|
Babylon Astronaut posted:The number of people who think the first amendment forces private businesses to broadcast random bullshit against their wishes astounds me. I saw one of milo's defenders when confronted with this fact say we need to 'go beyond the constitution.' Not at all surprising that alt-righters would be down with marrying private business with government. 
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
Freedom of speech does go beyond the 1st Amendment, and if a public forum claims to be a neutral place for the free exchange of ideas, it has an ethical (not legal) obligation to allow speech it disagrees with, provided that it doesn't rise to the level of threatening or hate speech (which is a pretty big caveat for these types). So saying "we need to go beyond the Constitution" is not, on the face of it, a bad idea. Of course acting as though you have grounds for a suit, or otherwise overreacting, because some company doesn't let you say what you want using their property, even if they're in an ethically grey area, is pretty dumb. The correct thing to do is either play by the rules or leave, possibly warning others to stay away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Twitter has no ethical obligation to do that at all. Where do these implied ethics come from?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Fluffdaddy posted:Twitter has no ethical obligation to do that at all. Where do these implied ethics come from? Yup. If they say 'no racist stuff' or 'no harassment' in the TOS and you fail to abide by the TOS they are under no obligation to allow you to continue to use their platform.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Yup. If they say 'no racist stuff' or 'no harassment' in the TOS and you fail to abide by the TOS they are under no obligation to allow you to continue to use their platform. Kilroy said that. I don't know that I agree with him when it comes to the other stuff but he said that should be covered. If Twitter or Facebook choose to moderate their sites differently I feel like it should be up to them and they'd have to answer to their shareholders but I don't feel like they should be beholden to a strict ethical code on the face of it Aesop Poprock fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Jul 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
The latest thing I've been seeing is that this is another dastardly Muslim plot to silence gays and critics of Islam. After all, a Saudi Prince owns more of Twitter than Jack Dorsey does, so the platform is under complete and total control of the Saudi government.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Purging the alt-right from their main platform, Twitter, would make me like the Saudis a lot more Read about this and more in my upcoming book, "Sentences I Would've Thought Were Too Crazy To Exist Just A Year Ago But Are Totally Normal Now In 2016, Volume 3"
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
and so it was that the alt-right was banished back to the 'chans from whence they came
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 07:54
|
|
|
 I always watch a bit of BBC World News before hitting the sack. Seeing Milo's ban on the crawler made me very very happy. The MSM might actually carry the story, and everyone can find out what kind of person Milo is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
I think there's room to discuss whether omnipresent public forums have some responsibility to allow freedom of speech; otherwise I feel like I'm just going FYGM because I happen to have mostly inoffensive opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
These past couple days have been amazing. It's nice to see awful people have their actions bite them, and Milo seems(ed) to me to be the most active of the Twitter set, at least so far as motivating people to do lovely things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
TPM posted:Fox News CEO Roger Ailes' lawyer confirmed to The New York Times on Tuesday that Ailes was negotiating his departure from the network. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
Wow, there's a good chance Trump may not only destroy the Republican party but also Fox News as we know it roughly at the same time through sheer incompetence. I only say that cause if Ailes was in a better position within at the network (without having taken part in the Trump disaster, weakening his hold) Gretchen Carlson might not have felt comfortable coming forward, filing the lawsuit, and starting this whole process.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:If Ailes is getting pushed out by Murdoch that means the allegations of sexual harassment are true, yes? Or is he being booted for another reason? Chantilly Say posted:I think there's room to discuss whether omnipresent public forums have some responsibility to allow freedom of speech; otherwise I feel like I'm just going FYGM because I happen to have mostly inoffensive opinions. Assepoester fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Jul 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Kilroy said that. I don't know that I agree with him when it comes to the other stuff but he said that should be covered. If Twitter or Facebook choose to moderate their sites differently I feel like it should be up to them and they'd have to answer to their shareholders but I don't feel like they should be beholden to a strict ethical code on the face of it
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:If anything they should ban more alt-right shitheads to keep parity. This sorta implies that daesh and neocons are opposites though, when they're both groups of xenophobic, noxious, fake-religious bigots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
