341–350 of 391 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s building a community center but not letting the fat kids come play.
Alternatively, it would be like kicking out the person trashing the place or screaming obscenities and making everyone uncomfortable, which is generally accepted in the real world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s building a community center but not letting the fat kids come play.
Every community center I am familiar with has rules about the types of events that can be held there. Even more so when they're owned by specific interest groups.
There is a Substack associated with the suspended twitter account [0]. They have made a recent post about the suspension of said account and all of the users other twitter accounts [1]. It states that twitter told the user "the account was “artificially” amplifying information". [0] https://patriotone.substack.com [1] https://patriotone.substack.com/p/twitter-suspension
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they were banned for using sock puppets to popularize their tweets?
If so, I want BrooklynDad_Defiant, the Palmer Report, Duty to Warn, the Gravel Institute, and ReallyAmerican1 removed immediately. There is no way these folks always manage to be at the top of every trend organically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should post encouraging dangerous conspiracy theories be given the same level of care as math questions?
It's not about caring for the posts, it's about caring for the community you're participating in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I especially detest is the implication that if you disagree with Twitter's banning Trump, then you must be a Trump supporter. It's the epitome of the "first they came for X" strategy. I can disagree with Trump, and still also disagree with the precedent of arbitrarily banning a political figure for much less than other figures and groups are allowed to get away with.
He was using Twitter to try to overthrow the country. Please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Substack handles paid subscriptions, which is distinctly non-trivial to "host your own". They've also publicly advertised a strong anti-censorship position, and a lot of their userbase will abandon them if they change stances. While it's certainly a possible concern, not all platforms descend in to censorship. I think it's reasonable to wait until there's at least warning signs before criticizing a specific site.
From Substack terms ( https://substack.com/tos ): > We reserve the right to remove any content from Substack at any time, for any reason (including, but not limited to, if someone alleges you contributed that content in violation of these Terms), in our sole discretion, and without notice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? It's irrelevant that there are others reporting about it.
If you're interested in the factual details of the case rather than some meta argument about Twitter's bot policy (of which there's not really a point, because we don't know why the account was actually banned aside from artificial manipulation) - I thought it'd be helpful to have a few other sources that are unlikely to be removed.
We don't know why the account was actually banned aside from Twitter's evidence-free assertions.
I just got banned from Twitter a couple days ago for the same reason: "platform manipulation and spam". I only occasionally tweet about college football and don't do anything illicit at all. All I can figure is I was banned simply because of the accounts I follow, which included @TrackerTrial among other "controversial" conservative-type political accounts.
You got banned for not being far-left. Twitter has been banning conservative accounts with huge followings for years, sometimes without any stated reason. The solution is not to use Twitter for political news or discourse, they are trying to shape it in quite obvious ways. Independent alternatives is what we need.
It's not merely "conservative" accounts who have been banned. Plenty of anti-war activists, supporters of government transparency and general voices against the narrative set by the DC blob have been banned who were in no way, "conservative". You could ask Wikileaks supporters how they have been treated by Twitter, if you can find any of them that haven't been banned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From Substack terms ( https://substack.com/tos ): > We reserve the right to remove any content from Substack at any time, for any reason (including, but not limited to, if someone alleges you contributed that content in violation of these Terms), in our sole discretion, and without notice.
A lot of platforms unfortunately have these blanket disclaimers. Fortunately Substack hasn't gone down that road yet, while Twitter, Facebook and Google are already over the horizon.