5 ms·

White Dudes for Harris Rally Raises Millions but Then Sees X Account Suspended

67 points by hn1986 2y ago

billy99k 2y ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Nobody cares? We got Congressional hearings about it. The whine was incessant.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  Who exactly was booted off? What exactly were they booted off for? What exactly did they say?
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Every time: https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744 https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355267174...
    - big-green-man 2y ago
      They banned the president off Twitter. Your point is moot.
      - josefritzishere 2y ago
        He had to attempt an insurrection to get banned so I think the point remains valid. That example is in extremis.
        blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        They suspended the President. They didn’t suspend the VP, Senators, Representatives, Cabinet members, Governors, or the Party. Do you think they just forgot, or did the President do a little more than espouse conservative beliefs?
    - anonfordays 2y ago
      And post-Elon, every time: Liberal: I have been censored for my liberal views Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting higher taxes? Con: LOL no...no not those views Me: So....regulation? Lib: Haha no not those views either Me: Which views, exactly? Lib: Oh, you know the ones Oh how the turntables.
      - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
        > Oh, you know the ones I don't. Which ones?
        anonfordays 2y ago
        Oh, you know, [flagged][dead] [removed].
- dc396 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - billy99k 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dragontamer 2y ago
      What Christian / Republican values did people talk about to get banned? We all know what those "values" were. The idea of hiding behind Jesus is... dare I say it... heretical. Jesus isn't quite the type who likes to hate on others ya know. --------- My Mom wasn't banned for Tweeting about Jesus or Angels or whatever. Those aren't the "Christian" values people found controversial. We all know what was "banworthy" before 2022 and it wasn't about "Christianness".
      - koolba 2y ago
        Sharing a link to a true story about the then candidate Biden’s son Hunter’s laptop was effectively a bannable offense (account disabled until you removed the tweet with the link). That same laptop was used as evidence in his 2024 trial.
        dragontamer 2y ago
        > The committee's witnesses, three former Twitter executives, said in subpoenaed testimony that they mistakenly believed the Post article contained hacked material and reversed their decision to limit its circulation on the social media platform within 24 hours. You're complaining about a ban that was effectively overturned within 24 hours. Do you expect White Dudes for Harris to be unbanned by tomorrow?
        koolba 2y ago
        > You're complaining about a ban that was effectively overturned within 24 hours. So you agree they were banned for publicizing a true story and that’s totally fine right? And the ban was not lifted in 24 hours. They refused to lift the ban until people deleted the posts that the (at the time) Twitter cabal considered verboten. > Do you expect White Dudes for Harris to be unbanned by tomorrow? If there’s a course of action to resolve the issue and it’s taken, yes I’d expect them to be unbanned. If the violation cannot be fixed, then probably not. Do you not?
commandlinefan 2y ago
> for violating our rules against evading suspension This has been the catch-all reason for all social media when banning anybody - it seems ingenuous when it's applied to an account that goes against the politics of the owner, but it's been around for a long time, and seems to be applied politically evenly. I wish there were some way to have some transparency around when this rule is applied - on all social media, regardless of the political leanings of the owner(s).
- gruez 2y ago
  Is there more on why he was suspended in the first place?
  - dragontamer 2y ago
    It seems pretty obvious that Elon Musk doesn't like this group. Twitter is perfectly allowed to do this. But we, the overall public, do not have to give our eyeballs or give high opinions to Twitter in return. If Twitter wants to turn itself into a far-right wing social media site, its their money their rules. But its up to the people to exodus and find alternatives. Almost all social media (be it small IRC nodes to larger Digg / Slashdot / etc. etc.) have all had their "Exodus" events over much smaller controversies than this.