Twitter bans 7k QAnon accounts, limits 150k others as part of broad crackdown • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by gremlinsinc » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 5:33 AM UTC

timavr wrote: post #176

I don't know what is the right answer. It is like we are stuck between two evils. One is censorship, that is used by dominant group to silence everyone else. Another is bunch of minority groups that might have outlandish aims and use free speech platforms to harrass everyone else. What I don't like that it is left to private company to sort it out and enact their own policies. This questions should be clearly handled…

the right to post on twitter, or even have a platform isn't a human right, it's not even a constitutional right, it's a 'privilege' the company gives you as long as you don't act like an idiot. Just like every web forum on the internet since aol and newsgroups in the 90s.

W/out twitter you lose a voice you'd never have had if Twitter didn't exist, so by them banning hate speech maybe if your voice matters you'll exercise some caution and prudence when making a statement.

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

#182

Post by Fjolsvith » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 5:34 AM UTC

AndrewBissell wrote: post #146

some1else wrote: post #111

Facebook hate groups don't need Twitter accounts to operate. Regardless of the presumably positive outcome for the mainstream timeline, this is likely a futile whack-a-mole move that only benefits Twitter. Hate groups organize in private and output the vitriol with whichever fake accounts they have in possession. The way to definitively solve this societal problem is to help the people caught in the self-radicalisati…

The comparison to hate groups is a little off the mark. QAnon doesn't organize in secret, and so far you're not likely to get fired if someone shows a picture of you wearing a Q shirt to your employer. That said I agree with the broader point that this may not do that much to inhibit QAnon, especially because it exhibits a lot of cultlike belief that might just be reinforced by this ban.

In fact, "Q" predicted this behavior by the social media platforms over a year ago, so the QAnon movement is not, in general, surprised by Twitter. According to their conspiracy, Twitter just checked off a box in the list of items they believe will happen coming up in the future.

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

#183

Post by gremlinsinc » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 5:40 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #128

TearsInTheRain wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter might not be the government but it surely is an institution that has a significant amount of power and influence on society. So much so that I think the public should pressure them to adhere to liberal values like free speech and rightly get upset if they dont. And regarding the fact that conspiracy theorists arent an ethnic group, sure thats right they are not. They are still an ideological group. Are we com…

Twitter isn't going to shoot you. Twitter isn't going to imprison you. Twitter isn't going to unperson you. If you think Twitter is influential enough that it is quasi-governmental in authority, you should pursue anti-trust regulation. But otherwise, no Twitter is nothing like a government, and getting kicked off a platform isn't suppression of speech anymore than a me choosing not to publish your book us suppression…

To further add to this, for fuck sake without twitter you'd be de-platformed from the get go, because there's nothing else like it. It literally democratized the ability to be heard on a national stage - so even peons/non-celebrities have at least a marginal voice.

It's not a human right, a societal right, or any other kind of right. It's a privilege, act like a douche, lose the privilege like every forum before it on the internet. Even this one (Hackernews).

Here's a good solution: Don't post hate speech or mis-leading fake news about a pandemic that could cost people their lives, then keep your platform and your voice.

I mean, you can go pretty far left or right on Twitter before you get banned, already.

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

#184

Post by TearsInTheRain » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 5:42 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #128

TearsInTheRain wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter might not be the government but it surely is an institution that has a significant amount of power and influence on society. So much so that I think the public should pressure them to adhere to liberal values like free speech and rightly get upset if they dont. And regarding the fact that conspiracy theorists arent an ethnic group, sure thats right they are not. They are still an ideological group. Are we com…

Twitter isn't going to shoot you. Twitter isn't going to imprison you. Twitter isn't going to unperson you. If you think Twitter is influential enough that it is quasi-governmental in authority, you should pursue anti-trust regulation. But otherwise, no Twitter is nothing like a government, and getting kicked off a platform isn't suppression of speech anymore than a me choosing not to publish your book us suppression…

It's actually asinine that you are defending censorship. Take a moment to think about that. I assume you think it would be a no big deal if Harvard started banning certain ideas and expelling people that talked about them. Perhaps scientific journals should feel free to suppress research that doesnt toe their political line and lets have journalists... well that ones already a joke.

Even if protecting free speech in non governmental institutions shouldnt be written into law it a is an ideal that every person should be defending. Its unreal that this has to be said.

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

#185

Post by gremlinsinc » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 5:51 AM UTC

dwd wrote: post #135

manigandham wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A loose organization with regional groups, ranging from random protesters by proximity to political activists to violent criminals and terrorists, with various claims from generally left/socialist ideologies to outright radical extremism.

I would say "completely disorganised" rather than "loose organisation" and I can't see that changing. The left is a vast collection of competing factional ideas that in many cases the only common purpose is a demand for change. Environmentalists can't agree with each other, let alone animal welfare activists who can't agree with native/traditional rights; and theres a range of single issue movements that end up dilut…

I'm on the left, and can concur. Many of us were pissed about Bernie losing, and thinking yeah now's the time for the Green party to win...

Then there's like at least 3 groups trying to start 3 new political parties, those of us pushing for the greens, more pushing for one of the socialist parties, and some even pushing for the libertarian party (I'm a leftist/socialist libertarian, but the libertarian party is NOTHING like a left/libertarian), and some voting for Trump out of spite, or insanity, and the rest probably cow-towing to vote for Biden.

