Twitter Has Started Its Messy ‘Purge’ Of Neo-Nazi And ‘Alt-Right’ Accounts

WTF and let all the liberals with there fake news ,plus the fact white supremist are democrats look who started the KKK,thats a real smart move,unless the audience you seek are foolish,and self centered

a reply to: Liquesence

“You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the serious physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people,” states Twitter’s rule for “violent extremist groups,” which went into effect Monday.

“This includes, but is not limited to, threatening or promoting terrorism,” the rule continues. “You also may not affiliate with organizations that – whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform – use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes.”

I read that differently. See the bolded part.

a reply to: TinySickTears

This is how censorship and thought police become acceptable in America.

a reply to: TinySickTears

So you're saying you hate censorship unless you agree with the reasons behind a person being censored.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: TinySickTears

They just like ATS are a private company and they have every right to do so.

Now if only the same logic applied to ISP's.

Do you really believe that ISPs should be able to regulate and control content?

They are private companies whom you pay for service.

Not saying I agree with it or not. We either treat all companies equally or we don't do anything at all.

Twitter isn't a utility.

The internet is. So is electricity. So, we should treat ISPs equally like other utilities, and not as private entities that can censor or regulate content like ATS or Twitter.

Is cable a utility?

No, it isn't.
Cable and the internet are completely different.

a reply to: TinySickTears

i really dont know why twitter did not do this under obama.
why does it matter?

Because it's nonsense. If there was an issue, why wait to handle it? Why don't they go after the lunatics on the left too?

There isn't some huge surge in white supremacy, the media is just jamming it down everyone's throats because Trump. I don't like Trump either, but this is getting ridiculous. All of a sudden there are white supremacists coming out of the woodwork .

I'd love to see if they actually have a checklist for banning people. I almost guarantee they don't. It's going to be banning badthink. Also, banning people for what they do offline is preposterous. I agree they should be able to do whatever they want, but I don't agree with what they want to do. When media starts dictating what people are allowed to say, we should all be scared.

a reply to: Blaine91555

A "should happen" or "deserve" statement is different from an "I hope" or "I wish" statement of harm and even more different than a threat of violence.

a reply to: TinySickTears

I seriously do not have a problem with Twitter banning individuals who are promoting violence or harm to others.

However, I think monitoring behavior outside of Twitter and banning accounts who are simply associated with an account that promotes violence is over the top.

Before I join Twitter, I will have to research what can get someone banned. I’ve noticed that Twitter seems to be the platform that bans people the most.

I wonder if the politician who "hoped" that Trump was assassinated got her Twitter account banned.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: TinySickTears

They just like ATS are a private company and they have every right to do so.

Now if only the same logic applied to ISP's.

Do you really believe that ISPs should be able to regulate and control content?

They are private companies whom you pay for service.

Not saying I agree with it or not. We either treat all companies equally or we don't do anything at all.

Twitter isn't a utility.

The internet is. So is electricity. So, we should treat ISPs equally like other utilities, and not as private entities that can censor or regulate content like ATS or Twitter.

Is cable a utility?

No, it isn't.
Cable and the internet are completely different.

Why?

a reply to: TinySickTears

“You also may not affiliate with organizations that – whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform – use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes.”

This part is worrisome as well. How would Twitter even know of your life "off twitter "?

So If I follow some wacko to see how crazy they are on somewhere other than twitter Twitter would still ban me?

Thats messed up.

Plus the "against civilians" Statement.....thats worded pretty strange. So if I encourage violence against an Army Major or a Police Chief, it's ok?

Twitter is a company, so they can do whatever they want. If it was me, I'd let them keep their accounts. Better to keep them where we can see them than forcing them to fade into the background.

Moving these types of groups underground only makes them more dangerous. Let their ignorance be on full display for the entire world, so there isn't any doubts what they're about.

a reply to: TinySickTears


Their site, their rules.

Seems fair to me.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
They are private companies whom you pay for service.

Not saying I agree with it or not. We either treat all companies equally or we don't do anything at all.

Monopolies aren't any random company. They're anti competitive. While Net Neutrality is preferable, it's not necessary to enforce it through the rule of law as long as competition for ISP's exists. We don't currently have competition though.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Blaine91555

A "should happen" or "deserve" statement is different from an "I hope" or "I wish" statement of harm and even more different than a threat of violence.

Got to give you credit for sounding like an attorney explaining what the definition of is, is.

I'm good with Twitter purging the hate groups, as long as they purge them all without bias and are honest about it. Do you think they will be? Honest I mean?



It will be obvious if they follow their rule or not, real soon. Any group engaged in violent protests or calling for violence like the death of cops will be gone.

Won't hurt them much, the groups like that on both sides of the political spectrum are very small. They are loud, but very small in number.

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: TinySickTears

My point is Twitter has said anyone.

They didn't say people only that are Nazis ect.

If you are going to enforce a standard, then by God, enforce it on everyone equally.

They vaguely worded their banning criteria, which will buy them a lot of time to work this through the courts, but eventually, for the same reason that a cake decorator can't refuse service to any member of the public, Twitter is going to have to let anyone on their platform until that person proves disruptive to their business... which is going to be a pretty high bar to clear.

a reply to: TinySickTears

It’s a bad thing. Frankly I want to know who the white supremascists are.

Having them speak is a prerequisite to dismantling their arguments—and reasonable people better learn how to dismantle their arguments. Banning them leads to the Streisand effect, and just like Hitler and the Nazis, they use their persecution as a pedistle from which to preach their cause.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: TinySickTears

They just like ATS are a private company and they have every right to do so.

Now if only the same logic applied to ISP's.

Do you really believe that ISPs should be able to regulate and control content?

They are private companies whom you pay for service.

Not saying I agree with it or not. We either treat all companies equally or we don't do anything at all.

Twitter isn't a utility.

The internet is. So is electricity. So, we should treat ISPs equally like other utilities, and not as private entities that can censor or regulate content like ATS or Twitter.

Is cable a utility?

No, it isn't.
Cable and the internet are completely different.

Why?

See the other threads about NetNeutrality, and how cable is a FCC regulated content provider; the internet is not, it's a content carrier, and largely unregulated because it provides a necessary service, hence utility.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
Won't hurt them much, the groups like that on both sides of the political spectrum are very small. They are loud, but very small in number.

Twitters big problem isn't hate groups, it's bots that retweet that hate. Twitter has yet to turn a profit, and is in fact hemorrhaging money. 48 million (and maybe more) of Twitters 328 million accounts are bots, and the highest traffic accounts are all bots. It would be a significant hit to investors if they actually purged it, so they won't.

a reply to: Wardaddy454


I'll fully support ISP's doing whatever they like when their money and influence doesn't block power companies, municipal wireless providers and other competition from providing an alternative to their services.

Until then, go fish.