15 ms·

Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

167 points by funkylexoo 10y ago

mbillie1 10y ago
Good.
module0000 10y ago
People love having their speech limited, I'm sure this will work out great for twitter.
- croon 10y ago
  > People love having their speech limited, I'm sure this will work out great for twitter. I love having hate speech limited, if that's what you mean.
  - hermiti 10y ago
    The problem with banning hate speech is that it is relative. Next up, books will be banned because they incite alternate opinions.
    - beedogs 10y ago
      Yeah... probably not.
      - hermiti 10y ago
        You're right... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_govern...
    - croon 10y ago
      Mind sharing an example/hypothetical of it being relative?
    - derrickdirge 10y ago
      There's a difference between mere 'alternate opinions' and hateful, prejudiced opinions. It's seems disingenuous for you to conflate them.
      - snerbles 10y ago
        The line between the two varies, and is subject to the whims of whoever controls the platform.
    - cwisecarver 10y ago
      The even bigger problem is we're assuming they were banned for "hate" speech because Twitter hasn't even said why yet. If they took down tweets that they felt were hate speech and communicated to the speaker and the community I would be more okay with it. A silent ban of dozens of accounts is their right as a business but I'll still say it's a stupid decision.
    - gaius 10y ago
      Bear in mind that some people consider this site to be sexist and racist - check out the #hnwatch hashtag on Twitter. Everyone commenting here "good", consider that as a member of HN, others tar you with the same brush. Still so happy?
      - dictum 10y ago
        > check out the #hnwatch hashtag on Twitter I didn't know that hashtag and was not surprised to see that one of its regular users is someone who likes to use autism as a metaphor for men working in tech.
  - matwood 10y ago
    As long as it is applied consistently. Are they also banning those spewing hate for Trump or the police? It is just like everyone who is rioting with slogans like 'not my President.' These same people were giving Trump a hard time when he said the election system was rigged and didn't enthusiastically say he would support the results of the election. The left is doing a good job reenforcing the exact image many people voted against. The elitist attitude of tolerance unless disagreed with. EDIT Thanks for the downvotes and further proving my point. I would never vote for Trump, but simply pointing out hypocrisy and double standards does get people upset.
  - altaway 10y ago
    There are plain facts about the world which are often considered "hate speech". FBI crime statistics, for example. They gotta be banned to maintain the narrative.
- edc117 10y ago
  Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, and Twitter is free to do as they like with their platform.
  - Cthulhu_ 10y ago
    They're just kinda late, IMO.
  - problems 10y ago
    While I agree with your statement, I think it's important to protect the concept of free speech in many places and to disrespect companies who don't. Twitter has failed to do so here and is showing a blatant political statement (unless there were specific cases of harassment with these people or something, in which case I may be overstepping). I think generally views like this are better left in the spotlight of the public where they can be properly argued with and not dragged into private forums and facebook feeds where it's much harder for people to see a wider response to them. Banning them is harmful to people who are getting a casual interest in their ideas and start reading up on it. When the only place they can do that is Breitbart or similar, how do you think that'll go?
    - derrickdirge 10y ago
      >Twitter has failed to do so here and is showing a blatant political statement (unless there were specific cases of harassment with these people or something, in which case I may be overstepping). Everyone keeps making comments like this. "This is a massive injustice! Unless Twitter was justified idk." Maybe we should wait for a statement from Twitter before passing judgment.
      - DanBC 10y ago
        Twitter was asked for a statement, and has declined to comment. Which is a shame, because if they're banning a bunch of abusive harassing arseholes that's a good thing and I want to know about it.
    - edc117 10y ago
- nameless912 10y ago
  This isn't the limitation of free speech, this is a private company telling one of its users that they aren't welcome due to their behavior. It's like if you were at a store and started soapboxing about <insert alt right conspiracy bullshit here> loudly right in front of the register, the manager of the store is 100% allowed to ask you to leave. Freedom of speech means your speech isn't illegal, not that you will suffer no consequences for it. ETA: some people made some comments below this that made me want to clarify a few things: 1) Twitter being publicly traded does not automatically make them beholden to every person on Earth, especially in matters of free speech. They're still allowed governing their platform in whatever way they see fit. 2) a better analogy might be a comedy club on open mic nigh.t. If you get up on stage and start making racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Jokes the club owner has every right to throw you out. Yes, it's a public forum, but limiting your use of what is ultimately a private (i.e. not government owned) establishment does not constitute a violation of your rights unless it can be proven that you were denied access due to your membership in a protected class, or based on your gender, etc. Free speech doesn't protect you from (peaceful and appropriate) backlash.
  - corey_moncure 10y ago
    I think your analogy falls a little flat because 'right in front of the register' at a store isn't literally purpose-built to be a speech platform, as Twitter is.
  - hammock 10y ago
    He's not commenting whether it's right or not. He's just saying people won't like it
  - CoryG89 10y ago
    Except that Twitter is not a private company. They are a publicly traded corporation.
  - ftrflyr 10y ago
    Twitter is very much a public company beholden to its shareholders.
  - 10y ago
- mrgoldenbrown 10y ago
  Not limiting speech wasn't really working out for them either. Abusive users was one of the reasons floated for their difficulty selling.
thecopy 10y ago
How will this help Twitter turn a profit?
- monkmartinez 10y ago
  This is a valid question methinks. I am not sure of the distribution of regular HN readers that identify with the so-called "alt-right" movement, but suffice to say millions of Americans do.
- kelukelugames 10y ago
  Maybe now Disney will buy them? Maybe companies more companies will buy ads? I don't know. I own TWTR shares and cry every time I check my account.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  It depends. There are two angles to this that I can see: A) Twitter has a bad reputation for bullying and harassment; almost any financial analysis I read about Twitter has this as a strong negative. If Twitter is cracking down on this finally, this would help this reputation and potentially it's profit. (Note that I'm assuming here that Twitter actually is suspending these accounts not because they are alt-right, but because they are bullying or trolling. I know the alt-right has a bad reputation in some sources for engaging in trolling behavior; I do not know whether this applies to the individual accounts in question.) B) Being a haven for extremely divisive speech tends not to be the type of place that attracts advertising from companies with large amounts of capital; companies like these (larger ones) tend to default to inclusive for obvious reasons (it's better to have a potential customer base of everyone). I don't like the idea of banning alt-right accounts for the sake of them being alt-right, but I can easily see justifying bans if either a small population harasses a larger portion of the users, or if significant advertising dollars are at sake. Twitter is a business.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  Abuse on the platform reportedly lost them a Disney acquisition. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-17/disney-said-to-have-dropped-twitter-pursuit-partly-over-image https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-17/disney-sa... > Walt Disney Co. decided not to pursue a bid for Twitter Inc. partly out of concern that bullying and other uncivil forms of communication on the social media site might soil the company’s wholesome family image, according to people familiar with management’s thinking.