Fluffdaddy posted:Twitter has no ethical obligation to do that at all. Where do these implied ethics come from? Kilroy posted:Freedom of speech does go beyond the 1st Amendment, and if a public forum claims to be a neutral place for the free exchange of ideas, it has an ethical (not legal) obligation to allow speech it disagrees with, provided that it doesn't rise to the level of threatening or hate speech (which is a pretty big caveat for these types). Because Twitter doesn't claim to be an independent forum for all manner of public discourse, not being allowed to post on Twitter is no more a restriction of your freedoms than being banned from the Yellowpages
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
Twitter bans people all the time. They routinely ban porn bots and suspend abusive accounts. The problem lies in that if someone is determined enough to keep harassing people, they can just keep making new accounts to make their lovely tweets. It's only news that Milo got banned because he's an enormously loud shithead who makes a living off of being an enormously loud shithead with a persecution complex. I don't know how often they sweep individual tweets for ToU violations, though. At the insane volume they come in (500 million a day, I think?), I'm inclined to believe that their moderators are more reactive than proactive, only addressing issues once they've been reported.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me why all the anchors shout on Fox News? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz58borxQ5M
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Can someone explain to me why all the anchors shout on Fox News? Half of their audience is probably losing their hearing, and the other half get off on acts of rage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Can someone explain to me why all the anchors shout on Fox News? if they shout until their target gives up arguing then they "win" it is hilariously short sighted of course, as is standard right-wing protocol.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Twitter bans people all the time. They routinely ban porn bots and suspend abusive accounts. The problem lies in that if someone is determined enough to keep harassing people, they can just keep making new accounts to make their lovely tweets. It's only news that Milo got banned because he's an enormously loud shithead who makes a living off of being an enormously loud shithead with a persecution complex. Plus Twitter lets a lot slide, you have to be a special kind of terrible(or outright illegal) to get banned. That won't stop people from going on about MY FREE SPEECH but still.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
im routinely amazed and boggled when people try to say "oh it's discrimination, to ban a gay conservative voice!" uh, ok, this Milo dude openly loving says ALL the time how much he wouldn't wish being gay on anyone and hates gay rights. I feel like that title, along with his ridiculously gross "I gently caress black dudes exclusively" grants him this moronic shield from being called racist or something, christ. he threw such a fit about his checkmark, can't imagine how bothered he'll be about this. by all means he thrives for attention so this was the best thing they could do to finally shut his rear end down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:If Ailes is getting pushed out by Murdoch that means the allegations of sexual harassment are true, yes? Or is he being booted for another reason? I assume the NDAs that other women are having waived come from negotiated settlements.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
MinibarMatchman posted:im routinely amazed and boggled when people try to say "oh it's discrimination, to ban a gay conservative voice!" uh, ok, this Milo dude openly loving says ALL the time how much he wouldn't wish being gay on anyone and hates gay rights. I feel like that title, along with his ridiculously gross "I gently caress black dudes exclusively" grants him this moronic shield from being called racist or something, christ. pretty much. the dude is oval office. and will probably end up killing himself at some point out of self-hatred/shame, or contracting something very bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:pretty much. the dude is oval office. and will probably end up killing himself at some point out of self-hatred/shame, or contracting something very bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Fox News back in its prime of the Bush era was pretty much known for shouting at guests that came on the show. If you're louder and speak over them, you give the appearance of winning the argument, regardless of the substance of what you're saying. It's been a tactic of theirs for awhile now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:pretty much. the dude is oval office. and will probably end up killing himself at some point out of self-hatred/shame, or contracting something very bad. It's cool hes off twitter but he still has a large platform over at Bribart that his followers read. This might put a dent into the stuff but not stop it completely. I was reading Jones' twitter during the whole thing and seeing the poo poo people were saying to her. There is the obvious racist stuff but how do you judge the concern trolling stuff or saying "Black Lives Matter is racist" if your job is moding twitter for a living?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:Public forums have a responsibility to moderate their content, and the larger the forum the more moderation they need. Yeah, I can definitely see this end of it too. Twitter as a private entity and as custodian of a public forum decides what it wants and what it doesn't want to display, and exercises its power to control that content--that I'm fine with. Of course Twitter's going to say "okay Milo, we don't want you here, there's the door."
