5 ms·

Milo 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 peopl

Milo 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 ago
  His 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
        > This is the exact point I'm trying to make My original point simply points out Milo was not banned for personally harassing anyone, nothing else.
        odonnellryan 10y ago
        Then what are you trying to discuss?
        Chris2048 9y ago
        >> He was banned because he was harassing people > No he wasn't. Twitter claimed he incited other people to harass LJ.
psyc 10y ago
Milo wasn't harassing anybody, except by the broadest and most over-sensitive possible interpretation of the already diluted word 'harassment'. Milo himself never did anything to anybody other than toss out singular, one-off quips about people. But people like to hold those with many followers responsible for what their followers say. While it's emotionally tempting to do so, it's also stupid, unworkable, and ultimately always serves as the go-to excuse to ban someone with the wrong views.
- odonnellryan 10y ago
  Twitter can ban anyone for anything they want.
  - psyc 10y ago
    A very astute observation, sir! And what a novel line of reasoning, I might add.
  - vsl 10y ago
    And anyone can point out their hypocrisy.
    - odonnellryan 9y ago
      It isn't hypocritical to choose who you want on your platform. Twitter has no obligation to be some neutral platform. They have never claimed this and have never tried to do this.
      - Banthum 9y ago
        At Twitter's scale, they do have an obligation to be a neutral platform. They own the modern digital "town square". Things have changed since the old days. Businesses have obligations beyond just barely staying within the law. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's ethical.

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 ago
His 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
      > This is the exact point I'm trying to make My original point simply points out Milo was not banned for personally harassing anyone, nothing else.
      - odonnellryan 10y ago
        Then what are you trying to discuss?
        Chris2048 9y ago
        >> He was banned because he was harassing people > No he wasn't. Twitter claimed he incited other people to harass LJ.

psyc 10y ago

Milo wasn't harassing anybody, except by the broadest and most over-sensitive possible interpretation of the already diluted word 'harassment'. Milo himself never did anything to anybody other than toss out singular, one-off quips about people. But people like to hold those with many followers responsible for what their followers say. While it's emotionally tempting to do so, it's also stupid, unworkable, and ultimately always serves as the go-to excuse to ban someone with the wrong views.

odonnellryan 10y ago
Twitter can ban anyone for anything they want.
- psyc 10y ago
  A very astute observation, sir! And what a novel line of reasoning, I might add.
- vsl 10y ago
  And anyone can point out their hypocrisy.
  - odonnellryan 9y ago
    It isn't hypocritical to choose who you want on your platform. Twitter has no obligation to be some neutral platform. They have never claimed this and have never tried to do this.
    - Banthum 9y ago
      At Twitter's scale, they do have an obligation to be a neutral platform. They own the modern digital "town square". Things have changed since the old days. Businesses have obligations beyond just barely staying within the law. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's ethical.