5 ms·

A Republican Congresswoman was just locked out of her Twitter account prior to some kind of Dem resolution, at least if you believe https://www.mrctv.org/blog/m

A Republican Congresswoman was just locked out of her Twitter account prior to some kind of Dem resolution, at least if you believe https://www.mrctv.org/blog/marjorie-taylor-green-reportedly-suspended-twitter-dems-push-eject-her-congress https://www.mrctv.org/blog/marjorie-taylor-green-reportedly-... as a source of truth. Nothing to see here, move along.

nonotreally 6y ago
I'm not seeing your point here. Do you like this? Not like it? Why? I feel like this is exactly the type of feedback they're asking for.
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  I offer data, not a conclusion. And it's data that is well-timed, given the statement. What do you think?
  - nonotreally 6y ago
    I didn't raise the point. I haven't formed an opinion on this particular issue. Why did you offer this data?
    - at_a_remove 6y ago
      I guess I will break all of this down for you, since you did ask. 1) Twitter calls for public input on their approach to their handling of accounts of government officials. This individual is a government official and this is an instance of handling their account. 2) Well-timed. They called for this input on March 18th. This instance of account handling is from March 19th, approximately one day later. This makes it "more relevant," given that it was not, say, six years ago. So, I offered this data because it was topical and timely to the discussion at hand. Rather than a hypothetical, it exists as a real instance of how Twitter as a corporation handles the Twitter accounts of government leaders. If I were to discuss the price of tea in China back in 1887, that would not be topical or timely.
      - GrinningFool 6y ago
        This may be all be true[1], but none of it explains your "nothing to see here" trailing remark. [1] Though there's activity on her account from 15 hours ago. In addition if someone is banned from Twitter, doesn't Twitter take their tweets offline/hide them?
        at_a_remove 6y ago
        Oh, the trailing remark is because Twitter has long had the habit of "whoops the algorithm did it!" happening as the most convenience of excuses when the timing is suspicious. I don't know what Twitter does with people's tweets. Frankly, I find the platform almost too chaotic to look at for more than a few seconds. It feels like a roomful of ping-pong balls with text on them, whizzing at your head, only loosely clustered.
foobiter 6y ago
marjorie taylor green requires more detail than simply “a republican congresswoman” - she’s blamed forest fires on jewish space lasers, among other racist, homophobic, and transphobic conspiracy theories
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  And some of the "more detail" might also include that her account was re-instated after that, but that today's suspension comes at a timing that some might consider interesting, as a movement is attempting to oust her from government. Yes, more detail could be invoked.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- ufmace 6y ago
  Is there like a guide somewhere telling people to bring up some specific incident every time a particular UnPerson's name is brought up? I swear there's a few dozen people for which, as soon as their name is mentioned, a dozen green accounts will suddenly post what somebody has determined is "critical context" under which we are supposed to see them. Okay she made one silly facebook post that doesn't really quite say that. If we're gonna popularize the absurd things said by every freshman congressperson on social media, well we've got a long book to write.
  - Jcowell 6y ago
    What? There’s a difference between “one silly post” and the perpetual spiel of QAnon conspiracy theories and beliefs. Your comment makes it seems as if she said that one edgy thing we all say as teenagers in a one off. I don’t agree with muting her until after her expulsion, but this comment is disingenuous.
  - foobiter 6y ago
    maybe i should have brought up the time she shouted at a teenage survivor of a school shooting in public instead of the time she called a fellow representative a member of isis or the time she mocked another representatives transgender child
andyxor 6y ago
Cancel culture in action.

nonotreally 6y ago

I'm not seeing your point here. Do you like this? Not like it? Why? I feel like this is exactly the type of feedback they're asking for.

at_a_remove 6y ago
I offer data, not a conclusion. And it's data that is well-timed, given the statement. What do you think?
- nonotreally 6y ago
  I didn't raise the point. I haven't formed an opinion on this particular issue. Why did you offer this data?
  - at_a_remove 6y ago
    I guess I will break all of this down for you, since you did ask. 1) Twitter calls for public input on their approach to their handling of accounts of government officials. This individual is a government official and this is an instance of handling their account. 2) Well-timed. They called for this input on March 18th. This instance of account handling is from March 19th, approximately one day later. This makes it "more relevant," given that it was not, say, six years ago. So, I offered this data because it was topical and timely to the discussion at hand. Rather than a hypothetical, it exists as a real instance of how Twitter as a corporation handles the Twitter accounts of government leaders. If I were to discuss the price of tea in China back in 1887, that would not be topical or timely.
    - GrinningFool 6y ago
      This may be all be true[1], but none of it explains your "nothing to see here" trailing remark. [1] Though there's activity on her account from 15 hours ago. In addition if someone is banned from Twitter, doesn't Twitter take their tweets offline/hide them?
      - at_a_remove 6y ago
        Oh, the trailing remark is because Twitter has long had the habit of "whoops the algorithm did it!" happening as the most convenience of excuses when the timing is suspicious. I don't know what Twitter does with people's tweets. Frankly, I find the platform almost too chaotic to look at for more than a few seconds. It feels like a roomful of ping-pong balls with text on them, whizzing at your head, only loosely clustered.

foobiter 6y ago

marjorie taylor green requires more detail than simply “a republican congresswoman” - she’s blamed forest fires on jewish space lasers, among other racist, homophobic, and transphobic conspiracy theories

at_a_remove 6y ago
And some of the "more detail" might also include that her account was re-instated after that, but that today's suspension comes at a timing that some might consider interesting, as a movement is attempting to oust her from government. Yes, more detail could be invoked.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ufmace 6y ago
Is there like a guide somewhere telling people to bring up some specific incident every time a particular UnPerson's name is brought up? I swear there's a few dozen people for which, as soon as their name is mentioned, a dozen green accounts will suddenly post what somebody has determined is "critical context" under which we are supposed to see them. Okay she made one silly facebook post that doesn't really quite say that. If we're gonna popularize the absurd things said by every freshman congressperson on social media, well we've got a long book to write.
- Jcowell 6y ago
  What? There’s a difference between “one silly post” and the perpetual spiel of QAnon conspiracy theories and beliefs. Your comment makes it seems as if she said that one edgy thing we all say as teenagers in a one off. I don’t agree with muting her until after her expulsion, but this comment is disingenuous.
- foobiter 6y ago
  maybe i should have brought up the time she shouted at a teenage survivor of a school shooting in public instead of the time she called a fellow representative a member of isis or the time she mocked another representatives transgender child

andyxor 6y ago

Cancel culture in action.