Twitter suspends alt-right accounts

originally posted by: Christosterone
They are a private company and can ban who and what they want...

As can ATS...

Exactly; BUT MAH FREESPEEEZ.

apparently TOS > Yo rights.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Actually the government cannot.
Which was my point.

& to be honest I don't care if twitter silenced Richard Spencer.
He is a disgusting man who brainwashes vulnerable people.

The government can, but they face consequences for doing so.

If you don't care about free speech for views you do not like, you do not care about free speech.

a reply to: crazyewok

so you really wanna silence people you don't agree with by shutting them down?

that's the problem with progressives they don't wanna debate just silence any opposition.

how come I only hear about internet control from the left?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Actually the government cannot.
Which was my point.

& to be honest I don't care if twitter silenced Richard Spencer.
He is a disgusting man who brainwashes vulnerable people.

The government can, but they face consequences for doing so.

If you don't care about free speech for views you do not like, you do not care about free speech.

When your words can have a harmful influence, no I don't care about free speech.

Rights to ought fallacy.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Twitter is a private company. Not the government.

It can silence who it wants, when it wants.

So can anyone. The question is whether they should or not. That answer is no.

This is the way of the world, is it not?

It is against my work policy to inform people of what I do, where I work from, or who I actually work for. It's also against my policy to let company procedures out on the interwebz. Is this a violation of my free speech?

No, it's not, and I'll tell you why. Because just like any other job - you sign on a line regarding their policies, and in this case (an Internet website) it's called Terms & Services.

I'm with you on that "they," shouldn't be allowed to do this - but my job for instance has a very clear and rational reason as to this policy.

When it comes to privately owned forums such as ATS or Twitter, or workplaces - this is normal. This is not only normal, it's explicitly stated in T & C's that - at their whim/disposal - they can remove whatever they damn well please.

It amazes me at how people click on the "I agree," portion that feign some sort of outrage at the policies/procedures they agreed to.

I work around a diverse group of individuals. It's against my policy to use racial slurs at work. To some - this is a restriction on my rights to free speech - when in REALITY, I agreed and signed my name explicitly stating I would not do this, and if I did, I would lose my job with no remorse.

Twitter is no different. Now - with that said - as for Twitter "selectively choosing," who gets "banned," I have no clue. I don't use social media, so I can't speak for that.

Would it surprise me? Absolutely not. Do I think it's wrong? Absolutely not.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

When your words can have a harmful influence, no I don't care about free speech.

Rights to ought fallacy.

Free expression is in the universal declaration of human rights and freedoms. It is the basis of free societies. Your thinking is tyrannical.

a reply to: RomeByFire

Yes, if you sign a contract it is pertinent to abide by it. But if that contract is severed, the question is "who broke it"?.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Hazardous1408

When your words can have a harmful influence, no I don't care about free speech.

Rights to ought fallacy.

Free expression is in the universal declaration of human rights and freedoms. It is the basis of free societies. Your thinking is tyrannical.

You're arguing in favour of brainwashing.

That's tyrannical.

a reply to: xuenchen

Censorship is an accepted practice now.

Just look at everyone defending it.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

You're arguing in favour of brainwashing.

That's tyrannical.

Yes, I favor brainwashing. There only thing connecting your logic is bubble gum.

a reply to: BlueAjah

You're so right... but talk about too little too late!

It actually took them this long to figure out that Twitter and Facebook might influence an election more than NBC?

a reply to: Hazardous1408

He is a disgusting man who brainwashes vulnerable people.

If that's the norm...significant amount of people of all races, religions and political affiliations should be gagged.

Majority of the MSM media is disgusting and brainwashing people...as was recently proven....I guess they should be gagged also. Let's be consistent about it.

But I doubt this case is about consistency.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Hazardous1408

You're arguing in favour of brainwashing.

That's tyrannical.

Yes, I favor brainwashing. There only thing connecting your logic is bubble gum.

Then what are you arguing against exactly?