mulletbum 10y ago
Why does the alt-right have issues with them being banned from systems, but don't see issues with themselves banning others from systems. For example, Twitter bans them from using Twitter, but the /r/The_Donald echo chamber bans anyone with a counter view to their own. If you want freedom to speak on certain platforms, you need to provide the same rights to everyone.
- orf 10y ago
  That requires logic and critical thinking though.
- lightbyte 10y ago
  Its extremely ironic that the group claiming to "champion the fight against the social justice warrior and their safe spaces" does pretty much the exact same thing as what they say they hate.
  - api 10y ago
    Welcome to the future where everyone is surrounded by a virtual reality bubble that endlessly strokes their ego by reinforcing their preexisting beliefs. Honestly I see a lot of people doing this and agitating for it. Everyone wants a "safe space."
- corey_moncure 10y ago
  I'm very interested in this topic. Do you have concrete evidence of contrary voices being silenced by administration in /r/The_Donald? It may bear some consideration that this particular sub-reddit is itself silenced by having its stories removed from the front page by algorithm, which to me represents as great a sin or greater.
  - jjnoakes 10y ago
    Greater sin or no, I've personally seen accounts get banned for sharing contrary views in that subreddit. I mean, it's in their sidebar... "No Dissenters".
  - 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
laumars 10y ago
I'm not sure I agree with this. I think I'd rather have people with extreme opinions talking in the public where they are subject to counter arguments than somewhere less public where their message goes unchallenged.
- okreallywtf 10y ago
  I agree and disagree - on the one hand I prefer to have them out in the open so its easier to understand the kind of misinformation that is being spread, but unfortunately it seems like a large number of people (well, everyone to some extent but some people have more trouble it seems) separating fake information from more-or-less true information. My guess is that by them having this platform, they can easily reach those who are primed for believing what they read. If people weighted the most informed responses equally to the tweets themselves that would be one thing, but my guess is that is not the case.
- AimHere 10y ago
  The next leader of the most powerful nation on earth already elected on a campaign that openly advocated torture and war crimes and made all sorts of racially charged insinuations. The USA seems set to embark on a terrifying policy of mass deportations in a few months. A white supremacist is set to be installed as White House Chief of Staff, and his previous incarnation was as owner of news outlet talking in the public arena, presumably having his message challenged in exactly the manner you describe. I think that your way of doing things has already run its course.
  - laumars 10y ago
    There was more to the Trump campaign than just misinformation on social media. Without wanting to rehash old discussions I think it's fair to say that most of the people who voted for Trump acknowledged his flaws but ultimately found Hillary Clinton less palatable. Personally I don't think there was a single good candidate on the ballot.
    - ambicapter 10y ago
adamnemecek 10y ago
Why does everything that Twitter does feel so ham-fisted.
mwill 10y ago
I can only see this as furthering the echo chamber that caused many to be so blindsided by Trumps victory. I would like to see specifically why these people were suspended. If they're engaged in harassment obviously the suspension should hold up. If it really is just mass reporting for political speech (I've had friends msging 'targets' for reporting purely for them admitting to voting for Trump), I can only see it as a bad trend. These people don't go away just because you ban them from your favourite sites. They just disappear from your own view, and go away to a more insular community, more of an echo chamber, where they become more radical.
- kelukelugames 10y ago
  I've seen no evidence of trump supporters being targeted. There is no trend. edit: wait, is it possible that just because I don't see it happening doesn't mean it isn't? Kind of like police brutality against black lives?
  - Sir_Substance 10y ago
    That's because you're not looking for it. Anyone who protests gets muzzled along with the banee.
    - gilleain 10y ago
      Banee? Is that "someone who has been banned"?
  - akerro 10y ago
    I didn't followed too much news recently, but two that I heard about, I bet there was/will be more. http://www.dailywire.com/news/10664/video-trump-voter-dragged-his-car-and-beaten-gang-chase-stephens http://www.dailywire.com/news/10664/video-trump-voter-dragge... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/anders-vendel-donald-trump-chef-beaten-looking-like-us-president-condemns-scary-media-coverage-a7418061.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/anders-vendel...
the-dude 10y ago
Next time, MSM can honestly claim they didn't see it coming.
squozzer 10y ago
Has the other shoe dropped yet? Having gone after the figureheads, who's next? Their followers? Smells like the beginnings of a witch hunt.
thro32 10y ago
How about suspending people who openly advocate genocide? #killallmen
- CoryG89 10y ago
  Gendercide?
- venomsnake 10y ago
  Most of using this hashtag are modern feminists and allies. The subgroup using the hashtag can only be taken figuratively since surely as hell they don't have the brains, smarts, will and capacity to make the genocide happen.
- kelukelugames 10y ago
  As an able bodied straight male working in tech, I don't understand how any man can be offended by the killallmen hashtag. I don't feel threatened. They can't even hurt my feelings. Offended men must be very soft and have small dongles.
  - huffpopo 10y ago
    I remember the die techie scum protests. Vomiting on busses, throwing rocks at bus windows etc. It was very threatening.
    - CoryG89 10y ago
      Oh yes, the "poor" rich people being threatened by the actual poor. Very threatening indeed.
      - huffpopo 10y ago
        Going to work each day worried that I might get hit by a brick and broken glass was very threatening indeed. And for the record I'm from a poor background and worked my whole life hard for that job. I saved the money I got from it so I could work full time on improving the lives of my fellow humans - which is what I do now.
ve55 10y ago
Although Twitter obviously has the right to do this, legally, I don't think it is good. Twitter is esentially a public infrastructure for real-time communication. We have public officials from countries all over the world that use Twitter to communicate to their citizens. For that (and similar) reasons, I would strongly prefer if Twitter didn't go around policing what types of political opions are okay and aren't. Even if you really hate the people that Twitter bans, imagine if things were the other way around, and they started banning very liberal users.
- robbiemitchell 10y ago
  They're not getting banned for opinions, they're getting banned for their actions on Twitter.
  - monkmartinez 10y ago
    Eh? Can you please explain the difference... it's 140 characters of text FFS.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      Someone can say they hate The Jews on Twitter. What they can't do is say they hate a particular Jewish person, and link to that person's account, and encourage their tens of thousands of followers to post anti Semitic hate to that person.
      - FilterSweep 10y ago
        a source for [Parent] is the Milo Yiannopoulos and Leslie Jones fiasco.
      - Wellshit 10y ago
        > What they can't do is say they hate a particular Jewish person, and link to that person's account, and encourage their tens of thousands of followers to post anti Semitic hate to that person. Like, let's say, kill DT because [insert victim group du jour here]ism? Or I'll kill you because u so white, and kill all white people? #noracist
kdamken 10y ago
It's sad how what's supposed to be an open and democratic platform, isn't.
