Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

news.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 281 posts

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#161

Post by msbarnett »

andrenth wrote: post #156
msbarnett wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, provided they are not deciding on the basis of someone belonging to a protected class. Hence a cake maker can cheerfully refuse your business on the basis of you wanting a cake that says “Jennifer Garner Eats Babies” but not on the basis of you, say, being homosexual, or Black.

That means I can refuse servicing you based on, for example, the clothes you’re wearing, right? Or maybe because I don’t like your hair? As far as I know people with bad hair is not a protected class. I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. Is it based on their stated reason?

> I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone.

If you’re trying to understand the basis by which courts figure this stuff out, what we’re talking about here is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is civil law, and the evidentiary standard that applies is “preponderance of evidence”.

The businesses’ stated reason is certainly one piece of evidence that courts weigh, but it’s far from the only one. If you refuse me business based on what I’m wearing, but I can show you regular do business with people wearing the same thing, or I can demonstrate a preponderance of evidence that you knew I was homosexual and had made statements to the effect that you would refuse to serve homosexuals, courts aren’t going to just take you at your word.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#162

Post by throwaway829 »

djur wrote: post #89
skindoe wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has Qanon ever said that can be remotely considered hateful? Who determines what is hateful?

That Chrissy Teigen was on the Epstein flight logs and involved in sexual depravity, despite being a minor at that time; that pictures Tom Hanks takes of random roadside detritus are secret signals to a worldwide network of Satanic pedophiles; that there is video of Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin sexually abusing a child and cutting off her face; that Michelle Obama was secretly assigned male at birth and should be…

I've been following "Q" out of curiosity since when it started posting. Not sure if it's a pied piper op, as Wikileaks said, or something else. However I've not seen any of the things you listed as examples of hateful content. You can search all the posts yourself. "Chrissy Teigen" and "Hanks" show no results. Clinton is mentioned but none of the "cutting off her face" stuff. Where did you get these ideas? https://qposts.online/?q=Teigen&s=keyword

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#164

Post by skindoe »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #138
catalogia wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is "QAnon" even a person? I am under the impression that is a moniker that has likely been used by numerous unrelated people. I know believers of this stuff think "QAnon" is a person, but I've not seen any evidence that leads me to believe this is the case and quite a bit of conjecture / circumstantial evidence that suggests at one point the name was being used by a cabal of imageboard moderators.

There was an account on 8chan which would sign posts with "Q" and a unique hash which could be used to prove the identity of a particular person or group posting. Last I looked this account/hash hadn't been heard from in some time though.

All the posts are viewable at Qmap.pub he posted less than 2 days ago. Encourage you to check it out.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#165

Post by andrenth »

msbarnett wrote: post #161
andrenth wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That means I can refuse servicing you based on, for example, the clothes you’re wearing, right? Or maybe because I don’t like your hair? As far as I know people with bad hair is not a protected class. I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. Is it based on their stated reason?

> I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. If you’re trying to understand the basis by which courts figure this stuff out, what we’re talking about here is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is civil law, and the evidentiary standard that applies is “preponderance of evidence”. The businesses’ stated reason is certainly…

It seems to me someone blocked on Twitter for alleged right- wing hate speech could easily demonstrate instances of left- wing hate speech which didn’t result in blocking on the same platform.

That would be analogous to the clothes example, right?

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#166

Post by Kednicma »

auganov wrote: post #148
Kednicma wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an antifascist, I'd like to list some things [0] which I haven't done and which I do not imagine are parts of healthy antifascism, but which I can understand that Twitter might ban folks for encouraging or doing: * Doxxing * Brandishing weapons in a family restaurant [1] * Targeting journalists for violence * Targeting public figures who have been accused of crimes for violence [2] * Targeting politicians for viol…

Willem Van Spronsen who firebombed an ICE facility was a self described antifa [0] Connor Betts who shot 9 people dead was an antifa sympathizer [1] James T. Hodgkinson who hurt two officers and wounded Republican Rep. Scalise in a shootout was found to have posted a lot of content comparing President Trump and the Republican party to Nazis [2]. An idea that has been popularized by antifa elements. [0] https://www.bu…

Twitter should probably kick Spronson, Betts, and Hodgkinson off of their platform, then.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#167

Post by msbarnett »

andrenth wrote: post #165
msbarnett wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. If you’re trying to understand the basis by which courts figure this stuff out, what we’re talking about here is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is civil law, and the evidentiary standard that applies is “preponderance of evidence”. The businesses’ stated reason is certainly…

It seems to me someone blocked on Twitter for alleged right- wing hate speech could easily demonstrate instances of left- wing hate speech which didn’t result in blocking on the same platform. That would be analogous to the clothes example, right?

Your political beliefs aren’t a protected class wrt interactions with private entities under the Civil Rights Act, and there’s no other relevant right to not be blocked by a private individual or business if they don’t wish to hear or disseminate your speech, so yes, there’s nothing legally actionable there.

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#169

Post by [deleted] »

catalogia wrote: post #160
andrenth wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That means I can refuse servicing you based on, for example, the clothes you’re wearing, right? Or maybe because I don’t like your hair? As far as I know people with bad hair is not a protected class. I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. Is it based on their stated reason?

For better or worse, many restaurants have dress codes.

[deleted]

Re: Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown

#170

Post by manigandham »

Apocryphon wrote: post #125
manigandham wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scale. These major platforms are becoming increasingly dominant forms of communication and mediums of expression. There's a real question about when they cease being just another website or chatroom and become a public utility.

Then regulate them, break them up, nationalize them, etc. But don't pretend that internet communities don't have the power to moderate their content. It's inherent to the format and has always been with us. One would imagine in the '90s, AOL was probably as dominant as Facebook or Twitter is today- large enough to push its own alternative to URLs ("AOL Keywords"). The difference was there were far fewer people on the…

That's exactly what's in progress, but this is all new territory and has developed incredibly quickly. Legislation hasn't kept up.

As far as scale, your comment already proves the point. A portal with a few millions users showing some brand pages is nowhere near the same as having a billion people constantly connected with every detail of their lives shared.

AOL was only dominant for a short while as an internet destination, but it wasn't dominant in people's lives and still competed with TV and print media in a mostly broadcast fashion. Modern social media is much more pervasive and powerful than AOL ever was.

Post reply on HN