16 ms·
Great, they should have never been banned to begin with.
by txsoftwaredev 4y ago
Great, they should have never been banned to begin with.
- socialismisok 4y agoTransphobia is pretty clearly against twitters rules. They weren't really banned, they were locked out until they deleted their tweet. All they had to do was delete the tweet.
- ohCh6zos 4y agoGalileo wasn't really under house arrest. All he had to do was recant. The comparison seems apt because while the magnitude of the punishment is out of proportion the refusal to yield to orthodoxy by taking the simple way out is similar.
- socialismisok 4y agoBabylon Bee isn't under house arrest. This analogy is absurd. They weren't allowed to target hate towards a specific, named individual on their Twitter account. Everything else they were saying was more or less ok. And they still had plenty of other outlets, including their very successful website. This is like a single book publisher telling Galileo, "we won't print this one page, but the rest of the book is ok".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- readthenotes1 4y agoIf I recall correctly, they were suspended for saying that that specific named individual one man of the Year award. That doesn't seem very hateful, although it may seem derisive. There is a difference. Did it go beyond that?
- socialismisok 4y agoIt's hateful in the sense that it's very derisive in the culture of the target and Babylon Bee has a large enough audience that the individual is likely to receive targeted threats as a result. Reach and influence are important, because they impact the magnitude of what a derisive comment can do to a target. You saying, "lol, man!" In your living room has no reach, it won't cause harm. The Bee saying it has huge reach, and when aimed at a specific minority individual can lead to serious harm.
- chudmeister 4y agoNone of these authoritarian excuses matter. They can say what they want about who they want now.
- socialismisok 4y agoModeration is not authoritarianism.
- xigoi 4y agoIf you use moderation as a tool to push your ideology, sure it is.
- socialismisok 4y agoIf your ideology is printed in the rules before you enter, and you agree to respect those rules before entering, and the rules are things like "don't target individuals with racism, transphobia, homophobia, etc" it's really not authoritarianism. I can't yell in a library, the librarians aren't authoritarian. I know going in that libraries aren't the place for that.
- xigoi 4y agoExcept Twitter does allow racism against whites. So its rules are not “don't target individuals with racism”, but “don't target non-white people with racism”, which sends a clear ideological message. Same with other demographics.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nemo44x 4y agoThey targeted a public person who exists at the upper echelons of power and privilege. For a group of people so obsessed with comedy only “punching up” it’s ironic to see the justification.
- space_fountain 4y agoDid they target her or did they target the idea of being trans? > where he serves proudly as the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman > We have still chosen to give the award as his self-identification has no bearing on the truth If you attack a successful member of a minority group based on their minority you still aren't punching up, sorry.
- fknorangesite 4y ago> Did they target him Her.
- space_fountain 4y agoGah, but thanks
- space_fountain 4y agoThey didn’t have to say their tweet was wrong right? Just that it violated their rules, which it did
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Test0129 4y ago> all they had to do is delete their tweet He could've gotten a lighter sentence if he just accepted the plea deal! Do you understand how silly this sounds. Moreover, they awarded Rachael Levine "Man of the Year" as a parody because they are a parody website that is right-leaning. Of all the things you could class as so-called "transphobia" this is what you choose? They never deserved to be banned. Additionally, I can go, right now, to Twitter and find a literally gold mine of rule breakers who lean far left that seem to never get touched. Strange, that. I personally am excited for the reckoning. Twitter is absolute disaster and hopefully the left leaning bad actors get the bans they have deserved since 2016. I've read absolutely disgusting things, especially regarding white people ("white"-phobia in your terminology?) that should be banned and in many times investigated by the FBI. Hopefully we see those bans come down soon. There's a huge difference between Parler and what gets banned on Twitter. To the point you could consider Twitter a very good approximation of Parler for the left. It's time these bad actors get the bans they deserve.
- fsociety999 4y agoWhile I agree that the Bee should never have been banned, the answer to this problem is less censorship, not more. It sounds like you are calling for people who have different ideological views from you to be banned, but that is not how a healthy society should function. There are already tools you can use on Twitter and other platforms to ignore content you don’t want to see (mute or block, for example). Banning someone should only be done in extreme circumstances like if someone is breaking the law or making literal calls to violence.
