28 ms·

>"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If we believe in the free America, this should be what we should all fight

>"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If we believe in the free America, this should be what we should all fight for, if we want to keep America for the reason it became great in the first place. We're talking about the same Twitter that shut down Milo Yiannopolis' account because Twitter didn't like what he was saying?

AbrahamParangi 10y ago
There's an incredibly important difference between a corporation exercising its power to control speech on its platform and the US Federal Government exercising powers not granted to it by the laws of the United States to control speech in general.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  While this is an important distinction, corporate censorship is a real social problem when the corporations control the platforms most people use to speak. A circumstance where a single entity controls the conversations of billions is unparalleled, and our practices need to be re-evaluated.
  - s73ver 10y ago
    Remember, though, Milo wasn't banned for his views. He was banned for repeatedly violating the ToS.
    - olewhalehunter 10y ago
      that selective enforcement happened because of his views
      - manicdee 10y ago
        Is it hard work shifting those goalposts so often?
        olewhalehunter 10y ago
        ?
      - s73ver 10y ago
        No, it didn't.
    - twitterta5902 10y ago
      Selective enforcement.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - klasjdflkj 10y ago
      There have been many right-wing accounts banned that were much better behaved than Milo. Twitter definitely censors based on progressive American sensitivities: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/silence-frogs-why-twitter-censoring-harmless-pepe-accounts-1608780 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/silence-frogs-why-twitter-censoring...
      - odbol_ 10y ago
        Is that article some kind of joke? Using flowery academic language to defend what basically amounts to children posting trolling memes that make fun of fat people. Also, it did not cite a single source backing up your claims. Can you try to be a bit more specific?
        cyphar 10y ago
        There are countless "liberals" who have called for the murder of straight white men on Twitter (as a very simple example see the #KillAllMen hashtag). They weren't banned, despite being against the fabled "terms of service". But if someone criticises a feminist or other "liberal" group, they are likely to get banned. To pretend there isn't a clear bias by Twitter is just being disingenuous. I say this as someone who very left on most issues, its quite depressing seeing everything descend into authoritarianism.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        > I say this as someone who very left on most issues, its quite depressing seeing everything descend into authoritarianism. I appreciate your even-mindedness. Question: do you honestly not see leftism as naturally decaying into authoritarianism?
        tnone 10y ago
        There is this weird effect in American politics where each wing considers the other to be the authoritarian one. The American right loves its military industrial complex, its police crackdowns, its bank bailouts, its manifest destiny, and so on. These are not left wing institutions in creed or membership. You could ask the same question: do you not see rightism (ingroup loyalty, moral purity, respect for authority) as naturally decaying into authoritarianism?
    - AOsborn 10y ago
      > Remember, though, Milo wasn't banned for his views. Or, he was, and the ToS raised as public justification.
      - ascorbic 10y ago
        Then why haven't they banned the thousands of other users with more extreme views who avoid breaching the ToS?
        cookiecaper 10y ago
        Because no one listens to them. There's no point dirtying your hands on people who are screaming into the void.
      - s73ver 10y ago
        Or, he did break the ToS, and that was that. Richard Spencer is still on Twitter, despite being an actual, self identified Nazi.
    - nailer 10y ago
      Specifically what terms did he violate? Twitter's only statement is that some of Milo's followers behaved badly. If they followed this rule consistently they'd ban a lot of popular left leaning accounts to. Instead, left-leaning accounts that directly violate the Terms of Service by doxxing others (Shanley publishing Milo's cell phone number) and advocate for violence (various self-styled 'antifa' accounts) remain up. Yes, legally you have no right to free speech on a non-government platform. But as a Twitter user - and a left leaning person - I'd rather not have my platform dictate who I can and can't listen to.
      - s73ver 10y ago
        The story of Milo and the terms he broke has been widely publicized. He broke those terms, and that is not in question. Other people's behavior has absolutely nothing to do with Milo being banned for his behavior.
        nailer 10y ago