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Censorship has often been used to refer to the actions of private institutions, among academics and pretty much every source which one could extrapolate a definition of "censorship" from. As the National Coalition again Censorship explains, plenty instances of censorship are perfectly legal. The most egregious examples would be the old Hollywood blacklists and the CCA. Studios aren't obligated to hire gays and stores aren't obligated to stock comics featuring themes they don't like, but when done on a big enough scale it can deprive individuals of their livelihood. Does it apply to someone who needs Twitter to make a living? Hypothetically, maybe, but I can't bring myself to care what happens to Milo. The only thing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth is the fact that this case was handled differently because it was directed at a celebrity and not some rando. If the users making the actual racist tweets weren't banned than what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Does Twitter do anything about sharing fake/photoshopped tweets? because Milo was doing that as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:It's cool hes off twitter but he still has a large platform over at Bribart that his followers read. This might put a dent into the stuff but not stop it completely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Does Twitter do anything about sharing fake/photoshopped tweets? because Milo was doing that as well. sometimes i assume. the dude is an all around dick, and i find it sad that nerds by into his poo poo. hint, he doesnt give two flying fucks about them. they are just a tool. https://medium.com/plaguearist-does-gamergate/so-who-is-this-milo-yiannopolous-guy-385a58ac8c31#.fu8iwp7ch
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:At least Milo will hopefully fade away like Glenn Beck, who people stopped mostly paying attention to after he left Fox. depends. if breitbart implodes. then he is probaly hosed. if not. who knows.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:At least Milo will hopefully fade away like Glenn Beck, who people stopped mostly paying attention to after he left Fox. Twitter banning Chuck Johnson seems to have muzzled him pretty effectively. Hopefully the same will happen to Milo. Somebody new will pop up to fill the vacuum unless twitter changes things though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Fox News back in its prime of the Bush era was pretty much known for shouting at guests that came on the show. If you're louder and speak over them, you give the appearance of winning the argument, regardless of the substance of what you're saying. It's been a tactic of theirs for awhile now. That and what Hannity does which is ask a question and then repeatedly interrupt the person answering it. Unless the person he's asking is a conservative in which case he's silent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Does Twitter do anything about sharing fake/photoshopped tweets? because Milo was doing that as well. I doubt it, unless lying is against the TOS
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
je1 healthcare posted:Censorship has often been used to refer to the actions of private institutions, among academics and pretty much every source which one could extrapolate a definition of "censorship" from. As the National Coalition again Censorship explains, plenty instances of censorship are perfectly legal. Whenever you see a user on twitter making egregious and blatant racist attacks they usually have anime avatars or some other throwaway image they GIS'ed and added to their profile. And when you click on their profiles, as I often do out of morbid curiosity you see that they recently signed on, don't have that many followers and almost exclusively tweet about a single topic, usually whatever the flavour of the week is at reddit/4chan central. And they don't last very long. Inevitably people report them, add them to blocklists, they get banned and repeat the whole thing again under a new false name and new (ironically racist) anime avatar. To say Twitter doesn't ban average shitheads is incorrect, from what I see it bans a whole lot of them, but like dedicated ISIS supporters, they have re-registering with new accounts down to a science. Banning Milo is a good signal though, gently caress him, and gently caress coordinated online harassment campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:At least Milo will hopefully fade away like Glenn Beck, who people stopped mostly paying attention to after he left Fox. I'm not sure Glenn Beck "faded" away because he created the Blaze, and gave Matt Walsh a job. Beck isn't center screen anymore, he kind of went higher.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
lynch_69 posted:Whenever you see a user on twitter making egregious and blatant racist attacks they usually have anime avatars or some other throwaway image they GIS'ed and added to their profile. And when you click on their profiles, as I often do out of morbid curiosity you see that they recently signed on, don't have that many followers and almost exclusively tweet about a single topic, usually whatever the flavour of the week is at reddit/4chan central. Honestly most of this could be solved by an account option to only see replies from verified accounts. Many people don't realize that using Twitter is equivalent to stepping into the world's largest message board and all the garbage that comes with loosely-moderated forum culture, in many instances it's their first time interacting with anonymous users. je1 healthcare fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Jul 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 15:06
|
|