10 ms·

Its disturbing the amount of posters here who are directly equating banning users who actively post racist, hateful bullshit and handing over the user info of s

by throwaway2048 10y ago

Its disturbing the amount of posters here who are directly equating banning users who actively post racist, hateful bullshit and handing over the user info of somebody who opposes the president. Because they did one they should do the other? what?

sergiotapia 10y ago
What's more disturbing is how normalized it's becoming to frame any criticism as hate-speech. That should scare you.
- s73ver 10y ago
  I disagree. I think it's more disturbing how normalized it is to frame hate-speech and harassment as simply criticism.
  - Spivak 10y ago
    Surely this is really the fundamental disagreement. Group 1: I would rather deal with harassment and hate speech than risk erroneously silencing someone I need to hear. Group 2: I would rather risk silencing someone who's voice ought to be heard than allow someone use speech to hurt another person with harassment or hate. --- Group 1 isn't trying to promote hate speech or harassment, they're just worried about the potentially malicious intentions of those that want to decide what speech falls under those banners. Group 2 isn't trying to silence opinions they disagree with, they're just worried that people are getting better at subtly codifying their hate speech in a way that gives them plausible deniability to out-groups but is obviously hateful to the in-group. I think the important takeaway is that neither 'side' is evil and despite the fact that it causes heated arguments one should maintain respect for those they disagree with.
    - sbov 10y ago
      This is also commonly the case: Group 1: I would rather others deal with harassment and hate speech than risk erroneously silencing someone I need to hear.
    - ColanR 10y ago
      As long as both sides do agree this is accurate, this seems like a great summary of the perspectives involved.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - sanderjd 10y ago
      That may be an interesting debate, but it is a derailment from what's going on here. This is just about the executive of the US federal government attempting to determine the identity of an anonymous dissident.
    - tshaddox 10y ago
      Your description of the groups is oversimplifying things and isn't a very "fundamental" dichotomy at all. The key phrase is "silencing someone." There is a continuum of power that a private individual or corporation or government can have to "silence" someone. At one end of the continuum is an individual hanging up the phone when they decide they've heard enough from whoever called them. I think most of us would agree that this doesn't violate the principles of free speech, even if the caller was expressing valid ideas. At the other end of the continuum is a government imprisoning someone for their speech. I think most of us would agree that this violates the principles (and laws) of free speech, except in certain circumstances (e.g. falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre). But there are cases in the middle of the continuum where things aren't so clear. If I run a small blog with occasional guest writers, a lot of us would probably agree that I can choose at will which content I publish without violating the principles of free speech. But what if my blog has millions of viewers? What if it has become more of a "news site" or "forum" than a "blog?" What if it's the largest such site in the world, and the only one with significant market share? Perhaps then many of us would accuse me of violating the principles of free speech, since I have significant power to "silence" certain people or ideas.
      - warlox 10y ago
        The first amendment does not guarantee a right to a platform.
      - jamescostian 10y ago
        I'm still a bit confused about libertarianism. Is this argument libertarian? It feels like it is because you're arguing in favor of allowing people to do as they please (freedom of speech) so long as it doesn't cause clear hurt to others (like yelling "fire" and giving someone a heart attack). You're arguing for the govt to get out of our way, and for private entities to fill in gaps, without restrictions. But if what you want is this unrestricted freedom, then shouldn't you be happy about Twitter? After all, by removing Milo, Twitter exercised the very freedom you seem to advocate for. They are a private entity, doing as they please. Why should Twitter be forced to store Milo's data on their servers and serve it up to users if Twitter, a private entity, chooses not to? I understand libertarianism in many social contexts (e.g. "People who aren't straight are not hurting anyone by not being straight, so there should not be any draconian laws against people for not being straight"), but I can't wrap my head around libertarianism in the context of all these "free-speech" arguments. I feel like I'm missing something, which would make a lot of sense considering how little I have read about libertarianism
    - lifeformed 10y ago
