then I'm hoping Twitter doesn't stop with milo.No, it's about silencing assholes who make other peoples lived hell and harass individuals in the real world. I'm done trying to explain this very simple point.
then I'm hoping Twitter doesn't stop with milo.
The whole idea that banning him from a website constitutes "silencing him" is bizarre. A recurring theme in this entire discussion seems to be a massive misinterpretation of what free speech involves, if you even choose to invoke that right on an international website like Twitter. He hasn't been banned for bad opinions. He's been banned for doing the equivalent of walking into a local shop and shitting on the floor.
this is the biggest problem with this. they only banned milo because he harassed the wrong person not because he's a serial harasser. there's no reason to believe twitter is going to take out the trash since it would severely impact their usage numbers.
this is the biggest problem with this. they only banned milo because he harassed the wrong person not because he's a serial harasser. there's no reason to believe twitter is going to take out the trash since it would severely impact their usage numbers.
this is the biggest problem with this. they only banned milo because he harassed the wrong person not because he's a serial harasser. there's no reason to believe twitter is going to take out the trash since it would severely impact their usage numbers.
Milo is not silenced, Milo has just been kicked off Twitter. Twitter is not a right.
Is anyone suggesting that it's a legal matter? Defending decisions by saying "look, it's a private company, they're legally entitled to it!" is just as stupid in this instance as when gamergaters use it to justify sexist and inappropriate video games.
Just because an action is legal doesn't mean the public shouldn't voice its opinion about the perceived hypocracy of it's enforcement.
Just like how you ignored why he was banned.Is anyone suggesting that it's a legal matter? Defending decisions by saying "look, it's a private company, they're legally entitled to it!" is just as stupid in this instance as when gamergaters use it to justify sexist and inappropriate video games.
Just because an action is legal doesn't mean the public shouldn't voice its opinion about the perceived hypocracy of it's enforcement.
Is anyone suggesting that it's a legal matter? Defending decisions by saying "look, it's a private company, they're legally entitled to it!" is just as stupid in this instance as when gamergaters use it to justify sexist and inappropriate video games.
Just because an action is legal doesn't mean the public shouldn't voice its opinion about the perceived hypocracy of it's enforcement.
he's a serial harasser who doxxed and outed people. this isn't about offensive speech it is about harmful speech.
which is a point you have conveniently ignored.
Is anyone suggesting that it's a legal matter? Defending decisions by saying "look, it's a private company, they're legally entitled to it!" is just as stupid in this instance as when gamergaters use it to justify sexist and inappropriate video games.
Just because an action is legal doesn't mean the public shouldn't voice its opinion about the perceived hypocracy of it's enforcement.
"The public" can "voice" whatever they want, but don't expect any private platform to allow their bullshit on their doorsteps. If Twitter isn't happy with how Milo addresses its users, how he keeps starting racist and misogynistic tirades and actively making Twitters audience uncomfortable and leave, then he has absolutely no right to expect to be allowed on there. And I sure hope many others will follow.
How it this so hard to understand, does someone have to pull out that first amendment comic again?
Edit: Alright, after your latest post about "a lot of people" you're clearly just trolling. Have fun with that, pal.
Is that really the reason though? You might be right, in which case I concede. But judging from reactions in this thread, a lot of people are celebrating this ban for different reasons.
Is that really the reason though? You might be right, in which case I concede. But judging from reactions in this thread, a lot of people are celebrating this ban for different reasons.
According to the company, Yiannopouloss permanent suspension isnt a matter of speech as much as a matter of behavior specifically, a violation of Twitters rules regarding the targeted abuse of specific users.
Is that really the reason though? You might be right, in which case I concede. But judging from reactions in this thread, a lot of people are celebrating this ban for different reasons.
Is that really the reason though? You might be right, in which case I concede. But judging from reactions in this thread, a lot of people are celebrating this ban for different reasons.
Is that really the reason though? You might be right, in which case I concede. But judging from reactions in this thread, a lot of people are celebrating this ban for different reasons.
this is the biggest problem with this. they only banned milo because he harassed the wrong person not because he's a serial harasser. there's no reason to believe twitter is going to take out the trash since it would severely impact their usage numbers.
