4 ms·

Agree 100% I think Ted Nugent said it clearly when he said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "We need to give these people a public platform so we can keep tabs on

Agree 100% I think Ted Nugent said it clearly when he said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "We need to give these people a public platform so we can keep tabs on them. I want to know what these crazy people are thinking and planning." I think this should be the same thing. If we're all about free speech, that includes speech we also might not like so much. It also allows us to keep tabs on these people and who they're connected to (who's behind the accounts as well as who follows them) so we can better mitigate the threats they're posing. Censoring them does nothing but push them back into the shadows where their communications then become encrypted, unavailable and out of the public eye.

mkaziz 10y ago
Exactly - you want this information unavailable and out of the public eye. You don't want teenager X in the US becoming enamoured with publicly spewed IS ideology and deciding to do something to help them out. Teenager X is the sort of person who wouldn't actively seek out IS, but if it's directed at him, well, he may listen. The question of who decides what gets culled is a different and far more nuanced question to answer - but I for one am glad that these accounts are getting closed down.
- siculars 10y ago
  Twitter doesn't work that way. You can't "direct" your message at someone unless you pay for an ad. People need to seek out these messages.
  - mkaziz 10y ago
    It does if friend Y starts retweeting those kinds of messages. Or if you happened to follow a dormant account that has since been commandeered by IS. There's a million ways for those kinds of messages to enter your stream.
jonahx 10y ago
> Censoring them does nothing but push them back into the shadows where their communications then become encrypted, unavailable and out of the public eye. otoh, by using twitter, they get a free recruitment and propaganda platform. the question becomes: is that more valuable to them than the publicly leaked information is to us. from that perspective, the answer doesn't seem obvious, at least to me.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  >> by using twitter, they get a free recruitment and propaganda platform. So do: - White supremacists groups (of which there are many) - Black panther party - Other Jihadi groups - Other "nefarious" people who advocate "rape culture", misogyny, and sexism - Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs who are known drug dealers, murderers and rapists All of these already exist on Twitter, yet somehow ISIS accounts are singled out and shut down? If you want "free speech" it can't be done to one group whose message you don't agree with, but then leave other groups who are just as bad free to operate without any penalty. If you shut one down, you should be shutting them all down.
whoops1122 10y ago
I dont like the general direction of this censorship thing is going in USA. Anything that is not agreed with main stream media will get banned. And if you think about it, in 1960s and prior, when civil movement wasnt the main stream, I bet twitter will ban Martin Lurther King's account as well.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  That's my concern. I don't like ISIS, or what they have to say, but my racist ancestors didn't like MLK, or what he had to say. Who gets to decide what is censor-worthy and what is not? Would Civil Rights ever have worked with censorship? What about LGBQ?
taco_emoji 10y ago
> Censoring them does nothing but push them back into the shadows where their communications then become encrypted, unavailable and out of the public eye. We're not going to have any success fighting terrorists if we assume that they're stupid. You think ISIS is using Twitter DMs to plot terrorist attacks or something? They've successfully executed a number of attacks worldwide under the noses of some pretty smart and dedicated people, so I'm pretty sure they've already figured out slightly more secure communication channels. It's not like they'll stumble onto PGP and Tor just because they got kicked off of Twitter. > I want to know what these crazy people are thinking and planning We already know what they're planning: a fundamentalist Islamic global caliphate. Again, they are not stupid enough to tell us anything more useful than that on Twitter. > It also allows us to keep tabs on these people and who they're connected to They're using Twitter to build those connections in the first place. This is about their curbing their ability to broadcast and recruit. You can't gain mindshare from a secret, encrypted chatroom. > If we're all about free speech, that includes speech we also might not like so much. The right to free speech does not confer the additional right to airdrop political pamphlets all over New York City, nor the right to stand on someone else's front stoop and scream at passersby, nor, indeed, the right to use the Internet website Twitter dot com to broadcast ideas.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  >> nor, indeed, the right to use the Internet website Twitter dot com to broadcast ideas. I seriously can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. People broadcast ideas all day on twitter. Did you miss the dumpster fire that was #gamergate? What about the white supremacists who use it as a platform, or people who advocate "rape culture" or black lives matter who advocate violence against police? I can find ALL of these and more - yet we choose to single out one religious ideology we don't like and censor the fuck out of it? Yeah, in a country with "free speech" that makes perfect sense.
  - taco_emoji 10y ago
    It's not sarcasm. I'm talking about a legally-protected right - you can post on Twitter because Twitter has decided to allow it, not because they are legally required to do so. > ...we choose to single out one religious ideology we don't like and censor the fuck out of it? "We" didn't single out anybody, Twitter did, and they can do that because they own the platform and have absolute authority over who can use it.