- Test0129 4y ago> It sounds like you are calling for people who have different ideological views from you to be banned, but that is not how a healthy society should function. It only sounds this way because I targeted the left here. I only did that because it’s Twitter. I would rather have the extremes removed from the platform regardless. It’s already enough of a mess as it is.
- elforce002 4y ago
- goldenchrome 4y agoThe argument that a person can be a different gender than the one that all their physical biology points to is absolutely not an open-and-shut case. I know many people believe that it is, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t valid opposing arguments. To me, that means that you shouldn’t be banned for contesting the idea of transgenderism. I think a more reasonable argument is that people should be allowed to present themselves how they want without prejudice, but that there are still some undeniable facts about the world. Clearly there are people who want to have this discussion and silencing one side of the discussion doesn’t resolve it. It just causes the tension to fester. Get it out in the open and the truth will come out.
- socialismisok 4y agoSure. But Twitter has said "we want to make sure that we have trans voices on our platform, so in the interest of a broader marketplace of ideas, we're going to say no to one particular idea - making fun of trans people, who typically face a much higher level of violence, rejection, discrimination, and hate than most".
- _-david-_ 4y agoIf Babylon Bee makes a joke about trans people how is that removing trans voices from the platform? If making a joke about a group is the same as encouraging violence or whatever then you can't make any jokes about people.
- socialismisok 4y agoWhy would I stay on a platform that lets people berate me? Independent of what my identity is? It's just a shitty experience.
- _-david-_ 4y agoIf you think trans people shouldn't be allowed to be berated online then why not ban berating of Trump or whites? Why should their experience on Twitter be a "shitty experience"? Regardless, you didn't answer my question: "If Babylon Bee makes a joke about trans people how is that removing trans voices from the platform?" People voluntarily leaving is not removing voices.
- _-david-_ 4y agoA joke about trans people is not transphobia. If somebody makes a joke about white people is that whitephobia?
- socialismisok 4y agoA joke about trans people may or may not be transphobia. There's a ton of context to consider - who is telling the joke, whi is the punchline, etc. But this case was not that. This case was specifically targeting a specific individual and making fun of them being trans. That's absolutely transphobia.
- _-david-_ 4y ago>A joke about trans people may or may not be transphobia. That is good. A lot of people don't agree. >who is telling the joke, Not true. >whi is the punchline, etc. Maybe. The problem is the inconsistent standards on that. Punch lines that are anti white or anti male aren't considered sexists or racist, but anti trans ones are. We need a consistent standard and we don't have it. >But this case was not that. This case was specifically targeting a specific individual and making fun of them being trans. That's absolutely transphobia. That was not the case. They were parodying the newspaper or magazine that said Levine was the woman of the year.
- leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
- socialismisok 4y agoIt is transphobic when you deliberately say the wrong thing (especially with an intent to harm or be inflammatory). A trans woman is a woman.
- xigoi 4y ago
- nemo44x 4y ago> All they had to do was delete the tweet. And they didn’t which means they’ve earned gobs of respect because of their principled and dignified stance to refuse to be bullied. They won and showed the world you don’t have to lick the boots of elitist corporate oppressors.
- outside1234 4y agoWhat were they banned for? Looking through the content, I don't see any of the egregious hate speech or incitement of violence that we've seen in other bans like Trump.
- socialismisok 4y agoThey gave a trans woman their man of the year award and tweeted about it. Twitter said misgendering is against their rules and blocked the account until they deleted the tweet. Babylon Bee felt attacked and refused to delete the tweet, so they just left their own account locked.
- apolymath 4y ago
- mrkstu 4y agoI'm not sure if they felt 'attacked'- more that they were standing up for their right to do what they do (satire) without being censored and giving into the censorship by deleting the tweet. The 'mis-gendering' in this case was absolutely truthful in a scientific sense, thereby making their point that truth being somehow harmful in today's society. Whether you agree that's a 'good' point or not it seems to fall squarely in the area that should be open for public comment.
- socialismisok 4y agoIt's not "absolutely true in the scientific sense", except at the "I have an understanding of high school level biology and sociology" sense. Sex and gender are both significantly more complex than just chromosomes, genitalia, or organs. If you are interested, I'm happy to dive into a good faith discussion of where the science actually falls.
- ghostpepper 4y agoWhy not assume there are many readers here who are interested in good faith discussion and just go ahead and post a summary of the science?