        You'e new here. Generally on HN, someone asking for a reference is responded to with a reference. If it's not in question - it is BTW - you'll be able to find one. > Other people's behavior has absolutely nothing to do with Milo being banned for his behavior. Indeed, it simply calls into question why Twitter seems to ignore the Terms of Service for some users while apply it to other users for the actions of their followers.
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    Milo Y had the entire platform of breitbart. Nobody was really silencing the guy, other than his own need to needle people and push limits.
- btown 10y ago
  Notably, Milo Yiannopolis hasn't been sentenced to "compulsory psychiatric care" by the court system... https://twitter.com/MoscowTimes/status/849413473813639168 https://twitter.com/MoscowTimes/status/849413473813639168 And neither will I be for making this post.
  - tonmoy 10y ago
    Don't let the worst be the friend of the bad
- olewhalehunter 10y ago
  That difference lasts only as long as it takes for federal interests to infiltrate that corporation under the guise of normal employees and board members.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Please tell me more.
- pilsetnieks 10y ago
  Not just not granted, rather even, explicitly forbidden.
- spaceflunky 10y ago
  Two things are are wrong with your statement: 1.) The government has made no request to impede upon the speech of the account owner, nor has the gov asked to shut it down the account. The gov asked for the account holder identity because they suspect (with reason) that someone is impersonating a federal agent through the account. 2.) Twitter invoked "free speech" to deny a reasonable request from the government. Right or not, I am mocking Twitter for acting like "champion of free speech" on one hand and then shutting down what they deem as "hate speech" (which the ACLU explicitly protects as free speech) on the other hand. Twitter can reinstate Milo's account at any time, yet they don't. 3.) We have just as much evidence to believe that the account holder is a fake federal employee as we do to believe they are real.
  - debaserab2 10y ago
    > 43. The CBP Summons states that Twitter is “required” to “produce[] for inspection” “[a]ll records regarding the [T]witter account @ALT_USCIS to include, User names, account login, phone numbers, mailing addresses, and I.P. addresses.” That doesn't really sound like they politely asked for it. No one's making the argument that twitter is some bastion of free speech, but it seems reasonable to respect them for not complying to government strongarm tactics to criminalize their own users. The law is well on twitter's side on this one. Comparing this to selectively banning trolls from their own business is just a false equivalence.
    - spaceflunky 10y ago
      > That doesn't really sound like they politely asked for it. How is it impolite? It's a legal request. Legal requests are always objective and to the point. You should argue objective facts and not whine because "its not polite enough" >No one's making the argument that twitter is some bastion of free speech, but it seems reasonable to respect them for not complying to government strongarm tactics to criminalize their own users. The law is well on twitter's side on this one. The government has not criminalizing anything. The account is deriving its authority from the fact that owner claims to be federal agent. The law is not on twitter's side. If the government suspects the impersonating of a federal agent they have the right to investigate. If you say "Trust me I'm a federal agent." the government can ask for your identity. If someone says "trust me I'm a cop" you have the right to ask for their name and badge number. The difference is that the account is claiming to be a federal agent. If the account were for example just an anonymous reporter who did not claim to be employed by the government, the government could not force twitter to reveal the identity. >Comparing this to selectively banning trolls from their own business is just a false equivalence. Twitter is explicitly citing "free speech" as their reason for denying a federal investigation.
jcalabro 10y ago
Yes. Twitter silencing a user on their own isn't the same as Twitter silencing a user due to a government order.
- twitterta5902 10y ago
  Correct. But while the two cases aren't equivalent, they both stand in opposition to principles of free speech. Twitter has no moral high ground here.
- spaceflunky 10y ago
  That is not even what's happening. Did you even read the report? The US is asking for the identities, because they suspect someone is impersonating a federal agent. The government has made NO REQUEST to shut down the account.
  - notgood 10y ago
    No-body believes that narrative, the account is called "Alt [Emoji] Immigration" and the bio says "Immigration resistance . Team 2.0 1/2 Not the views of DHS or USCIS. Old fellow drank russian soup."
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- BearGoesChirp 10y ago
