Panfilo posted:

https://lithub.com/elon-musk-listens-to-professional-troll-andy-ngo-and-bans-anarchist-publisher-from-twitter/
Chad Loder and Vishal Singh, to name a few. When Elon Musk took over many prominent alt right accounts basically sicced Musk on these antifascist journalists to get them banned in retaliation for their journalism.

The other issue was the change to verification, which became a pay-to-play signal boost. A lot of formerly verified leftist accounts didn't want to pay Musk on principle but the alt right types that had been formerly banned were very enthusiastic about signing up. This created a knock on effect where leftist accounts were indirectly deplatformed as a result of this policy.

And in spite of the updated ToS, it is rather unclear of just what will get a user banned on Twitter.

quote:

Based on information Weiss herself has shared, the company directed moderators never to take any action in regard to the high-profile account, instead elevating every issue to the highest levels of management. This preferential treatment of Libs of TikTok, while not acknowledged by [Bari] Weiss, is concerning. It implies that instead of placing the repeatedly banned account on a short leash, in light of its connection to real-world violent acts, ordinary moderators were unable to ensure that Libs of TikTok followed Twitter’s policies at all.

Weka posted:

Did they post on twitter?

Ghost Leviathan posted:

It's completely standard for conservatives to scream bloody murder about being censored and silenced while being obviously favoured by the media desperate to be 'bipartisan' while leftists are suppressed at every level. Every time social media bedgrudgingly bans open Nazis they ban random leftists for 'balance'. It's a great trick, it works every time.

Panfilo posted:

My sentiments exactly. Props to this guy

Ghost Leviathan posted:

It's completely standard for conservatives to scream bloody murder about being censored and silenced while being obviously favoured by the media desperate to be 'bipartisan' while leftists are suppressed at every level. Every time social media bedgrudgingly bans open Nazis they ban random leftists for 'balance'. It's a great trick, it works every time.

Panfilo posted:

My sentiments exactly. Props to this guy
https://twitter.com/whstancil/status/1752876497935769639?t=0aTtgU0Bb3VgSr6WFj1v0w&s=19

Weka posted:

Panfilo, do you see this poo poo naturally or do you rely on stancil for your hate views?

Personally I think American liberal values are most favoured by mainstream media. To me, they are far right values. Soy fascism. Like it is good to give minorities equal rights but if it is only domestic minorities and everyone overseas is subject to a brutal oppressive empire then it is still fascism.

Anyway, here's a tweet from my favorite hate follow, some hasbara account, who has just purchased Twitter gold. Seems like Elon's chud regime has born fruits for at least one fascist

https://twitter.com/Terror_Alarm/status/1753883657683513854

quote:

Classical liberal societies are hackable because they tend to set higher and higher values on human life and safety over time.

Eventually, society reaches a state where the worst non-violent thing is held to be less bad than the mildest sort of violence necessary to stop that that thing.

It then becomes effectively illegal to stop anyone from doing that thing.

In this state, a grifter can victimize people in any way he chooses so long as it:

1. Doesn't use violence.
2. Can only be stopped by violence.

Shoplifters can stop employing stealth altogether and simply loot stores, knowing that they cannot be caught or punish, because store owners will be punished more severely for dishing out a beating, or simply restraining them for the police, than the punishment for theft.

Youtube "pranksters" can harass and threaten innocent people, knowing that standing six inches from someone and screaming in their face, or yelling to bystanders that some innocent person is a child rapist, will be punished less severely, if at all, than the beatdown/pepper spraying that this behavior invites.

Self-styled protestors can block the arteries of civilization, knowing that driving a car over them, which is the only response available to drivers, will be punished as murder, while they themselves would be unlucky to be charged with an infraction.

These are all people who have learned to hack classical liberalism, and I'm sure you can think of more examples.

So what is to be done?

First, the inhabitants of classical liberal society must realize that property is freedom.

If we cannot protect that which we build and invest in, that means we are not free, because our choices, our self-determination, and even little pieces of our lives, are being taken away from us by those who can deprive us of our property at will.

This means that we must mentally free ourselves from the attitude that violence is unacceptable. Instead, when confronted with a property crime, or an assault on our dignity or liberty, we must normalize the use of the minimum amount of force that will reliably and safely stop it.

Note that I say "normalize", not "legalize".

Legalizing is an act of the government, and in states where the government is willing to do this, this sort of thing isn't a widespread problem. No one is blocking roads in Tennessee, Idaho, or Montana, because they know the consequences would be swift and unpleasant.

In California, Chicago, Oregon, western Washington, and so on, the state will not put a stop to these things, because it wants them to happen.

So those of you who are forced to live in those states, and are unable to leave, must normalize beatdowns.

Yes, your state and local governments will want to punish you for playing rough with their beloved criminal underclass, and their precious insane hobos and bums.

But you must realize what the criminals and bums realized long ago... the police and the state are not ubiquitous, and their power to catch and punish you is much more limited than you think.

Yes, they will go after you much harder than they go after thugs, bums, and commies, because thugs, bums, and commies are their constituents and you are not.

But that's what "normalize" means. It means make normal. You all have to start doing it, or at least a lot of you. Because one or two people can be made an example of, but normal behavior cannot.

