25 ms·

The website appears to be mostly just an insane rant. That said, I don't think it should have been banned either, outside of doing something specifically illega

The website appears to be mostly just an insane rant. That said, I don't think it should have been banned either, outside of doing something specifically illegal. (Edit: also, I've never heard of Andy Ngo, the person the site is accusing of being a "far right troll", but it's pretty clearly a highly editorialized title, even if it accurately reflects the title of the original article)

codefreeordie 4y ago
- syzarian 4y ago
  I think the outrage is due to Musk’s apparent hypocrisy. Also, what we are seeing is that it’s becoming apparent that when a few companies act as the gatekeeper to a large percentage of the people then perhaps government intervention is warranted.
  - version_five 4y ago
    > we are seeing is that it’s becoming apparent that when a few companies act as the gatekeeper to a large percentage of the people then perhaps government intervention is warranted I think that's basically the GP's point. It's only "become apparent" now that there is a big tech company that doesn't toe the mainstream line. This (gatekeeping / censorship) was always a big problem with big tech, especially twitter, but the "it's a private company, if someone doesn't like it they can build their own" crowd (conveniently libertarian for a microsecond) shot down any notions that platforms needed some common carrier regulations. Then someone actually did the equivalent of getting their own social network by buying the most popular one, and suddenly everyone is up in arms.
    - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
      These are fundamentally different complaints. The first party is complaining they believe a right is being violated. The second party is complaining that the first party is inconsistently applying their own beliefs.
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
    Dorsey's Twitter claimed to be pro free speech and fair, and yet apparently it was fine for Twitter to ban only one side then. As per usual, the true story is "it's good when my guy does it and unfair and evil when the other side does it to me"
- bediger4000 4y ago
  That's not it at all. Musk bought Twitter with the stated purpose of allowing free speech. If Musk bans some accounts while bringing back others, he's being a giant hypocrite by not allowing all to speak freely.
  - metadat 4y ago
    No kidding, he is an emotional character and answers to questions vary wildly by the day and hour. In other words, as you've intuited: a "hypocrite".
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
    - bediger4000 4y ago
      Sure, and I still say that. It's just that criticism of Musk on hypocrisy grounds is justified, because he bought Twitter to bring back free speech or something like that, which includes crimethinc, and Andy Ngo. Free speech is a uniform criteria, not a collection of special cases. The latter is hypocrisy. There's general agreement on what "free speech" means. If Musk wants to claim free speech moral high ground, he has to put up with Chad Loder and crimethinc and Evon Latrail. If Musk bans accounts that he doesn't like that's fine, he owns that particular printing press. But he doesn't get to claim "free speech" and ban accounts, too. That's the very definition of hypocrisy.
      - codefreeordie 4y ago
        tovej 4y ago
        Are the conservative voices advocating for violence against LGBTQ+, ethnic minorities, and critics? Then it's not really hypocrisy but completely valid and according to the policy of most of the platforms.
- draw_down 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
sp332 4y ago
I think it's a pretty good description. Even Wikipedia doesn't have much else to say about him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Ngo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Ngo
- version_five 4y ago
  I looked at the wikipedia article before I made my comment. It appears neutral, even if they don't have anything nice to say about him, they don't participate in name-calling, which is what I'm suggesting for the title
  - leereeves 4y ago
    Check the edit history on that page; there's a lot of controversy behind the scenes. Such Wikiwars can produce neutral language masking underlying bias. Fortunately there's no need to trust pseudonymous Wikipedia editors when the entire record is public. Andy Ngo reports on left-wing violence (primarily "antifacists" in Portland), as you can see from his Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo He seems to have caused several bannings tonight by reporting various crimes, criminal histories, and calls to violence on Twitter. He discussed CrimethInc with Elon in this thread: https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1596087310042296320 https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1596087310042296320
BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
It's quite bizarre to constantly hear Elon Musk talk about free speech and unbanning everyone, and then this ongoing list of left-leaning accounts get nuked. And not just left-leaning. The Oatmeal's Twitter account (https://theoatmeal.com/ https://theoatmeal.com/) was "permanently banned" couple of days ago for no given reason. Activism got it back, but imagine you're not popular. Your account is gone forever just like that. It's pure chaos.
- DLA 4y ago
  - someNameIG 4y ago
    That just sound childish, "you where mean to me so I'll be mean back"
  - krapp 4y ago
    They didn't really, that's just a Trumpist conspiracy theory trying to equivocate the racist and violent speech among its base with legitimate and mainstream conservative speech, and the banning thereof with political persecution by a shadowy, all-controlling leftist cabal. But conservative speech always has and still does exist on social media, everywhere, in abundance. In fact, Twitter (and other social media platform) algorithms have been shown to amplify right-wing content more often than left-wing content, not suppress it. Which is of course why they're trying so hard to control it.
    - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
      I'm not sure I fully believe the algorithms promoted right-wing content, although I do believe the algorithm promotes controversial content, which is one of the strategies on the right, as more of a cultural underdog trying to get visibility. It's also self-evident, honestly, that the human moderators, which overviewed the decisions of the algorithm in Twitter 1.0 were predominantly left-leaning, with many LGBTQ+ members working as contractors, moderating from home. The sad thing for me is the hypocrisy. Here is Elon coming and proclaiming himself a "free speech absolutist" and "comedy is now legal", and then start banning accounts in large swaths on a whim based on whatever right-wing $8 badge buyers tweet at him, including a whole group of apolitical comedy accounts. This will shrink Twitter and turn it into Parler. The right see the destruction of Twitter as a win, and it is a win, but quite a short term one. This network will rebuild itself elsewhere, and you won't have $44 billion ready every time for the next hostile takeover. I see this as a huge missed opportunity to have a truly inclusive platform that welcomes everyone and takes no sides. I have no idea if Elon Musk lied about this intentionally or he was coached and tricked into it by his right-wing supporters, but he shot his investment in the foot.
matbatt38 4y ago
Can you elaborate on "insane rant"?

