10 ms·

I wonder if this means they will stop using the removal of verification as way of punishing controversial users.[0] [0] https://twitter.com/nero https://twitte

I wonder if this means they will stop using the removal of verification as way of punishing controversial users.[0] [0] https://twitter.com/nero https://twitter.com/nero

Shank 10y ago
This account is now suspended, rather than unverified (if it was active when you posted your comment).
- atom-morgan 10y ago
  I believe it was. This isn't the first time he's been suspended.
  - tomhoward 10y ago
    He's been "permanently suspended": https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/twitter-just-permanently-suspended-conservative-writer-milo https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/twitter-just-permanen... I think it happened in the past hour.
    - MBCook 10y ago
      Yep. After he drove yet another person off Twitter by throwing his followers at them they permanently banned him. Given that they've had suspend him multiple times in the past it's amazing that he still had an account. Pathetic it took Twitter so long.
      - back_beyond 10y ago
        What did he do?
        tomhoward 10y ago
        Supposedly he incited a harassment campaign against Ghostbusters actor Leslie Jones: http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/19/12221452/ghostbusters-leslie-jones-twitter-abuse-racist http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/19/12221452/ghostbusters-lesl...
        Natsu 10y ago
        He said something about someone else, his fans then harassed someone, they quit, and Twitter blamed him for it... I think. That's what the article implies, anyhow.
        MichaelGG 10y ago
        The link above shows him being mean to her. Perhaps he told other people to be mean, too? (Dunno, if he did, I'd think it'd be shown all over.) Or maybe Twitter decided he isn't a good fit for them. He's said that "feminism is cancer", so they might find that offensive. He's popular with the kind of people that might insult her, so perhaps him being rude was enough cause for Twitter? Maybe Twitter will implement some system to hide new/anonymous/unvouched users from messaging more popular users. Or give them filtering capabilities. As the target in this case says, "Twitter I understand you got free speech I get it. But there has to be some guidelines when you let spread like that."
        MBCook 10y ago
        He had hundreds of thousands of followers and has been implicated in sending them after people he doesn't like/agree with and encouraging harassment numerous times.
        MichaelGG 10y ago
        But no smoking gun this time? Any other times? Or just the effect of a popular, charismatic guy doing something and others joining in?
        jonathankoren 10y ago
      - ebilgenius 10y ago
        Milo didn't tell his fans to attack her. In fact she had been tweeting with various other people long beforehand and drawing a lot of ire through her comments. It sets a terrible precedent as far as what Twitter is willing to take a hard stance on.
        jonathankoren 10y ago
        I fail to see how banning a repeated harasser is a terrible precedent.
        jaredklewis 10y ago
        Of course no one wants to see people harassed, but it's just that Twitter until recently was both censorship free and well known by the general population. Personally I think it would be great if these things could be settled in courts with due process. Harassment is a crime and nothing would please me more than to see some of these harassers serve time. But what's the other way? Twitter becomes non-neutral arbiter of what is right and wrong? One person's rebel is another's terrorist. One person's mob is another's protest. If Twitter starts to get involved in some censorship, it raises the obvious question from members of why that one thing they don't like wasn't censored. The only viable way for a free platform is all or nothing. Can't half way free speech.
        jonathankoren 10y ago
        You can't say "harassment is a crime" and then cry that you can't have "censorship" in some sort of misguided idea of free expression absolutism. There has never been a successful platform without moderation. Even 4chan moderates. Even 8chan. Without it, you quickly get a cesspool of trolls. And then you have nothing but a cesspool.
        Nullabillity 10y ago
        > You can't say "harassment is a crime" and then cry that you can't have "censorship" in some sort of misguided idea of free expression absolutism. If it's bad enough that it's illegal then there are legal procedures to be followed. As little as I generally trust judges, there's at least far more oversight than having some random PR rep make the call in secret.
      - meowface 10y ago
        I'm not exactly a fan of the guy, but where's the evidence he told people to harass her?
        maehwasu 10y ago
        There isn't any, unless you redefine "saying some mean things" as "telling people to harass her."
        Thlom 10y ago
        He doesn't have to tell people to harass anyone. His followers will follow his lead.
        atom-morgan 10y ago
        Should he be responsible for his follower's actions?
        throwanem 10y ago
        Yes, because he is a bad person and his followers are bad people. Leslie Jones is a good person and her followers are good people, so in her case a different standard applies.
        chmod775 10y ago
        I think the people downvoting this are missing the sarcasm. It was supposed to be sarcastic. Right?
        throwanem 10y ago
        I laugh because I must not cry.
        intoverflow2 10y ago