  They don't have to be the same. Apples and oranges are not the same but they have enough similarities to be comparable in certain cases. When Twitter's defense against the government's request is because of the ideal of free speech, not the First Amendment but the ideal that it is based on that predates the First Amendment, then it is worth pointing out the double standard in Twitter's own behavior not upholding that ideal. That said, Twitter having a double standard does not invalidate their argument. From a purely logical perspective, an argument does not depend upon who says it or why they say it. But rarely are people interacting on that purely logical level, and so Twitter's double standard does allow us to both poke fun at Twitter and to call into question their actual reasoning as potentially being different than their stated reasoning.
freshhawk 10y ago
While it's difficult to move everyone over to another social media account, it's easier than moving everyone over to another government. So yeah, it's quite different.
bsder 10y ago
Twitter are far from angels. However: 1. There's a huge difference between shutting down an account and compromising identity. 2. Having Twitter ban you is a COMPLETELY different scale than having the Feds coming after you because you mocked the President. What Twitter did to Milo may have been shitty, but it wouldn't particularly invoke fear. What the Feds are doing here is terrifying.
- spaceflunky 10y ago
  >because you mocked the President. That's not true. The us government is asking for the account holders identities (no shut down request) because the government suspects that the account owners are civilians (or possibly foreign actors) posing as federal employees. The account derives it's authority by saying that it is run by employees of a federal agency. It's a serious federal crime to impersonate a federal employee. The government has not asked to shut down the account. I suspect the government will make a decision after they know the identities, but there is just enough evidence to assume the account holder is faking their authority as there is to believe its real.
  - laughingman2 10y ago
    Well then if the Trump administration is searching for "Foreign actors posing as federal employees", shouldn't it first look into a mirror instead of twitter first?
    - clickok 10y ago
      Sick burn. However, about ten paragraphs in, and after mentioning Trump serveral times, the article states: > 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 while this supervisor might be serving as a catspaw of the administration (who can say at this point?), this article (and the related discussion) seems to be using it to stir up controversy about Trump, whose only known involvement at present is as one of the subjects `ALT_uscis` tweets about.
InclinedPlane 10y ago
For values of "didn't like what he was saying" equal to: flagrantly and repeatedly violated their terms of service and broke the law by using twitter to organize targeted harassment of individuals.
s73ver 10y ago
No, we're talking about the Twitter that shut down his account for repeatedly breaking the ToS.
- twitterta5902 10y ago
  Yes. The Twitter that hasn't shut down other (left-leaning) accounts for repeatedly breaking the ToS. Pretending that this is anything but politically-motivated is naive.
- philliphaydon 10y ago
  What ToS did he break? Because as far I know he broke none. He did however call out that actress who has a twitter account full of racist tweets which do violate the ToS and her account is still active and actively posting racist tweets.
  - warlox 10y ago
    The rule against harassment. https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311 https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311 > actively posting racist tweets. [Citation Needed]
  - openasocket 10y ago
    You talking about Leslie Jones? He photo-shopped some images to look like screen grabs of Leslie Jones saying racist things. Can you link to a racist tweet she has actually posted? And the TOS term he broke was actively inciting others to personally harass Leslie Jones.
    - filoleg 10y ago
      >Can you link to a racist tweet she has actually posted? Here you go, the list is not comprehensive: https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/463074782205190144 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/463074782205190144 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/440339119239991296 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/440339119239991296 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/504060745026637825 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/504060745026637825 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/169001733417213952 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/169001733417213952 As for inciting others to personally harass someone, Leslie Jones herself is very guilty of that, even moreso than Milo. Nowhere did Milo say (as far as I remember) something like "go and harass her", while she did exactly that to someone https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352 EDIT: I don't understand the downvotes, can someone explain why? Those are links directly to her twitter, primary source. Nothing is made up by me. Just because it goes against your opinion?
cortesoft 10y ago
The comment you are replying to didn't even MENTION twitter. They aren't praising Twitter for refusing the order, they are criticizing the government for requesting the order. Why is what Twitter has done in the past relevant to that critique?
- 1337biz 10y ago