You gotta start somewhere...people always want Twitter to take actions but when they do it the response is always..." but what about..."
Is anyone suggesting that it's a legal matter? Defending decisions by saying "look, it's a private company, they're legally entitled to it!" is just as stupid in this instance as when gamergaters use it to justify sexist and inappropriate video games.
Just because an action is legal doesn't mean the public shouldn't voice its opinion about the perceived hypocracy of it's enforcement.
Fair-enough. There's a trend with the concern-talking through to today, just rubs me the wrong way knowing I was saying the same stuff during that period. Hell even being on /v/ it was hard to follow since moot was pretty fast on getting mods to delete threads about it before he later went more public about why GG was a banned topic. I was more interested in the Smash 4 leak that was happening around the same time, so I just figured it was random drama I didn't pay close attention to.
With randomly disappearing threads on a ton of different forums, journalists initially staying quiet, /pol/ and /v/ spamming the topic throughout 4chan, a ton of random opportunistic YouTubers making 'drama' videos about it and all the Twitter stuff, any outsider who wasn't closely engaged with it one way or the other would have trouble making heads or tails out of just what the fuck was happening.
By the time Quinn leaked those IRC chats leaked a month afterwards I realized GG was total bullshit, but beforehand as someone just trying to parse what was even happening proper, no, it wasn't common knowledge what GG was. Doesn't help there wasn't really any frame of reference for something like it either.
I keep seeing this alt-right thing being thrown around and looking it up, how is it any different from what they already believe? Or is it used because it's more out there now?
The unfalsifiable argument is the domain of the troll. No matter what happens, you claim that you won and it's what you wanted all along. And it's almost true, because what you really wanted was for someone to pay attention to you, because you're a sad sack of shit who can only feel good when others feel bad.He wins either way. Stays on Twitter and continues his campaign of violent rhetoric against those he doesn't like or banned and becomes a martyr for his demented cause. Your argument here is seriously flawed.
He wins either way. Stays on Twitter and continues his campaign of violent rhetoric against those he doesn't like or banned and becomes a martyr for his demented cause. Your argument here is seriously flawed.
Yes, Twitter banned him for organizing harassment. You don't get banned from Twitter for having a "different" opinion, whatever that might mean. Just look at all the harassment, racism, sexism and other terrible stuff people post on it.Is that really the reason though? You might be right, in which case I concede. But judging from reactions in this thread, a lot of people are celebrating this ban for different reasons.
What's the end game for guy like him anyway, being leader of illuminati?
I don't fucking understand man.. evil does exist
I keep seeing this alt-right thing being thrown around and looking it up, how is it any different from what they already believe? Or is it used because it's more out there now?
The unfalsifiable argument is the domain of the troll. No matter what happens, you claim that you won and it's what you wanted all along. And it's almost true, because what you really wanted was for someone to pay attention to you, because you're a sad sack of shit who can only feel good when others feel bad.
If you've spent any time on Twitter, you know it's filled to the BRIM with kooks who spread their hateful options, many of them much worse than Milo. I'm talking bona fide nazis, racists and other scum commenting on tweets right and left.
Banning Milo is setting a strange precedent. So crazy kooks get to use twitter, but once they amass a certain number of followers, they get banned? I'm not saying both sides are "the same". I believe my side to be right. But I don't want to silence the side I think is wrong. It's that simple.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's wrong to try to silence people you disagree with. Twitter is a platform for all kinds of morons, and I don't like the idea of starting a purge of people with controversial opinions.
I shouldn't even have to forcefully disown Milo's opinions (which I still do), in order to defend his ability to communicate his opinions publically, like any other moron out there.
If you've spent any time on Twitter, you know it's filled to the BRIM with kooks who spread their hateful options, many of them much worse than Milo. I'm talking bona fide nazis, racists and other scum commenting on tweets right and left.
Banning Milo is setting a strange precedent. So crazy kooks get to use twitter, but once they amass a certain number of followers, they get banned? I'm not saying both sides are "the same". I believe my side to be right. But I don't want to silence the side I think is wrong. It's that simple.