5 ms·

Twitter permanently bans white supremacist David Duke

27 points by aspenmayer 6y ago

seventytwo 6y ago
Good
- _red 6y ago
  I LOVE this new internet you people are creating!
  - riffic 6y ago
    The fundamental principles of the internet haven't changed. If racists want a platform, they can have it and the underlying web standards still exist for them to make it themselves and to self-host it. If their providers want to cancel these business relationships, that is their right as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association What is really problematic and has been since its inception is the overuse of commercial and centralized services by public institutions and organizations. Twitter and other services of that nature are not public utilities.
    - rbecker 6y ago
      And yet we were okay with sharply curtailing freedom of association in some areas. Twitter (or a landlord) would be in legal trouble if it tried to ban black people. Edit: To the replies pointing out the protected class distinction: I'm well aware of it (as my example shows). What I am highlighting is that "freedom of association" isn't as absolute as the parent post implies, and that in the past the law was changed and that freedom was diminished when it allowed behavior we didn't like.
      - riffic 6y ago
        I'm sorry, I didn't know that being a racist was a protected class now.
        _red 6y ago
        Saying blacks deserve to be a protected class is pretty racist you know.....
        true_religion 6y ago
        All races are a protected class. You can’t discriminate against white Europeans either. In fact, if you were to start a group that wanted to destroy white Europeans (like how the Klan wants to destroy non whites, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and sanity itself) then you would quickly find yourself ostracized. I would bet an anti white group would quickly find itself branded as a terrorist organization in the US.
      - CptFribble 6y ago
        There is a marked difference between race and opinion. You can't change the color of your skin, but you can change your opinions or keep them to yourself if you wish. Anti-Semites are not a protected class. Political opinion is not protected in private space. The policies of these private platforms are clear and available for anyone to read, and include a ban on racist speech. If you want to stay on the platform, follow the rules. You have no control over what color you were born, and you can't change it. That's why race is a protected class and opinions are not. Free speech only protects us from the government, not from private consequences.
      - happytoexplain 6y ago
        I assume your implication is that Twitter is banning conservatives, as opposed to the other interpretation, which is that conservatives, regardless of what forces are to blame, have a higher ratio of participants who are worthy of being banned from a non-political point of view (e.g. actual racism, higher desire for violence, etc). Reality might be somewhere in between, but it seems obvious to me that it is very close to the latter.
    - _red 6y ago
      You fail to see whats coming next. In 1997 the big tech platforms lobbied that not only they wouldn't censor views, that it was basically impossible for them to do so. This is what allowed the internet to grow without onerous regulation (ie they were treated as a carrier not a publisher). Now that big tech is moving towards "being publishers", you're now going to reverse it all and cause massive regulation to take place. In the end, "the internet" will look no different than mainstream tv.
      - happytoexplain 6y ago
        >In the end, "the internet" will look no different than mainstream tv. I worry about this, but I also suspect we're heading in a direction that will mostly avoid this fate. However, even if given a hard binary choice between TV land and the current popularity of hatred that Duke exemplifies, I wouldn't have to think on it.
        _red 6y ago
        The merchants of war and division thank you for helping in this effort. The censors aren't stupid, of course they are going to go after the David Dukes first, then over the next decade watch how the internet slowly transforms into a massive establishment mouthpiece. Maybe explain to your kids, "we were afraid of bad words".
    - rightbyte 6y ago
      I wonder if Twitter think they had a business arrangement with the Grand Wizard. Wikileaks and Julia Assange are commiting crimes were they in the US. There is a long list to cut.
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    Often if you find yourself seeing some group of people in your head and hating them and referring to them as "you people", you're probably not going to be able to express yourself in a valuable way, and should consider backing up emotionally.
sieste 6y ago
Twitter banning prominent far right users forces them to mass migrate to parler which ultimately makes parler less attractive to the wider community. On the other hand parler might only be popular because twitter started banning these people in the first place.
- krapp 6y ago
  Seems like a win-win to me. Far right users congregate to a niche platform where they can do as they please, and as a result it's easier for everyone else to ignore them.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Yeah, and then they can totally ignore the far left and push Twitter even further over the cliff.
    - shakezula 6y ago
      That’s a real nice straw man you got there.