      I think Group 2 is, in practice, more reasonable. It seems like the only time someone gets banned is when they're a huge asshole about whatever controversial opinion they may have. I've yet to see a tactful, levelheaded person be banned for their controversial views. It's like the only casualties with Group 2's ideals are annoying assholes, which hardly feels like a loss. To me, having terrible people silenced in your community seems far better of a "drawback" than having marginalized people harassed in your community.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      > I think the important takeaway is that neither 'side' is evil I disagree. While group 2 may not intend evil, they are attempting to control others' speech. By their own standard, effect matters, not intent. To exercise control over others against their will is evil. Therefore they are evil. Their sole principle is that the ends justify the means, which is the equivalent of might-makes-right. By that priniciple, whoever happens to be in power will get away with whatever they want. In other words, opportunistic authoritarianism rather than the rule of law.
    - s73ver 10y ago
      I cannot agree with the way you've set up those groups. Mainly because I don't think it's that difficult to ban the harassment and hate speech without erroneously silencing someone who shouldn't be silenced. I don't buy the slippery slope argument on this one. I honestly think that Group 1 is more often, "I'm fine with the others being harassed, so I'm going to pretend we're talking about criticism or something like that instead of harassment."
- throwaway2048 10y ago
  No, id say the goverment directly attacking people who criticise them is a more disturbing development.
- knowaveragejoe 10y ago
  Can you provide an example of simple criticism being framed as hate-speech?
  - troisx 10y ago
    Yes, milo yiannopoulos'a criticism of the ghostbusters movie. Show me the actual "hate speech". It's become common for any criticism of liberals to be framed as hate speech.
    - openasocket 10y ago
      Milo wasn't banned for hate speech: he was banned for encouraging harassment of Leslie Jones.
      - just2n 10y ago
        This is false. She directed her followers to attack him, not the other way around.
    - acdha 10y ago
      If all he'd done was criticize a movie or a celebrity, nothing would have happened but what what he actually did was to repeat racist slurs[1] and incite other people to attack her by reposting fake screenshots as if they're real[2], and continuing long after it was clear that she wasn't interested in hearing from him or the rest of the GamerGate brigades. As a private company, Twitter is under no obligation to provide anyone with a forum and their terms of service (https://twitter.com/tos https://twitter.com/tos and https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311 https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311) very clearly exclude that kind of behaviour: > Harassment: You may not incite or engage in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. > Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. 1. Called her an ape, echoing a long history of racist comparisons: https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755182965060169728 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755182965060169728 2. Examples at http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12226070/milo-yiannopoulus-twitter-ban-explained http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12226070/milo-yiannopoulus-twit...
- matthewmacleod 10y ago
  While I don't doubt that there's an increasing trend to shout "hate speech" in an effort to shut down discussion (and that's obviously dangerous) there is equally a worrying trend of dismissing co-ordinated campaigns or harassment and personal attacks as "free speech". There's more complexity here than you're acknowledging.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    And things labeled hate speech isnt as easily defined as some seem to imply.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > there is equally a worrying trend of dismissing co-ordinated campaigns or harassment and personal attacks as "free speech" Why is this more worrying? Seems less worrying to me if by harassment/attack you mean purely verbal online gabber.
- thereare5lights 10y ago
  I don't see why criticism being normalized as hate-speech is more scary than equating banning users who actively post racist, hateful bullshit and handing over the user info of somebody who opposes the president. One has people starting mobs against each other while the other has people thinking actions taken against demagogues is of the same vein as government suppression of dissent. You're more afraid of mobs of people shit talking you than the government arresting you for your opinions if they don't agree with them?
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Its a problem when it isnt consistent.
    - thereare5lights 10y ago
      So you claim you're more afraid of inconsistent mobs than the government when it comes to suppression of dissent, or are you just derailing?
- sanderjd 10y ago
  That may also be disturbing (if true), but in no world is it more disturbing than the executive branch of the federal government attempting to punish dissent. This is on a very short list of the most important things our system is designed to prevent from working. It hasn't worked yet, and the courts seem to be broadly willing to check the administration's behavior, but it's telling that they even had the gall to try.
  - rfrank 10y ago
    > the executive branch of the federal government attempting to punish dissent Like using the IRS to target conservatives?
    - Larrikin 10y ago
      Two bad things by both sides doesn't make them right
      - rfrank 10y ago
        It's just amusing to me how only one of those bad things seems to be "terrifying" or "disturbing". Which is worse, unmasking the twitter account owner, or Susan Rice's unmasking of intel reports on Trump's campaign staff?
