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.

 

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

page: 2
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TinySickTears

Why do you assume it's just Trump any of us are worried about?

What about people like the porn star who Tweeted that she wouldn't work with men who had worked in gay porn and was Tweeted so much abuse she committed suicide?


i assumed no such thing.

i said imagine if he got booted?




posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: TinySickTears

What do I think about it?

That's easy.

Hello, thought police.


do you feel the same way about ATS?
there are things we can not talk about here or we will get banned



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

And exactly how are they defining "hate" is the other thing.

For some people, merely mentioning traditional marriage is hateful, even if you aren't even particularly against gay marriage.


+3 more 
posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
If people makes threats the ban em.

But to ban people merely for not liking people is absurd.

Especially since #killallmen #killallwhitemen are still allowed to operate.

Meaning in practice their policy thought crime targeting of the partisan political zealotry variety.

Unless they want to ban the #killallmen #killallwhitemen as well maybe.

I can see them banning the Nazi symbols, however, they really are ugly. But just banning people for thinking differently / being critical of the hyper-bigots of the other team that's thought criminal BS.
edit on 18-12-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TinySickTears

And exactly how are they defining "hate" is the other thing.

For some people, merely mentioning traditional marriage is hateful, even if you aren't even particularly against gay marriage.


i guess defined like this


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.


its in the article



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Define terrorism.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears
Logically, the banning of "violent threats" would also work against any pro-Islamic threats that might be made.
Is Twitter really directing this purely against right-wing groups, or is that just Huffington Post's way of spinning the story?





edit on 18-12-2017 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Twitter, like ATS, is a private company who can ban whoever they want. White supremacists don't have a voice here because they too will be banned. They should be happy they lasted as long as they did on Twitter.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TinySickTears

Define terrorism.


why?
i dont own twitter
i didnt put the rules in place
which means my definitions mean #



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: TinySickTears

Twitter, like ATS, is a private company who can ban whoever they want. White supremacists don't have a voice here because they too will be banned. They should be happy they lasted as long as they did on Twitter.



kind of where i am at
not into thought police or censorship but as with every website you have to follow whatever rules they set in place.
figured most felt that way cause we all agree and post on here but so far it does not seem that is the case



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Think we all agree that a private company has the right to do anything they choose. However blocking something gor hate speech is a slippery slope and could lead to all types of blocks. Let them talk and say whatever they wan't others can't read it if they don't follow those groups, unless someone retwetts it that you follow. At the end of the day blocking anything is a bad thing, lots of things in the world i don't care but i have no right to tell someone they cant say whats on there mind.


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   


what do you all think about this?


It's bull snip.

Since they didn't give the same treatment to extreme far left groups like BLM and others.
edit on 18-12-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


what do you all think about this?


It's bull snip.

Since they didn't give the same treatment to extreme far left groups like BLM and others.


they didnt even give the same treatment to all the alt right groups. at least not yet

i think it is ongoing


Still, as of Monday afternoon, the purge wasn’t as widespread as many had expected. Many prominent white nationalist Twitter accounts remained active, including those belonging to Richard Spencer, Mike Peinovich (aka Mike Enoch), Elliot Kline (aka Eli Mosley), Evan McLaren, James Allsup, Nathan Damigo, Nicholas Fuentes, David Duke and Jason Kessler.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Here's the deal for me. If they are banning sites of people that advocate violence, I'd say, 1) I think that's appropriate and 2) they may think they are facing a liability issue if their site or servce is facilitating communicatons between extremists or using the site to recruit or otherwise serve up hateful arguments.

For a private company that's basically a public communication service, I'd think liability would be a big concern.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I think it's a good thing. But I think a compromise should be made, and have it only apply to verified accounts. I like the idea of social pressure to keep people in line, but I also think we should still allow for pen names when writing.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

I guess its their business to make what ever decisions they want but I think it will come back to bite them in ways they wont like .



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   

“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.”


Well, I guess US law enforcement agencies, US military, Israeli citizens, Chinese citizens, and a whole host of others can look forward to having their Twitter accounts closed. How long has it been since Twitter had only 100,000 accounts?



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

If its a private website, they can censor whomever they want and I won't care. I only care when its the government, you know like POTUS tweeting that reporters should be fired. That's what you should be afraid of, not this.
edit on 18-12-2017 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Are those 12K tweets which are on twitter, reason enough to ban those people? Twitter set the policy. Calling for the assassination of someone is wishing for the serious physical harm, death of an individual, is it not?

Your thoughts?
edit on 18-12-2017 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Years ago in ATS, there were many members who made threads saying Hitler was a hero and denied the Holocaust. One of the owners of the ATS , Springer, eventually deleted them and made a thread saying from this point forward there will be no more threads celebrating Hitler and anyone making them will be banned.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 12/18/2017 by starwarsisreal because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join