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

Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 389 posts

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#371

Post by bougiefever »

adam12 wrote: post #84
arkitaip wrote: post #30

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.

You have no idea. I worked with someone who had been radicalized by these groups, and the things they are willing to do to achieve their aims of stamping out people of color and other groups they oppose is nauseating. They are dangerous.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#372

Post by flukus »

tajen wrote: post #31
mulletbum wrote: post #5

Why does the alt-right have issues with them being banned from systems, but don't see issues with themselves banning others from systems. For example, Twitter bans them from using Twitter, but the /r/The_Donald echo chamber bans anyone with a counter view to their own. If you want freedom to speak on certain platforms, you need to provide the same rights to everyone.

Reddit is in a much less monopolistic situation. Twitter is a mandatory medium for public communication. That's which censorship on Twitter is worse than in a subreddit. Besides, it's a long stretch to imagine that right-wing media convinces people to become right-wing. In my case it's rather the opposite: I've been super-over-surcovered with left-wing pro-women communication until my 30s (whether in media or in prog…

> Twitter is a mandatory medium for public communication

Which is why everyone should stop using twitter. A private company should never have that much control over critical infrastructure.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#373

Post by flammablelemons »

vorotato wrote: post #311
caseysoftware wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, the Net Neutrality position describes internet access as a utility, not a luxury. Further the UN declares it a Human Right. If either/both of those positions hold, then the gatekeepers - Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc - suppressing any view or blocking access to any group could be a violation of human rights. I think that will have to be settled in court, but it will get messy for those companies.

Nobody is being banned from the internet. They are merely being banned by a privately owned American website. Businesses in America have the right to refuse service to any individual provided it is not due to protected status. In America your opinions do not grant you protected status.

ISPs are privately owned American corporations as well. Did you read what you're replying to?

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#374

Post by RoboticWater »

bougiefever wrote: post #370
13years wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree, very disturbing trend and it only increases the animosity between groups. The trending method of improving diversity and inclusivity is through exclusivity. This will not work. People and groups who don't talk to each other grow further apart and trust each other less.

What do you do about Twitter and Facebook becoming the propaganda arm of the alt-right?

There's no simple solution here. Part of the Alt-Right platform, as I have it, is that the media (be it news or social media) is corrupt and bent on silencing them. Suspending their accounts would only reinforce that belief.

I would also hope that we can come up with a solution that doesn't involve hindering others's ability to communicate. Even if it is the simplest and most effective tactic, it seems like that's just fighting the symptoms rather than the disease.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#375

Post by grzm »

flammablelemons wrote: post #373
vorotato wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is being banned from the internet. They are merely being banned by a privately owned American website. Businesses in America have the right to refuse service to any individual provided it is not due to protected status. In America your opinions do not grant you protected status.

ISPs are privately owned American corporations as well. Did you read what you're replying to?

ISPs are considered common carriers, which Net Neutrality addresses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicati...

I haven't seen this same argument made for websites in particular. If you have good references for that, please do share!

btw, did you create an account just to make this comment? If so, why? It doesn't seem too controversial.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#376

Post by iopq »

mulletbum wrote: post #278
iopq wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because /r/The_Donald is a community, they don't give out bans for the entire Reddit website, only from their own community. Twitter is not a community, it's a website akin to Reddit which contains communities.

Twitter doesn't have an ability to ban you from parts of the community. So they are a single community.

So that analogy falls apart because they're different kinds of websites.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#377

Post by flammablelemons »

grzm wrote: post #375
flammablelemons wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISPs are privately owned American corporations as well. Did you read what you're replying to?

ISPs are considered common carriers, which Net Neutrality addresses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicati... I haven't seen this same argument made for websites in particular. If you have good references for that, please do share! btw, did you create an account just to make this comment? If so, why? It doesn't seem too controversial.

No real reason for the account creation, boredom mostly (I lurk).

And I think that's the point. ISPs are precedent to show that a company being private isn't of itself a good enough reason to let it censor people. Google and Facebook are big enough that I think they should be considered public fora for speech. Hence the term "Gatekeeper" in the OP.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#378

Post by grzm »

flammablelemons wrote: post #377
grzm wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISPs are considered common carriers, which Net Neutrality addresses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicati... I haven't seen this same argument made for websites in particular. If you have good references for that, please do share! btw, did you create an account just to make this comment? If so, why? It doesn't seem too controversial.

No real reason for the account creation, boredom mostly (I lurk). And I think that's the point. ISPs are precedent to show that a company being private isn't of itself a good enough reason to let it censor people. Google and Facebook are big enough that I think they should be considered public fora for speech. Hence the term "Gatekeeper" in the OP.

I understand what you're saying, but I know that I'm not qualified to give an informed opinion. So I'd prefer to see a more legitimate source than speculation on HN :)

Just riffing here, but would it be fair to require Amazon to sell any product I want to make available?

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#379

Post by caseysoftware »

grzm wrote: post #378
flammablelemons wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No real reason for the account creation, boredom mostly (I lurk). And I think that's the point. ISPs are precedent to show that a company being private isn't of itself a good enough reason to let it censor people. Google and Facebook are big enough that I think they should be considered public fora for speech. Hence the term "Gatekeeper" in the OP.

I understand what you're saying, but I know that I'm not qualified to give an informed opinion. So I'd prefer to see a more legitimate source than speculation on HN :) Just riffing here, but would it be fair to require Amazon to sell any product I want to make available?

If the UN declared your product a Human Right, seems possible.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#380

Post by remarkEon »

alva wrote: post #230
tomp wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With Steve Bannon being appointed to the upcoming White House staff, there's been a parade of examples illustrating the blatant racism of alt-right figureheads. I've looked at all the articles claiming that Bannon is "bad" (they use different words, of course), and I'm completely unconvinced. Seems like more of the "all Trump supporters are racist" meme.

The last year of news has pushed me more than ever to read/listen to primary sources. Things have become so distorted left or right, that it seems like the responsible thing to do. Regarding the attacks towards Steve Bannon, I agree. They are only using examples of what other people who don't like him have said. Here is a great speech and Q+A he gave regarding Judeo-Christian values at the highly respected Dignitatis…

Replying just to post the text of that speech you linked (since the audio is kind of bad), which I also stumbled on the other day in trying to figure this guy out.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-banno...

Post reply on HN