  Because the title frames Twitter as the defenders of free speech. Something they clearly have given up on a long time ago.
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    Which title? The article title?
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    It doesn't frame them as anything, it just documents the fact that the firm has made a legal filing in response to a summons.
supergreg 10y ago
So Twitter didn't do the right thing then. Does that mean they shouldn't do the right thing now?
- spaceflunky 10y ago
  Twitter can reinstate Milo's account at anytime, yet they haven't. By continuing their Milo ban on twitter, they lose the ability to wave the "free speech" banner.
gdulli 10y ago
Equivocating about harassment, that's really the hill you want to die on?
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
> We're talking about the same Twitter that shut down Milo Yiannopolis' account because Twitter didn't like what he was saying? Nope! We're talking about the same Twitter that shut down Milo Yiannopolis' account because he openly encouraged people to harass an actress (Leslie Jones), including sharing fake screenshots making it look like she tweeted a bunch of offensive stuff, because she was in a movie he didn't like (Ghostbusters).
- shitgoose 10y ago
  read AOsborn comment above. here is the link to Leslie Jones encouraging people to harass someone she doesn't like: https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352 some animals are more equal than others?
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    Those goalposts keep moving. Did you happen to see what that tweet was in response to? @whitebecky1776: "hey @Lesdoggg you look like a pregnant gorilla" "I was so hyped to see harambe on the big screen @Lesdoggg" "Harambe gave birth to @Lesdoggg don't disrespect harambe." My impression is that Twitter leans towards letting minor offenses slide and punishing only the most egregious. I'm not saying I agree with that policy, but it is consistent. So, unless you think that losing your temper at someone who repeatedly calls a black person an ape is morally equivalent to leading an extended harassment campaign against someone and fraudulently attributing statements to them because they were in a movie you didn't like, you've got no grounds at all to say that Milo was only banned for his politics. May I suggest, as a matter of tactics, that you pick some less thoroughly reprehensible martyrs next time? Surely there's someone who's been banned from Twitter who didn't obviously deserve it.
    - shitgoose 10y ago
      my friend, you should see the epithets that Milo was awarded by progressive crowd! was anyone banned from the other side? as a matter of tactics?
warlox 10y ago
Milo was banned for repeated rule violations and getting a troll army to harass Leslie Jones. Stop trying to revise history.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Milo was banned for completely innocuous tweets, and a look at the tweets in question confirms as much.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > getting a troll army to harass Leslie Jones How did Twitter verify this?
  - odonnellryan 10y ago
    Twitter has access to a lot more than you guys do, that's for sure. Like his dms, his followers, and all that. Second, his account was suspended many times. Repeatedly. Eventually they banned him.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > Twitter has access to a lot more than you guys do, that's for sure Then why not reveal this?
      - odonnellryan 10y ago
        Easy: they don't benefit at all from it. I'm not a lawyer, but I can easily see how it's not a good idea to talk bad about someone who used your platform. There's nothing to gain, and a lot to lose by doing so. It's kinda lose-lose for Twitter, but few people seriously care about Milo getting banned.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        Milo has explicitly stated he didn't incite harassment, so the benefit would be demonstrating that the ban was not politically-based. > it's not a good idea to talk bad talking bad vs providing evidence of intent to incite harassment. > but few people seriously care about Milo getting banned Hmm, perhaps in your own bubble
colanderman 10y ago
Twitter is not bound by the First Amendment, nor should it be.
ryguytilidie 10y ago
The idea that someone can both equate this situation and Milo's AND do so while mocking someone else's point as not good is stunning to me.
Buttons840 10y ago
The OP criticised the government and didn't mention Twitter. I think he's talking about the government, not Twitter.
tripzilch 10y ago
if anything, it shows that Twitter is able to tell the difference between a harassing troll, that requires moderation like any public communication platform on the net needs to moderate, and the other being someone who needs their right to free speech defended when criticising the government. I wanted to downvote you but did not because I suppose this is an important question to ask and it adds to the discussion. However, the way you frame the question, the feigned incredulity, almost makes me reconsider. Unless you truly mean you're unable to spot the difference between the two (in which case I don't need to hear about it).

