Twitter Temporarily Suspends Account of US Representative (cnn.com) 358
CNN reports:
Twitter on Sunday temporarily suspended the account of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene for repeated violations of new rules the social media platform put in place following the violent U.S. Capitol riot earlier this month, a company spokesperson told CNN.
"The account referenced has been temporarily locked out for multiple violations of our civic integrity policy," the spokesperson said. As a result, the congresswoman will be locked out of her account for 12 hours.
CNN also notes that Greene is a QAnon supporter, and that during her 12-hour suspension she'd complained that conservative Americans "shouldn't have to fear being cancelled by American corporations where they work, do business, and use services.
"They shouldn't be scared into submission by Socialists who want to end their way of life."
"The account referenced has been temporarily locked out for multiple violations of our civic integrity policy," the spokesperson said. As a result, the congresswoman will be locked out of her account for 12 hours.
CNN also notes that Greene is a QAnon supporter, and that during her 12-hour suspension she'd complained that conservative Americans "shouldn't have to fear being cancelled by American corporations where they work, do business, and use services.
"They shouldn't be scared into submission by Socialists who want to end their way of life."
ah, yes (Score:5, Funny)
All those corporate socialists, oh my!
Re: ah, yes (Score:5, Interesting)
You laugh. Until you realize that VW actually themselves suggested a union for American VW workers. And were very surprised when they rejected it and preferred to not balance the market by giving themselves a voice.
But maybe Americans would first have to realize that social democracy, socialism and communism are three distinct philosophies. ;)
Re: ah, yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans can't even tell the difference between their, there, and they're. I wouldn't bet the farm on them learning distinctions between 20th century economic philosophies, even though European schoolkids can grasp the difference by the fifth grade.
Re: (Score:3)
It was the center 30-40 years ago, not so much anymore. Education systems don't crumble overnight, and once they do it still takes decades for the previously-educated to gradually age out of power. Not that education is even a cure-all, it looks like Mrs. Q in Congress has a bachelor's degree, for example.
Sure, she might look stupid to most Americans... barely. Obviously, she (and one other Q-believer) were able to win districts somewhere. Before you start taking pride that there were only 2, remember that
Re: (Score:3)
VW only did that because they wanted to maximise profit. They have strong unions in Germany and they work well, resulting in good productivity and low turnover. So naturally they wanted to use what works at their US factories.
The Japanese do the same, they bring things like kanban to their overseas factories. In the name of profit.
Re: (Score:3)
You saying that without mentioning th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Conservative Americans shouldn't be afraid to speak their mind. They shouldn't have to fear being cancelled by American corporations where they work, do business, and use services. They shouldn't be scared into submission by Socialists who want to end their way of life.
At some point we're going to need a far-right-to-English phrasebook [wikipedia.org] to untangle this level of gibberish.
Re:ah, yes (Score:5, Interesting)
These people are constantly raging about language police because tumblr teens get grumpy over certain words, meanwhile they go crazy at people for using words like "inclusion" or "accessability".
Its really the cult of conservative persecution. You've got right wing politicians raging about censorship because a social media company puts them on gag for 24 hours for breaking the rules, which then gets reported in a few hundred newspapers. Meanwhile Rebekah Jones get arrested because she worked to get around the florida govts attempt at covering up the real extent of covid deaths.
Can we blame a (private!) company for deciding they've had enough of this shit.
Re:ah, yes (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not in any way a conservative but I'm frankly quite sick of seeing fuckwits attempt to speak on behalf of "conservative Americans". I've met conservative Americans. I work with conservative Americans. Largely they are a group of nice people who are not in any way afraid of being "cancelled". That's reserved for a particular special flavour of conservatives.
So can we stop lumping them together and just call it like it is: If you feel like you're at risk of being cancelled and feel the need to actually use phrases like "cancel culture" to defend yourself, there's a very good chance that you are in fact a fuckwit and not just a conservative American.
Re:ah, yes (Score:4, Interesting)
I may have to steal this comment....
Re: ah, yes (Score:4, Insightful)
I've met conservative Americans. I work with conservative Americans. Largely they are a group of self-entitled white people afraid of losing their privilege, and ridiculously angry at anyone who gets anything for free that they had to work for, even though they got things for free that those people didn't. They aren't all bad, but they all have a massive disconnect from reality. They think that if you don't earn it you don't deserve it, but they think they deserve to be treated better because they are whatever it is they are. (Usually, white.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be silly. Conservatism and self entitlement do not go hand in hand.