mkaziz 10y ago

Exactly - you want this information unavailable and out of the public eye. You don't want teenager X in the US becoming enamoured with publicly spewed IS ideology and deciding to do something to help them out. Teenager X is the sort of person who wouldn't actively seek out IS, but if it's directed at him, well, he may listen. The question of who decides what gets culled is a different and far more nuanced question to answer - but I for one am glad that these accounts are getting closed down.

siculars 10y ago
Twitter doesn't work that way. You can't "direct" your message at someone unless you pay for an ad. People need to seek out these messages.
- mkaziz 10y ago
  It does if friend Y starts retweeting those kinds of messages. Or if you happened to follow a dormant account that has since been commandeered by IS. There's a million ways for those kinds of messages to enter your stream.

jonahx 10y ago

> Censoring them does nothing but push them back into the shadows where their communications then become encrypted, unavailable and out of the public eye. otoh, by using twitter, they get a free recruitment and propaganda platform. the question becomes: is that more valuable to them than the publicly leaked information is to us. from that perspective, the answer doesn't seem obvious, at least to me.

at-fates-hands 10y ago
>> by using twitter, they get a free recruitment and propaganda platform. So do: - White supremacists groups (of which there are many) - Black panther party - Other Jihadi groups - Other "nefarious" people who advocate "rape culture", misogyny, and sexism - Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs who are known drug dealers, murderers and rapists All of these already exist on Twitter, yet somehow ISIS accounts are singled out and shut down? If you want "free speech" it can't be done to one group whose message you don't agree with, but then leave other groups who are just as bad free to operate without any penalty. If you shut one down, you should be shutting them all down.

whoops1122 10y ago

I dont like the general direction of this censorship thing is going in USA. Anything that is not agreed with main stream media will get banned. And if you think about it, in 1960s and prior, when civil movement wasnt the main stream, I bet twitter will ban Martin Lurther King's account as well.

CaptSpify 10y ago
That's my concern. I don't like ISIS, or what they have to say, but my racist ancestors didn't like MLK, or what he had to say. Who gets to decide what is censor-worthy and what is not? Would Civil Rights ever have worked with censorship? What about LGBQ?

taco_emoji 10y ago

> Censoring them does nothing but push them back into the shadows where their communications then become encrypted, unavailable and out of the public eye. We're not going to have any success fighting terrorists if we assume that they're stupid. You think ISIS is using Twitter DMs to plot terrorist attacks or something? They've successfully executed a number of attacks worldwide under the noses of some pretty smart and dedicated people, so I'm pretty sure they've already figured out slightly more secure communication channels. It's not like they'll stumble onto PGP and Tor just because they got kicked off of Twitter. > I want to know what these crazy people are thinking and planning We already know what they're planning: a fundamentalist Islamic global caliphate. Again, they are not stupid enough to tell us anything more useful than that on Twitter. > It also allows us to keep tabs on these people and who they're connected to They're using Twitter to build those connections in the first place. This is about their curbing their ability to broadcast and recruit. You can't gain mindshare from a secret, encrypted chatroom. > If we're all about free speech, that includes speech we also might not like so much. The right to free speech does not confer the additional right to airdrop political pamphlets all over New York City, nor the right to stand on someone else's front stoop and scream at passersby, nor, indeed, the right to use the Internet website Twitter dot com to broadcast ideas.

at-fates-hands 10y ago
>> nor, indeed, the right to use the Internet website Twitter dot com to broadcast ideas. I seriously can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. People broadcast ideas all day on twitter. Did you miss the dumpster fire that was #gamergate? What about the white supremacists who use it as a platform, or people who advocate "rape culture" or black lives matter who advocate violence against police? I can find ALL of these and more - yet we choose to single out one religious ideology we don't like and censor the fuck out of it? Yeah, in a country with "free speech" that makes perfect sense.
- taco_emoji 10y ago
  It's not sarcasm. I'm talking about a legally-protected right - you can post on Twitter because Twitter has decided to allow it, not because they are legally required to do so. > ...we choose to single out one religious ideology we don't like and censor the fuck out of it? "We" didn't single out anybody, Twitter did, and they can do that because they own the platform and have absolute authority over who can use it.