Just ideas alone it's pretty disjointed. No organization. I mean the right/tea party at least was pretty coherent and had a pretty good structure to accomplish their goals.

Leftists though have their own purity tests, and their own minds made up and can be rather stubborn about how to accomplish goals, what those goals should be, etc...

I think we all have ADHD or something.

However, there's no 'terrorism' on the left, or very rare. antifa is not a terrorist org. Show me the deaths, the bombs, etc. I can show you plenty of those on the right though, an antifa terrorist is probably some kid egging or graffit-ing a building. That's about as serious as they get, because most on the left are also pacifists.

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

#186

Post by gremlinsinc » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 5:57 AM UTC

thephyber wrote: post #35

skindoe wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the evidence you think it is. In sports analogies That would be the equivalent of brian windhorst tweeting out something and then you saying that it came "Directly from LeBron James". People are not responsible for what their ignorant fans say.

That's a feature of QAnon, not a bug. If none of us knows the identity of "Q" then anyone can pretend to be their prophet and there is no way to confirm nor disconfirm. This is why I describe QAnon as a LARP -- it's easy for the average person to participate without knowing any rules (because there are none).

Sounds like they ripped off a lot from Anonymous, except went right-wing w/ it, whereas Anonymous is definitely more likely to be part of antifa.

Anyone can say they are part of anonymous and create their own anonymous branded videos....etc..

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

#187

Post by pix64 » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 6:08 AM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #143

skindoe wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds Orwellian

It's not because there are alternatives. People keep forgetting that 1984 assumes a singular authoritarian control, not multiple authorities and the freedom to choose one, several, or none of them.

If you're interested in hateful content stormfront is the next door down

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

#188

Post by hnzix » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 6:09 AM UTC

throwaway829 wrote: post #162

djur wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://qp…

I've seen this Q garbage in friends' Facebook feeds, where it is being amplified by wellness gurus of all things.

The posts are word salad fever dreams claiming certain celebs are literally satanic and practicing witchcraft and ritually murdering children.

A depressing number of people swallow it. We haven't evolved enough since Salem.

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

#189

Post by joshuamorton » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 6:27 AM UTC

TearsInTheRain wrote: post #184

joshuamorton wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter isn't going to shoot you. Twitter isn't going to imprison you. Twitter isn't going to unperson you. If you think Twitter is influential enough that it is quasi-governmental in authority, you should pursue anti-trust regulation. But otherwise, no Twitter is nothing like a government, and getting kicked off a platform isn't suppression of speech anymore than a me choosing not to publish your book us suppression…

It's actually asinine that you are defending censorship. Take a moment to think about that. I assume you think it would be a no big deal if Harvard started banning certain ideas and expelling people that talked about them. Perhaps scientific journals should feel free to suppress research that doesnt toe their political line and lets have journalists... well that ones already a joke. Even if protecting free speech in…

I absolutely support certain kinds of censorship, yes. You do too (for example, I expect you support Youtube's right to keep pornogrophy off it's platform).

That you draw the line on how private entities choose to interact in a different place than I do doesn't make you more righteous.

> I assume you think it would be a no big deal if Harvard started banning certain ideas and expelling people that talked about them.

I certainly hope there are certain ideas that Harvard bans. They certainly ban specific forms of research. That's why we have IRBs, because people, when free to research any topic without any oversight, did awful things to other people.

> Even if protecting free speech in non governmental institutions shouldnt be written into law it a is an ideal that every person should be defending

No. I have no responsibility to assist you in publishing drivel, and the idea that I or anyone else has a moral responsibility to help you publish drivel is nonsense. Much as I have a right to tell you that you are wrong, I also have a right to not help you spread your message. To deny that is a perversion of the right of free expression.

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

#190

Post by timavr » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 6:42 AM UTC

gremlinsinc wrote: post #181

timavr wrote: post #176

I don't know what is the right answer. It is like we are stuck between two evils. One is censorship, that is used by dominant group to silence everyone else. Another is bunch of minority groups that might have outlandish aims and use free speech platforms to harrass everyone else. What I don't like that it is left to private company to sort it out and enact their own policies. This questions should be clearly handled…

the right to post on twitter, or even have a platform isn't a human right, it's not even a constitutional right, it's a 'privilege' the company gives you as long as you don't act like an idiot. Just like every web forum on the internet since aol and newsgroups in the 90s. W/out twitter you lose a voice you'd never have had if Twitter didn't exist, so by them banning hate speech maybe if your voice matters you'll exer…

The problem is that the same argument is used in dictatorships to ban people and activist from traditional media(print/TV).

Right now, what prevents Russian government/companies going to twitter and telling them look guys, you just banned your American extremists, can you please do the same for ours. They also practice hate speech, disinformation etc. The only problem is that Russian extremists look like average centrist US democrat.

In terms what is the right and what is not the right is not really for twitter to determine in this case. My point was it should be determine on legislative level what should be on twitter and what shouldn't.

In the end of the day twitter is a massive part of the political process. People exercising their rights, complaining to their representatives, supporting them, spreading their message.

So if you ban entitties from twitter, you ban them from political process. And I do think some entities should be banned, but it shouldn't be up to twitter, it should be up to us citizens to decide that.

If we think that holocost-deniers, nazy sympaphizers or whatever should be banned from social media bring it to the vote, pass the law, hopefully it will stand supreme court challenge and move on.