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      > It seems pretty obvious that Elon Musk doesn't like this group What makes it “obvious” that this was due to someone disliking this group? > If Twitter wants to turn itself into a far-right wing social media site Come on - far right? It is more accurate to say that Facebook, TikTok, Reddit, etc are far left in how blatantly they censor opinions on so many current issues whether it is gender identity or lab leak theory whatever. Twitter is closer to the middle now but still not right wing. > Twitter is perfectly allowed to do this Maybe they’re technically allowed but they shouldn’t be. All these platforms with hundreds of millions of users are just common carriers. They’re telecom utilities carrying the digital public square, and should be regulated to accept all legal speech.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Why does this have a news story around it? Not that it doesn’t deserve it, but I think it is remarkable that for the past decade, censorship/bans against moderate or conservative content/accounts has been a normal daily practice of big social media and tech platforms, and no one cared. But now they’re complaining when it affects the other side? Hypocrisy.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Twitter was acquired on a promise not to do this sort of thing. That promise was immediately and repeatedly violated (starting with @ElonJet, which Musk had previously publicly stated he'd leave alone - https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 ); this is another instance of it. I have a hard time defining "no one cared" in a way that includes "they held Congressional hearings about it". https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/us/politics/twitter-congressional-hearing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/us/politics/twitter-congr...
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    This account that this discussion is about was banned for evasion. You’re making up your own narrative on other reasons without evidence. In other words, you’re believing in a conspiracy theory. Isn’t that the phrase applied to these situations these days?
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > This account that this discussion is about was banned for evasion. That's the claim. @ElonJet got banned for a rule they made up after the ban, so I find "Twitter says so" a little dubious as the sourcing. Who's evading what ban here? > In other words, you’re believing in a conspiracy theory. No conspiracy; just Musk being Musk.
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      While I have no way of knowing for sure, it's not a conspiracy theory by definition. Musk is known for his capricious behavior and is openly partisan (deriding Harris as an 'extinctionist', for example), plus he's often made A Thing of banning or unbanning accounts to please his fans. So the idea that he might ban an account on a whim is certainly plausible. No conspiracy is required when the alleged action can be credibly attributed to a single individual. It basically comes down to whether you believe in Musks' integrity and objectivity, or not.
OutOfHere 2y ago
No one should be using X.
marcusverus 2y ago
What a horrifying organization. It's times like this I thank God for the non-partisan Southern Poverty Law Center. As we speak, their intrepid investigators are scouring the web for evidence of past wrongthink by any and all members of this group, as is necessary whenever one discovers an expressly white or male organization. Should even a single off-color tweet about women or minorities surface, we'll soon have documented evidence. And as we all know, a single such infraction will taint the entire organization as having "problematic views on women" or "a history of white supremacist rhetoric". Once the organization has been tied to wrongthink--no matter how tenuously--no publication will ever again mention 'White Dudes for Harris' without first reminding the reader! It is also worth recalling that, should any publication describe the organization as "mysoginst", "racist", etc, those characterizations can be freely repeated, ideally without context. The SPLC article should drop any moment now. Let's all hold our breaths in anticipation.
bitshiftfaced 2y ago
Looks like they got a "suspicious activity" message: https://x.com/dudes4harris/status/1818119572265775217 https://x.com/dudes4harris/status/1818119572265775217 I'm thinking the most likely reason is that the name resembled hateful content combined with political opponents reporting them in bad faith.
josefritzishere 2y ago
Elon needs to let go of the steering wheel. Aside from the obvious moral issue... personaly intervening on individual issues like this make him look petty, eccentric, partisan and falible. It undermines his CEO image.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  What makes you think he cares about being seen as petty, eccentric, or partisan? Seems to me he obviously doesn't care at all, and his legions of sycophants don't mind either.
015a 2y ago
I know its alluring to immediately yell "Musk was scared and banned them", and much will be written about that, but: X laid off like 80% of their employees. There's no shot they have any kind of sophisticated community moderation team. What they probably have is: if (reportsInLast48Hours > BAN_THRESHOLD) ban(). This group likely received a ton of reports from right-wingers.

