121–130 of 389 posts
How will this help Twitter turn a profit?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-17/disney-sa...
> Walt Disney Co. decided not to pursue a bid for Twitter Inc. partly out of concern that bullying and other uncivil forms of communication on the social media site might soil the company’s wholesome family image, according to people familiar with management’s thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But these alt-right figureheads aren't your average trump voters. They actually are racist and nasty people and we shouldn't group them together with other conservative/right/trump voters.
> They actually are racist and nasty people and we shouldn't group them together with other conservative/right/trump voters. This sounds like stereotyping to me.
Although Twitter obviously has the right to do this, legally, I don't think it is good. Twitter is esentially a public infrastructure for real-time communication. We have public officials from countries all over the world that use Twitter to communicate to their citizens. For that (and similar) reasons, I would strongly prefer if Twitter didn't go around policing what types of political opions are okay and aren't. Ev…
The very liberal users aren't inciting hate speech, racist, misogynistic, and often times anti semitic attacks on other users en masse
Twitters "cultural background training" for its new mods surely contains the progressive stance that you can't be racist against white people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They actually are racist and nasty people and we shouldn't group them together with other conservative/right/trump voters. This sounds like stereotyping to me.
alt-right by definition is racist and sexist. that is the definition of the alt-right platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They actually are racist and nasty people and we shouldn't group them together with other conservative/right/trump voters. This sounds like stereotyping to me.
alt-right by definition is racist and sexist. that is the definition of the alt-right platform.
From Wikipedia: "The alt-right has no formal ideology... 'Alt-right' is a recently coined umbrella term, with no clear criteria of membership yet agreed upon."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
Would each of the people being banned agree that they've signed on to an admittedly racist and sexist platform? I doubt it.
EDIT: Let me amend "I doubt it" to "I am not sure and haven't done enough research to have an informed opinion." From the article I can't get the full set of people that are known to have been banned or how many of them are professed white nationalists...
Painting insults and threats and bullying as legitimate criticism is the main rhetorical fallacy of the alt-right movement. They have a guarantee of free speech in this country but they do not have a guarantee of Twitter access.
Twitter allows threats and bullying when it comes from the left. They refused to ban the freaking jihadists. They have SJWs posting #killallmen, #KillAllWhiteMen #maletears in droves. Nothing ever happens to them. This move is simply political censorship.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallmen
About half of the tweets are serious "killallmen" comments. The other half are people complaining about it. And, complaining that twitter won't do anything, despite their terms of service saying such behavior is ban-worthy.
Or look at twitter banning Milo... because other people engaged in harassment. People who had no clear tie to Milo.
At no point could Twitter point to Milo's behavior, and say "this violated our terms of service, so he's banned". They just banned him, despite their terms of service.
I've mentioned this before on HN, and asked "What, exactly, did Milo do? Please point to something he did."
I received no replies, but got plenty of downvotes. Which says to me that the people involved (like the ones downvoting here) know their opinions are contrary to all facts and reason.
So if you're thinking of downvoting, try instead to convince me I'm wrong. Adult discussions are much more productive than naive attempts at censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They actually are racist and nasty people and we shouldn't group them together with other conservative/right/trump voters. This sounds like stereotyping to me.
alt-right by definition is racist and sexist. that is the definition of the alt-right platform.
Twitter has a legal and ethical responsibility to not allow their platform to promote vile racism, sexism, Islamophobia, etc. No one owes anyone a platform to spew their hatred.
If the bigots don't like it no one is stopping them from getting their own websites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that exactly the point? One bans for extreme views/hate speech, one bans for dissent.
/r/AskHistorians bans people who post jokes, I don't know if that qualifies as "dissent". It seems in line with the purpose of the sub.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I think I'd rather have people with extreme opinions talking in the public where they are subject to counter arguments than somewhere less public where their message goes unchallenged.
The next leader of the most powerful nation on earth already elected on a campaign that openly advocated torture and war crimes and made all sorts of racially charged insinuations. The USA seems set to embark on a terrifying policy of mass deportations in a few months. A white supremacist is set to be installed as White House Chief of Staff, and his previous incarnation was as owner of news outlet talking in the publ…
So the white people got together and voted as a minority bloc for a member of their minority that would favor their interests over all others.
Your solution of trying harder to supress them will only get more Donald Trumps elected.