        biaachmonkie 10y ago
        Why do you want to ignore and sweep away the investigations into the possible misdeeds of Trump and his associates? Are you a paid Russian troll?
        memmcgee 10y ago
        Doesn't it bother you that these names showed up in intelligence reports on Russia?
        shitgoose 10y ago
- InclinedPlane 10y ago
  If it were more common, perhaps. What has become incredibly common is framing hate-speech as criticism. That should scare you.
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    That's a fair point as well. But, both of those are cultural issues we will work through eventually, IMO. The federal government abusing its power is a procedural error that needs immediate veto.
wang_li 10y ago
If a government employee publicly takes positions in opposition of their job duties, it's legitimate for the government to look to see if they are properly doing their job. Everyone, gov. employees included, have first amendment rights. However they do not have the right to have their own agenda in their role as a government worker. That flies in the face of the core principle of the constitutional election of legislative and executive officers. (If you want an example of twitter being inconsistent, just compare the suspension of Glenn Reynolds - instapundit - for tweeting "Run. Them. Down." in response to rioters on I277 and the lack of action on the multiple and explicit death threats the are tweeted regularly.)
- acdha 10y ago
  > If a government employee publicly takes positions in opposition of their job duties Civil servants swear an oath to defend the constitution, not the political interests of whoever happens to be in office currently. Anyone who doesn't want to live in a banana republic should strongly support that.
- sanderjd 10y ago
  As many have noted, suspending accounts is very different than de-anonymizing them. And the government doing things is different than a private organization doing things.
- zobzu 10y ago
  but its against trump so its ok
- deong 10y ago
  And the government is welcome to investigate. But they can't compel a third party to help them conduct the investigation just because it would be easier on them. I doubt there's a legal basis for saying that these "alt_X" accounts are functioning in the role of a federal worker. They're obviously not advocating the official government position -- that's the whole point of them. They clearly state they aren't reflective of the views of the agency they're referencing. You'd effectively be arguing that no government employee could ever, in any capacity, express an opinion related to the function of their agency.
jamra 10y ago
Can you post a link for someone who has no idea what you're referring to?
powertower 10y ago
> somebody who opposes the president. What disturbs me even more, is how the media is able to shape the narrative that this is about president Trump's hurt feelings, and has nothing to do with anything else. Like the whole Muslim ban story [that was really a list of countries numerating all the death sentence destinations to Americans]. Or kind of like the narrative that Assad likes to gas random civilians whenever the US peaks in its interest in having an intervention over there. Even though none of this makes sense, people just don't look any further into what really is going on, and happily degenerate into the narrative. But the real irony here, is that the people at the top, that made and control your side, aren't really on your side... They just want division (and sides) - so you lose even when you think you are winning.
- sanderjd 10y ago
  What is this about, then? I don't see what it has to do with your other examples. It appears to be a straightforward case of trying to identify and punish a political dissident.
  - clickok 10y ago
    The concerning thing is that the headline frames it in the context of Trump, implying that the government is pursuing the information at the President's request. However, about ten paragraphs in they mention: > There is no indication that the White House was aware of the summons, which was signed by a Florida-based supervisor who works in an office that investigates employee corruption, misconduct and mismanagement. The supervisor could not be reached for comment." So all we know at the moment is that some manager, somewhere in Florida, is looking into `ALT_uscis`. And yet, the article mentions Trump multiple times (including in the headline) before that, giving the impression that Trump is pursuing legal action that would seem to compromise freedom of speech. It's not unreasonable to infer that the journalists taking this angle on the story have an axe to grind. Either way, I took a brief look at the `ALT_uscis` account and didn't see any tweets alluding to malfeasance or obstructive action in their official capacity, so I'm inclined to agree that this is government overreach.
marknutter 10y ago
You mean users like Leslie Jones? https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/440339119239991296 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/440339119239991296 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/564664734268411906 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/564664734268411906 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352 You're right, not handing over user info of somebody who opposes the president is a lot like not banning users who actively post racist, hateful bullshit.