67 points by hn1986 2y ago

billy99k 2y ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 2y ago
Nobody cares? We got Congressional hearings about it. The whine was incessant.
BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
Who exactly was booted off? What exactly were they booted off for? What exactly did they say?
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Every time: https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744 https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355267174...
  - big-green-man 2y ago
    They banned the president off Twitter. Your point is moot.
    - josefritzishere 2y ago
      He had to attempt an insurrection to get banned so I think the point remains valid. That example is in extremis.
      - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      They suspended the President. They didn’t suspend the VP, Senators, Representatives, Cabinet members, Governors, or the Party. Do you think they just forgot, or did the President do a little more than espouse conservative beliefs?
  - anonfordays 2y ago
    And post-Elon, every time: Liberal: I have been censored for my liberal views Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting higher taxes? Con: LOL no...no not those views Me: So....regulation? Lib: Haha no not those views either Me: Which views, exactly? Lib: Oh, you know the ones Oh how the turntables.
    - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
      > Oh, you know the ones I don't. Which ones?
      - anonfordays 2y ago
        Oh, you know, [flagged][dead] [removed].
dc396 2y ago
[flagged]
- billy99k 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dragontamer 2y ago
    What Christian / Republican values did people talk about to get banned? We all know what those "values" were. The idea of hiding behind Jesus is... dare I say it... heretical. Jesus isn't quite the type who likes to hate on others ya know. --------- My Mom wasn't banned for Tweeting about Jesus or Angels or whatever. Those aren't the "Christian" values people found controversial. We all know what was "banworthy" before 2022 and it wasn't about "Christianness".
    - koolba 2y ago
      Sharing a link to a true story about the then candidate Biden’s son Hunter’s laptop was effectively a bannable offense (account disabled until you removed the tweet with the link). That same laptop was used as evidence in his 2024 trial.
      - dragontamer 2y ago
        > The committee's witnesses, three former Twitter executives, said in subpoenaed testimony that they mistakenly believed the Post article contained hacked material and reversed their decision to limit its circulation on the social media platform within 24 hours. You're complaining about a ban that was effectively overturned within 24 hours. Do you expect White Dudes for Harris to be unbanned by tomorrow?
        koolba 2y ago
        > You're complaining about a ban that was effectively overturned within 24 hours. So you agree they were banned for publicizing a true story and that’s totally fine right? And the ban was not lifted in 24 hours. They refused to lift the ban until people deleted the posts that the (at the time) Twitter cabal considered verboten. > Do you expect White Dudes for Harris to be unbanned by tomorrow? If there’s a course of action to resolve the issue and it’s taken, yes I’d expect them to be unbanned. If the violation cannot be fixed, then probably not. Do you not?

commandlinefan 2y ago

> for violating our rules against evading suspension This has been the catch-all reason for all social media when banning anybody - it seems ingenuous when it's applied to an account that goes against the politics of the owner, but it's been around for a long time, and seems to be applied politically evenly. I wish there were some way to have some transparency around when this rule is applied - on all social media, regardless of the political leanings of the owner(s).

gruez 2y ago
Is there more on why he was suspended in the first place?
- dragontamer 2y ago
  It seems pretty obvious that Elon Musk doesn't like this group. Twitter is perfectly allowed to do this. But we, the overall public, do not have to give our eyeballs or give high opinions to Twitter in return. If Twitter wants to turn itself into a far-right wing social media site, its their money their rules. But its up to the people to exodus and find alternatives. Almost all social media (be it small IRC nodes to larger Digg / Slashdot / etc. etc.) have all had their "Exodus" events over much smaller controversies than this.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    > It seems pretty obvious that Elon Musk doesn't like this group What makes it “obvious” that this was due to someone disliking this group? > If Twitter wants to turn itself into a far-right wing social media site Come on - far right? It is more accurate to say that Facebook, TikTok, Reddit, etc are far left in how blatantly they censor opinions on so many current issues whether it is gender identity or lab leak theory whatever. Twitter is closer to the middle now but still not right wing. > Twitter is perfectly allowed to do this Maybe they’re technically allowed but they shouldn’t be. All these platforms with hundreds of millions of users are just common carriers. They’re telecom utilities carrying the digital public square, and should be regulated to accept all legal speech.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Why does this have a news story around it? Not that it doesn’t deserve it, but I think it is remarkable that for the past decade, censorship/bans against moderate or conservative content/accounts has been a normal daily practice of big social media and tech platforms, and no one cared. But now they’re complaining when it affects the other side? Hypocrisy.