codefreeordie 4y ago

syzarian 4y ago
I think the outrage is due to Musk’s apparent hypocrisy. Also, what we are seeing is that it’s becoming apparent that when a few companies act as the gatekeeper to a large percentage of the people then perhaps government intervention is warranted.
- version_five 4y ago
  > we are seeing is that it’s becoming apparent that when a few companies act as the gatekeeper to a large percentage of the people then perhaps government intervention is warranted I think that's basically the GP's point. It's only "become apparent" now that there is a big tech company that doesn't toe the mainstream line. This (gatekeeping / censorship) was always a big problem with big tech, especially twitter, but the "it's a private company, if someone doesn't like it they can build their own" crowd (conveniently libertarian for a microsecond) shot down any notions that platforms needed some common carrier regulations. Then someone actually did the equivalent of getting their own social network by buying the most popular one, and suddenly everyone is up in arms.
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    These are fundamentally different complaints. The first party is complaining they believe a right is being violated. The second party is complaining that the first party is inconsistently applying their own beliefs.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  Dorsey's Twitter claimed to be pro free speech and fair, and yet apparently it was fine for Twitter to ban only one side then. As per usual, the true story is "it's good when my guy does it and unfair and evil when the other side does it to me"
bediger4000 4y ago
That's not it at all. Musk bought Twitter with the stated purpose of allowing free speech. If Musk bans some accounts while bringing back others, he's being a giant hypocrite by not allowing all to speak freely.
- metadat 4y ago
  No kidding, he is an emotional character and answers to questions vary wildly by the day and hour. In other words, as you've intuited: a "hypocrite".
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  - bediger4000 4y ago
    Sure, and I still say that. It's just that criticism of Musk on hypocrisy grounds is justified, because he bought Twitter to bring back free speech or something like that, which includes crimethinc, and Andy Ngo. Free speech is a uniform criteria, not a collection of special cases. The latter is hypocrisy. There's general agreement on what "free speech" means. If Musk wants to claim free speech moral high ground, he has to put up with Chad Loder and crimethinc and Evon Latrail. If Musk bans accounts that he doesn't like that's fine, he owns that particular printing press. But he doesn't get to claim "free speech" and ban accounts, too. That's the very definition of hypocrisy.
    - codefreeordie 4y ago
      - tovej 4y ago
        Are the conservative voices advocating for violence against LGBTQ+, ethnic minorities, and critics? Then it's not really hypocrisy but completely valid and according to the policy of most of the platforms.
draw_down 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

sp332 4y ago

I think it's a pretty good description. Even Wikipedia doesn't have much else to say about him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Ngo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Ngo

version_five 4y ago
I looked at the wikipedia article before I made my comment. It appears neutral, even if they don't have anything nice to say about him, they don't participate in name-calling, which is what I'm suggesting for the title
- leereeves 4y ago
  Check the edit history on that page; there's a lot of controversy behind the scenes. Such Wikiwars can produce neutral language masking underlying bias. Fortunately there's no need to trust pseudonymous Wikipedia editors when the entire record is public. Andy Ngo reports on left-wing violence (primarily "antifacists" in Portland), as you can see from his Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo He seems to have caused several bannings tonight by reporting various crimes, criminal histories, and calls to violence on Twitter. He discussed CrimethInc with Elon in this thread: https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1596087310042296320 https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1596087310042296320

BulgarianIdiot 4y ago

It's quite bizarre to constantly hear Elon Musk talk about free speech and unbanning everyone, and then this ongoing list of left-leaning accounts get nuked. And not just left-leaning. The Oatmeal's Twitter account (https://theoatmeal.com/ https://theoatmeal.com/) was "permanently banned" couple of days ago for no given reason. Activism got it back, but imagine you're not popular. Your account is gone forever just like that. It's pure chaos.

DLA 4y ago
- someNameIG 4y ago
  That just sound childish, "you where mean to me so I'll be mean back"
- krapp 4y ago
  They didn't really, that's just a Trumpist conspiracy theory trying to equivocate the racist and violent speech among its base with legitimate and mainstream conservative speech, and the banning thereof with political persecution by a shadowy, all-controlling leftist cabal. But conservative speech always has and still does exist on social media, everywhere, in abundance. In fact, Twitter (and other social media platform) algorithms have been shown to amplify right-wing content more often than left-wing content, not suppress it. Which is of course why they're trying so hard to control it.
  - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
    I'm not sure I fully believe the algorithms promoted right-wing content, although I do believe the algorithm promotes controversial content, which is one of the strategies on the right, as more of a cultural underdog trying to get visibility. It's also self-evident, honestly, that the human moderators, which overviewed the decisions of the algorithm in Twitter 1.0 were predominantly left-leaning, with many LGBTQ+ members working as contractors, moderating from home. The sad thing for me is the hypocrisy. Here is Elon coming and proclaiming himself a "free speech absolutist" and "comedy is now legal", and then start banning accounts in large swaths on a whim based on whatever right-wing $8 badge buyers tweet at him, including a whole group of apolitical comedy accounts. This will shrink Twitter and turn it into Parler. The right see the destruction of Twitter as a win, and it is a win, but quite a short term one. This network will rebuild itself elsewhere, and you won't have $44 billion ready every time for the next hostile takeover. I see this as a huge missed opportunity to have a truly inclusive platform that welcomes everyone and takes no sides. I have no idea if Elon Musk lied about this intentionally or he was coached and tricked into it by his right-wing supporters, but he shot his investment in the foot.

matbatt38 4y ago

Can you elaborate on "insane rant"?