    - krapp 6y ago
      Being anti-racist isn't a far left position, it's a civilized human being position.
      - jfk13 6y ago
        Not suggesting any sympathy with David Duke, but there's a basic problem with this statement: what is "racist"? The definition depends who you ask, and is constantly in flux. If I say I'm anti-racist, but disagree with you as to what constitutes "racism", which of us is right and which should be banned? Who gets to judge?
        krapp 6y ago
        >The definition depends who you ask, and is constantly in flux. Saying the term "racist" is "constantly in flux" seems to imply its definition is completely arbitrary, or that no commonly accepted or generally agreed upon definitions exist. Regardless of what else people may say it does or doesn't mean, I think most people would agree that the white supremacist views of David Duke could be considered racist. >If I say I'm anti-racist, but disagree with you as to what constitutes "racism", which of us is right and which should be banned? Who gets to judge? In the specific case, obviously the owner of the platform. Despite what people say (or want to be true) Twitter is not a public space, it's a private platform and its owners can ban whomever they please for whatever reason they want, and that's probably spelled out in their terms of service somewhere. In the more general case, possibly a framework of law, common societal or religious norms and cultural influences, or no one. Truth can't always be determined with absolute certainty when one is dealing with social constructs in the subjective and abstract landscape of modern hyperreality. People can't even agree on the world being round anymore, and it's easier to accept that everything one is told is a lie than attempt to reconcile a complex and fragmented media universe of mutually opposed, violently overlapping magisteria. Obviously, if we can't even agree on what race is, we may not agree on what what racism is, or opposition to it. How do you even do that when some people believe most of the people they pass on the street are holograms in the Matrix? That said, when David Duke talks about "the Jews" and their campaign of "white genocide" or about his desire to live in an all "white" society, it's entirely possible to see what he means in that context and form an opinion accordingly.
DaniloDias 6y ago
This is not long term thinking. I find DD to be repelling- but moves like this are more repelling than yet another asshole on Twitter. Twitter apparently wants to save its users from ever being critical thinkers.
h2odragon 6y ago
We are the chosen ones, we have Right on our side, we need not listen to anyone who disagrees with us. Better in fact if they did not even exist, no? Maybe if we're vigorous enough in protesting our orthodoxy while tossing the heretics in the fire, no one will think to question whether our thoughts are utterly proper.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Quite a dramatic rewording of "we banned a guy on Twitter for saying racist stuff."
- pcbro141 6y ago
  No reasonable person thinks it's up for debate whether the KKK terrorist group or ISIS is on the right side of history or not. Sounds like lazy "slippery slope" concern trolling.
mkaic 6y ago
Happy to see this.
- s9w 6y ago
  If you think about why you posted this, you might learn something about yourself.
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    I find this hypocritical. It seems obvious to me that it's possible to reasonably respond to news that a KKK leader was banned on Twitter by expressing gratitude without that signifying a likely personality flaw.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    My reaction to seeing this news was also a tiny jolt of happiness, and thinking about that, I've learned that I dislike white supremacists and their philosophy. Is that what you meant?
    - s9w 6y ago
      no
bryanlarsen 6y ago
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." - Karl Popper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- gruez 6y ago
  The problem is with using that as justification for censorship is that it can be use to justify censorship on a wide range of unorthodox speech. We can all agree as a baseline that advocating for intolerance in the form of imminent lawless action[1] should be banned, but what else? Any lawless action? What about advocating for lawful action that leads to direct discrimination of minorities? eg. internment of japanese americans. What about advocating for lawful action that leads to indirect discrimination of minorities? eg. war on drugs. What about advocating against discrimination that helps minorities? eg. affirmative action. Finally, what about saying facts that are true, that might be misleading or lack nuance? eg. "blacks account for 52.5% of all homicide offenders, but only make up 13.7% of the population" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
- rbecker 6y ago
  If true, then how did tolerant societies arise from intolerant ones?
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    Can you explain how you see the two things as conflicting? They both seem natural to me.
    - rbecker 6y ago
      Tolerance becoming the dominant ideology in an intolerant society is much easier than merely remaining dominant in an already tolerant society. If it could do the former while society tolerated intolerance, then surely it can do the latter.
  - 6y ago
threatofrain 6y ago
This is as offensive as German companies taking actions against Nazi displays.