- vorotato 10y ago
  Letting people silence others isn't democratic, it's antidemocratic. You can spout whatever garbage you want but don't try to prevent others from spouting theirs.
dmschulman 10y ago
Painting insults and threats and bullying as legitimate criticism is the main rhetorical fallacy of the alt-right movement. They have a guarantee of free speech in this country but they do not have a guarantee of Twitter access.
- imaginenore 10y ago
  Twitter allows threats and bullying when it comes from the left. They refused to ban the freaking jihadists. They have SJWs posting #killallmen, #KillAllWhiteMen #maletears in droves. Nothing ever happens to them. This move is simply political censorship.
  - kelukelugames 10y ago
    Speaking of male tears...
    - imaginenore 10y ago
      Another great example! Good job demonstrating!
      - throwaway-hn123 10y ago
        A great example of what? I'm having trouble working out what's upsetting you here.
  - adekok 10y ago
    For all the people downvoting, it's true: https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallmen https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallmen About half of the tweets are serious "killallmen" comments. The other half are people complaining about it. And, complaining that twitter won't do anything, despite their terms of service saying such behavior is ban-worthy. Or look at twitter banning Milo... because other people engaged in harassment. People who had no clear tie to Milo. At no point could Twitter point to Milo's behavior, and say "this violated our terms of service, so he's banned". They just banned him, despite their terms of service. I've mentioned this before on HN, and asked "What, exactly, did Milo do? Please point to something he did." I received no replies, but got plenty of downvotes. Which says to me that the people involved (like the ones downvoting here) know their opinions are contrary to all facts and reason. So if you're thinking of downvoting, try instead to convince me I'm wrong. Adult discussions are much more productive than naive attempts at censorship.
akerro 10y ago
Can we get the same for black racists? https://i.redd.it/gmlvmb6w9owx.png https://i.redd.it/gmlvmb6w9owx.png https://twitter.com/search?q=%22Stop+White+People%22&src=tren https://twitter.com/search?q=%22Stop+White+People%22&src=tre...
- squozzer 10y ago
  Doubtful. Only white people are the devil.
stringcode 10y ago
Unless there were specific examples of breaking Twitter's terms and conditions from each individual, this does nothing but popularises alt right. Even then, the way they did it, just plays into alt right narrative. I don't how is this benefitial
KON_Air 10y ago
Out of place but I want to hear American HN regulars opinon; Is this provacation or utter lack of self awareness as it i will only play into Trumps hand?
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  Part of Trump's argument has been "the system is rigged" so this support it, especially once you consider that Twitter did not ban people calling for protests during the Arab Spring. In fact, the State Department - run by Hillary Clinton at the time - specifically asked for Twitter to keep accounts open and information flowing. This is ideal for Trump and crew. In the US, the Net Neutrality position describes internet access as a utility, not a luxury. Further the UN declares it a Human Right. If either/both of those positions hold, then the gatekeepers - Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc - suppressing any view or blocking access to any group could be a violation of human rights. I think that will have to be settled in court, but it will get messy for those companies.
  - derrickdirge 10y ago
    But Arab Spring tweets weren't characterized by racially-charged harassment of other users.
rayiner 10y ago
Doesn't Twitter allow actual terrorists to post? https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/17/islamic-state-twitter-accounts-rainbow-makeover-anonymous-hackers?client=safari https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/...
- throwaway9801 10y ago
  Just so long as they don't post anything supporting Trump.
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    Zing! Seriously though, if we have to have these political (tech-related if you stretch) discussions on HN, these green accounts should not be allowed to participate.
- mkaziz 10y ago
  I believe they recently started closing those too.
- tptacek 10y ago
  They never should have.
erichocean 10y ago
This will end badly.
- lj3 10y ago
  For whom? I think this is going to go very well for gab.ai. Obviously, not as well for Twitter.
barking 10y ago
People with different views need to be listened to and debated with rather than silenced. this newspaper article from a BBC journalist is quite thought provoking http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/journalists-are-helping-to-create-a-dangerous-consensus-1.2868638 http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/journalists-are-helping-to...
daleharvey 10y ago
"Twitter finally bans accounts partaking in persistent abuse and harassment" This isnt a freedom of speech / diversity of thought issue, these people are abusing others. Frankly I would prefer the police got involved and hate crimes and threats were taken seriously, but while late at least twitter are doing the right thing.
dictum 10y ago
In other words, Twitter gives the Information They Don't Want You To Know badge to a group that already thrives on such framing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12961185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12961185
optionalparens 10y ago
I think the musician Jarvis Cocker explained this best in his song, "Running the World." Particularly the lines, "In theory, I respect your right to exist, I will kill you if you move in next to me." People love to free speech, except when it involves supporting all the things they don't like. For the record, I don't love any extremes and certainly not the alt-right, but censorship is worse. It is never justified, under any circumstances. If you don't like something, don't listen. People are and can be protected plenty of other ways, for example by laws against murder. The law anywhere isn't perfect, but censorship is even less so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRGGbyZzuTg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRGGbyZzuTg
legodt 10y ago
The comments here are extremely disheartening. It appears that the HN community values hate speech and harassment over "free speech" on a privately owned platform. I applaud Twitter for making itself a safer space for marginalized groups with this step even if it is very little, very late. Edit: it is with heavy heart that I must say that I am EXTREMELY depressed by the amount of white racism denial I am seeing in the comments here. The hacker news community is demonstrating to me an extreme aversion to understanding or deconstructing racism in this country and is satisfied with endlessly repeating ancient defenses against racism under the package of feeling oppressed because marginalized groups of people are finally speaking out against their oppression.
throwaway274739 10y ago
Good. Twitter has a legal and ethical responsibility to not allow their platform to promote vile racism, sexism, Islamophobia, etc. No one owes anyone a platform to spew their hatred. If the bigots don't like it no one is stopping them from getting their own websites.
osenvosem 10y ago
It seems Twitter just follow some political will from left/liberal camp. "Freedom of speech" and "democracy" we all know and love.
reader5000 10y ago
Twitter is a (going bankrupt) common carrier. Lawsuits?
- grzm 10y ago
  I've heard of ISPs considered common carriers. Is there precedence for sites to be as well?
  - reader5000 10y ago
    Not to my knowledge.
perseusprime11 10y ago
I'm going to sell my Twitter stock. They are making one mistake after the other. Do they understand how free speech works? Can they enable that on Twitter?
- throwaway-hn123 10y ago
  > I'm going to sell my Twitter stock You've left that a bit late, haven't you?
squozzer 10y ago
There's actually a decent canary to determine whether this is the opening salvo of a purge. If Twitter bans @ScottAdamsSays - whom some have called a Trump apologist but who doesn't seem overtly racist - then we'll know the purge is on.
MK999 10y ago
