistic black and white thinking. It's character limit doesn't really leave much space for nuanced argument.

[Real Men Wear Green]

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

[Dresta]

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png
You actually have to be completely deluded to think that even remotely relevant here.

[BoutPractice]

I don't think there should be an absolute right to free speech on a specific internet platform.

Twitter is just like any forum: there are internal rules, your posts can get deleted etc. It's often arbitrary, and often infuriating, but that's the way it is.

If you want perfect free speech, there are certain platforms out there already, or you can create your own, with your own rules. The barriers to entry are very low, too.

So I don't have any problems with this in principle, although I do also wonder why it took them so long to get around to banning the comparatively more dangerous terrorist accounts.

[Real Men Wear Green]

You actually have to be completely deluded to think that even remotely relevant here.
The topic is about Twitter, a business, not the government, barring someone from using it. It specifically applies to this topic, something you would realize if you thought for 2 seconds before posting. If a business that allows people to post their own thoughts through it was not allowed to censor what people say through that business's mediums a messageboard like, say, Insidehoops couldn't have moderators. I'm pretty sure this forum has a few moderators, however lax they may be about moderating.

Now if you can prove that Obama ordered Twitter to ban this twit then you have a point and I will shut up. But if you can't show that his ban was the result of government interference then you in fact don't have any idea what you're talking about.

[9erempiree]

They unfairly banned Milo when we have people tweeting some horrible things.

Also, free speech means you can't get in trouble or thrown into jail for what you said.

At the same time, you can't go around saying whatever the hell you want. You cannot preach freedom of speech and go tell your boss to ****k off and claim you were falsely fired.

[west_tip]

It's character limit doesn't really leave much space for nuanced argument.

Agreed.

Thinking about this particular case further I watched an interview that Billy Corgan gave a couple months back where he said that when he deleted his twitter account someone from Twitter corporate HQ contacted him and tried to get him back on. I must admit it raised my eyebrows that they would be so proactive in trying to keep him an active user of their platform.

As he observed their business model obviously depends very heavily on having celebs with x number of followers. Their intervention in this instance is probably motivated by the same business related reasons, can't have celebs leaving twitter when they are your bread and butter.

[9erempiree]

The same applies for message boards.

Notice how you can never really delete your account?

You can only deactivate it because they want all your posting history in their databases.

I don't think ISH would want to suddenly erase all 20k of my work.

[Dresta]

The topic is about Twitter, a business, not the government, barring someone from using it. It specifically applies to this topic, something you would realize if you thought for 2 seconds before posting. If a business that allows people to post their own thoughts through it was not allowed to censor what people say through that business's mediums a messageboard like, say, Insidehoops couldn't have moderators. I'm pretty sure this forum has a few moderators, however lax they may be about moderating.

Now if you can prove that Obama ordered Twitter to ban this twit then you have a point and I will shut up. But if you can't show that his ban was the result of government interference then you in fact don't have any idea what you're talking about.
:facepalm

WTF are you talking about dude? Who is talking about Obama? Who has said anything about "free speech" in this thread exactly? No-one is making the argument you claim to be rebutting, but you're too much of a smug shit who likes the smell of his own farts to even notice. But yeah, you came in the thread, tugging at your own ****, and posting a moronic picture as if you'd put everyone in their place, without even realising that you were arguing with an invisible person, because no one made the argument you are alluding to.

This is about double standards and hypocrisy, not free speech, you utter, utter, utter cretin. Not to mention that you have destroyed your own arguments regarding the serving of gays: apparently twitter has the "right" to refuse service on the basis of political disagreement, but cakemakers do not; again, this absurd hypocrisy is what is pissing people off: very few people think this is a 1st Amendment matter, but for you, it is the entire argument. It's that these arguments, constantly used to censor and hound others, only ever work in one direction.

You no more choose your political opinions than you choose to be homosexual--they are both entirely determined by your genetics and the environment in which you were raised. If twitter has a right to refuse service based on political opinion, then so do bakers have a right to refuse service to homosexual weddings. No consistency, constant hypocrisy and double-standards: these things are generally irksome, and smarmy rubbish like that silly picture you posted only shows that you've completely failed to understand the problem in any way whatsoever.

