16 ms·
I believe it was. This isn't the first time he's been suspended.
by atom-morgan 10y ago
I believe it was. This isn't the first time he's been suspended.
- tomhoward 10y agoHe'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 agoYep. 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 agoWhat did he do?
- tomhoward 10y agoSupposedly 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 agoHe 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 agoThe 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 agoHe 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 agoBut 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 agoThe guy is a well known troll and ringleader. He revels in it. His followers revel in it. There was plenty of reason to ban him, long before now. Lest we forget the whole gamergate fiasco. Shit, that's still going on? Fuuuuuuuck....
- adekok 10y agoNo smoking gun. But, he holds opinions which are anathema to the people who implement Twitters censorship policy. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/twitters-new-safety-council-makes-a-mockery-of-free-speech/ http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/twitters-new-safety-cou... FTA: > They think their right never to see something that upsets them outweighs the historic, hard-fought-for freedom of people to say and write what lies in their hearts and minds. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, who do you trust to censor the media you read? My answer is "No one, I'm an adult." Some people believe that we can only achieve safe political discourse via censorship. They are either unaware that censorship affects political discourse, or they plan on using their control of censorship to control the political discourse.
- jonathankoren 10y agoI know it may come as a surprise, but it's not about you. It's about harassment. You may think think that doxing and constant harassment both online and off is "political discourse," but it's not. It's actions that make all discourse impossible. You can cry about your freedom all you want, but you're in someone else's sandbox. You play by their rules, unless you're trying to say that society should compel speech on private actors.
- joshkpeterson 10y agoHe's responsible for mobilizing lots of trolls to harass women and POC. Not a great human being.
- atom-morgan 10y agoSubstitute women and POC with other demographics. Does his status as a human being change?
- ebilgenius 10y agoMilo 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 agoI fail to see how banning a repeated harasser is a terrible precedent.
- jaredklewis 10y agoOf 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 agoYou 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 agoI'm not exactly a fan of the guy, but where's the evidence he told people to harass her?
- maehwasu 10y agoThere isn't any, unless you redefine "saying some mean things" as "telling people to harass her."
- Thlom 10y agoHe doesn't have to tell people to harass anyone. His followers will follow his lead.
- atom-morgan 10y agoShould he be responsible for his follower's actions?
- throwanem 10y agoYes, 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.
- intoverflow2 10y agoHe 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 agoWith racist tweets like these, no wonder people harassed her. Lord have mercy…white people shit — Leslie Jones (@Lesdoggg) February 9, 2015
- garethadams 10y agoTo be fair, everyone shits
- atom-morgan 10y agoIt's 2016. You can't be racist against white people. /s
- spacemanmatt 10y agoIt's 2016. White people still don't know the difference between racist and racism.
- joshkpeterson 10y agoOk why hasn't Chris Rock been harassed?
- rndgermandude 10y agoTo 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.