- threeseed 4y agoIt's very easy to say this at a high level. But once you look into the reasons behind every ban you will see the subtleties that surround this discussion. There is a reason that content moderation has been classed as the world's toughest problem.
- germandiago 4y agoIt is indeed. But my experience from what I saw from Twitter was a clear bias towards certain... authoritarian ticks? u know. It is a private company anyway, just mentioning the had those. They could do whatever. Just an observation :) I hope it is more balanced from now on. Now is when we will be able to see if Elon delivers on his words. We will see how it goes.
- nonethewiser 4y agoIt's easy to see this at a low level too.
- pydry 4y agoJust coz it's hard to do it well doesnt mean they were trying to do it well. Neither will Musk, most likely. Im sure we will be regaled with "unappreciated subtleties" about why tweeting about his private jet flights is a no no.
- gilmore606 4y ago> the world's toughest problem. On my HN this is cache invalidation and/or naming things.
- mlindner 4y agoThey were never banned only suspended, and there's nothing in the link to indicate that they've been un-suspended from posting. From last week proof that they weren't banned: https://web.archive.org/web/20221019005155/https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee https://web.archive.org/web/20221019005155/https://twitter.c...
- NaturalPhallacy 4y agoThey were suspended with a little Maoist struggle session setup that they were required to go through to repent their sins, and included is an admission that they were sinners for doing it, in order to get their account back. You left that very important part out.
- weeblewobble 4y agoThey had to delete the tweet which awarded a specific named transwoman "man of the year award". The tweet was cruel identity-based harassment and not worthy of defense, but it for some reason seems to have radicalized a certain segment of the tech elite. In fact it may very well have been the inciting event that led to Musk's purchase of twitter. Anyway, having to delete your harassment tweet in order to keep tweeting is not a Maoist struggle session
- NaturalPhallacy 4y agoTwitter could have just deleted it for them. But no, they literally went to the trouble of building and testing code where you have to delete your own tweet, and part of doing is to so admit that what you did was "wrong". This is a textbook Maoist struggle session.
- jjeaff 4y agoI don't know, sounds more like a Christian process than a Maoist one.
- electrondood 4y agoFully disagree. They publicly mocked a trans person, in clear violation of the TOS that all users agree to as a condition of use of the platform. They were then temporarily suspended, as clearly laid out in the TOS. Twitter says "Hey, if X, then Y." Babylon Bee says "Yeah, ok." Babylon Bee does X, and experiences Y. They are not victims, and there is no "violation of free speech" here.
- illuminerdy 4y agoLots of people are publicly mocked on Twitter everyday. What makes "trans" people so special?
- bwbuhse 4y agoI mean, if you purposefully misgender a cis person on Twitter, the same rule applies. Not sure what your issue is
- TexanFeller 4y agoThe obvious response is that that that shouldn't result in a ban either. There's a right not to be physically threatened, but there is and should not be no right to not be offended.
- illuminerdy 4y agoI agree. The marketplace of ideas and opinions should be protected to the greatest extent possible. Restrictions should be limited to things such as actual threats, doxxing of private information, and illegal content. Otherwise, allow people to use the block, mute, and unfollow buttons as they see fit as a form of personal moderation.
- ThrowawayTestr 4y ago"Cis" people dont care about being misgendered.
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoNobody should ever be banned for violating the TOS of a private entity/s.
- MollyRealized 4y agoThe right of free speech doesn't apply to a private company. A company has every right to dictate what services it will provide and the conditions for using those services. It is not a public communications carrier.
- thingification 4y agoThis is to conflate (as so often) the USA's legal/constitutional codes with the principle of free speech. That principle has to do with promoting criticism of ideas, and preventing the suppression of criticism. The US codes are (just) one instance of a way to support that principle. The principle applies to all criticism, and all suppression of criticism.
- chudmeister 4y ago
- FormerBandmate 4y agoMusk after banning @elonjet in 3 minutes
- ilyt 4y ago> It is not a public communications carrier. It has 400 million users. By all other definition it is a public space
- throwayyy479087 4y agoWeird how this idea is only getting traction now that Elon owns Twitter, and not when they were censoring everything right of Mao.
- xigoi 4y agoAnd for the same reason Musk has a right to unban them, so what are you complaining about?