[west_tip]

FWIW, this might be of interest, regarding Corgan and twitter. His reasons appear to be that there is no tangible financial benefit for artists using the medium:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/billy-corgan-on-quitting-twitter-smashing-pumpkins-new-tour-20160317

You quit Twitter last year. Do you find it refreshing to be free from that?
I'm not a big fan of social-media models that take a lot from people who have notoriety and don't give a lot in return. I think Twitter, in particular, has been a really poor model in terms of return.
But you used it for years.
Yeah, I would argue to my detriment.
It must be nice to not have random people just taking shots at you all day long. Things get so toxic on there.
I agree with that, but you can make that argument across the entire social-media spectrum. I think ultimately artists are gonna figure out how to take advantage of the opportunity to talk people in a very direct way without having to deal with this empowerment of the mob. And then even worse, you work for an esteemed publication, allegedly, and then you have the troll puppets sit around and literally comb through everything you do and then run an article about the size of Manson's *****. I don't know if you saw that headline. That was my favorite recent one.
I remember seeing that one.
Yeah, I did a video with a friend of mine who works for a wrestling company I work with. We did a funny little video where he was talking about the size of his *****, and I jokingly said that Manson's was bigger. It's obviously a spoof video and we were just joking around, but there were literally headlines of "Billy Corgan Talks About the Size of Marilyn Manson's *****."
But back to Twitter, they actually called me. They called me on the phone after I quit and said, "We wanna know what's going on. Can we help?" So I appreciated that, but I basically said, "There's no return on what you guys are doing. You're building this massive IPO" — well, now their stock is falling — "but what do we get in return?" In wrestling terms, they take all the stars' heat and the stars don't necessarily get the heat back in terms of return. But there are a few models you could argue that maybe give a return. I think the jury's still out on that. But a model like Twitter has really ultimately been anti-celebrity.
But take someone like Kanye West. He reaches 20 million people, without any media filter, without paying a dime. Isn't that a return for him?
Here would be my argument, and I'm not personalizing it about anybody: I think it works for a very, very select group of people who tend to say really edgy things in order to go viral, kind of like, "Can you believe what he or she said?" You have to be over the edge. If that edge is part of who you are in public and the public celebrates you for being over the edge, fine. At this point in my life, where I'm a father now and I've obviously spent a lot of time rebuilding my musical life to something that I'm proud of, getting on there and getting into Twitter fights just seems beneath my position.

[Dresta]

I don't think there should be an absolute right to free speech on a specific internet platform.

Twitter is just like any forum: there are internal rules, your posts can get deleted etc. It's often arbitrary, and often infuriating, but that's the way it is.

If you want perfect free speech, there are certain platforms out there already, or you can create your own, with your own rules. The barriers to entry are very low, too.

So I don't have any problems with this in principle, although I do also wonder why it took them so long to get around to banning the comparatively more dangerous terrorist accounts.
Yes, but you can't undermine an organisation like twitter, and push for a move to a site which acts more impartially, and is less politically motivated, without complaining about its abuses first. Yet when anyone complains, up comes this "businesses can do what they like" strawman. Sure they can, but people can also complain about shitty businesses, which act arbitrarily, and are prejudiced against certain people, and constantly only enforce their rules in one direction. I don't see anyone objecting to twitter having and enforcing rules; the point is that twitter, the business, claims to enforce its rules impartially, when that is clearly not the case. It doesn't help in proving the case that whenever it is brought up, you are met by people like RMWG going: "you dumb ****s, the first amendment doesn't apply to private businesses, etc. etc." and ridiculing an argument that was never made (pretending it to be the only argument).

Twitter is like any business: if you think its service is shitty and prejudiced against certain people, you spread that information as much as possible, hoping it will eventually result in a boycott. What is so hard for people to grasp about this?

[Real Men Wear Green]

:facepalm

WTF are you talking about dude? Who is talking about Obama? Who has said anything about "free speech" in this thread exactly?My bad, I had assumed you knew what the term "Orwellian" in the OP referred to. I see now that I gave you too much credit.
No-one is making the argument you claim to be rebutting, but you're too much of a smug shit who likes the smell of his own farts to even notice.I guess that fart got in your Cheerios, why I didn't smell it and you're so angry.
But yeah, you came in the thread, tugging at your own ****, I type with both hands, actually, sorry to ruin your fantasizing.
and posting a moronic picture as if you'd put everyone in their place, Don't forget also destroying your argument.
without even realising that you were arguing with an invisible person, because no one made the argument you are alluding to.Except for the OP? Ok.