AbrahamParangi 10y ago

There's an incredibly important difference between a corporation exercising its power to control speech on its platform and the US Federal Government exercising powers not granted to it by the laws of the United States to control speech in general.

cookiecaper 10y ago
While this is an important distinction, corporate censorship is a real social problem when the corporations control the platforms most people use to speak. A circumstance where a single entity controls the conversations of billions is unparalleled, and our practices need to be re-evaluated.
- s73ver 10y ago
  Remember, though, Milo wasn't banned for his views. He was banned for repeatedly violating the ToS.
  - olewhalehunter 10y ago
    that selective enforcement happened because of his views
    - manicdee 10y ago
      Is it hard work shifting those goalposts so often?
      - olewhalehunter 10y ago
        ?
    - s73ver 10y ago
      No, it didn't.
  - twitterta5902 10y ago
    Selective enforcement.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - klasjdflkj 10y ago
    There have been many right-wing accounts banned that were much better behaved than Milo. Twitter definitely censors based on progressive American sensitivities: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/silence-frogs-why-twitter-censoring-harmless-pepe-accounts-1608780 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/silence-frogs-why-twitter-censoring...
    - odbol_ 10y ago
      Is that article some kind of joke? Using flowery academic language to defend what basically amounts to children posting trolling memes that make fun of fat people. Also, it did not cite a single source backing up your claims. Can you try to be a bit more specific?
      - cyphar 10y ago
        There are countless "liberals" who have called for the murder of straight white men on Twitter (as a very simple example see the #KillAllMen hashtag). They weren't banned, despite being against the fabled "terms of service". But if someone criticises a feminist or other "liberal" group, they are likely to get banned. To pretend there isn't a clear bias by Twitter is just being disingenuous. I say this as someone who very left on most issues, its quite depressing seeing everything descend into authoritarianism.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        > I say this as someone who very left on most issues, its quite depressing seeing everything descend into authoritarianism. I appreciate your even-mindedness. Question: do you honestly not see leftism as naturally decaying into authoritarianism?
        tnone 10y ago
        There is this weird effect in American politics where each wing considers the other to be the authoritarian one. The American right loves its military industrial complex, its police crackdowns, its bank bailouts, its manifest destiny, and so on. These are not left wing institutions in creed or membership. You could ask the same question: do you not see rightism (ingroup loyalty, moral purity, respect for authority) as naturally decaying into authoritarianism?
  - AOsborn 10y ago
    > Remember, though, Milo wasn't banned for his views. Or, he was, and the ToS raised as public justification.
    - ascorbic 10y ago
      Then why haven't they banned the thousands of other users with more extreme views who avoid breaching the ToS?
      - cookiecaper 10y ago
        Because no one listens to them. There's no point dirtying your hands on people who are screaming into the void.
    - s73ver 10y ago
      Or, he did break the ToS, and that was that. Richard Spencer is still on Twitter, despite being an actual, self identified Nazi.
  - nailer 10y ago
    Specifically what terms did he violate? Twitter's only statement is that some of Milo's followers behaved badly. If they followed this rule consistently they'd ban a lot of popular left leaning accounts to. Instead, left-leaning accounts that directly violate the Terms of Service by doxxing others (Shanley publishing Milo's cell phone number) and advocate for violence (various self-styled 'antifa' accounts) remain up. Yes, legally you have no right to free speech on a non-government platform. But as a Twitter user - and a left leaning person - I'd rather not have my platform dictate who I can and can't listen to.
    - s73ver 10y ago
      The story of Milo and the terms he broke has been widely publicized. He broke those terms, and that is not in question. Other people's behavior has absolutely nothing to do with Milo being banned for his behavior.
      - nailer 10y ago
        You'e new here. Generally on HN, someone asking for a reference is responded to with a reference. If it's not in question - it is BTW - you'll be able to find one. > Other people's behavior has absolutely nothing to do with Milo being banned for his behavior. Indeed, it simply calls into question why Twitter seems to ignore the Terms of Service for some users while apply it to other users for the actions of their followers.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  Milo Y had the entire platform of breitbart. Nobody was really silencing the guy, other than his own need to needle people and push limits.
btown 10y ago
Notably, Milo Yiannopolis hasn't been sentenced to "compulsory psychiatric care" by the court system... https://twitter.com/MoscowTimes/status/849413473813639168 https://twitter.com/MoscowTimes/status/849413473813639168 And neither will I be for making this post.
- tonmoy 10y ago
  Don't let the worst be the friend of the bad
olewhalehunter 10y ago
That difference lasts only as long as it takes for federal interests to infiltrate that corporation under the guise of normal employees and board members.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Please tell me more.
pilsetnieks 10y ago
Not just not granted, rather even, explicitly forbidden.
spaceflunky 10y ago
Two things are are wrong with your statement: 1.) The government has made no request to impede upon the speech of the account owner, nor has the gov asked to shut it down the account. The gov asked for the account holder identity because they suspect (with reason) that someone is impersonating a federal agent through the account. 2.) Twitter invoked "free speech" to deny a reasonable request from the government. Right or not, I am mocking Twitter for acting like "champion of free speech" on one hand and then shutting down what they deem as "hate speech" (which the ACLU explicitly protects as free speech) on the other hand. Twitter can reinstate Milo's account at any time, yet they don't. 3.) We have just as much evidence to believe that the account holder is a fake federal employee as we do to believe they are real.
- debaserab2 10y ago
  > 43. The CBP Summons states that Twitter is “required” to “produce[] for inspection” “[a]ll records regarding the [T]witter account @ALT_USCIS to include, User names, account login, phone numbers, mailing addresses, and I.P. addresses.” That doesn't really sound like they politely asked for it. No one's making the argument that twitter is some bastion of free speech, but it seems reasonable to respect them for not complying to government strongarm tactics to criminalize their own users. The law is well on twitter's side on this one. Comparing this to selectively banning trolls from their own business is just a false equivalence.
  - spaceflunky 10y ago
    > That doesn't really sound like they politely asked for it. How is it impolite? It's a legal request. Legal requests are always objective and to the point. You should argue objective facts and not whine because "its not polite enough" >No one's making the argument that twitter is some bastion of free speech, but it seems reasonable to respect them for not complying to government strongarm tactics to criminalize their own users. The law is well on twitter's side on this one. The government has not criminalizing anything. The account is deriving its authority from the fact that owner claims to be federal agent. The law is not on twitter's side. If the government suspects the impersonating of a federal agent they have the right to investigate. If you say "Trust me I'm a federal agent." the government can ask for your identity. If someone says "trust me I'm a cop" you have the right to ask for their name and badge number. The difference is that the account is claiming to be a federal agent. If the account were for example just an anonymous reporter who did not claim to be employed by the government, the government could not force twitter to reveal the identity. >Comparing this to selectively banning trolls from their own business is just a false equivalence. Twitter is explicitly citing "free speech" as their reason for denying a federal investigation.