Yes, they absolutely do. They receive special treatment, or alternately, do not receive special abuse, and they want to keep it that way.
MAGA is code for Make America Great For White People Again, because the further you go into America's past, the more privileged white people were. And conservatives want to turn back the clock to a time when people just like them were more privileged.
No doubt the vast majority of conservatives do not believe themselves to be self-entitled, but that doesn't make them not so
Re: (Score:3)
They are just religious ... That doesn't make them disconnected from reality.
Yes it does.
Re:ah, yes (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that this person actually got elected is baffling. Maybe the alt-right is actually the new mainstream in some voting districts, or else the insanity was kept under tight watch until after the election. Her platform was basically about right to open carry loaded guns anywhere you want, nutty enough as it is, and the goofball Qanon and commies want to steal your babies shit was left out of most of the public speeches.
Re:ah, yes (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that this person actually got elected is baffling.
No, it isn't baffling at all. It is called gerrymandering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
They draw the lines around the cities to "pack" the educated urban and suburban people into one big district, and then the district next door has a bunch of squiggles so that it is 65% Republican. That way they can create 2 Republican districts and 1 Democratic district even when the voters are equally divided between the parties.
This district, Georgia 14, is mostly rural, but with a bunch of squiggles on one side around "certain areas." Not the weirdest shape district, to be sure, but a shape you can account for other than by politics.
Re: (Score:3)
All gerrymandering (regardless of party) is anti small "d' democratic and should be a felony punished by life in prison without parole. Any politician who engages in gerrymandering should be barred from holding any elected, appointed, or direct hire government employment. Treat them like someone who has been dishonorably discharged, if they ever get out
Re: (Score:3)
Re:ah, yes (Score:5, Funny)
First they came for the Qtards, but I said nothing because I wasn't a Q or a Tard.
Then they came for the white supremacists, and I said nothing because I'm not a racist.
Then they came for the rest of the Trumpers, and I said nothing because fuck those guys.
Finally they didn't come for me, because I'm not an asshole who incited a coup attempt.
Then everything went back to normal.
Re: ah, yes (Score:4, Funny)
Then everything went back to normal. *applause*
Re: (Score:3)
We're born to parents with views, we typically take on those views. Everyone should have the right to change and lambasting people or worse for what they said 20 years ago or even 10 years ago without seeing if they changed is outright wrong and the people doing the lambasting are no better than the people who said the wrong thing when they said that wrong thing. In fact the person that changed is by far the better person.
If we hold people responsible for what they casually said 20 years ago without letting
Re:ah, yes (Score:4, Insightful)
They haven't suppressed any conservative opinions. They have only suppressed kooks so far.
Not all conservatives are kooks, and not all kooks are conservatives. (I will agree that they have shown a bias against conservative kooks, but that seems immaterial unless you're one of those.)
Re: (Score:3)
Right, that's what I'm saying. They haven't historically suppressed antiviaxxers, for instance.
I don't see any specific incitement to riot in the Tweet you linked. In any case, the account isn't owned by someone with the power to make it happen, as Trump's was. When Trump insists that a valid election was corrupt, he attacks the very foundation of democracy, and demonstrably eggs on some really terrible people. Conversely, when some disaffected kids in Seattle organize to picket the capitol or whatever
Re:ah, yes (Score:4, Insightful)
I can see this behavior by twitter as an attempt to quash conservative beliefs systems from being expressed to a large audience, something that I object to.
There isn't anything conservative about Trump. "Right-wing populist" would be a better description, just as with the tea party. Conservative policies would include such things as supporting and shoring up the democracy, division of power, moderation and a realisation that things often are a specific way for a reason and is deeply rooted in society. Change should be gradual, as you don't have a specific utopia in mind. It's pragmatic. It's like agile, on a society scale.
If you ask Trump about conservatism, Edmund Burke [wikipedia.org], Alexis de Tocqueville [wikipedia.org], Friedrich Hayek [adamsmith.org] and other thinkers you would probably get a couple of seconds, before he'd start talking about himself as he probably wouldn't be familiar with conservatism or various political philosophies at all.
