4 ms·
On 2) parent is not equating the goverment's position on this case to Twitter's positions on Milo. He is equating Twitter's position on this case to Twitter's p
by Banthum 10y ago
On 2) parent is not equating the goverment's position on this case to Twitter's positions on Milo. He is equating Twitter's position on this case to Twitter's position on Milo's case, and noting that there is indeed a double-standard. Twitter's message seems to be: Speech must be free - but only if that speech is for left-wing causes.
- rjtavares 10y agoTo my knowledge, no account was ever banned for critizing the Obama administration.
- coldtea 10y agoSeveral people were taken by the police for social/twitter threats against the (then Obama) President and such -- of the kind that we see 100 per day against Trump.
- DanBC 10y agoThreatening POTUS is always an offence, and those law enforcement investigations have been happening for years under all presidents, under both parties.
- dyeje 10y agoDo you have a reference for that? I highly doubt the rate of twitter threat investigations has changed between administrations.
- memmcgee 10y agoMilo was not banned for "free speech". He was banned because he was harassing people, which he very much was doing. If you want to say Twitter was banning people solely for their beliefs, find a better example. Additionally, protecting your speech from the government is not the same as giving you a platform on which to speak. Twitter protected their users under the Obama administration as well, they were not one of the tech companies that shared data with the NSA according to the Snowden leaks.
- Chris2048 10y ago> He was banned because he was harassing people No he wasn't. Twitter claimed he incited other people to harass LJ. You are also correct that, very often, the freedoms granted to Americans concern the ability of government, specifically, to impede; Hence it is correct that twitter would act differently when the government involves itself.
- odonnellryan 10y agoHis account was suspended many times. It wasn't just banned out of nowhere. Twitter hasn't released information surrounding the ban. Just a brief, very general, statement. Makes sense to me they don't want to spread news that could be considered libel/slander. If they say "Milo did this, this is why he was banned" now it's open to opinion. "Did this" is an opinion, and now suddenly Twitter says an individual did something. Twitter gains nothing by clarifying (in the eyes of their lawyers) so they didn't. Why get sued over this?
- Chris2048 10y ago> It wasn't just banned out of nowhere This doesn't have much to do with my point - The final ban was based on LJ. If you're going to take the "Descartes's Demon" defence, it works both ways: We don't know if twitter banned Milo for other reasons, but we also don't know if "He was banned because he was harassing people" by the same measure.
- odonnellryan 10y ago> We don't know if twitter banned Milo for other reasons, but we also don't know if "He was banned because he was harassing people" by the same measure. This is the exact point I'm trying to make. It doesn't matter why he was banned, Twitter can ban anyone. As long as they didn't ban him because he was a part of a protected group, it's kosher.
- Chris2048 10y ago