27 points by aspenmayer 6y ago

seventytwo 6y ago

Good

_red 6y ago
I LOVE this new internet you people are creating!
- riffic 6y ago
  The fundamental principles of the internet haven't changed. If racists want a platform, they can have it and the underlying web standards still exist for them to make it themselves and to self-host it. If their providers want to cancel these business relationships, that is their right as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association What is really problematic and has been since its inception is the overuse of commercial and centralized services by public institutions and organizations. Twitter and other services of that nature are not public utilities.
  - rbecker 6y ago
    And yet we were okay with sharply curtailing freedom of association in some areas. Twitter (or a landlord) would be in legal trouble if it tried to ban black people. Edit: To the replies pointing out the protected class distinction: I'm well aware of it (as my example shows). What I am highlighting is that "freedom of association" isn't as absolute as the parent post implies, and that in the past the law was changed and that freedom was diminished when it allowed behavior we didn't like.
    - riffic 6y ago
      I'm sorry, I didn't know that being a racist was a protected class now.
      - _red 6y ago
        Saying blacks deserve to be a protected class is pretty racist you know.....
        true_religion 6y ago
        All races are a protected class. You can’t discriminate against white Europeans either. In fact, if you were to start a group that wanted to destroy white Europeans (like how the Klan wants to destroy non whites, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and sanity itself) then you would quickly find yourself ostracized. I would bet an anti white group would quickly find itself branded as a terrorist organization in the US.
    - CptFribble 6y ago
      There is a marked difference between race and opinion. You can't change the color of your skin, but you can change your opinions or keep them to yourself if you wish. Anti-Semites are not a protected class. Political opinion is not protected in private space. The policies of these private platforms are clear and available for anyone to read, and include a ban on racist speech. If you want to stay on the platform, follow the rules. You have no control over what color you were born, and you can't change it. That's why race is a protected class and opinions are not. Free speech only protects us from the government, not from private consequences.
    - happytoexplain 6y ago
      I assume your implication is that Twitter is banning conservatives, as opposed to the other interpretation, which is that conservatives, regardless of what forces are to blame, have a higher ratio of participants who are worthy of being banned from a non-political point of view (e.g. actual racism, higher desire for violence, etc). Reality might be somewhere in between, but it seems obvious to me that it is very close to the latter.
  - _red 6y ago
    You fail to see whats coming next. In 1997 the big tech platforms lobbied that not only they wouldn't censor views, that it was basically impossible for them to do so. This is what allowed the internet to grow without onerous regulation (ie they were treated as a carrier not a publisher). Now that big tech is moving towards "being publishers", you're now going to reverse it all and cause massive regulation to take place. In the end, "the internet" will look no different than mainstream tv.
    - happytoexplain 6y ago
      >In the end, "the internet" will look no different than mainstream tv. I worry about this, but I also suspect we're heading in a direction that will mostly avoid this fate. However, even if given a hard binary choice between TV land and the current popularity of hatred that Duke exemplifies, I wouldn't have to think on it.
      - _red 6y ago
        The merchants of war and division thank you for helping in this effort. The censors aren't stupid, of course they are going to go after the David Dukes first, then over the next decade watch how the internet slowly transforms into a massive establishment mouthpiece. Maybe explain to your kids, "we were afraid of bad words".
  - rightbyte 6y ago
    I wonder if Twitter think they had a business arrangement with the Grand Wizard. Wikileaks and Julia Assange are commiting crimes were they in the US. There is a long list to cut.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Often if you find yourself seeing some group of people in your head and hating them and referring to them as "you people", you're probably not going to be able to express yourself in a valuable way, and should consider backing up emotionally.

sieste 6y ago

Twitter banning prominent far right users forces them to mass migrate to parler which ultimately makes parler less attractive to the wider community. On the other hand parler might only be popular because twitter started banning these people in the first place.