Media is trying to control the narrative of the Trump victory... Filter-Bubble, Alt-Right, Fake-News Anything but the truth
VeejayRampay 10y ago
As much as I disagree with the views of the "alt-right" (why not call them far right by the way?), I can't help but be astounded that we've opened that can of worms? Who got to decide who should be banned? Isn't Twitter basically free speech? Why are we even drawing lines to begin with? As soon as you do that, someone else with a different world view will start banning the accounts of transgenders, community organizers, since we're now basing our judgment of Twitter accounts on subjective criteria. People have a right to follow/unfollow accounts and we should leave it at that.
googletazer 10y ago
>A cartoon of Pepe the frog is a commonly used symbol of the alt right So basically a witch hunt where they're finding "problematic" people and removing their opinions. On the first screenshot two of the "leaders" of the alt right have MAGA hats on, twitter could have just came out openly and said it didn't want Trump supporters on their platform.
gthtjtkt 10y ago
How has the media STILL not realized that the "alt-right" is primarily composed of self-proclaimed "shit posters" and forum trolls who enjoy posting provocative things to get a rise out of the over-sensitive PC police and social justice warriors? They refer to this election as The Great Meme War, and their "leader" (aside from Trump himself) is a poorly drawn cartoon frog. Those weren't red flags to whatever gullible stooge wrote this story? This is "The Hacker Known as 4Chan" all over again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVhn_tdF3eo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVhn_tdF3eo
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bakhy 10y ago
little meta - HN is not the best place to have these discussions. the way voting works here, everything is too conformist, too sugarcoated, and most importantly, downvotes are regularly handed out (at least in such emotional discussions as political discussions are wont to be) according to the political views of the high-karma elites, and more particularly according to their lack of moral self-control (i.e. many will not "abuse" downvotes like that, but that then just gives more power to those doing it). is it OK to assume that, among the people with high enough karma to cast downvotes, the distribution of political views equals that of the general commenting population? or, better question - does that even matter? i don't know, is it even possible to achieve some kind of crowd-sourced moderation without exposing the system to the risk of gangs of idealists attacking dissenters with downvotes?
Mithaldu 10y ago
Did you even read the words you quoted? Please do so again, try to not skip any.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  I think you're missing the point. I'm trying to say that that from this side of the aisle, it certainly seems that the prevailing opinion amongst Democrats is that the Republican Party is full of terrible people.
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    half < all/most There is not more to say than that. Pretty sad that a foreigner needs to teach you English.
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      I think you might have missed part of the context as well. /foreigner
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        The non-equality of half and most is unaffected by any context.
        reitanqild 10y ago
        I give you an upvote for that. But I think the idea is clear and you are needlessly discussing over one word instead of focusing on how this could happen. (Yes, I don't like Trump but I think we - at least Europeans - should respect Americans and their choice.)
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        Here's my reason why there's nothing i can respect there: One of my best friends is a person in the USA, requiring constant medical support (literally one skipped day can kill them) in a queer marriage. The people directly around trump would rather see my friend die, alone. Not all of the people who voted for him, by far. Many are not even aware of the consequences this has already had. (Yes, various friends of mine have been accosted on streets by complete strangers just for existing.) Many can be talked to and would understand the situation. But respect? For casting a vote to spite people? For casting a vote without having done proper research? Sorry, i have none. Not until i know that my friend can live in safety and dignity.
myf01d 10y ago
What about the tens of thousands of accounts belonging to islamists cheering about killing non-muslims and preaching hate all day?
Taek 10y ago
118 points in 1 hour, page 3 of HN? This story is writing itself. The alt-right is not a small number of people. 50 million went to the polls and voted for Trump. And with things like this, you're giving them ammunition. You just told 50 million people that their views are not accepted in society. You just told the electoral majority that they are not allowed in one of the most common forums for political discourse. It's not a good thing. The nation is deeply divided, and the actions of the liberals are giving the alt-right more strength. Tactics like this only work if you apply them to small groups, and even then it only works if the vast majority are not sympathetic to the cause. That's not the situation in America. You are covering your ears and telling the bully he doesn't matter, and that he's not allowed to play with you. Except you're telling that to half the classroom, not just one bully. And you've got control of the soccer field, and most of the balls. You've become the bully. And you've given the rest of the class a lot of ammunition to dislike you.
- chippy 10y ago
  page 5 now with 125 points, 16 mins after the above comment.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 10y ago
  The story here is simply that politics don't belong on Hacker News, and users (rightly) flag stories like this.
  - gnicholas 10y ago
    I think the question is how do we determine if a post is relevant to HN when it involves some elements that are "not relevant" (politics) and some that are (technology/Twitter). There have been several posts—and fruitful discussions—about Facebook, the social media echo chamber, and the election. Why are those posts appropriate, but this is not? Because this is specifically about the alt-right? Because it attracts a certain type of commenter?
  - 10y ago
alva 10y ago
As I think this is important considering all the discussion so far I feel justified in guiding people to the Ask HN [0] I have just posted. Welcome all feedback [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12967873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12967873
michaelbuddy 10y ago
Yet another reason why Twitter will ultimately fail. Censorship of whoever you think are nefarious characters when purported "victims" can easily just block people is just plain silly. We already know there are block list services that will autoblock. So if anyone is getting trouble from troll / enemies or want to be their own echo chamber, it's easy to do all this stuff. Bye Twitter, hello Minds & Gab.
ap3 10y ago
Actually this matches NPI's policy too, guess they can't complain: >"NPI will, however, exclude those who show reckless disregard with the media, or those who've made morally indefensible public statements. Such people make our movement look bad. We choose not to grant them a platform. It’s as simple as that." Source: http://www.npiamerica.org/the-national-policy-institute/category/the-rainbow-coalition http://www.npiamerica.org/the-national-policy-institute/cate...
a_lihu 10y ago
Great job, Twitter! Now you can go back to promoting the jihadi profiles at the fullest.
vorotato 10y ago
To all those concerned, they were not suspended for being racist. They were suspended for trying to silence people they disagreed with via targeted harassment. If you do that, you might get banned, regardless of your political alignment. There are PLENTY of white supremacists who are doing just fine on twitter. According to twitter you are free to spread your shitty ideology as long as you don't actively prevent people from spreading theirs.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jackmaney 10y ago
Not only do I not see a problem with this, but I don't think Twitter went anywhere near far enough. They should have suspended Trump's account well over a year ago.