This is about double standards and hypocrisy, not free speech, you utter, utter, utter cretin.So, again...why did the OP use the term "Orwellian?" Not to beat, beat, beat a dead horse but I apologize, again, for overrating your intelligence. I assure you, it won't happen again.
Not to mention that you have destroyed your own arguments regarding the serving of gays: apparently twitter has the "right" to refuse service on the basis of political disagreement, but cakemakers do not; again, this absurd hypocrisy is what is pissing people off: very few people think this is a 1st Amendment matter, but for you, it is the entire argument. It's that these arguments, constantly used to censor and hound others, only ever work in one direction.Please illustrate how I am destroying some argument I've made. Go ahead and quote me. You can even type with one hand, although I ask you be a bit less graphic while talking about that kind of thing in the future.


...further Tourrette's ranting...Please do improve your posting in the future. I know that I have agreed to stop overrating your intelligence but this was just such a severe disappointment. Like poido with a thesaurus. Oh well.

[Sarcastic]

You guys or he should start up a social network, and that way you guys can make up the rules, and decide what is bannable and what isn't.

[Bourne]

Except for the OP? Ok.

I didn't mention rights at all. As you quite intelligently identified, I used the term Orwellian - this is because my grievance is at the harm being done to society overall and not whether the government is violating constitutional rights.

So yeah, Dresta called you out for trying to be a smartass when you are quite off the mark, and he was right.

[Bourne]

Yes, but you can't undermine an organisation like twitter, and push for a move to a site which acts more impartially, and is less politically motivated, without complaining about its abuses first. Yet when anyone complains, up comes this "businesses can do what they like" strawman. Sure they can, but people can also complain about shitty businesses, which act arbitrarily, and are prejudiced against certain people, and constantly only enforce their rules in one direction. I don't see anyone objecting to twitter having and enforcing rules; the point is that twitter, the business, claims to enforce its rules impartially, when that is clearly not the case. It doesn't help in proving the case that whenever it is brought up, you are met by people like RMWG going: "you dumb ****s, the first amendment doesn't apply to private businesses, etc. etc." and ridiculing an argument that was never made (pretending it to be the only argument).

Twitter is like any business: if you think its service is shitty and prejudiced against certain people, you spread that information as much as possible, hoping it will eventually result in a boycott. What is so hard for people to grasp about this?

Dresta - might I save you some time? RMWG's responses to you are basically just name calling at this point, devoid of actual argument or substance. Meaning you've already won the actual argument.

[KyrieTheFuture]

My bad, I had assumed you knew what the term "Orwellian" in the OP referred to. I see now that I gave you too much credit. I guess that fart got in your Cheerios, why I didn't smell it and you're so angry. I type with both hands, actually, sorry to ruin your fantasizing.Don't forget also destroying your argument.Except for the OP? Ok.

So, again...why did the OP use the term "Orwellian?" Not to beat, beat, beat a dead horse but I apologize, again, for overrating your intelligence. I assure you, it won't happen again. Please illustrate how I am destroying some argument I've made. Go ahead and quote me. You can even type with one hand, although I ask you be a bit less graphic while talking about that kind of thing in the future.

Please do improve your posting in the future. I know that I have agreed to stop overrating your intelligence but this was just such a severe disappointment. Like poido with a thesaurus. Oh well.
Are you under the impression that you are the one coming off as an adult in this exchange?

[Real Men Wear Green]

I didn't mention rights at all. As you quite intelligently identified, I used the term Orwellian - this is because my grievance is at the harm being done to society overall and not whether the government is violating constitutional rights.

So yeah, Dresta called you out for trying to be a smartass when you are quite off the mark, and he was right.My ass is smarter than your brain, my farts even beat Dresta in an argument. (http://www.yourdictionary.com/orwellian)
Orwellian:

of or like the society portrayed by Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty-four, characterized by totalitarian government, irrational political concepts, the politicization of everyday language, etc.

Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/orwellian#GWt8cUfcXA0Ol9mK.99

[Dresta]

My bad, I had assumed you knew what the term "Orwellian" in the OP referred to. I see now that I gave you too much credit. I guess that fart got in your Cheerios, why I didn't smell it and you're so angry. I type with both hands, actually, sorry to ruin your fantasizing.Don't forget also destroying your argument.Except for the OP? Ok.