jcalabro 10y ago

Yes. Twitter silencing a user on their own isn't the same as Twitter silencing a user due to a government order.

twitterta5902 10y ago
Correct. But while the two cases aren't equivalent, they both stand in opposition to principles of free speech. Twitter has no moral high ground here.
spaceflunky 10y ago
That is not even what's happening. Did you even read the report? The US is asking for the identities, because they suspect someone is impersonating a federal agent. The government has made NO REQUEST to shut down the account.
- notgood 10y ago
  No-body believes that narrative, the account is called "Alt [Emoji] Immigration" and the bio says "Immigration resistance . Team 2.0 1/2 Not the views of DHS or USCIS. Old fellow drank russian soup."
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
BearGoesChirp 10y ago
They don't have to be the same. Apples and oranges are not the same but they have enough similarities to be comparable in certain cases. When Twitter's defense against the government's request is because of the ideal of free speech, not the First Amendment but the ideal that it is based on that predates the First Amendment, then it is worth pointing out the double standard in Twitter's own behavior not upholding that ideal. That said, Twitter having a double standard does not invalidate their argument. From a purely logical perspective, an argument does not depend upon who says it or why they say it. But rarely are people interacting on that purely logical level, and so Twitter's double standard does allow us to both poke fun at Twitter and to call into question their actual reasoning as potentially being different than their stated reasoning.