        He doesn't need to tell them specifically anything he just needs to retweet the right thing from someone and his followers will jump on them. Although Leslie also advocates/boasts about the exact same behaviour. Whole ordeal just highlighted how Twitter's Safety Council needs to teach high profile twitter users more about how trolls/harassers act on the internet. If someone says awful things to you the worst way to act is starting to reply with curse words and your momma jokes to every single one because you're just proving they're getting a rise out of you, they'll retweet your response and their followers will see they can also get a rise out of you. She pretty much poured gasoline on a match then wondered why she was engulfed in flames. What makes more sense? Teaching people how to deal with these harassers + report and move on, or expect twitter to pick up the pieces and babysit every celebrity who falls for the harassers bait then desperately try to ban users that are popping up out of nowhere and trying to decide if a user is a harasser or a sympathiser, several times Leslie told people sympathetic to her to f--- off (are they harassers in Twitters eyes?).
      - tomohawk 10y ago
        With racist tweets like these, no wonder people harassed her. Lord have mercy…white people shit — Leslie Jones (@Lesdoggg) February 9, 2015
        garethadams 10y ago
        To be fair, everyone shits
        atom-morgan 10y ago
        It's 2016. You can't be racist against white people. /s
        spacemanmatt 10y ago
        It's 2016. White people still don't know the difference between racist and racism.
        joshkpeterson 10y ago
        Ok why hasn't Chris Rock been harassed?
      - rndgermandude 10y ago
        To me, it's pathetic that you'd think that. The only difference between him ridiculing other people (and his followers then acting out) and e.g. Kim Kardashian calling Taylor Swift a liar (and her followers then acting out) is that Kim has more followers to do the harassing for her, if she wants it or not. Nothing to see here other than an ordinary shitstorm, one of the many happening every day, not a nice thing, but nothing new since people started to live in groups. Lady Gaga tweeted the Jennifer Lawrence nudes in a massive error in judgment, yet she is not suspended, 50 cent tweeted "Perez hilton calld me douchebag so I had my homie shoot up a gay wedding. wasnt his but still made me feel better.", but Milo retweeting something he may or may not have known is allegedly a faked tweet apparently is far worse and crosses a line. Milo sure has controversial opinions but so do tons of other people. Yet when he expresses them (like his "feminism is cancer" stunt) he gets sanctioned for it, while other people do exactly the same thing (#killallwhitemen) and get of scot-free. Twitter is very inconsistent when handling what it considers "abuse", and it sure looks like this has to do with their own political bias. On one hand, them being a private company, it is totally fine, on the other hand, I still don't have to like that they market themselves as the townhall for everybody and beacon of free speech when in fact they are not, nor do I have to like it when they censor people who might not be nice, but not criminal either.
- yeukhon 10y ago
  He can always create a new account. Twitter is not capable of banning all IPs. If the user is seriously going to become controversial on Twitter, he certainly can.
  - LeoPanthera 10y ago
    But the new account will have no followers, it will take time/effort to get them all back, so suspending an account is still worthwhile.
    - jonathankoren 10y ago
      Easy when you have a megaphone. Just think, "Hey Brietbart readers! My new account is blah blah blah! Stay frosty shitlords!"
      - joshkpeterson 10y ago
        And then twitter suspends that one. Rinse and repeat.
      - LeoPanthera 10y ago
        If you can do that, you don't need Twitter in the first place.
        throwanem 10y ago
        If you want to go where the crowd is, you do.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nzjrs 10y ago
Contributing to the echo chamber of our modern discourse
SCdF 10y ago
You mean "punishing a controversial user", right? Not users?As in, that's the only account for which that's happened. I ask because you make it sound like it's a tool they deploy regularly or at least occasionally, where as far as I know it's only happened once, to this one account.
sergiotapia 10y ago
For those out of the loop, 4chan started posting mocked Tweets from Leslie Jones saying all sorts of racist and homophobic things. Someone sent them to @nero, and he retweeted a few of them. This caused a lot conservatives and gay people on Twitter to get angry at Leslie Jones. Twitter then banned @nero for the fourth time this year. What's funny is that Leslie has actually posted racist things before and hasn't been banned for it. http://i.imgur.com/EawuVV2.png http://i.imgur.com/EawuVV2.png
- danso 10y ago
  Why would she be banned for posting "racist things"? That's not against Twitter's content policy: > Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories. https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311 https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311
  - nailer 10y ago
    Did you miss: > directly attack other people on the basis of race ?
    - danso 10y ago
      Did you miss: > directly attack other people ? You think Twitter Legal looked this over and thought "We like the ban against attacking other people based on race but let's throw in an adjective...like, directly, to spice up that sentence" People have been free to spout on Twitter, including what they thought about breakfast or about what they think about the world including racial politics and theories. There's a difference between saying what's on your mind -- e.g. "Fuck Asia" -- and attacking someone because of their race, e.g. "Someone ought to kick your ass for being Asian"
      - nailer 10y ago
sheraz 10y ago
Yup. Love him or hate him, he was singled out for his politics. This latest change is moot for milo as his account was banned today. http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/19/breaking-milo-suspended-twitter-20-minutes-party/ http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/19/breaking-milo-suspe...