So, again...why did the OP use the term "Orwellian?" Not to beat, beat, beat a dead horse but I apologize, again, for overrating your intelligence. I assure you, it won't happen again. Please illustrate how I am destroying some argument I've made. Go ahead and quote me. You can even type with one hand, although I ask you be a bit less graphic while talking about that kind of thing in the future.

Please do improve your posting in the future. I know that I have agreed to stop overrating your intelligence but this was just such a severe disappointment. Like poido with a thesaurus. Oh well.
:oldlol:

Now you've just given up trying to make arguments altogether. I point you to my earlier post, because I can't be bothered to write it again:


I don't see anyone objecting to twitter having and enforcing rules; the point is that twitter, the business, claims to enforce its rules impartially, when that is clearly not the case. It doesn't help in proving the case that whenever it is brought up, you are met by people like RMWG going: "you dumb ****s, the first amendment doesn't apply to private businesses, etc. etc." and ridiculing an argument that was never made (pretending it to be the only argument).

Twitter is like any business: if you think its service is shitty and prejudiced against certain people, you spread that information as much as possible, hoping it will eventually result in a boycott. What is so hard for people to grasp about this?

I never use the term Orwellian myself (i'm no fan of Orwell really, other than as a writer of some decent essays), but I think you'll find its application is not limited to the government, so you're wrong again. Under its broad definition, banning someone for "spreading hate" when they didn't actually do any such thing, while many people are free to spread hate with impunity, can be understood as Orwellian.

And i've already pointed out more than enough of your inconsistencies, thanks; you've pointed out none of mine--if your arguments are not even internally consistent, then that is a sure sign they are false.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Are you under the impression that you are the one coming off as an adult in this exchange?
Are you under the impression that I am going to respect someone that argues with fart talk and *********ion?

[Real Men Wear Green]

:oldlol:

Now you've just given up trying to make arguments altogether. I point you to my earlier post, because I can't be bothered to write it again:And I won't bother replying to something that's already been refuted.




I never use the term Orwellian myselfIt's in the OP. It's why I posted the comic. You went off over it and now are just rambling, typing with one hand.
(i'm no fan of Orwell really, other than as a writer of some decent essays), but I think you'll find its application is not limited to the government, so you're wrong again. Under its broad definition, banning someone for "spreading hate" when they didn't actually do any such thing, while many people are free to spread hate with impunity, can be understood as Orwellian.I do believe I just posted the definition, if you're curious.

[Dresta]

My ass is smarter than your brain, my farts even beat Dresta in an argument. (http://www.yourdictionary.com/orwellian)
Orwellian:

of or like the society portrayed by Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty-four, characterized by totalitarian government, irrational political concepts, the politicization of everyday language, etc.

Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/orwellian#GWt8cUfcXA0Ol9mK.99
Congrats on proving you know nothing about Orwell:

"In his essay "Politics and the English Language", Orwell derided the use of clich

[Real Men Wear Green]

[QUOTE=Dresta]Congrats on proving you know nothing about Orwell:

"In his essay "Politics and the English Language", Orwell derided the use of clich

[Bourne]

I don't think I've ever seen a smartass get so thoroughly and repeatedly trounced before lol


im hoping he comes back again, i just made popcorn

[Dresta]

I post one of the well-known definitions of the word and still you try to argue. :applause:
No, you posted "A" definition from yourdictionary.com :lol

Your stupidity is incredible right now. Do you seriously think the word Orwellian can only apply to the government? Surely you cannot be serious with this drivel? Have you heard of doublethink/speak? Is that not Orwellian too?

I suggest you go and read Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language and get back to me. I assure you these things can be referred to as Orwellian. In fact, the word is now so broadly used that I don't use it for its very ambiguity (and yet you still think it is only related to government tyranny).

[Real Men Wear Green]

No, you posted "A" definition from yourdictionary.com :lol

Your stupidity is incredible right now. Do you seriously think the word Orwellian can only apply to the government? Surely you cannot be serious with this drivel? Have you heard of doublethink/speak? Is that not Orwellian too?
The top three definitions:


orwellian


adjective
The definition of Orwellian is something that resembles the world that George Orwell described in his book 1984.
An example of Orwellian is reality television stars having cameras throughout their homes.