freshhawk 10y ago

While it's difficult to move everyone over to another social media account, it's easier than moving everyone over to another government. So yeah, it's quite different.

bsder 10y ago

Twitter are far from angels. However: 1. There's a huge difference between shutting down an account and compromising identity. 2. Having Twitter ban you is a COMPLETELY different scale than having the Feds coming after you because you mocked the President. What Twitter did to Milo may have been shitty, but it wouldn't particularly invoke fear. What the Feds are doing here is terrifying.

spaceflunky 10y ago
>because you mocked the President. That's not true. The us government is asking for the account holders identities (no shut down request) because the government suspects that the account owners are civilians (or possibly foreign actors) posing as federal employees. The account derives it's authority by saying that it is run by employees of a federal agency. It's a serious federal crime to impersonate a federal employee. The government has not asked to shut down the account. I suspect the government will make a decision after they know the identities, but there is just enough evidence to assume the account holder is faking their authority as there is to believe its real.
- laughingman2 10y ago
  Well then if the Trump administration is searching for "Foreign actors posing as federal employees", shouldn't it first look into a mirror instead of twitter first?
  - clickok 10y ago
    Sick burn. However, about ten paragraphs in, and after mentioning Trump serveral times, the article states: > 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 while this supervisor might be serving as a catspaw of the administration (who can say at this point?), this article (and the related discussion) seems to be using it to stir up controversy about Trump, whose only known involvement at present is as one of the subjects `ALT_uscis` tweets about.

InclinedPlane 10y ago

For values of "didn't like what he was saying" equal to: flagrantly and repeatedly violated their terms of service and broke the law by using twitter to organize targeted harassment of individuals.

s73ver 10y ago

No, we're talking about the Twitter that shut down his account for repeatedly breaking the ToS.

twitterta5902 10y ago
Yes. The Twitter that hasn't shut down other (left-leaning) accounts for repeatedly breaking the ToS. Pretending that this is anything but politically-motivated is naive.
philliphaydon 10y ago
What ToS did he break? Because as far I know he broke none. He did however call out that actress who has a twitter account full of racist tweets which do violate the ToS and her account is still active and actively posting racist tweets.
- warlox 10y ago
  The rule against harassment. https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311 https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311 > actively posting racist tweets. [Citation Needed]
- openasocket 10y ago
  You talking about Leslie Jones? He photo-shopped some images to look like screen grabs of Leslie Jones saying racist things. Can you link to a racist tweet she has actually posted? And the TOS term he broke was actively inciting others to personally harass Leslie Jones.
  - filoleg 10y ago
    >Can you link to a racist tweet she has actually posted? Here you go, the list is not comprehensive: https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/463074782205190144 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/463074782205190144 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/440339119239991296 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/440339119239991296 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/504060745026637825 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/504060745026637825 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/169001733417213952 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/169001733417213952 As for inciting others to personally harass someone, Leslie Jones herself is very guilty of that, even moreso than Milo. Nowhere did Milo say (as far as I remember) something like "go and harass her", while she did exactly that to someone https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352 EDIT: I don't understand the downvotes, can someone explain why? Those are links directly to her twitter, primary source. Nothing is made up by me. Just because it goes against your opinion?

cortesoft 10y ago

The comment you are replying to didn't even MENTION twitter. They aren't praising Twitter for refusing the order, they are criticizing the government for requesting the order. Why is what Twitter has done in the past relevant to that critique?

