It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Twitter suspends alt-right accounts

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: eNumbra

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.


I just love that Twitter can block and deny service to whomever it wants because it's a private business. But another private business, such as a bakery, can't.





posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: eNumbra

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.


I just love that Twitter can block and deny service to whomever it wants because it's a private business. But another private business, such as a bakery, can't.


Difference here being, denying service for an opinion, vs denying service for sexuality or race or anything else.
A bakery can still demand "no shirt, no shoes, no service".
Apples and oranges.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
To the [snipped] snowflakes crying HYPOCRISY..
Do the following...
Go to BreitBart and make a pro Obama - Hillary post - let me know how fast you are banned.
Go to StormFront and make a pro Obama Thread - let me know how fast you are banned.
Go to GLP and say you like black/muslim/lgbt communities and let me know how fast you are banned.


Yes the hypocrisy is deep.


edit on 11.16.2016 by Kandinsky because: Snipped pejorative



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74
Maybe we could open a bakery.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
That's why several alt righters and others, mainly free speech purists are working on their own platforms to compete with and hopefully replace SJW converged companies like Twitter. Two that I know of are Gab as a Twitter replacement and info galactic planetary knowledge base for wikipedia. The goal isn't just to make an alt right friendly version of these services, but to make a superior product that everyone could use that is hardened against SJW entryism and political correctness. You will hear more about alternative platforms in the near future.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua

I mean this with respect.....


But there is hypocrisy of a moderator of one privately owned website, criticising the moderation of a another private company.....especially if I made a pro white nationalist thread wanting to kick Jews and blacks out the UK I would end up with a post ban......



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: crazyewok

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

No I dont.

But twitter is a private company. I cant control what they do. And the goverment should not intrefere with the running of a private company.


originally posted by: JDmOKI
how come I only hear about internet control from the left?



It is not internet control.

It would be internet control if the GOVERMENT stepped in and told a PRIVATE company what they can or can not do.


There is nothing stopping you from setting up a rival to twitter that allows any and all speach is there?



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   

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.


I agree with you.

It should work both ways.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Isn't Twitter 100% free? Obviously I'm not a subscriber.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: jefwane

O.k., if you say so but, maybe I'm not understanding exactly what alt-right means, but if they're referring to neo nazi's; skinheads; white supremecists; white separatists, my guess is we're talking about maybe a few thousand active members. We're not talking about enough people to matter. Even the KKK is only a few thousand and I didn't include them.

So, I'd have to think the numbers are too small to support alt-right social media. Actually, their numbers are statistically insignificant to the point I can't even find "numbers" on these people or movement at SPLC! We're talking about the same number of people that believe the earth is flat!



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
Nice, they should ban everyone they don't like.

It says Spencer wants blacks, Asians, Hispanics and Jews removed from the U.S. I say ban his account or at least add a "hate-speech" tag so it's ignored by default on all accounts. I have no regrets about that.

That's hate speech.

If those people came here illegally then maybe you have legal ground to deport. But as we're seeing with Trump and his policy, deporting those who've not committed violent crimes has no traction. If their country wants them then send them away. If there're substantive ties to terrorism, keep them on no fly lists and watch them like a hawk.

During war time it's sometimes the case we limit immigration from specified countries. But we're not in war-time, so it doesn't apply.
edit on 11/16/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Louis Farrakhan and Nation of Islam are still welcome on twitter though.



"White people are devils" "Kill the white devils" "muslims must murder the white devil"



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If you don't care about free speech for views you do not like, you do not care about free speech.


Wouldn't the right to refuse service be at the heart of a free market? Say disgusting things, and businesses won't want their product to be associated with you.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

He should be banned as well.
I agree.
Hatred spread is hatred spread.
Does he tweet hatred though?
Or his personal sentiments from the past those of hatred?
Most recently some guy they banned Richard Spencer just recently
was tweeting of having minorities deported the likes of Asians, Jews, Blacks..


edit on 16-11-2016 by MagicCow because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

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

Rights to ought fallacy.


Your kidding right? Just yesterday you stated you agreed with the practice of not snitching on the rioters/vandals.

You should practice what you preach.


edit on 16-11-2016 by Nucleardoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I understand the hypocrisy, but this seems like planned outrage, considering many Alt-Right accounts recently were campaigning to have people 'kill themselves' with gangstalking.

I mean obviously they are controversialists, and the very next action would be to cry about the First Amendment, even after clearly violating the ToS.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
So did Twitter suspend Donald Trump's official account?
If not, they don't consider him Alt-Right.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nucleardoom

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

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

Rights to ought fallacy.


Your kidding right? Just yesterday you stated you agreed with the practice of not snitching on the rioters/vandals.

You should practice what you preach.



I said I don't agree with snitching full stop.

I don't see how that relates to be averse to brainwashing people.

Tried hard to find the connection, couldn't do it.
Enlighten me.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Yeah... I have a website. Thing is, I'm not selling you or anyone else anything, plus I pay extra so there's no ads either.

Unlike Twitter, FaceBook or Breitbart.

On the bit about wanting to kick Jews and Blacks out of the UK, you're on your own.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I don't agree with the alt-right's views, but apparently, they are getting let into the Trump administration. I don't agree with that , either. Twitter censoring hate speech sounds reasonable. I do think that if Twitter starts censoring, then eventually the alt-right might be in charge and censoring.

They might be violating the TOS which could include provisions against hate speech. This is fair.
edit on 16pmWed, 16 Nov 2016 16:16:58 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join