How long would this continue if every group of roadblocking communist agitators were beaten by a mob of angry motorists who carry a pair of thick socks and a set of Chinese mediation balls, or a bar of soap, in their cars?

You have to take your states back. Your governments will not do it for you. This whole thing was their idea. You have to realize they are the enemy, stop petitioning them to protect you, and start protecting yourselves.

FirstnameLastname posted:

they want other people who look like them to have a reputation as really scary bc theyre afraid of ppl who look different ans are little babies

Punished Turtle posted:

Punished Turtle posted:

quote:

Legalizing is an act of the government, and in states where the government is willing to do this, this sort of thing isn't a widespread problem. No one is blocking roads in Tennessee, Idaho, or Montana, because they know the consequences would be swift and unpleasant.

Fish of hemp posted:

If you block a road in Potatoville, Idaho, who would notice?

Punished Turtle posted:

Panfilo posted:

The issue is the obvious inconsistency in moderation based on political ideology. Of course reactionaries will claim they have been the ones picked on the whole time but this isn't really the case. Chaya Raichik was a perfect example, as there were explicit instructions not to ban her permanently.

https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/twitter-files-bari-weiss-libsoftik-elon-musk.html

Theres also Dom Lucre, who posted CSAM content on Twitter (presumably to condemn it). He was initially banned on Twitter but later brought back by Musk.

If Elon Musk had been acting in good faith then at the very least some of the prominent far left accounts wouldn't have been banned or driven off. But his own actions contradict his claims for a desire for a free marketplace of ideas.

Punished Turtle posted:

CRAZY KNUCKLES FAN posted:

bump

Panfilo posted:

I saw this stuff on Twitter since last year and it really ramped up. I actually don't engage all that much, at least compare to all that I browse. One of the side effects of choosing not to be one of Musk's Blue Check Paypigs is that replies don't get a lot of visibility, so I haven't gotten any threatening DMs or anything like that. Stancil has my respect in that he's masochistic enough to push and engage harder which also gets more backlash.

Al! posted:

crazy knuckles fan ftw

kneelbeforezog posted:

https://twitter.com/realstewpeters/
this account is straight up holocaust denying but i doubt it will be banned for the same reasons chaya's account wasnt banned. Elon is losing too much to do a crackdown and lose even more

Al! posted:

crazy knuckles fan ftw

Punished Turtle posted:

Punished Turtle posted:

bring them home

Punished Turtle posted:

bring them home

Punished Turtle posted:

bring them home

Punished Turtle posted:

bring them home

quote:

The Huffington Post comments section had three phases.

In the first phase, people quickly made up whatever usernames they wanted and commented away, and people could be shut down and just make a new account: "The comment space was, at the time, a troll's paradise."

In the second phase, users had to authenticate accounts but real names weren't required. In this phase, they could be identified by their usernames and banned for bad commentary and whatnot, and the bans were nontrivial to circumvent: "This made personas on this commenting space less disposable. They became 'stable pseudonyms.'"

In the third and final phase, HuffPo outsourced usernames from Facebook. People largely posted with their real names: "This third phase therefore roughly approximates a real-name environment."

So, what happened with each phase change?

Going from 1 to 2, the usage of swear words and offensive terms dropped off. Things became markedly more civil with the shift to "durable pseudonymity."

Additionally, users started to use longer words, more causation language ("because", "due to", etc.), and tentative words ("perhaps", "maybe", etc.), and other indicators of cognitive complexity. The highest quality commentary came with pseudonymity:

How did the authors explain this?

"This complicates the common assumption that people behave better with their real names on display."

"We don’t know exactly what explains our results, but one possibility is that under durable pseudonyms the users orient their comments primarily at their fellow commentators as an audience. They then perhaps develop a concern for their own reputation within that forum, as has been suggested elsewhere. It’s possible that a real-name environment shifts the dynamic. When you make comments that can be seen not only by other Huffington Post readers but also by your Facebook friends, it seems plausible that you might speak differently."

"What matters, it seems, is not so much whether you are commenting anonymously, but whether you are invested in your persona and accountable for its behaviour in that particular forum. There seems to be value in enabling people to speak on forums without their comments being connected, via their real names, to other contexts."

As the authors of the piece noted, this echoes what the comment management company Disqus found independently a few years back: pseudonymous users are more positive than real-named or anonymous users, and they contribute far more too.

There's a case for the Twitter users we call "anons." Those who want to make a case against them should start looking for evidence, because their case doesn't look good from where I'm standing.

Source:

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…

web.archive.org/web/2015021123…

theconversation.com/online-anonymi…

Panfilo posted:

Facebook seems to prove this theory incorrect.
https://twitter.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1757871861877145645?t=c8fWCYuWqAdyQBGQB6gPBQ&s=19

I can distinctly recall being called slurs by my stepmom's coworkers because I said that Reagan was a bad president who didn't do enough to address the AIDS crisis. These were people who used their real names and place of work, yet had zero problems calling me homophobic slurs over partisan differences.

A lack of anonymity didn't breed civility in this case, so I don't think it makes much of a difference. In spite of all the fearmongering about "Cancel culture" most conservatives don't really face any consequences for this kind of behavior.

croup coughfield posted:

keep honking, im unpacking

zoux posted:

https://twitter.com/CateMartel/status/1760711946741916000

Hell yeah I hit the Babbitt Murder 4x bonus during MAGA multiball