Printable View
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.
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:
Huxley already knew this would happen back in 1931.
They couldn't handle Milo. He was too much for the liberal media.
What exactly did he say, like verbatim?
twitter and facebook are just just liberal hugboxes full of fake fakkits.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA44q8W_Xt0[/url]
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.
[QUOTE=Bourne]Support ISIS, .....[/QUOTE]
February 2016
Twitter suspends 125,000 ISIL-related accounts - USA Today
[QUOTE=FillJackson]February 2016
Twitter suspends 125,000 ISIL-related accounts - USA Today[/QUOTE]
Suspended accounts. Just make new ones. Milo has a permanent ban.
[QUOTE=FillJackson]February 2016
Twitter [B]suspends[/B] 125,000 ISIL-related accounts - USA Today[/QUOTE]
:hammerhead:
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.
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
A business independently made a decision that they think is best for the company. What is so crazy and shocking about this?
This is pretty disgusting... can he do something about the ban?
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=ROCSteady]What exactly did he say, like verbatim?[/QUOTE]
He wrote a review of her movie, and his followers tweeted things at her.
But stuff like this:
[IMG]http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/07/pigs_tweet1-640x480.png[/IMG]
and this:
[IMG]http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/07/BLMBatonRouge-640x480.png[/IMG]
are allowed to stay. As well as Leslie Jones' own racist tweets:
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnwKV7xUsAABnDH.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Bourne]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Dunaprenti]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
******ry will not be tolerated
[QUOTE=UK2K]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=masonanddixon]Huxley already knew this would happen back in 1931.[/QUOTE]
[Img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/c5/6d/c8/c56dc8456c8edf05d57394dfbeef98ab.jpg[/img]
[Img]http://cdn.quotationof.com/images/brave-new-world-quotes-5.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Dunaprenti]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Dunaprenti]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 [B]spins news[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE=UK2K]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?[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=step_back]Suspended accounts. Just make new ones. Milo has a permanent ban.[/QUOTE]
I think you're just playing with semantics here, but MY was a repeat offender.
[IMG]http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/07/slack_for_ios_upload.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Bourne]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)
[B]Remember, the stories Cuckerberg was suppressing were already stories - he just wasnt showing them on his platform. [/B]
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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
[QUOTE=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[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=UK2K]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?[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=UK2K]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.[/QUOTE]
I just realized I could have my words construed as a defense of facebook - i just violently threw up
[QUOTE=Dunaprenti]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.[/QUOTE]
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 [I][B]inserted[/B][/I] 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 [I][B]removed[/B][/I] trending news about conservatives, and [B][I]inserted[/I][/B] 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.
The funny thing is what he wrote wasn't even that bad.
[QUOTE=UK2K]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 [I][B]inserted[/B][/I] 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 [I][B]removed[/B][/I] trending news about conservatives, and [B][I]inserted[/I][/B] 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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=FillJackson]I think you're just playing with semantics here, but MY was a repeat offender.
[IMG]http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/07/slack_for_ios_upload.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=ROCSteady]What exactly did he say, like verbatim?[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Dresta]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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?
[QUOTE=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?[/QUOTE]
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.
[IMG]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green][IMG]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
You actually have to be completely deluded to think that even remotely relevant here.
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.