167 points by funkylexoo 10y ago

mbillie1 10y ago

Good.

module0000 10y ago

People love having their speech limited, I'm sure this will work out great for twitter.

croon 10y ago
> People love having their speech limited, I'm sure this will work out great for twitter. I love having hate speech limited, if that's what you mean.
- hermiti 10y ago
  The problem with banning hate speech is that it is relative. Next up, books will be banned because they incite alternate opinions.
  - beedogs 10y ago
    Yeah... probably not.
    - hermiti 10y ago
      You're right... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_govern...
  - croon 10y ago
    Mind sharing an example/hypothetical of it being relative?
  - derrickdirge 10y ago
    There's a difference between mere 'alternate opinions' and hateful, prejudiced opinions. It's seems disingenuous for you to conflate them.
    - snerbles 10y ago
      The line between the two varies, and is subject to the whims of whoever controls the platform.
  - cwisecarver 10y ago
    The even bigger problem is we're assuming they were banned for "hate" speech because Twitter hasn't even said why yet. If they took down tweets that they felt were hate speech and communicated to the speaker and the community I would be more okay with it. A silent ban of dozens of accounts is their right as a business but I'll still say it's a stupid decision.
  - gaius 10y ago
    Bear in mind that some people consider this site to be sexist and racist - check out the #hnwatch hashtag on Twitter. Everyone commenting here "good", consider that as a member of HN, others tar you with the same brush. Still so happy?
    - dictum 10y ago
      > check out the #hnwatch hashtag on Twitter I didn't know that hashtag and was not surprised to see that one of its regular users is someone who likes to use autism as a metaphor for men working in tech.
- matwood 10y ago
  As long as it is applied consistently. Are they also banning those spewing hate for Trump or the police? It is just like everyone who is rioting with slogans like 'not my President.' These same people were giving Trump a hard time when he said the election system was rigged and didn't enthusiastically say he would support the results of the election. The left is doing a good job reenforcing the exact image many people voted against. The elitist attitude of tolerance unless disagreed with. EDIT Thanks for the downvotes and further proving my point. I would never vote for Trump, but simply pointing out hypocrisy and double standards does get people upset.
- altaway 10y ago
  There are plain facts about the world which are often considered "hate speech". FBI crime statistics, for example. They gotta be banned to maintain the narrative.
edc117 10y ago
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, and Twitter is free to do as they like with their platform.
- Cthulhu_ 10y ago
  They're just kinda late, IMO.
- problems 10y ago
  While I agree with your statement, I think it's important to protect the concept of free speech in many places and to disrespect companies who don't. Twitter has failed to do so here and is showing a blatant political statement (unless there were specific cases of harassment with these people or something, in which case I may be overstepping). I think generally views like this are better left in the spotlight of the public where they can be properly argued with and not dragged into private forums and facebook feeds where it's much harder for people to see a wider response to them. Banning them is harmful to people who are getting a casual interest in their ideas and start reading up on it. When the only place they can do that is Breitbart or similar, how do you think that'll go?
  - derrickdirge 10y ago
    >Twitter has failed to do so here and is showing a blatant political statement (unless there were specific cases of harassment with these people or something, in which case I may be overstepping). Everyone keeps making comments like this. "This is a massive injustice! Unless Twitter was justified idk." Maybe we should wait for a statement from Twitter before passing judgment.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      Twitter was asked for a statement, and has declined to comment. Which is a shame, because if they're banning a bunch of abusive harassing arseholes that's a good thing and I want to know about it.
  - edc117 10y ago
nameless912 10y ago
This isn't the limitation of free speech, this is a private company telling one of its users that they aren't welcome due to their behavior. It's like if you were at a store and started soapboxing about <insert alt right conspiracy bullshit here> loudly right in front of the register, the manager of the store is 100% allowed to ask you to leave. Freedom of speech means your speech isn't illegal, not that you will suffer no consequences for it. ETA: some people made some comments below this that made me want to clarify a few things: 1) Twitter being publicly traded does not automatically make them beholden to every person on Earth, especially in matters of free speech. They're still allowed governing their platform in whatever way they see fit. 2) a better analogy might be a comedy club on open mic nigh.t. If you get up on stage and start making racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Jokes the club owner has every right to throw you out. Yes, it's a public forum, but limiting your use of what is ultimately a private (i.e. not government owned) establishment does not constitute a violation of your rights unless it can be proven that you were denied access due to your membership in a protected class, or based on your gender, etc. Free speech doesn't protect you from (peaceful and appropriate) backlash.
- corey_moncure 10y ago
  I think your analogy falls a little flat because 'right in front of the register' at a store isn't literally purpose-built to be a speech platform, as Twitter is.
- hammock 10y ago
  He's not commenting whether it's right or not. He's just saying people won't like it
- CoryG89 10y ago
  Except that Twitter is not a private company. They are a publicly traded corporation.
- ftrflyr 10y ago
  Twitter is very much a public company beholden to its shareholders.
- 10y ago
mrgoldenbrown 10y ago
Not limiting speech wasn't really working out for them either. Abusive users was one of the reasons floated for their difficulty selling.

thecopy 10y ago

How will this help Twitter turn a profit?

monkmartinez 10y ago
This is a valid question methinks. I am not sure of the distribution of regular HN readers that identify with the so-called "alt-right" movement, but suffice to say millions of Americans do.
kelukelugames 10y ago
Maybe now Disney will buy them? Maybe companies more companies will buy ads? I don't know. I own TWTR shares and cry every time I check my account.
soundwave106 10y ago
It depends. There are two angles to this that I can see: A) Twitter has a bad reputation for bullying and harassment; almost any financial analysis I read about Twitter has this as a strong negative. If Twitter is cracking down on this finally, this would help this reputation and potentially it's profit. (Note that I'm assuming here that Twitter actually is suspending these accounts not because they are alt-right, but because they are bullying or trolling. I know the alt-right has a bad reputation in some sources for engaging in trolling behavior; I do not know whether this applies to the individual accounts in question.) B) Being a haven for extremely divisive speech tends not to be the type of place that attracts advertising from companies with large amounts of capital; companies like these (larger ones) tend to default to inclusive for obvious reasons (it's better to have a potential customer base of everyone). I don't like the idea of banning alt-right accounts for the sake of them being alt-right, but I can easily see justifying bans if either a small population harasses a larger portion of the users, or if significant advertising dollars are at sake. Twitter is a business.
ceejayoz 10y ago
Abuse on the platform reportedly lost them a Disney acquisition. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-17/disney-said-to-have-dropped-twitter-pursuit-partly-over-image https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-17/disney-sa... > Walt Disney Co. decided not to pursue a bid for Twitter Inc. partly out of concern that bullying and other uncivil forms of communication on the social media site might soil the company’s wholesome family image, according to people familiar with management’s thinking.