1337biz 10y ago
Because the title frames Twitter as the defenders of free speech. Something they clearly have given up on a long time ago.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  Which title? The article title?
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  It doesn't frame them as anything, it just documents the fact that the firm has made a legal filing in response to a summons.

supergreg 10y ago

So Twitter didn't do the right thing then. Does that mean they shouldn't do the right thing now?

spaceflunky 10y ago
Twitter can reinstate Milo's account at anytime, yet they haven't. By continuing their Milo ban on twitter, they lose the ability to wave the "free speech" banner.

gdulli 10y ago

Equivocating about harassment, that's really the hill you want to die on?

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

> We're talking about the same Twitter that shut down Milo Yiannopolis' account because Twitter didn't like what he was saying? Nope! We're talking about the same Twitter that shut down Milo Yiannopolis' account because he openly encouraged people to harass an actress (Leslie Jones), including sharing fake screenshots making it look like she tweeted a bunch of offensive stuff, because she was in a movie he didn't like (Ghostbusters).

shitgoose 10y ago
read AOsborn comment above. here is the link to Leslie Jones encouraging people to harass someone she doesn't like: https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352 https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352 some animals are more equal than others?
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  Those goalposts keep moving. Did you happen to see what that tweet was in response to? @whitebecky1776: "hey @Lesdoggg you look like a pregnant gorilla" "I was so hyped to see harambe on the big screen @Lesdoggg" "Harambe gave birth to @Lesdoggg don't disrespect harambe." My impression is that Twitter leans towards letting minor offenses slide and punishing only the most egregious. I'm not saying I agree with that policy, but it is consistent. So, unless you think that losing your temper at someone who repeatedly calls a black person an ape is morally equivalent to leading an extended harassment campaign against someone and fraudulently attributing statements to them because they were in a movie you didn't like, you've got no grounds at all to say that Milo was only banned for his politics. May I suggest, as a matter of tactics, that you pick some less thoroughly reprehensible martyrs next time? Surely there's someone who's been banned from Twitter who didn't obviously deserve it.
  - shitgoose 10y ago
    my friend, you should see the epithets that Milo was awarded by progressive crowd! was anyone banned from the other side? as a matter of tactics?

warlox 10y ago

Milo was banned for repeated rule violations and getting a troll army to harass Leslie Jones. Stop trying to revise history.

Karunamon 10y ago
Milo was banned for completely innocuous tweets, and a look at the tweets in question confirms as much.
Chris2048 10y ago
> getting a troll army to harass Leslie Jones How did Twitter verify this?
- odonnellryan 10y ago
  Twitter has access to a lot more than you guys do, that's for sure. Like his dms, his followers, and all that. Second, his account was suspended many times. Repeatedly. Eventually they banned him.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > Twitter has access to a lot more than you guys do, that's for sure Then why not reveal this?
    - odonnellryan 10y ago
      Easy: they don't benefit at all from it. I'm not a lawyer, but I can easily see how it's not a good idea to talk bad about someone who used your platform. There's nothing to gain, and a lot to lose by doing so. It's kinda lose-lose for Twitter, but few people seriously care about Milo getting banned.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        Milo has explicitly stated he didn't incite harassment, so the benefit would be demonstrating that the ban was not politically-based. > it's not a good idea to talk bad talking bad vs providing evidence of intent to incite harassment. > but few people seriously care about Milo getting banned Hmm, perhaps in your own bubble

colanderman 10y ago

Twitter is not bound by the First Amendment, nor should it be.

ryguytilidie 10y ago

The idea that someone can both equate this situation and Milo's AND do so while mocking someone else's point as not good is stunning to me.

Buttons840 10y ago

The OP criticised the government and didn't mention Twitter. I think he's talking about the government, not Twitter.

tripzilch 10y ago

if anything, it shows that Twitter is able to tell the difference between a harassing troll, that requires moderation like any public communication platform on the net needs to moderate, and the other being someone who needs their right to free speech defended when criticising the government. I wanted to downvote you but did not because I suppose this is an important question to ask and it adds to the discussion. However, the way you frame the question, the feigned incredulity, almost makes me reconsider. Unless you truly mean you're unable to spot the difference between the two (in which case I don't need to hear about it).