ceejayoz 2y ago
Twitter was acquired on a promise not to do this sort of thing. That promise was immediately and repeatedly violated (starting with @ElonJet, which Musk had previously publicly stated he'd leave alone - https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 ); this is another instance of it. I have a hard time defining "no one cared" in a way that includes "they held Congressional hearings about it". https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/us/politics/twitter-congressional-hearing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/us/politics/twitter-congr...
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  This account that this discussion is about was banned for evasion. You’re making up your own narrative on other reasons without evidence. In other words, you’re believing in a conspiracy theory. Isn’t that the phrase applied to these situations these days?
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > This account that this discussion is about was banned for evasion. That's the claim. @ElonJet got banned for a rule they made up after the ban, so I find "Twitter says so" a little dubious as the sourcing. Who's evading what ban here? > In other words, you’re believing in a conspiracy theory. No conspiracy; just Musk being Musk.
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    While I have no way of knowing for sure, it's not a conspiracy theory by definition. Musk is known for his capricious behavior and is openly partisan (deriding Harris as an 'extinctionist', for example), plus he's often made A Thing of banning or unbanning accounts to please his fans. So the idea that he might ban an account on a whim is certainly plausible. No conspiracy is required when the alleged action can be credibly attributed to a single individual. It basically comes down to whether you believe in Musks' integrity and objectivity, or not.

OutOfHere 2y ago

No one should be using X.

marcusverus 2y ago

What a horrifying organization. It's times like this I thank God for the non-partisan Southern Poverty Law Center. As we speak, their intrepid investigators are scouring the web for evidence of past wrongthink by any and all members of this group, as is necessary whenever one discovers an expressly white or male organization. Should even a single off-color tweet about women or minorities surface, we'll soon have documented evidence. And as we all know, a single such infraction will taint the entire organization as having "problematic views on women" or "a history of white supremacist rhetoric". Once the organization has been tied to wrongthink--no matter how tenuously--no publication will ever again mention 'White Dudes for Harris' without first reminding the reader! It is also worth recalling that, should any publication describe the organization as "mysoginst", "racist", etc, those characterizations can be freely repeated, ideally without context. The SPLC article should drop any moment now. Let's all hold our breaths in anticipation.

bitshiftfaced 2y ago

Looks like they got a "suspicious activity" message: https://x.com/dudes4harris/status/1818119572265775217 https://x.com/dudes4harris/status/1818119572265775217 I'm thinking the most likely reason is that the name resembled hateful content combined with political opponents reporting them in bad faith.

josefritzishere 2y ago

Elon needs to let go of the steering wheel. Aside from the obvious moral issue... personaly intervening on individual issues like this make him look petty, eccentric, partisan and falible. It undermines his CEO image.

shiroiushi 2y ago
What makes you think he cares about being seen as petty, eccentric, or partisan? Seems to me he obviously doesn't care at all, and his legions of sycophants don't mind either.

015a 2y ago

I know its alluring to immediately yell "Musk was scared and banned them", and much will be written about that, but: X laid off like 80% of their employees. There's no shot they have any kind of sophisticated community moderation team. What they probably have is: if (reportsInLast48Hours > BAN_THRESHOLD) ban(). This group likely received a ton of reports from right-wingers.