4 ms·

> The only thing that will change now is that liberal politicians and views will start being targeted rather than conservative/alt-right ones. Conservative spe

by danans 4y ago

> The only thing that will change now is that liberal politicians and views will start being targeted rather than conservative/alt-right ones. Conservative speech like "lower taxes are better", "extract more petroleum", and "prayer should be allowed in public school" were never targeted. The "conservative" speech banned were things like "LGBT people should have their human rights denied" and "Let's get together and attack the Capitol to stop the transfer of power". > It is simply a shift of power from the left to the right, financed by a handful of billionaires, Wall Street banks and Saudi/Qatari Princes. That raises the question of what are the "dividends" for those parties, regardless of the financial success of Twitter.

Avshalom 4y ago
also raises the question of who paxys thinks was funding tech companies before this.
jimbokun 4y ago
Does anyone outside of Twitter actually know what the criteria was for banning Tweets and Tweeters?
- danans 4y ago
  Look at the history of banned accounts [1] You don't need polynomial regression to figure out that nobody was being banned for traditional, non-hate and non-violence-inducing conservative or liberal speech. It's mostly harassment, threats, impersonation and disinformation. Nobody has been banned for advocating: lower taxes, higher taxes, cuts to government spending, increased government spending, abortion rights, anti-abortion rights, etc. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions
  - KerrAvon 4y ago
    There is a joke, I don't know the origin: Conservative: I'm being silenced for my opinions! Me: lowering taxes? C: no, not that opinion M: smaller government? C: no, not that one M: which opinions? C: oh, you know the ones...
    - chc 4y ago
      As far as I know, that was originally posted by @ndrew_lawrence on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744 https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355267174...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - epgui 4y ago
      That sounds more like a review of the literature than a joke.
  - CapricornNoble 4y ago
    The problems with Twitter's previous approach to banning is that those banned for "disinformation" were consistently anti-establishment and right-of-center. Twitter strictly enforced its Terms of Service against political opponents of its favored party, while often turning a blind eye to offenses from those more closely aligned with their staff's ideology. The description on Wikipedia regarding ZeroHedge's suspension is heavily biased. Why do they link to a BuzzFeed News article, instead of ZH's actual article? Which parts of the ZH article are proven false? Buzzfeed doesn't say, and neither did Twitter. Same for Dr. Robert Malone, what exactly is "misinformation" about his content, and who is making that determination? What is the censor's area of expertise to make such a judgement? Who is the censor? Candace Owens was banned for criticism of a governor's COVID policies. Where does that fit in your characterization of bannings as "harrassment, threats, impersonation, and disinformation"? Meanwhile, grifter Talcum X still has a Twitter account with 1 million followers, despite endorsing violence on multiple occasions and threatening to dox innocent law enforcement personnel. https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/16/shaun-king-ice-attacker-willem-van-spronsen-antifa-twitter/ https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/16/shaun-king-ice-attacker-w... https://hiphopwired.com/playlist/shaun-king-jacob-blake-shooting-tweets/item/1 https://hiphopwired.com/playlist/shaun-king-jacob-blake-shoo... Rose City Antifa, which claimed responsibility for the attack that left Andy Ngo with a brain hemorrhage, still has their Twitter page un-suspended. https://libertycenter.org/cases/justice-for-andy-ngo/ https://libertycenter.org/cases/justice-for-andy-ngo/ And of course Kathy Griffin not rating a ban for a pic of Donald Trump's severed head (because comedy), but numerous other users were banned for making similar violent jokes/threats about politicians.
thefaux 4y ago
> That raises the question of what are the "dividends" for those parties, regardless of the financial success of Twitter. My guess is that they see twitter as the central online hub of anti-capitalist ideology, which is also correlated with marginalized identity politics. If the bankers could nip that growing movement in the bud before it fully coalesces into something with real political power, then that would seem to be well worth $44B (which of course they wouldn't actually lose because they'd write off their losses against their taxes).
- recuter 4y ago
  Exactly! Jerry, all these big companies, they write off everything!
  - blitzar 4y ago
    You don't even know what a write-off is.
    - nvln 4y ago
      Do you?
      - blitzar 4y ago
        No, I dont
- danans 4y ago
  > My guess is that they see twitter as the central online hub of anti-capitalist ideology Then joke is on them because the far right is also anti-capitalist, but in the form of ethnonationalist socialist authoritarianism (Yes, there are many shorter names for that). Or perhaps they're actually on board with that approach since they have found that an increasingly pluralistic democracy does not serve their interests. But in the end, it's probably just that owning an tool of chaos is itself a form of power.
  - 4y ago

by danans 4y ago

Avshalom 4y ago

also raises the question of who paxys thinks was funding tech companies before this.