sergiotapia 10y ago

What's more disturbing is how normalized it's becoming to frame any criticism as hate-speech. That should scare you.

s73ver 10y ago
I disagree. I think it's more disturbing how normalized it is to frame hate-speech and harassment as simply criticism.
- Spivak 10y ago
  Surely this is really the fundamental disagreement. Group 1: I would rather deal with harassment and hate speech than risk erroneously silencing someone I need to hear. Group 2: I would rather risk silencing someone who's voice ought to be heard than allow someone use speech to hurt another person with harassment or hate. --- Group 1 isn't trying to promote hate speech or harassment, they're just worried about the potentially malicious intentions of those that want to decide what speech falls under those banners. Group 2 isn't trying to silence opinions they disagree with, they're just worried that people are getting better at subtly codifying their hate speech in a way that gives them plausible deniability to out-groups but is obviously hateful to the in-group. I think the important takeaway is that neither 'side' is evil and despite the fact that it causes heated arguments one should maintain respect for those they disagree with.
  - sbov 10y ago
    This is also commonly the case: Group 1: I would rather others deal with harassment and hate speech than risk erroneously silencing someone I need to hear.
  - ColanR 10y ago
    As long as both sides do agree this is accurate, this seems like a great summary of the perspectives involved.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - sanderjd 10y ago
    That may be an interesting debate, but it is a derailment from what's going on here. This is just about the executive of the US federal government attempting to determine the identity of an anonymous dissident.
  - tshaddox 10y ago
    Your description of the groups is oversimplifying things and isn't a very "fundamental" dichotomy at all. The key phrase is "silencing someone." There is a continuum of power that a private individual or corporation or government can have to "silence" someone. At one end of the continuum is an individual hanging up the phone when they decide they've heard enough from whoever called them. I think most of us would agree that this doesn't violate the principles of free speech, even if the caller was expressing valid ideas. At the other end of the continuum is a government imprisoning someone for their speech. I think most of us would agree that this violates the principles (and laws) of free speech, except in certain circumstances (e.g. falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre). But there are cases in the middle of the continuum where things aren't so clear. If I run a small blog with occasional guest writers, a lot of us would probably agree that I can choose at will which content I publish without violating the principles of free speech. But what if my blog has millions of viewers? What if it has become more of a "news site" or "forum" than a "blog?" What if it's the largest such site in the world, and the only one with significant market share? Perhaps then many of us would accuse me of violating the principles of free speech, since I have significant power to "silence" certain people or ideas.
    - warlox 10y ago
      The first amendment does not guarantee a right to a platform.
    - jamescostian 10y ago
      I'm still a bit confused about libertarianism. Is this argument libertarian? It feels like it is because you're arguing in favor of allowing people to do as they please (freedom of speech) so long as it doesn't cause clear hurt to others (like yelling "fire" and giving someone a heart attack). You're arguing for the govt to get out of our way, and for private entities to fill in gaps, without restrictions. But if what you want is this unrestricted freedom, then shouldn't you be happy about Twitter? After all, by removing Milo, Twitter exercised the very freedom you seem to advocate for. They are a private entity, doing as they please. Why should Twitter be forced to store Milo's data on their servers and serve it up to users if Twitter, a private entity, chooses not to? I understand libertarianism in many social contexts (e.g. "People who aren't straight are not hurting anyone by not being straight, so there should not be any draconian laws against people for not being straight"), but I can't wrap my head around libertarianism in the context of all these "free-speech" arguments. I feel like I'm missing something, which would make a lot of sense considering how little I have read about libertarianism
  - lifeformed 10y ago
    I think Group 2 is, in practice, more reasonable. It seems like the only time someone gets banned is when they're a huge asshole about whatever controversial opinion they may have. I've yet to see a tactful, levelheaded person be banned for their controversial views. It's like the only casualties with Group 2's ideals are annoying assholes, which hardly feels like a loss. To me, having terrible people silenced in your community seems far better of a "drawback" than having marginalized people harassed in your community.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    > I think the important takeaway is that neither 'side' is evil I disagree. While group 2 may not intend evil, they are attempting to control others' speech. By their own standard, effect matters, not intent. To exercise control over others against their will is evil. Therefore they are evil. Their sole principle is that the ends justify the means, which is the equivalent of might-makes-right. By that priniciple, whoever happens to be in power will get away with whatever they want. In other words, opportunistic authoritarianism rather than the rule of law.