Re:ah, yes (Score:4, Insightful)
The incitement started when Trump lost 50 court cases in a row and still insisted that the election was stolen from him. What was previously just a lot of typical Trumpian hot air and bullshit became a direct attack on the integrity of democracy at that point. Any language that could even remotely be construed as 'fighting words' can be considered incitement, as far as I'm concerned. There was no shortage of that.
The reality is that convicting someone for inciting a riot is very difficult in the US, as it should be. However, judges, juries, and the Senate are free to consider both context and consequences when deciding whether the charge is applicable. Hopefully they'll throw the book at him, but I'd be amazed if they do. He (or his sponsor) clearly holds some powerful kompromat over the Republican Party.
Re: ah, yes (Score:2)
Everyone just needs to host their own webpage (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Na, Twitter just needs to make their own Uganda: https://qz.com/africa/1956188/... [qz.com]
Re:Everyone just needs to host their own webpage (Score:5, Insightful)
Who modded this as “funny”? This is how the web used to work before some folks got it into their heads that they have some sort of God-given right to have their thoughts hosted on a machine they don’t own, on someone else’s dime.
And don’t give me that town square shit. That analogy only works in meatspace where real estate is limited. It costs gas and time to drive outside of a company town, it costs absolutely nothing to point your browser at www.myvapidrealmofstupid.com instead of Twitter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
yes it does cost ISP connection bandwidth, if you get 10000/hits second, you need a god damn $2m IBM router, not a home POS netgear.
The townsquare was owned by the TOWN, so I guess in these modern times, we NEED a public.townsquare.gov area.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not a bad idea. Zero filtering of any kind. I doubt it would cause any kind of problems because batshit insane politics would just get lost amongst the non-political batshit insane, and the spam.
Re: (Score:3)
You simply put the filtering in the hands of the users...
All the content is available, you can choose what you want to read and what you want to ignore.
Re:Everyone just needs to host their own webpage (Score:5, Insightful)
The town square is the internet, it's why net neutrality is important, so you can access the town square, which the right wingers hated as your ISP should be able to kick you off for your politics was the argument the Trumpers made.
Meanwhile your demanding the coffee shop fronting the town square where everyone hangs out to push your viewpoint. Just because a property is besides the town square doesn't mean they aren't private property.
Or just do a national pubilc access (Score:2, Interesting)
But honestly, it's not speech these people want, it's an audience.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Everyone just needs to host their own webpage (Score:4, Informative)
That's a very absolutist view. There is a fundamental limit to freedom of expression, since one person's expression could harm or infringe on other people's liberties (e.g. libel, hate speech). It sounds strange, but we have to limit free speech in order to safeguard it. Karl Popper called this the 'paradox of tolerance'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
On top op that philosophical limitation, it also matters where you say something. This representative is not excersizing free speech at home or in true public space (e.g. a public square), they're saying things on a commercial platform. It's like going to a restaurant and spewing abuse at the waiter. You may have freedom of speech, but they have the freedom to kick you out.
Even Parler reserved the right to kick anyone off their platform without even giving a reason.
Now, should we talk about making these commercial platforms better regulated? Sure. Should we demand, for example, that there is accountability and transparency in these cases? Sounds great.
Aside from that, I think a lot of people are currently applying the censorship label to moderation they simply don't agree with. In my opinion we should reserve the word censorship for situations like those in China, where saying the wrong things could land you in jail.
Re: Everyone just needs to host their own webpage (Score:2)
This is exactly what Piratebay's VPN, ipredator.se is for.
Yes, they really have a hand at (deliberately?) picking shit names. ;)
They allow payment in Bitcoin etc though. And if I trust anyone to not log, and to tell me when somebody forces them to spy on people, it's gonna be the Piratebay guys.
Re:Everyone just needs to host their own webpage (Score:5, Insightful)
No. The kind of really slippery slope we're in right now is that people will believe whatever kind of cockamamie fantasy will allow them to not challenge their bigoted worldview, even to the point of electing representatives who will proliferate Qanon conspiracy theories that have already caused extensive violence.
You can go say whatever the fuck you want. Pass out leaflets printed on your own mimeograph machine. Stand on your front porch and give speech after speech. Say whatever you want to say, but nobody owes you a goddamn mass media platform.