jimbokun 4y ago

Does anyone outside of Twitter actually know what the criteria was for banning Tweets and Tweeters?

danans 4y ago
Look at the history of banned accounts [1] You don't need polynomial regression to figure out that nobody was being banned for traditional, non-hate and non-violence-inducing conservative or liberal speech. It's mostly harassment, threats, impersonation and disinformation. Nobody has been banned for advocating: lower taxes, higher taxes, cuts to government spending, increased government spending, abortion rights, anti-abortion rights, etc. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  There is a joke, I don't know the origin: Conservative: I'm being silenced for my opinions! Me: lowering taxes? C: no, not that opinion M: smaller government? C: no, not that one M: which opinions? C: oh, you know the ones...
  - chc 4y ago
    As far as I know, that was originally posted by @ndrew_lawrence on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744 https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355267174...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - epgui 4y ago
    That sounds more like a review of the literature than a joke.
- CapricornNoble 4y ago
  The problems with Twitter's previous approach to banning is that those banned for "disinformation" were consistently anti-establishment and right-of-center. Twitter strictly enforced its Terms of Service against political opponents of its favored party, while often turning a blind eye to offenses from those more closely aligned with their staff's ideology. The description on Wikipedia regarding ZeroHedge's suspension is heavily biased. Why do they link to a BuzzFeed News article, instead of ZH's actual article? Which parts of the ZH article are proven false? Buzzfeed doesn't say, and neither did Twitter. Same for Dr. Robert Malone, what exactly is "misinformation" about his content, and who is making that determination? What is the censor's area of expertise to make such a judgement? Who is the censor? Candace Owens was banned for criticism of a governor's COVID policies. Where does that fit in your characterization of bannings as "harrassment, threats, impersonation, and disinformation"? Meanwhile, grifter Talcum X still has a Twitter account with 1 million followers, despite endorsing violence on multiple occasions and threatening to dox innocent law enforcement personnel. https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/16/shaun-king-ice-attacker-willem-van-spronsen-antifa-twitter/ https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/16/shaun-king-ice-attacker-w... https://hiphopwired.com/playlist/shaun-king-jacob-blake-shooting-tweets/item/1 https://hiphopwired.com/playlist/shaun-king-jacob-blake-shoo... Rose City Antifa, which claimed responsibility for the attack that left Andy Ngo with a brain hemorrhage, still has their Twitter page un-suspended. https://libertycenter.org/cases/justice-for-andy-ngo/ https://libertycenter.org/cases/justice-for-andy-ngo/ And of course Kathy Griffin not rating a ban for a pic of Donald Trump's severed head (because comedy), but numerous other users were banned for making similar violent jokes/threats about politicians.

thefaux 4y ago

> That raises the question of what are the "dividends" for those parties, regardless of the financial success of Twitter. My guess is that they see twitter as the central online hub of anti-capitalist ideology, which is also correlated with marginalized identity politics. If the bankers could nip that growing movement in the bud before it fully coalesces into something with real political power, then that would seem to be well worth $44B (which of course they wouldn't actually lose because they'd write off their losses against their taxes).

recuter 4y ago
Exactly! Jerry, all these big companies, they write off everything!
- blitzar 4y ago
  You don't even know what a write-off is.
  - nvln 4y ago
    Do you?
    - blitzar 4y ago
      No, I dont
danans 4y ago
> My guess is that they see twitter as the central online hub of anti-capitalist ideology Then joke is on them because the far right is also anti-capitalist, but in the form of ethnonationalist socialist authoritarianism (Yes, there are many shorter names for that). Or perhaps they're actually on board with that approach since they have found that an increasingly pluralistic democracy does not serve their interests. But in the end, it's probably just that owning an tool of chaos is itself a form of power.
- 4y ago