I wonder if this means they will stop using the removal of verification as way of punishing controversial users.[0] [0] https://twitter.com/nero https://twitter.com/nero

Shank 10y ago

This account is now suspended, rather than unverified (if it was active when you posted your comment).

atom-morgan 10y ago
I believe it was. This isn't the first time he's been suspended.
- tomhoward 10y ago
  He's been "permanently suspended": https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/twitter-just-permanently-suspended-conservative-writer-milo https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/twitter-just-permanen... I think it happened in the past hour.
  - MBCook 10y ago
    Yep. After he drove yet another person off Twitter by throwing his followers at them they permanently banned him. Given that they've had suspend him multiple times in the past it's amazing that he still had an account. Pathetic it took Twitter so long.
    - back_beyond 10y ago
      What did he do?
      - tomhoward 10y ago
        Supposedly he incited a harassment campaign against Ghostbusters actor Leslie Jones: http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/19/12221452/ghostbusters-leslie-jones-twitter-abuse-racist http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/19/12221452/ghostbusters-lesl...
      - Natsu 10y ago
        He said something about someone else, his fans then harassed someone, they quit, and Twitter blamed him for it... I think. That's what the article implies, anyhow.
      - MichaelGG 10y ago
        The link above shows him being mean to her. Perhaps he told other people to be mean, too? (Dunno, if he did, I'd think it'd be shown all over.) Or maybe Twitter decided he isn't a good fit for them. He's said that "feminism is cancer", so they might find that offensive. He's popular with the kind of people that might insult her, so perhaps him being rude was enough cause for Twitter? Maybe Twitter will implement some system to hide new/anonymous/unvouched users from messaging more popular users. Or give them filtering capabilities. As the target in this case says, "Twitter I understand you got free speech I get it. But there has to be some guidelines when you let spread like that."
        MBCook 10y ago
        He had hundreds of thousands of followers and has been implicated in sending them after people he doesn't like/agree with and encouraging harassment numerous times.
        MichaelGG 10y ago
        But no smoking gun this time? Any other times? Or just the effect of a popular, charismatic guy doing something and others joining in?
        jonathankoren 10y ago
    - ebilgenius 10y ago
      Milo didn't tell his fans to attack her. In fact she had been tweeting with various other people long beforehand and drawing a lot of ire through her comments. It sets a terrible precedent as far as what Twitter is willing to take a hard stance on.
      - jonathankoren 10y ago
        I fail to see how banning a repeated harasser is a terrible precedent.
        jaredklewis 10y ago
        Of course no one wants to see people harassed, but it's just that Twitter until recently was both censorship free and well known by the general population. Personally I think it would be great if these things could be settled in courts with due process. Harassment is a crime and nothing would please me more than to see some of these harassers serve time. But what's the other way? Twitter becomes non-neutral arbiter of what is right and wrong? One person's rebel is another's terrorist. One person's mob is another's protest. If Twitter starts to get involved in some censorship, it raises the obvious question from members of why that one thing they don't like wasn't censored. The only viable way for a free platform is all or nothing. Can't half way free speech.
        jonathankoren 10y ago
        You can't say "harassment is a crime" and then cry that you can't have "censorship" in some sort of misguided idea of free expression absolutism. There has never been a successful platform without moderation. Even 4chan moderates. Even 8chan. Without it, you quickly get a cesspool of trolls. And then you have nothing but a cesspool.
        Nullabillity 10y ago
        > You can't say "harassment is a crime" and then cry that you can't have "censorship" in some sort of misguided idea of free expression absolutism. If it's bad enough that it's illegal then there are legal procedures to be followed. As little as I generally trust judges, there's at least far more oversight than having some random PR rep make the call in secret.
    - meowface 10y ago
      I'm not exactly a fan of the guy, but where's the evidence he told people to harass her?
      - maehwasu 10y ago
        There isn't any, unless you redefine "saying some mean things" as "telling people to harass her."