Orwellian

of or like the society portrayed by Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty-four, characterized by totalitarian government, irrational political concepts, the politicization of everyday language, etc.


adjective
Of, relating to, or evocative of the works of George Orwell, especially the satirical novel 1984, which depicts a futuristic totalitarian state.

Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/orwellian#GWt8cUfcXA0Ol9mK.99Please drag this on further by saying "something that resembles the world that George Orwell described in his book 1984" would have nothing to do with government censorship. :rolleyes:

[Bourne]

Dresta tires out after trying to educate RMWG:
https://media.giphy.com/media/l2Jeg6aMfxl2rBUNW/giphy.gif

[Real Men Wear Green]

Dresta tires out after trying to educate RMWG:
The irony being, I'm not the one fighting the dictionary.

[NumberSix]

The topic is about Twitter, a business, not the government, barring someone from using it. It specifically applies to this topic, something you would realize if you thought for 2 seconds before posting. If a business that allows people to post their own thoughts through it was not allowed to censor what people say through that business's mediums a messageboard like, say, Insidehoops couldn't have moderators. I'm pretty sure this forum has a few moderators, however lax they may be about moderating.

Now if you can prove that Obama ordered Twitter to ban this twit then you have a point and I will shut up. But if you can't show that his ban was the result of government interference then you in fact don't have any idea what you're talking about.
If a private business is legally allowed to ban black people, it's still racist to do it. If a private business is legally allowed to censor speech, it's still anti-free-speech to do it.

Twitter is fully within its legal right to be anti-free-speech. And that is indeed what they have chosen to do, which is fine. It is the case though Twitter is not a free speech platform. It's a selective speech platform.

This isn't difficult to understand.

[Real Men Wear Green]

If a private business is legally allowed to ban black people, it's still racist to do it. If a private business is legally allowed to censor speech, it's still anti-free-speech to do it.

Twitter is fully within its legal right to be anti-free-speech. And that is indeed what they have chosen to do, which is fine. It is the case though Twitter is not a free speech platform. It's a selective speech platform.

This isn't difficult to understand.
I am referring to OP calling this "Orwellian." Is banning the dolt a blow to his ability to attack a comedianne for no good reason (beyond reviving a lame movie franchise)? I guess. He can't tweet. Poor baby. But it is not the government censoring him or any kind of violation of his rights.

[NumberSix]

The irony being, I'm not the one fighting the dictionary.
Yeah, you absolutely are. He's not arguing that your example of "totalitarian government" is wrong. It's correct, but it's not the only example... as evidenced by your own list you just posted of definitions including "totalitarian government" AND many other examples other than government.

Unless you believe the "reality TV" example (which YOU provided) is an example of "totalitarian government" just give it up.

[Dresta]

The top three definitions:

Please drag this on further by saying "something that resembles the world that George Orwell described in his book 1984" would have nothing to do with government censorship. :rolleyes:
The 3rd definition actually conforms to what I am saying, not you, which kind of proves my point about relying entirely on dictionary definitions when it comes to a word that people will have written whole phds about.

Here's a TED lesson for you on the matter:

http://ed.ted.com/lessons/what-orwellian-really-means-noah-tavlin

What you're doing is a complete misrepresentation and simplification of the thought of Orwell. I quote:


Using the term in this way not only fails to convey Orwell's message, it actually risks doing exactly what he tried to warn against. Orwell was indeed opposed to all forms of tyranny...but he was also deeply concerned about how such ideologies proliferate...one of his most important insights was the role language plays in shaping our thoughts and opinions

Methods of control are not limited to the government by any means--Orwell was a lifetime socialist you know! Propaganda is his key concern here, and propaganda is not only spread by government agencies.


The word 'Orwellian' gets thrown around a lot by people who possess a murky idea of what it actually means. Jason Slotkin, for The Atlantic, explains why. The NCTE presents the Doublespeak Award each year to the person or group of people who manipulate language in the most sinister way. Here is a list of past winners. Anyone sound familiar?