And while we're at it, stop with the incessant claiming of victimhood. Your screaming about having your voice taken away is just about all we can hear any more. For someone whose voice has been taken away, it seems like you just can't shut up.
Re:Everyone just needs to host their own webpage (Score:5, Funny)
"But we self-declared as being the majority, so stop treating us like a minority!"
Re:Everyone just needs to host their own webpage (Score:4, Insightful)
That slope didn't ice up until people died.
Very easy to host own + no censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure you could host your own home page on your own hardware at home, till they whois lookup the IP you're hosting on and call up your internet provider to shutdown your home internet connection, or go-to your domain registrar and have your registration yanked. This is the kind of really slippery slope we are on right now. It is soon going to mean big business for places that host sites like the piratebay, for as much as many govts around the world want it to go away, it doesn't stay gone for long and pops up somewhere else again.
Sure you could host your own home page on your own hardware at home, till they whois lookup the IP you're hosting on and call up your internet provider to shutdown your home internet connection, or go-to your domain registrar and have your registration yanked.
It's trivial to host your own content. You can post anything legal you want and violate as many community standards as you like. Professional hosts don't care much what you put up. Incite as much violence as you can. Maybe AWS does, but there are 1000s of companies that will rent you a hosting account.
Putting stuff on the web is super-easy. Most of us of a certain age did it long ago in the geocities days. The problem is getting someone to notice you. Twitter and others make it trivial to get noticed and build and audience, but yeah...you gotta follow their rules. You are getting a global audience for free. I used to pay monthly to host my stupid blog long ago....because that's what real geeks did 20 years ago before these services made it so trivial...and the world was a better place for it. If you wanted to spout your opinions, you at least had to know basic HTML..it requires opening a book and learning something. I like having some barrier to entry for a global audience.
Look nutjobs...if you want the freedom to say whatever offensive things you want to say, you'll have to put more work into it. You'll have to put some actual skin in the game and pay some hosting fees. If you want someone else to do all the work for you to build and audience and network and global CDN-backed, secured hosting platform...for free, yeah, they're not going to want you to screw up their sweet ad revenue. They're not in the business of enabling controversial opinions. They're in the interest of selling you crap. I'm really fucking sick of conservatives whining. They really have no appreciation how hard it is to run even a site as simple as Twitter. Look at the parler folks...amateur hour, technical mistake after mistake. Jack Dorsey may make it look easy, but trust me, it isn't.
So yeah...just as Trump's Mar-A-Lago has no obligation to host an AOC fundraiser, Twitter has no obligation to host your content.
If your "truth" is that important and you need to get it out there, pay a monthly fee, TONs of places will host for less than $10 per month and not ask questions. Us old geeks all did that before Facebook, Twitter, Medium, Instagram and SmugMug. If your truth is so important, host it yourself, maybe learn some HTML and PHP along the way. You can do it. I believe in you!
You can be offensive or you can be lazy, but I really really hate lazy offensive people....that's offensiveness squared. Put some effort into your cause and make your own website.
Re:Everyone just needs to host their own webpage (Score:5, Funny)
Sure you could host your own home page on your own hardware at home, till they whois lookup the IP you're hosting on and call up your internet provider to shutdown your home internet connection
Well, that is why we have net neutrality, so your ISP can't shutdown your home internet connection without a good reason like not paying your bills.
Oh yea, you guys voted to change that as corporations should be able to do what they want with their property.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that is why we have net neutrality
Where?
Re: (Score:3)
Here in Canada. My ISP got shit for blocking their unions web site and when they decided to get rid of dialup, my dialup kept on working as they couldn't cut me off with no alternative, for a year I got a $0 bill.
Re: (Score:3)
Well. It canâ(TM)t be on an American hosted service. It needs to run on a hosting service in a less hysteric country.
I know you're joking, but people seem to really think this is true.
IT IS NOT.
There are "first amendment" webhosts out there in that if your speech isn't literally illegal, then they'll host it. Based in California as it happens. The American Nahtzee Party (I checked with whois) uses one of them. Somehow despite amazon apparently being the only available webhost, their site is still up an
Free Market at Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free Market at Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. This is what the right has wanted for the past four decades. Diminished "nanny state government", free market of ideas, corporations policing themselves and always able to do better than the public sector. And when they get it, and those same (psychopathic) corporations actually flex their muscle and do something these so-called free-market lovers don't like, they whine like the leftie snowflakes they complain about all the time. Twitter's decision is Orwellian only to those who have never f0ing read Orwell. Hypocrites, the lot of them. Deal with it. Twitter's house, Twitters rules. Don't like it? Build your own Twitter.