  - s73ver 10y ago
    I cannot agree with the way you've set up those groups. Mainly because I don't think it's that difficult to ban the harassment and hate speech without erroneously silencing someone who shouldn't be silenced. I don't buy the slippery slope argument on this one. I honestly think that Group 1 is more often, "I'm fine with the others being harassed, so I'm going to pretend we're talking about criticism or something like that instead of harassment."
throwaway2048 10y ago
No, id say the goverment directly attacking people who criticise them is a more disturbing development.
knowaveragejoe 10y ago
Can you provide an example of simple criticism being framed as hate-speech?
- troisx 10y ago
  Yes, milo yiannopoulos'a criticism of the ghostbusters movie. Show me the actual "hate speech". It's become common for any criticism of liberals to be framed as hate speech.
  - openasocket 10y ago
    Milo wasn't banned for hate speech: he was banned for encouraging harassment of Leslie Jones.
    - just2n 10y ago
      This is false. She directed her followers to attack him, not the other way around.
  - acdha 10y ago
    If all he'd done was criticize a movie or a celebrity, nothing would have happened but what what he actually did was to repeat racist slurs[1] and incite other people to attack her by reposting fake screenshots as if they're real[2], and continuing long after it was clear that she wasn't interested in hearing from him or the rest of the GamerGate brigades. As a private company, Twitter is under no obligation to provide anyone with a forum and their terms of service (https://twitter.com/tos https://twitter.com/tos and https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311 https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311) very clearly exclude that kind of behaviour: > Harassment: You may not incite or engage in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. > Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. 1. Called her an ape, echoing a long history of racist comparisons: https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755182965060169728 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755182965060169728 2. Examples at http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12226070/milo-yiannopoulus-twitter-ban-explained http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12226070/milo-yiannopoulus-twit...
matthewmacleod 10y ago
While I don't doubt that there's an increasing trend to shout "hate speech" in an effort to shut down discussion (and that's obviously dangerous) there is equally a worrying trend of dismissing co-ordinated campaigns or harassment and personal attacks as "free speech". There's more complexity here than you're acknowledging.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  And things labeled hate speech isnt as easily defined as some seem to imply.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > there is equally a worrying trend of dismissing co-ordinated campaigns or harassment and personal attacks as "free speech" Why is this more worrying? Seems less worrying to me if by harassment/attack you mean purely verbal online gabber.
thereare5lights 10y ago
I don't see why criticism being normalized as hate-speech is more scary than equating banning users who actively post racist, hateful bullshit and handing over the user info of somebody who opposes the president. One has people starting mobs against each other while the other has people thinking actions taken against demagogues is of the same vein as government suppression of dissent. You're more afraid of mobs of people shit talking you than the government arresting you for your opinions if they don't agree with them?
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Its a problem when it isnt consistent.
  - thereare5lights 10y ago
    So you claim you're more afraid of inconsistent mobs than the government when it comes to suppression of dissent, or are you just derailing?
sanderjd 10y ago
That may also be disturbing (if true), but in no world is it more disturbing than the executive branch of the federal government attempting to punish dissent. This is on a very short list of the most important things our system is designed to prevent from working. It hasn't worked yet, and the courts seem to be broadly willing to check the administration's behavior, but it's telling that they even had the gall to try.
- rfrank 10y ago
  > the executive branch of the federal government attempting to punish dissent Like using the IRS to target conservatives?
  - Larrikin 10y ago
    Two bad things by both sides doesn't make them right
    - rfrank 10y ago
      It's just amusing to me how only one of those bad things seems to be "terrifying" or "disturbing". Which is worse, unmasking the twitter account owner, or Susan Rice's unmasking of intel reports on Trump's campaign staff?
      - biaachmonkie 10y ago
        Why do you want to ignore and sweep away the investigations into the possible misdeeds of Trump and his associates? Are you a paid Russian troll?
      - memmcgee 10y ago
        Doesn't it bother you that these names showed up in intelligence reports on Russia?
        shitgoose 10y ago
InclinedPlane 10y ago
If it were more common, perhaps. What has become incredibly common is framing hate-speech as criticism. That should scare you.
- narrowrail 10y ago
  That's a fair point as well. But, both of those are cultural issues we will work through eventually, IMO. The federal government abusing its power is a procedural error that needs immediate veto.