That Atlantic article actually calls "Orwellian" an "Orwellian" abuse of language, as I was saying it is earlier (and its vagueness being why I don't use it):

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/06/stop-taking-orwells-name-in-vain/277027/


The dictionary isn't gonna save you on this one, bud. You're just proving how superficial your understanding of these things is, that you rely on an online dictionary for all your understanding of a concept that could be written about for pages and pages. No-one was talking about government censorship; that silly little image you posted is responding to a straw man. Admit your mistake, and get over it; it's clear that no-one was talking about government censorship, and you're just wasting time with this pedantic bullshit.

[Sarcastic]

If a private business is legally allowed to ban black people, it's still racist to do it. If a private business is legally allowed to censor speech, it's still anti-free-speech to do it.

Twitter is fully within its legal right to be anti-free-speech. And that is indeed what they have chosen to do, which is fine. It is the case though Twitter is not a free speech platform. It's a selective speech platform.

This isn't difficult to understand.

Twitter allows plenty of right wing commentary. They just don't want people harassing or inciting others.

[NumberSix]

Twitter allows plenty of right wing commentary. They just don't want people harassing or inciting others.
I've seen his 3 posts he directed at her. Was he a dick? Sure. I don't see where the "incitement" was though. He called her a dude and said she was illiterate. I haven't seen anything of him telling other people to attack her.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Yeah, you absolutely are. He's not arguing that your example of "totalitarian government" is wrong. It's correct, but it's not the only example... as evidenced by your own list you just posted of definitions including "totalitarian government" AND many other examples other than government.

Unless you believe the "reality TV" example (which YOU provided) is an example of "totalitarian government" just give it up.This is getting dull. The reality tv definition states, "The definition of Orwellian is something that resembles the world that George Orwell described in his book 1984." That book is about the dangers of totalitarian government. No, really, I am not making this up.
The 3rd definition actually conforms to what I am saying, The third definition is:

"Of, relating to, or evocative of the works of George Orwell, especially the satirical novel 1984, which depicts a futuristic totalitarian state."

That would be about government. Unless you now want to argue whagt "totalitarian state" means...which I'm not going to do, because this really has become tedious.

[Bourne]

This is getting dull. The reality tv definition states, "The definition of Orwellian is something that resembles the world that George Orwell described in his book 1984." That book is about the dangers of totalitarian government. No, really, I am not making this up.The third definition is:

"Of, relating to, or evocative of the works of George Orwell, especially the satirical novel 1984, which depicts a futuristic totalitarian state."

That would be about government. Unless you now want to argue whagt "totalitarian state" means...which I'm not going to do, because this really has become tedious.

Ignoring the fact you've been proven to lack full understanding of the term Orwellian, which is NOT an insult since 99% of people wouldn't, my post was not about government censorship, but Twitter censorship. It was fairly clear to see that; if I wanted to make it about the government, I would have said so. And if you want to get super ****, I could say that the Orwellian behaviour of persecuting speech is done by bodies that are arms length from the government so they aren't the government anyway. (Britain, Germany, US, Canada etc not being dictatorships)

[NumberSix]

This is getting dull. The reality tv definition states, "The definition of Orwellian is something that resembles the world that George Orwell described in his book 1984." That book is about the dangers of totalitarian government. No, really, I am not making this up.The third definition is:

"Of, relating to, or evocative of the works of George Orwell, especially the satirical novel 1984, which depicts a futuristic totalitarian state."

That would be about government. Unless you now want to argue whagt "totalitarian state" means...which I'm not going to do, because this really has become tedious.
So, explain why reality television CAN be Orwellian, but Twitter CAN'T be Orwellian.

[Real Men Wear Green]

So, explain why reality television CAN be Orwellian, but Twitter CAN'T be Orwellian.
No, I will not. Something that I will point out: Every reality TV series is a bunch of people being compensated in some way for giving the viewing public TMI and often these shows are faked with writers. In Orwell's novel the people are being monitored by the state and have no choice in the matter. The example used isn't great. But the actual definition has to do with government overreach.

[NumberSix]

No, I will not.
Got it.


/thread

[Real Men Wear Green]

Ignoring the fact you've been proven to lack full understanding of the term Orwellian, which is NOT an insult since 99% of people wouldn't,To further ruin your day: Dictionary definitions are supposed to be based on the common usage of the word. So if 99% of the population defines a word in a certain way then guess what? That becomes it's definition.

[Bourne]

To further ruin your day: Dictionary definitions are supposed to be based on the common usage of the word. So if 99% of the population defines a word in a certain way then guess what? That becomes it's definition.