        Thlom 10y ago
        He doesn't have to tell people to harass anyone. His followers will follow his lead.
        atom-morgan 10y ago
        Should he be responsible for his follower's actions?
        throwanem 10y ago
        Yes, because he is a bad person and his followers are bad people. Leslie Jones is a good person and her followers are good people, so in her case a different standard applies.
        chmod775 10y ago
        I think the people downvoting this are missing the sarcasm. It was supposed to be sarcastic. Right?
        throwanem 10y ago
        I laugh because I must not cry.
      - intoverflow2 10y ago
        He doesn't need to tell them specifically anything he just needs to retweet the right thing from someone and his followers will jump on them. Although Leslie also advocates/boasts about the exact same behaviour. Whole ordeal just highlighted how Twitter's Safety Council needs to teach high profile twitter users more about how trolls/harassers act on the internet. If someone says awful things to you the worst way to act is starting to reply with curse words and your momma jokes to every single one because you're just proving they're getting a rise out of you, they'll retweet your response and their followers will see they can also get a rise out of you. She pretty much poured gasoline on a match then wondered why she was engulfed in flames. What makes more sense? Teaching people how to deal with these harassers + report and move on, or expect twitter to pick up the pieces and babysit every celebrity who falls for the harassers bait then desperately try to ban users that are popping up out of nowhere and trying to decide if a user is a harasser or a sympathiser, several times Leslie told people sympathetic to her to f--- off (are they harassers in Twitters eyes?).
    - tomohawk 10y ago
      With racist tweets like these, no wonder people harassed her. Lord have mercy…white people shit — Leslie Jones (@Lesdoggg) February 9, 2015
      - garethadams 10y ago
        To be fair, everyone shits
      - atom-morgan 10y ago
        It's 2016. You can't be racist against white people. /s
        spacemanmatt 10y ago
        It's 2016. White people still don't know the difference between racist and racism.
      - joshkpeterson 10y ago
        Ok why hasn't Chris Rock been harassed?
    - rndgermandude 10y ago
      To me, it's pathetic that you'd think that. The only difference between him ridiculing other people (and his followers then acting out) and e.g. Kim Kardashian calling Taylor Swift a liar (and her followers then acting out) is that Kim has more followers to do the harassing for her, if she wants it or not. Nothing to see here other than an ordinary shitstorm, one of the many happening every day, not a nice thing, but nothing new since people started to live in groups. Lady Gaga tweeted the Jennifer Lawrence nudes in a massive error in judgment, yet she is not suspended, 50 cent tweeted "Perez hilton calld me douchebag so I had my homie shoot up a gay wedding. wasnt his but still made me feel better.", but Milo retweeting something he may or may not have known is allegedly a faked tweet apparently is far worse and crosses a line. Milo sure has controversial opinions but so do tons of other people. Yet when he expresses them (like his "feminism is cancer" stunt) he gets sanctioned for it, while other people do exactly the same thing (#killallwhitemen) and get of scot-free. Twitter is very inconsistent when handling what it considers "abuse", and it sure looks like this has to do with their own political bias. On one hand, them being a private company, it is totally fine, on the other hand, I still don't have to like that they market themselves as the townhall for everybody and beacon of free speech when in fact they are not, nor do I have to like it when they censor people who might not be nice, but not criminal either.
yeukhon 10y ago
He can always create a new account. Twitter is not capable of banning all IPs. If the user is seriously going to become controversial on Twitter, he certainly can.
- LeoPanthera 10y ago
  But the new account will have no followers, it will take time/effort to get them all back, so suspending an account is still worthwhile.
  - jonathankoren 10y ago
    Easy when you have a megaphone. Just think, "Hey Brietbart readers! My new account is blah blah blah! Stay frosty shitlords!"
    - joshkpeterson 10y ago
      And then twitter suspends that one. Rinse and repeat.
    - LeoPanthera 10y ago
      If you can do that, you don't need Twitter in the first place.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        If you want to go where the crowd is, you do.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nzjrs 10y ago