wang_li 10y ago

If a government employee publicly takes positions in opposition of their job duties, it's legitimate for the government to look to see if they are properly doing their job. Everyone, gov. employees included, have first amendment rights. However they do not have the right to have their own agenda in their role as a government worker. That flies in the face of the core principle of the constitutional election of legislative and executive officers. (If you want an example of twitter being inconsistent, just compare the suspension of Glenn Reynolds - instapundit - for tweeting "Run. Them. Down." in response to rioters on I277 and the lack of action on the multiple and explicit death threats the are tweeted regularly.)

acdha 10y ago
> If a government employee publicly takes positions in opposition of their job duties Civil servants swear an oath to defend the constitution, not the political interests of whoever happens to be in office currently. Anyone who doesn't want to live in a banana republic should strongly support that.
sanderjd 10y ago
As many have noted, suspending accounts is very different than de-anonymizing them. And the government doing things is different than a private organization doing things.
zobzu 10y ago
but its against trump so its ok
deong 10y ago
And the government is welcome to investigate. But they can't compel a third party to help them conduct the investigation just because it would be easier on them. I doubt there's a legal basis for saying that these "alt_X" accounts are functioning in the role of a federal worker. They're obviously not advocating the official government position -- that's the whole point of them. They clearly state they aren't reflective of the views of the agency they're referencing. You'd effectively be arguing that no government employee could ever, in any capacity, express an opinion related to the function of their agency.

jamra 10y ago

Can you post a link for someone who has no idea what you're referring to?

powertower 10y ago

> somebody who opposes the president. What disturbs me even more, is how the media is able to shape the narrative that this is about president Trump's hurt feelings, and has nothing to do with anything else. Like the whole Muslim ban story [that was really a list of countries numerating all the death sentence destinations to Americans]. Or kind of like the narrative that Assad likes to gas random civilians whenever the US peaks in its interest in having an intervention over there. Even though none of this makes sense, people just don't look any further into what really is going on, and happily degenerate into the narrative. But the real irony here, is that the people at the top, that made and control your side, aren't really on your side... They just want division (and sides) - so you lose even when you think you are winning.

sanderjd 10y ago
What is this about, then? I don't see what it has to do with your other examples. It appears to be a straightforward case of trying to identify and punish a political dissident.
- clickok 10y ago
  The concerning thing is that the headline frames it in the context of Trump, implying that the government is pursuing the information at the President's request. However, about ten paragraphs in they mention: > There is no indication that the White House was aware of the summons, which was signed by a Florida-based supervisor who works in an office that investigates employee corruption, misconduct and mismanagement. The supervisor could not be reached for comment." So all we know at the moment is that some manager, somewhere in Florida, is looking into `ALT_uscis`. And yet, the article mentions Trump multiple times (including in the headline) before that, giving the impression that Trump is pursuing legal action that would seem to compromise freedom of speech. It's not unreasonable to infer that the journalists taking this angle on the story have an axe to grind. Either way, I took a brief look at the `ALT_uscis` account and didn't see any tweets alluding to malfeasance or obstructive action in their official capacity, so I'm inclined to agree that this is government overreach.

marknutter 10y ago

You mean users like Leslie Jones? https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/440339119239991296 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/440339119239991296 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/564664734268411906 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/564664734268411906 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352 You're right, not handing over user info of somebody who opposes the president is a lot like not banning users who actively post racist, hateful bullshit.