My day isn't ruined at all - you've been made to look like Ish's version of Cenk Uygur by a few people now and it's been pretty entertaining

[kentatm]

so when Jeff bans somebody from ISH who constantly acts like a jackass troll (and has been warned to stop repeatedly) he is being Orwellian?

:lol :lol :lol

[Sarcastic]

I've seen his 3 posts he directed at her. Was he a dick? Sure. I don't see where the "incitement" was though. He called her a dude and said she was illiterate. I haven't seen anything of him telling other people to attack her.


I think it stems past just this one incident. Look I mean it's their platform, and they make the call. If he doesn't like it, he is free to start his own social network, as are you.

[Dresta]

This is getting dull. The reality tv definition states, "The definition of Orwellian is something that resembles the world that George Orwell described in his book 1984." That book is about the dangers of totalitarian government. No, really, I am not making this up.The third definition is:

"Of, relating to, or evocative of the works of George Orwell, especially the satirical novel 1984, which depicts a futuristic totalitarian state."

That would be about government. Unless you now want to argue whagt "totalitarian state" means...which I'm not going to do, because this really has become tedious.
You don't seem to be aware of what the word "especially" means. Here's a hint: it doesn't and never has meant "all." You've just refuted your own argument. Not to mention that only one person has used the word, and you respond as if that word only has the narrow definition you attribute to it, and as if it was being used by everyone (it was the only argument being made in your eyes), to justify your posting that inane and completely irrelevant meme.


so when Jeff bans somebody from ISH who constantly acts like a jackass troll (and has been warned to stop repeatedly) he is being Orwellian?

:lol :lol :lol
Wow, the sheer lack of comprehension of some people is quite incredible. It's like you don't actually think at all but merely jump on whatever "team" fits more neatly with your prejudices. In the context of the discussion that is being had your post makes no sense whatsoever. No one has even come close to implying what you're saying, but you and RMWG keep repeating this inanity as if it becomes more true just because you keep saying it. LEARN TO READ YOU FOOL.

[poido123]

No, I will not. Something that I will point out: Every reality TV series is a bunch of people being compensated in some way for giving the viewing public TMI and often these shows are faked with writers. In Orwell's novel the people are being monitored by the state and have no choice in the matter. The example used isn't great. But the actual definition has to do with government overreach.



A cowardly retreat, but honest :roll:

[Real Men Wear Green]

You don't seem to be aware of what the word "especially" means. Here's a hint: it doesn't and never has meant "all." You've just refuted your own argument. Not to mention that only one person has used the word, and you respond as if that word only has the narrow definition you attribute to it, and as if it was being used by everyone (it was the only argument being made in your eyes), to justify your posting that inane and completely irrelevant meme.So your extremely weak argument now hinges on :

es

[ILLsmak]

No reason for argument to get personal, guys.

:):):):):):):):):)

-Smak

[Dresta]

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]So your extremely weak argument now hinges on :

es

[KyrieTheFuture]

The two of you are acting like children with a dictionary. Get over yourselves.

[Nick Young]

These lefties of ISH just can't help but make themselves look stupid XD. I never truly realized how sheepy and ignorant the modern left has become until this year. RMWG is a shining example of the modern democratic party voter.

[Hawker]

These lefties of ISH just can't help but make themselves look stupid XD. I never truly realized how sheepy and ignorant the modern left has become until this year. RMWG is a shining example of the modern democratic party voter.

I thought so too but he actually stated in another thread that he will be voting for Trump.

[UK2K]

Noneya777 ‏@NoneYa777
Twitter removed #Munich from the trending list. Big Brother.

[Nick Young]

Noneya777 ‏@NoneYa777
Twitter removed #Munich from the trending list. Big Brother.
Twitter is owned by a Saudi Arabian.

Wikileaks alterna-twitter cannot come soon enough :rockon:

[ArbitraryWater]

Noneya777 ‏@NoneYa777
Twitter removed #Munich from the trending list. Big Brother.

nahh its still there

that would be some next level shit

[9erempiree]

I have a couple of ghost twitter accounts and I may force a ban on myself.

I will continue on the legacy of that Dangerous *******, his self-given nickname, and tweet on his behalf.

[Axe]

He's now a poster here.