mulletbum 10y ago

Why does the alt-right have issues with them being banned from systems, but don't see issues with themselves banning others from systems. For example, Twitter bans them from using Twitter, but the /r/The_Donald echo chamber bans anyone with a counter view to their own. If you want freedom to speak on certain platforms, you need to provide the same rights to everyone.

orf 10y ago
That requires logic and critical thinking though.
lightbyte 10y ago
Its extremely ironic that the group claiming to "champion the fight against the social justice warrior and their safe spaces" does pretty much the exact same thing as what they say they hate.
- api 10y ago
  Welcome to the future where everyone is surrounded by a virtual reality bubble that endlessly strokes their ego by reinforcing their preexisting beliefs. Honestly I see a lot of people doing this and agitating for it. Everyone wants a "safe space."
corey_moncure 10y ago
I'm very interested in this topic. Do you have concrete evidence of contrary voices being silenced by administration in /r/The_Donald? It may bear some consideration that this particular sub-reddit is itself silenced by having its stories removed from the front page by algorithm, which to me represents as great a sin or greater.
- jjnoakes 10y ago
  Greater sin or no, I've personally seen accounts get banned for sharing contrary views in that subreddit. I mean, it's in their sidebar... "No Dissenters".
- 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

laumars 10y ago

I'm not sure I agree with this. I think I'd rather have people with extreme opinions talking in the public where they are subject to counter arguments than somewhere less public where their message goes unchallenged.

okreallywtf 10y ago
I agree and disagree - on the one hand I prefer to have them out in the open so its easier to understand the kind of misinformation that is being spread, but unfortunately it seems like a large number of people (well, everyone to some extent but some people have more trouble it seems) separating fake information from more-or-less true information. My guess is that by them having this platform, they can easily reach those who are primed for believing what they read. If people weighted the most informed responses equally to the tweets themselves that would be one thing, but my guess is that is not the case.
AimHere 10y ago
The next leader of the most powerful nation on earth already elected on a campaign that openly advocated torture and war crimes and made all sorts of racially charged insinuations. The USA seems set to embark on a terrifying policy of mass deportations in a few months. A white supremacist is set to be installed as White House Chief of Staff, and his previous incarnation was as owner of news outlet talking in the public arena, presumably having his message challenged in exactly the manner you describe. I think that your way of doing things has already run its course.
- laumars 10y ago
  There was more to the Trump campaign than just misinformation on social media. Without wanting to rehash old discussions I think it's fair to say that most of the people who voted for Trump acknowledged his flaws but ultimately found Hillary Clinton less palatable. Personally I don't think there was a single good candidate on the ballot.
  - ambicapter 10y ago

adamnemecek 10y ago

Why does everything that Twitter does feel so ham-fisted.

mwill 10y ago

I can only see this as furthering the echo chamber that caused many to be so blindsided by Trumps victory. I would like to see specifically why these people were suspended. If they're engaged in harassment obviously the suspension should hold up. If it really is just mass reporting for political speech (I've had friends msging 'targets' for reporting purely for them admitting to voting for Trump), I can only see it as a bad trend. These people don't go away just because you ban them from your favourite sites. They just disappear from your own view, and go away to a more insular community, more of an echo chamber, where they become more radical.

kelukelugames 10y ago
I've seen no evidence of trump supporters being targeted. There is no trend. edit: wait, is it possible that just because I don't see it happening doesn't mean it isn't? Kind of like police brutality against black lives?
- Sir_Substance 10y ago
  That's because you're not looking for it. Anyone who protests gets muzzled along with the banee.
  - gilleain 10y ago
    Banee? Is that "someone who has been banned"?
- akerro 10y ago
  I didn't followed too much news recently, but two that I heard about, I bet there was/will be more. http://www.dailywire.com/news/10664/video-trump-voter-dragged-his-car-and-beaten-gang-chase-stephens http://www.dailywire.com/news/10664/video-trump-voter-dragge... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/anders-vendel-donald-trump-chef-beaten-looking-like-us-president-condemns-scary-media-coverage-a7418061.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/anders-vendel...

the-dude 10y ago

Next time, MSM can honestly claim they didn't see it coming.

squozzer 10y ago

Has the other shoe dropped yet? Having gone after the figureheads, who's next? Their followers? Smells like the beginnings of a witch hunt.

thro32 10y ago

How about suspending people who openly advocate genocide? #killallmen

CoryG89 10y ago
Gendercide?
venomsnake 10y ago
Most of using this hashtag are modern feminists and allies. The subgroup using the hashtag can only be taken figuratively since surely as hell they don't have the brains, smarts, will and capacity to make the genocide happen.
kelukelugames 10y ago
As an able bodied straight male working in tech, I don't understand how any man can be offended by the killallmen hashtag. I don't feel threatened. They can't even hurt my feelings. Offended men must be very soft and have small dongles.
- huffpopo 10y ago
  I remember the die techie scum protests. Vomiting on busses, throwing rocks at bus windows etc. It was very threatening.
  - CoryG89 10y ago
    Oh yes, the "poor" rich people being threatened by the actual poor. Very threatening indeed.
    - huffpopo 10y ago
      Going to work each day worried that I might get hit by a brick and broken glass was very threatening indeed. And for the record I'm from a poor background and worked my whole life hard for that job. I saved the money I got from it so I could work full time on improving the lives of my fellow humans - which is what I do now.

ve55 10y ago

Although Twitter obviously has the right to do this, legally, I don't think it is good. Twitter is esentially a public infrastructure for real-time communication. We have public officials from countries all over the world that use Twitter to communicate to their citizens. For that (and similar) reasons, I would strongly prefer if Twitter didn't go around policing what types of political opions are okay and aren't. Even if you really hate the people that Twitter bans, imagine if things were the other way around, and they started banning very liberal users.

robbiemitchell 10y ago
They're not getting banned for opinions, they're getting banned for their actions on Twitter.
- monkmartinez 10y ago
  Eh? Can you please explain the difference... it's 140 characters of text FFS.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    Someone can say they hate The Jews on Twitter. What they can't do is say they hate a particular Jewish person, and link to that person's account, and encourage their tens of thousands of followers to post anti Semitic hate to that person.
    - FilterSweep 10y ago
      a source for [Parent] is the Milo Yiannopoulos and Leslie Jones fiasco.
    - Wellshit 10y ago
      > What they can't do is say they hate a particular Jewish person, and link to that person's account, and encourage their tens of thousands of followers to post anti Semitic hate to that person. Like, let's say, kill DT because [insert victim group du jour here]ism? Or I'll kill you because u so white, and kill all white people? #noracist

kdamken 10y ago

It's sad how what's supposed to be an open and democratic platform, isn't.