Because all I said is that I don't believe in the freedom to brainwash people with speech.

You decided that was tyrannical thinking.
Look at the flaws in your own logic before putting words into my mouth in future.

originally posted by: Echo007
Meanwhile they allowed Black panther groups to stay on twitter, allow people to say rape the soon to be first lady.

Where is all the Alt-right hate speech? If you think illegals should be deported or shouldn't be allowed to vote, that's not hate speech at all.

Maybe the Black Panthers (don't formally exist now, you're thinking of New Black Panthers, different people, different ethos) followed T&C's. Can you show an example of people saying rape the 1st lady?

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Then what are you arguing against exactly?

Because all I said is that I don't believe in the freedom to brainwash people with speech.

You decided that was tyrannical thinking.
Look at the flaws in your own logic before putting words into my mouth in future.

I'm arguing what I have since the very beginning: if you don't believe in free speech for views you do not like, you do not believe in free speech.

Yes, it is tyrannical to wish to silence views you do not like. Calling views you do not like "brainwashing", without proving that it is, is just as tyrannical.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: RomeByFire

Yes, if you sign a contract it is pertinent to abide by it. But if that contract is severed, the question is "who broke it"?.

Well if my contract explicitly states "X," and I explicitly go against what was stated - that's my own fault, and I have no one to blame but myself.

I don't see it as censorship. I see it as part of being an adult in the real world. I don't see it as a restriction of my expression. It is a restriction, but in my case (job policy) it simply makes sense and is there for a reason.

In certain facets of society censorship is certainly detrimental but in others it is there for a reason. Has anyone never had a career with these stipulations or am I the only one?

As for Twitter censoring people I really don't care because anyone who uses Twitter is stupid enough to sign themselves up for a draconian social media experiment.

That's their own damn fault for not reading what's clearly and explicitly stated - the same goes for ATS.

I've seen people's comments censored on ATS (myself included) and is that, too, a censorship of free speech?

Or did they breach the terms and services they agreed to explicitly stating they would not do things that would lead to said censoring or possible bans?

I've always had the notion that I "can say what I want because my Consitutional rights supersede company/internet policy," but then I grew up and realized that's not how the world works. It's now how I WANT it work but what I want is irrelevant. I'm just a dude trying to get by. I HAVE to "play by the rules," so to speak so I can afford things to browse ATS and to keep myself warm in the winter.

This is a fact of life. I don't think it's as black and white as "freedom," versus "tyranny," but this issue is a tricky one.

Regardless it's nice to have an actual discussion on the implications of freedom of speech.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm arguing what I have since the very beginning: if you don't believe in free speech for views you do not like, you do not believe in free speech.

Exactly!

It is that simple.

And that important if you consider yourself a citizen of The United States of America.

a reply to: RomeByFire

Well if my contract explicitly states "X," and I explicitly go against what was stated - that's my own fault, and I have no one to blame but myself.

And if you do not go against "X", yet your contract is severed nonetheless, that's the fault of the other party. I think that's the issue here. Though Twitter probably has rules against hate speech (I'm not a twitter user), there is no way to tell that these accounts were banned because of hate speech.

Yes, censoring anything is censorship. As an aside, the last time I was in China I was told the word "censorship" was banned, censored. ironic?

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Snippythehorse
a reply to: xuenchen
In a First Amendment America it cannot stand.....
The lawyers will enrich themselves on this one.....yech....

Twitter is a private company.

The first amendment does not cover private companys.

It only regulates what the goverment can do.

Tell that to all the private businesses getting sued for bowing down to every gay rights demand.

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Snippythehorse
a reply to: xuenchen
In a First Amendment America it cannot stand.....
The lawyers will enrich themselves on this one.....yech....

Twitter is a private company.

The first amendment does not cover private companys.

It only regulates what the goverment can do.

Tell that to all the private businesses getting sued for bowing down to every gay rights demand.

Civil cases are not criminal cases.

Sue twitter for the alt-rights right to speech, nobody is stopping you.