4 ms·

Twitter has a much bigger problem with bullying and harassment right now than anything political at the moment. Bullying is frequently cited as a hamper on thei

Twitter has a much bigger problem with bullying and harassment right now than anything political at the moment. Bullying is frequently cited as a hamper on their growth prospects. That makes sense. Most people, naturally, don't like being on toxic environments where harassment / bullying are considered par for the course. Twitter has that reputation at the moment, quite deservedly in my opinion. As I understand it, Milo Yiannopoulos was permanently banned for encouraging his supporters to troll / harass stars of the new Ghostbusters movie (being the final straw of many previous warnings). No surprise there then, right? There certainly have been people permanently banned that are not right wing (Azealia Banks is probably the most famous example), so at the present, I'm skeptical that political orientation has much to do with it.

hga 10y ago
And your understanding, while the Official Story, is of course wrong. Previous actions like inexplicably removing his blue verification check should suggest something else might be going on. The possibility that harassment is being used as a smokescreen for banning voices on the right ought to be considered, and very possibly be worth investigating if you care anything about the polity's modern public commons. Nothing good will come from trying to exclude half the nation.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  You seem to be confusing Twitter with the polity and the public commons. Twitter is a public corporation, eg a business. Businesses have the right to kick out anyone they feel is engaging in behavior that they feel hurts their relationship with other customers. Twitter decided (roughly speaking) that the PR fallout from a high-profile Ghostbusters star quitting Twitter over harassment was worse than the PR provoked by banning a Breitbart columnist, who had a reputation for being a bit of a troll. There is nothing that prevents Twitter from making this decision. There is nothing preventing those that disagree with this decision from starting their own social network. I'm not sure how you are so certain that the official story is wrong. Have you considered the other possibility -- that some trolls are trying to use a political position as a smokescreen for justifying harassment? Have you considered that probably a big part of the equation is that a high profile Ghostbusters star quitting Twitter was quite a big story, and Twitter -- who if you recall has a reputation for harboring bullies -- needed to respond? Really, only Twitter knows the full details, and that's fine. It's their network. But I do know that most major conservative figures that have Twitter accounts have not had their accounts suspended, and some people have been suspended who are not conservative. So I'm very skeptical that the Official Story "is of course wrong" without actual evidence, not conjecture. Yes, conservatives are roughly half the nation. But there are many varieties of conservatives. For a start, I would venture that many, if not most, conservatives (or liberals or moderates or whatever) would not approve of trolling, bullying, and harassment. So be careful with that assertion.
  - hga 10y ago
    Businesses have the right to kick out anyone they feel is engaging in behavior that they feel hurts their relationship with other customers. BZZZT: you're flatly, totally wrong about this in the US, please re-read my opening post in the sub-thread. Not much point in responding to the rest of your points when you get something so basic, and specifically cited, so wrong.
    - soundwave106 10y ago
      The specific examples you cited are Title VII / Amendment 14 protections, and have nothing to do with businesses regulating what they feel is inappropriate behavior.

hga 10y ago

And your understanding, while the Official Story, is of course wrong. Previous actions like inexplicably removing his blue verification check should suggest something else might be going on. The possibility that harassment is being used as a smokescreen for banning voices on the right ought to be considered, and very possibly be worth investigating if you care anything about the polity's modern public commons. Nothing good will come from trying to exclude half the nation.

soundwave106 10y ago
You seem to be confusing Twitter with the polity and the public commons. Twitter is a public corporation, eg a business. Businesses have the right to kick out anyone they feel is engaging in behavior that they feel hurts their relationship with other customers. Twitter decided (roughly speaking) that the PR fallout from a high-profile Ghostbusters star quitting Twitter over harassment was worse than the PR provoked by banning a Breitbart columnist, who had a reputation for being a bit of a troll. There is nothing that prevents Twitter from making this decision. There is nothing preventing those that disagree with this decision from starting their own social network. I'm not sure how you are so certain that the official story is wrong. Have you considered the other possibility -- that some trolls are trying to use a political position as a smokescreen for justifying harassment? Have you considered that probably a big part of the equation is that a high profile Ghostbusters star quitting Twitter was quite a big story, and Twitter -- who if you recall has a reputation for harboring bullies -- needed to respond? Really, only Twitter knows the full details, and that's fine. It's their network. But I do know that most major conservative figures that have Twitter accounts have not had their accounts suspended, and some people have been suspended who are not conservative. So I'm very skeptical that the Official Story "is of course wrong" without actual evidence, not conjecture. Yes, conservatives are roughly half the nation. But there are many varieties of conservatives. For a start, I would venture that many, if not most, conservatives (or liberals or moderates or whatever) would not approve of trolling, bullying, and harassment. So be careful with that assertion.
- hga 10y ago
  Businesses have the right to kick out anyone they feel is engaging in behavior that they feel hurts their relationship with other customers. BZZZT: you're flatly, totally wrong about this in the US, please re-read my opening post in the sub-thread. Not much point in responding to the rest of your points when you get something so basic, and specifically cited, so wrong.
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    The specific examples you cited are Title VII / Amendment 14 protections, and have nothing to do with businesses regulating what they feel is inappropriate behavior.