vorotato 10y ago
Letting people silence others isn't democratic, it's antidemocratic. You can spout whatever garbage you want but don't try to prevent others from spouting theirs.

dmschulman 10y ago

Painting insults and threats and bullying as legitimate criticism is the main rhetorical fallacy of the alt-right movement. They have a guarantee of free speech in this country but they do not have a guarantee of Twitter access.

imaginenore 10y ago
Twitter allows threats and bullying when it comes from the left. They refused to ban the freaking jihadists. They have SJWs posting #killallmen, #KillAllWhiteMen #maletears in droves. Nothing ever happens to them. This move is simply political censorship.
- kelukelugames 10y ago
  Speaking of male tears...
  - imaginenore 10y ago
    Another great example! Good job demonstrating!
    - throwaway-hn123 10y ago
      A great example of what? I'm having trouble working out what's upsetting you here.
- adekok 10y ago
  For all the people downvoting, it's true: https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallmen https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallmen About half of the tweets are serious "killallmen" comments. The other half are people complaining about it. And, complaining that twitter won't do anything, despite their terms of service saying such behavior is ban-worthy. Or look at twitter banning Milo... because other people engaged in harassment. People who had no clear tie to Milo. At no point could Twitter point to Milo's behavior, and say "this violated our terms of service, so he's banned". They just banned him, despite their terms of service. I've mentioned this before on HN, and asked "What, exactly, did Milo do? Please point to something he did." I received no replies, but got plenty of downvotes. Which says to me that the people involved (like the ones downvoting here) know their opinions are contrary to all facts and reason. So if you're thinking of downvoting, try instead to convince me I'm wrong. Adult discussions are much more productive than naive attempts at censorship.

akerro 10y ago

Can we get the same for black racists? https://i.redd.it/gmlvmb6w9owx.png https://i.redd.it/gmlvmb6w9owx.png https://twitter.com/search?q=%22Stop+White+People%22&src=tren https://twitter.com/search?q=%22Stop+White+People%22&src=tre...

squozzer 10y ago
Doubtful. Only white people are the devil.

stringcode 10y ago

Unless there were specific examples of breaking Twitter's terms and conditions from each individual, this does nothing but popularises alt right. Even then, the way they did it, just plays into alt right narrative. I don't how is this benefitial

KON_Air 10y ago

Out of place but I want to hear American HN regulars opinon; Is this provacation or utter lack of self awareness as it i will only play into Trumps hand?

caseysoftware 10y ago
Part of Trump's argument has been "the system is rigged" so this support it, especially once you consider that Twitter did not ban people calling for protests during the Arab Spring. In fact, the State Department - run by Hillary Clinton at the time - specifically asked for Twitter to keep accounts open and information flowing. This is ideal for Trump and crew. In the US, the Net Neutrality position describes internet access as a utility, not a luxury. Further the UN declares it a Human Right. If either/both of those positions hold, then the gatekeepers - Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc - suppressing any view or blocking access to any group could be a violation of human rights. I think that will have to be settled in court, but it will get messy for those companies.
- derrickdirge 10y ago
  But Arab Spring tweets weren't characterized by racially-charged harassment of other users.

rayiner 10y ago

Doesn't Twitter allow actual terrorists to post? https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/17/islamic-state-twitter-accounts-rainbow-makeover-anonymous-hackers?client=safari https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/...

throwaway9801 10y ago
Just so long as they don't post anything supporting Trump.
- narrowrail 10y ago
  Zing! Seriously though, if we have to have these political (tech-related if you stretch) discussions on HN, these green accounts should not be allowed to participate.
mkaziz 10y ago
I believe they recently started closing those too.
tptacek 10y ago
They never should have.

erichocean 10y ago

This will end badly.

lj3 10y ago
For whom? I think this is going to go very well for gab.ai. Obviously, not as well for Twitter.

barking 10y ago

People with different views need to be listened to and debated with rather than silenced. this newspaper article from a BBC journalist is quite thought provoking http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/journalists-are-helping-to-create-a-dangerous-consensus-1.2868638 http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/journalists-are-helping-to...

daleharvey 10y ago

"Twitter finally bans accounts partaking in persistent abuse and harassment" This isnt a freedom of speech / diversity of thought issue, these people are abusing others. Frankly I would prefer the police got involved and hate crimes and threats were taken seriously, but while late at least twitter are doing the right thing.

dictum 10y ago

In other words, Twitter gives the Information They Don't Want You To Know badge to a group that already thrives on such framing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12961185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12961185

optionalparens 10y ago

I think the musician Jarvis Cocker explained this best in his song, "Running the World." Particularly the lines, "In theory, I respect your right to exist, I will kill you if you move in next to me." People love to free speech, except when it involves supporting all the things they don't like. For the record, I don't love any extremes and certainly not the alt-right, but censorship is worse. It is never justified, under any circumstances. If you don't like something, don't listen. People are and can be protected plenty of other ways, for example by laws against murder. The law anywhere isn't perfect, but censorship is even less so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRGGbyZzuTg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRGGbyZzuTg

legodt 10y ago

The comments here are extremely disheartening. It appears that the HN community values hate speech and harassment over "free speech" on a privately owned platform. I applaud Twitter for making itself a safer space for marginalized groups with this step even if it is very little, very late. Edit: it is with heavy heart that I must say that I am EXTREMELY depressed by the amount of white racism denial I am seeing in the comments here. The hacker news community is demonstrating to me an extreme aversion to understanding or deconstructing racism in this country and is satisfied with endlessly repeating ancient defenses against racism under the package of feeling oppressed because marginalized groups of people are finally speaking out against their oppression.

throwaway274739 10y ago

Good. Twitter has a legal and ethical responsibility to not allow their platform to promote vile racism, sexism, Islamophobia, etc. No one owes anyone a platform to spew their hatred. If the bigots don't like it no one is stopping them from getting their own websites.

osenvosem 10y ago

It seems Twitter just follow some political will from left/liberal camp. "Freedom of speech" and "democracy" we all know and love.

reader5000 10y ago

Twitter is a (going bankrupt) common carrier. Lawsuits?

grzm 10y ago
I've heard of ISPs considered common carriers. Is there precedence for sites to be as well?
- reader5000 10y ago
  Not to my knowledge.

perseusprime11 10y ago

I'm going to sell my Twitter stock. They are making one mistake after the other. Do they understand how free speech works? Can they enable that on Twitter?

throwaway-hn123 10y ago
> I'm going to sell my Twitter stock You've left that a bit late, haven't you?

squozzer 10y ago

There's actually a decent canary to determine whether this is the opening salvo of a purge. If Twitter bans @ScottAdamsSays - whom some have called a Trump apologist but who doesn't seem overtly racist - then we'll know the purge is on.