Contributing to the echo chamber of our modern discourse

SCdF 10y ago

You mean "punishing a controversial user", right? Not users?As in, that's the only account for which that's happened. I ask because you make it sound like it's a tool they deploy regularly or at least occasionally, where as far as I know it's only happened once, to this one account.

sergiotapia 10y ago

For those out of the loop, 4chan started posting mocked Tweets from Leslie Jones saying all sorts of racist and homophobic things. Someone sent them to @nero, and he retweeted a few of them. This caused a lot conservatives and gay people on Twitter to get angry at Leslie Jones. Twitter then banned @nero for the fourth time this year. What's funny is that Leslie has actually posted racist things before and hasn't been banned for it. http://i.imgur.com/EawuVV2.png http://i.imgur.com/EawuVV2.png

danso 10y ago
Why would she be banned for posting "racist things"? That's not against Twitter's content policy: > Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories. https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311 https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311
- nailer 10y ago
  Did you miss: > directly attack other people on the basis of race ?
  - danso 10y ago
    Did you miss: > directly attack other people ? You think Twitter Legal looked this over and thought "We like the ban against attacking other people based on race but let's throw in an adjective...like, directly, to spice up that sentence" People have been free to spout on Twitter, including what they thought about breakfast or about what they think about the world including racial politics and theories. There's a difference between saying what's on your mind -- e.g. "Fuck Asia" -- and attacking someone because of their race, e.g. "Someone ought to kick your ass for being Asian"
    - nailer 10y ago

sheraz 10y ago

Yup. Love him or hate him, he was singled out for his politics. This latest change is moot for milo as his account was banned today. http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/19/breaking-milo-suspended-twitter-20-minutes-party/ http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/19/breaking-milo-suspe...