As a recent article on Alternet said, "The ideological zeitgeist of the Reagan-Thatcher era was that the privately owned corporate sector was better qualified and better structured to have control over the flow of news and information in society. This shift was framed as more than just an issue of policy, it was framed as an issue of morality: to empower the human spirit by allowing it to break free of the repressive shackles of state control, reveling in the natural democracy and common sense of consumer choice.
Sucks when you get what you wish for, huh?
P.S. I've never met a real libertarian in my entire life, at least not one who remembers what the *fourth* institution is that sniffles an individual's freedom. And iif they do know the history of social libertarianism, (France, 1850s) they conveniently forget. :)
Re: (Score:3)
And when they get it, and those same (psychopathic) corporations actually flex their muscle and do something these so-called free-market lovers don't like, they whine like the leftie snowflakes they complain about all the time.
People only like the invisible hand when it's punching someone else in the nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
You really should read some history, lots of politicians got elected with help from robber barons and monopolies and returned the favors.
Re: (Score:3)
Conservatives are all for the free market and small government until some company does something they don't like then all of a sudden it's "we've got to do something about this!"
This only demonstrates you don't understand conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
This only demonstrates you don't understand conservatives.
In which way? Are you saying that conservatives are not all for the free market and small government, or are they currently not saying "we've got to do something about this" (eg. calls for revoking Section 230)?
Or do conservatives think that saying "you don't understand" or "fake news" is enough to discredit anything said that is inconvenient?
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to recall conservatives yelling something during the 2016 election, let me try and recall the phrase. Oh yeah it was FUCK YOUR FEELINGS.
Re:Free Market at Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When a Nasdaq companies says, our new product will make your life better than be the best shit in the world. Why isnt that considered to be misinformation and lies ?
But its ok for the police dept to say , we will shoot you if you rob a bank - thats a threat of violence too.
Since when do shareholders have values? They just care about ROI and increasing stock price.
Re: (Score:2)
They purposely don't actually say "our new product will make your life better than be the best shit in the world", just imply it with their new and improved product. Take them to court and they win because there is a new font that the fine print is written in and the new font causes improved profits from people not being able to read the fine print. Just because those pictures of girls climbing over the person who now has a wad of money has implications, it is your stupidity for making that connection.
Adver
Re: (Score:3)
When a Nasdaq companies says, our new product will make your life better than be the best shit in the world. Why isnt that considered to be misinformation and lies ?
Because those are subjective claims. If you can't find a way in which to consider your life better, that's on you. If you can't find a way of thinking that makes their product the best shit in the world, that's on you.
Notice, they won't say, "our new product will make your income 15% higher." They only say, "our new product will make your payday more outstanding than ever before!"
They don't say you're be 50% happier. They say you'll be up to 50% more satisfied with your purchase, or your money back. 50% hap
Re:Free Market at Work (Score:5, Informative)
The terms of service allow them to be assholes, that's not the problem.
But they're not supposed to advocate violence, or engage in blatant hate speech.
They're allowed to be hateful as long as they use a tiny little bit of ambiguity.
That's how bad it is; they can't even refrain from the most blatant violations of the contract that governs their use of the service.
Re:Free Market at Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free Market at Work (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, your explanation does not fit the simplistic binary label that we wish to apply in this case. This is confusing for our users and would force them into the painful process of dealing with a complex reality rather than their chosen fantasy. Please limit your answer to only the terms "left" and "right" and try again.
Re:Free Market at Work (Score:5, Insightful)
One of my high school civics teachers - an radical ex-hippy - used to say that the political “spectrum” is actually a circle... meaning if you go far enough to the left and the right, the differences between those extremes are minimal.
The older I get, the more I realize he probably was correct.