MK999 10y ago

Media is trying to control the narrative of the Trump victory... Filter-Bubble, Alt-Right, Fake-News Anything but the truth

VeejayRampay 10y ago

As much as I disagree with the views of the "alt-right" (why not call them far right by the way?), I can't help but be astounded that we've opened that can of worms? Who got to decide who should be banned? Isn't Twitter basically free speech? Why are we even drawing lines to begin with? As soon as you do that, someone else with a different world view will start banning the accounts of transgenders, community organizers, since we're now basing our judgment of Twitter accounts on subjective criteria. People have a right to follow/unfollow accounts and we should leave it at that.

googletazer 10y ago

>A cartoon of Pepe the frog is a commonly used symbol of the alt right So basically a witch hunt where they're finding "problematic" people and removing their opinions. On the first screenshot two of the "leaders" of the alt right have MAGA hats on, twitter could have just came out openly and said it didn't want Trump supporters on their platform.

gthtjtkt 10y ago

How has the media STILL not realized that the "alt-right" is primarily composed of self-proclaimed "shit posters" and forum trolls who enjoy posting provocative things to get a rise out of the over-sensitive PC police and social justice warriors? They refer to this election as The Great Meme War, and their "leader" (aside from Trump himself) is a poorly drawn cartoon frog. Those weren't red flags to whatever gullible stooge wrote this story? This is "The Hacker Known as 4Chan" all over again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVhn_tdF3eo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVhn_tdF3eo

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bakhy 10y ago

little meta - HN is not the best place to have these discussions. the way voting works here, everything is too conformist, too sugarcoated, and most importantly, downvotes are regularly handed out (at least in such emotional discussions as political discussions are wont to be) according to the political views of the high-karma elites, and more particularly according to their lack of moral self-control (i.e. many will not "abuse" downvotes like that, but that then just gives more power to those doing it). is it OK to assume that, among the people with high enough karma to cast downvotes, the distribution of political views equals that of the general commenting population? or, better question - does that even matter? i don't know, is it even possible to achieve some kind of crowd-sourced moderation without exposing the system to the risk of gangs of idealists attacking dissenters with downvotes?

Mithaldu 10y ago

Did you even read the words you quoted? Please do so again, try to not skip any.

LyndsySimon 10y ago
I think you're missing the point. I'm trying to say that that from this side of the aisle, it certainly seems that the prevailing opinion amongst Democrats is that the Republican Party is full of terrible people.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  half < all/most There is not more to say than that. Pretty sad that a foreigner needs to teach you English.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    I think you might have missed part of the context as well. /foreigner
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      The non-equality of half and most is unaffected by any context.
      - reitanqild 10y ago
        I give you an upvote for that. But I think the idea is clear and you are needlessly discussing over one word instead of focusing on how this could happen. (Yes, I don't like Trump but I think we - at least Europeans - should respect Americans and their choice.)
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        Here's my reason why there's nothing i can respect there: One of my best friends is a person in the USA, requiring constant medical support (literally one skipped day can kill them) in a queer marriage. The people directly around trump would rather see my friend die, alone. Not all of the people who voted for him, by far. Many are not even aware of the consequences this has already had. (Yes, various friends of mine have been accosted on streets by complete strangers just for existing.) Many can be talked to and would understand the situation. But respect? For casting a vote to spite people? For casting a vote without having done proper research? Sorry, i have none. Not until i know that my friend can live in safety and dignity.

myf01d 10y ago

What about the tens of thousands of accounts belonging to islamists cheering about killing non-muslims and preaching hate all day?

Taek 10y ago

118 points in 1 hour, page 3 of HN? This story is writing itself. The alt-right is not a small number of people. 50 million went to the polls and voted for Trump. And with things like this, you're giving them ammunition. You just told 50 million people that their views are not accepted in society. You just told the electoral majority that they are not allowed in one of the most common forums for political discourse. It's not a good thing. The nation is deeply divided, and the actions of the liberals are giving the alt-right more strength. Tactics like this only work if you apply them to small groups, and even then it only works if the vast majority are not sympathetic to the cause. That's not the situation in America. You are covering your ears and telling the bully he doesn't matter, and that he's not allowed to play with you. Except you're telling that to half the classroom, not just one bully. And you've got control of the soccer field, and most of the balls. You've become the bully. And you've given the rest of the class a lot of ammunition to dislike you.

chippy 10y ago
page 5 now with 125 points, 16 mins after the above comment.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 10y ago
The story here is simply that politics don't belong on Hacker News, and users (rightly) flag stories like this.
- gnicholas 10y ago
  I think the question is how do we determine if a post is relevant to HN when it involves some elements that are "not relevant" (politics) and some that are (technology/Twitter). There have been several posts—and fruitful discussions—about Facebook, the social media echo chamber, and the election. Why are those posts appropriate, but this is not? Because this is specifically about the alt-right? Because it attracts a certain type of commenter?
- 10y ago

alva 10y ago

As I think this is important considering all the discussion so far I feel justified in guiding people to the Ask HN [0] I have just posted. Welcome all feedback [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12967873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12967873

michaelbuddy 10y ago

Yet another reason why Twitter will ultimately fail. Censorship of whoever you think are nefarious characters when purported "victims" can easily just block people is just plain silly. We already know there are block list services that will autoblock. So if anyone is getting trouble from troll / enemies or want to be their own echo chamber, it's easy to do all this stuff. Bye Twitter, hello Minds & Gab.

ap3 10y ago

Actually this matches NPI's policy too, guess they can't complain: >"NPI will, however, exclude those who show reckless disregard with the media, or those who've made morally indefensible public statements. Such people make our movement look bad. We choose not to grant them a platform. It’s as simple as that." Source: http://www.npiamerica.org/the-national-policy-institute/category/the-rainbow-coalition http://www.npiamerica.org/the-national-policy-institute/cate...

a_lihu 10y ago

Great job, Twitter! Now you can go back to promoting the jihadi profiles at the fullest.

vorotato 10y ago

To all those concerned, they were not suspended for being racist. They were suspended for trying to silence people they disagreed with via targeted harassment. If you do that, you might get banned, regardless of your political alignment. There are PLENTY of white supremacists who are doing just fine on twitter. According to twitter you are free to spread your shitty ideology as long as you don't actively prevent people from spreading theirs.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jackmaney 10y ago

Not only do I not see a problem with this, but I don't think Twitter went anywhere near far enough. They should have suspended Trump's account well over a year ago.