krapp 6y ago
Seems like a win-win to me. Far right users congregate to a niche platform where they can do as they please, and as a result it's easier for everyone else to ignore them.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Yeah, and then they can totally ignore the far left and push Twitter even further over the cliff.
  - shakezula 6y ago
    That’s a real nice straw man you got there.
  - krapp 6y ago
    Being anti-racist isn't a far left position, it's a civilized human being position.
    - jfk13 6y ago
      Not suggesting any sympathy with David Duke, but there's a basic problem with this statement: what is "racist"? The definition depends who you ask, and is constantly in flux. If I say I'm anti-racist, but disagree with you as to what constitutes "racism", which of us is right and which should be banned? Who gets to judge?
      - krapp 6y ago
        >The definition depends who you ask, and is constantly in flux. Saying the term "racist" is "constantly in flux" seems to imply its definition is completely arbitrary, or that no commonly accepted or generally agreed upon definitions exist. Regardless of what else people may say it does or doesn't mean, I think most people would agree that the white supremacist views of David Duke could be considered racist. >If I say I'm anti-racist, but disagree with you as to what constitutes "racism", which of us is right and which should be banned? Who gets to judge? In the specific case, obviously the owner of the platform. Despite what people say (or want to be true) Twitter is not a public space, it's a private platform and its owners can ban whomever they please for whatever reason they want, and that's probably spelled out in their terms of service somewhere. In the more general case, possibly a framework of law, common societal or religious norms and cultural influences, or no one. Truth can't always be determined with absolute certainty when one is dealing with social constructs in the subjective and abstract landscape of modern hyperreality. People can't even agree on the world being round anymore, and it's easier to accept that everything one is told is a lie than attempt to reconcile a complex and fragmented media universe of mutually opposed, violently overlapping magisteria. Obviously, if we can't even agree on what race is, we may not agree on what what racism is, or opposition to it. How do you even do that when some people believe most of the people they pass on the street are holograms in the Matrix? That said, when David Duke talks about "the Jews" and their campaign of "white genocide" or about his desire to live in an all "white" society, it's entirely possible to see what he means in that context and form an opinion accordingly.

DaniloDias 6y ago

This is not long term thinking. I find DD to be repelling- but moves like this are more repelling than yet another asshole on Twitter. Twitter apparently wants to save its users from ever being critical thinkers.

h2odragon 6y ago

We are the chosen ones, we have Right on our side, we need not listen to anyone who disagrees with us. Better in fact if they did not even exist, no? Maybe if we're vigorous enough in protesting our orthodoxy while tossing the heretics in the fire, no one will think to question whether our thoughts are utterly proper.

happytoexplain 6y ago
Quite a dramatic rewording of "we banned a guy on Twitter for saying racist stuff."
pcbro141 6y ago
No reasonable person thinks it's up for debate whether the KKK terrorist group or ISIS is on the right side of history or not. Sounds like lazy "slippery slope" concern trolling.

mkaic 6y ago

Happy to see this.

s9w 6y ago
If you think about why you posted this, you might learn something about yourself.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  I find this hypocritical. It seems obvious to me that it's possible to reasonably respond to news that a KKK leader was banned on Twitter by expressing gratitude without that signifying a likely personality flaw.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  My reaction to seeing this news was also a tiny jolt of happiness, and thinking about that, I've learned that I dislike white supremacists and their philosophy. Is that what you meant?
  - s9w 6y ago
    no

bryanlarsen 6y ago

"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." - Karl Popper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

gruez 6y ago
The problem is with using that as justification for censorship is that it can be use to justify censorship on a wide range of unorthodox speech. We can all agree as a baseline that advocating for intolerance in the form of imminent lawless action[1] should be banned, but what else? Any lawless action? What about advocating for lawful action that leads to direct discrimination of minorities? eg. internment of japanese americans. What about advocating for lawful action that leads to indirect discrimination of minorities? eg. war on drugs. What about advocating against discrimination that helps minorities? eg. affirmative action. Finally, what about saying facts that are true, that might be misleading or lack nuance? eg. "blacks account for 52.5% of all homicide offenders, but only make up 13.7% of the population" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
rbecker 6y ago
If true, then how did tolerant societies arise from intolerant ones?
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Can you explain how you see the two things as conflicting? They both seem natural to me.
  - rbecker 6y ago
    Tolerance becoming the dominant ideology in an intolerant society is much easier than merely remaining dominant in an already tolerant society. If it could do the former while society tolerated intolerance, then surely it can do the latter.
- 6y ago

threatofrain 6y ago

This is as offensive as German companies taking actions against Nazi displays.