Re: (Score:3)
Hans Eysenck thought there was some truth in that. He could also think in more than one dimension.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Politics is an N-dimensional hyper-sphere. Which confuses people, so the French invented a simplistic system of "those who sit to the left of the center aisle in the assembly and those who sit on the right." Then that was adopted by everyone else who wanted to give up all the headache inducing thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
to complicated. It's "American evangelical fundamentalists" and "liberals", there is no wishy washy middle ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Did real jobs go up under Trump? He brought back the discredited idea of tariffs, which severely damaged the market. And a damaged market loses jobs. And not just tariffs with our adversaries, he imposed tariffs on our traditional friends and allies while cozying up to dictators. Say what you like about what Trump has accomplished, but he is in no way an economist or even a good business person.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't the free market at work
No, it is. If you don't like one company's offer, you're free to accept another company's offer. You have the necessary information and the option to do so. That's free market.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, Marjorie Taylor Greene is an extreme leftist? She certainly is getting her panties in a bunch about a company dealing with people who aren't following the rules that said company sets for those using their service.
She is perfectly free to choose another company, say one that is run by a bunch of extreme rightists. There isn't one? She can start one herself, call it conserve-a-twit.
Oh now I see your point, someone having their free account suspended for 12 hours is exactly the same as a company havin
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if all of Africa or Asia/Russia /India block Twitter, they can see their user base get smaller and wonder why.
Countries are free to block any foreign website they feel justified.
Re:Free Market at Work (Score:4, Insightful)
What happens if you go inside a shopping mall and start yelling about politics? You would be asked to leave the property. Was your right to freedom of speech infringed on?
Re: (Score:2)
God: "I know, maybe it was an oversight, but let's just clear this up right now though: Thou Shalt Not Incite To Violence."
Re: (Score:3)
This is a bunch of extreme leftists getting their panties in a bunch
THAT'S CALLED FREEDOM.
AND GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY PANTIES!
Twitter doesn't want to bake your wedding cake (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, the schadenfreude of seeing conservatives get hoisted by their own petard.
Re: Twitter doesn't want to bake your wedding cake (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has no obligation to Host AOC at Mar-a-Lago (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a false equivalence. Twitter is hosting, they are not doing any creating.
OK. If Donald Trump has no obligation to host an AOC fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago, Jack Dorsey has no obligation to host anyone's content. Do you like that one better?
I think you forget, Twitter is an ad service, not a public service. They're not there to be the town square. They're there to sell ads so companies can sell you crap...and once you get linked to a violent insurrection, you're bad for business. People like her ruin the party.
People who wave confederate flags in the capitol building and murder policemen don't inspire happy thoughts in most of us. They don't motivate most of us to buy things being sold on the ads on Twitter. Not only are these people insurrectionists and cop murderers, they're buzzkills. They're unwanted guests at the party. No one wants you around.
If you're getting banned from Twitter, it's not because we can't understand your brilliance or handle your truth. It's because no one wants you. You're bad for business. You make us miserable and not want to go onto Twitter and buy things. If you want to shake up the system either find a platform that's into it or find a way to make your opinions profitable to your hosts, like Twitter. You're not getting banned in the name of leftism. You're getting banned in the name of capitalism. Big Tech is a bunch of sociopaths. They only care about money and you're interfering with their ability to earn it...fix that and maybe they'll host you.
Re: (Score:2)
For the longest time, a website with a guy’s over-stretched anus managed to stay on the internet just fine. In fact, I’m sure there’s still mirrors of it around to this day (but no, I’m not going to look for them).
If a literal huge asshole can find a home on the web, I see no reason why the figurative ones should be complaining.
Interesting how they complain now (Score:2)
If I can't expect no repercussions if I walk into the TSA screening area at an airport and say I have a bomb in my luggage, then a member of Congress shouldn't be able to get away with spreading conspiracy theories and riling up the crazies. That's not cancel culture or whatever the conservatives complain about...it' about a private company not wanting to be seen as enabling these people. Similar to bakeries not wanting to bake gay wedding cakes, right?
I'm glad the social media companies at least have some
Re: (Score:2)
Similar to bakeries not wanting to bake gay wedding cakes, right?
Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
Why dont you rephrase it....
Walk in to the TSA area, and start screaming, I have a theory that 1% of these bags has a 3% chance of a bomb, its just a theory.
If there is zero chance of a bomb, then why do you have a TSA screening bags at all ? If you are screening, then you surely must believe that at least 1% of these bags, has a 99% chance of having a bomb.
Oh and a theory is a theory that needs testing, not just saying "Youre full of shit, fuck off, we 're not hearing na na na na, ears shut, nya nya im not
Re: (Score:3)
At a simpler level, if I went in public and accused a Republican of a crime, and it alarmed the community, and there was no evidence they had committed the crime, I would be arrested and charged with criminal mischief.
They don't comprehend what life is actually like for the "leftists" they're yelling at, and crying about.
Try walking down the wrong street with long hair. Or with dark skin. These whiners have no concept of which supposed freedoms were denied, and to who.
Fun (Score:2)
Gee, I wonder why the word Qanon didn't appear anywhere in the summary.
Conservatives are not Qanon (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You won't be the one deciding on what is banned (Score:2)
There's her mistake (Score:2)
Americans "shouldn't have to fear being cancelled by American corporations where they work, do business, and use services."
"They shouldn't be scared into submission by Socialists who want to end their way of life."
Yes, they should. Fear your masters. Or they'll pull your plug.
I strongly condemn this unwise action by Twitter. (Score:4, Interesting)
Make it permanent. These QAnon dimwits deserve no sympathy.
Q is a filter (Score:2)
Believing Q means that person is so extremely degenerate they WANT to believe in a 4chan larp. Q doesn't trick decent people, it outs idiot monsters.
Q is a way to irrefutably prove both autsperger trolls (4chans "weaponized autists") who compulsively believe in Q and their idiot boomer "normie" standard issue bigots to be what they always were all along, and THEY do the legwork.
Vindicated (Score:4, Informative)
For as long as I can remember, I’ve talked about the myth of freedom. My position is that the majority of humans want nothing to do with freedom. It’s too scary and uncertain, and worst of all, it gives people that I don’t like the same voice that I have.
Humans are hardwired to detest this scenario,
What we actually want, what we call “freedom”, is the freedom to oppress people that we don’t like, while remaining free from oppression ourselves. For 95%+ of humans, this is the ideal scenario. It’s the ideal scenario for me to, but I’ll likely never get it because the people that I don’t care for people with enough power to keep oppression at bay.
At least Democrats had the good sense to pick the right side, It feels somewhat ironic that they’re in the same ideological group as people like Zuckerburg and Bezos, but when the opportunity presents itself ...
At this point, they’re just living the dream, and most of my hatred is probably just envy.
Good for you, guys, I don’t know how long it will last ... all oppression eventually sees a backlash, but if you play your cards right, you should be able to ride it for another decade or do.
Well played.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you misunderstand. Humans do want freedom. *Their* freedom. They want so much freedom that they will do anything to force other people to give them that freedom.
What humans don't want is their freedom to end where another's freedom begins.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany etc have outlawed fascists for years. The US is just starting to catch up
Re:Thanks for proving her right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except it's Germany (and the rest of the EU) that're worried about the behaviour of these exact same companies and are currently calling them out.
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking of Germany, Angela Merkel has said she agreed with Twitter's labelling of Trump's tweets when they contain lies, and remember, when Twitter introduced that, people like you were already saying that being called out on lies is against free speech.
So imagine how sensible people think when they s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty much everything he says is dumb bullshit.
Re: 1st Amendment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
does not make it acceptable to remove their ability to communicate.
Correct. You remove the person who yelled fire in a crowded theater when there was no fire and prohibit them from coming back to your place.
That person is free to yell fire anywhere else they want, just not in that particular theater.
Re: (Score:2)
We had our American Spring, it was back in November. Only one man fails to realize what the outcome was.
Re:The Streisand effect is a thing (Score:5, Insightful)
" Taking down messages from public figures, suspending their accounts, or filtering them in any way only makes people curious on what was in the message that it could not be tolerated."
No it doesn't. People got hooked on QAnon stupidity because there was a torrent of information on youtube and facebook and twitter. Now that the spigot is off, they won't be drenched by that stupidity.
"I do wish that social media companies would just let the idiots talk themselves into a corner "
They've been doing that for 15 years and all that happens is more and more Americans are believing in stuff that makes them sound like they need psychiatric help.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
" Now that the spigot is off, they won't be drenched by that stupidity.
No the spigot is still working, you just pinched the end of the hose and now can't see where else it is flooding.
Re: (Score:3)
The evidence is 100% the opposite of the tired ideology you're parroting.
False news spreads faster than corrections, MIT study in Science. [sciencemag.org]
De-platforming Trump has massively reduced false information on Twitter [seattletimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)