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: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Yes!! Finally!!
I just hope now they get rid of those scary black guys. And then the trannies and gays!




posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

I don't have a twitter account nor do I care who they censor or for what reasons. It is a product they have full control over.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil



Calling for the assassination of someone is wishing for the serious physical harm, death of an individual, is it not?

Your thoughts?



yes it is.
the thing is that people like to talk # and not everything can be investigated. its just not possible.

legit threats or possible legit threats of course need to be looked at.

they need to bypass as much of the bull# as they can so they have the resources to investigate real things.

you know what i mean?
im pretty confident that kathy griffin was a waste of time and resources... just as an example

it was pretty clear to basically everyone that was not a trump lover that she was no threat to the well being of the president.


+3 more 
posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

The problem with people like Kathy Griffin is they can incite others and act as a catalyst for someone else to take action.

Imagine how something like what's below influences dangerous, angry people by reinforcing their beliefs and actions.



Account still up and active with that post near the top. It will be all telling if that account is still there in a day or two.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

A lot of things can influence people, across the board; however:

Legally, that banner is not a direct incitement of violence, nor does it explicitly call for violence against anyone.

Which would fit with Twitter's newest TOS, by not calling for violence against specific people or groups.
edit on 18-12-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

Both are private entities, and are allowed to make up their own set of rules. Yes?

Do you think that there are certain aspects of ATS rules I don't like? Maybe? There are valid reasons for the Terms and Conditions of ATS. But that's a topic for another thread...

No one, least of all me, is going to say they, private entities can't make new rules...but, no one says I have to like it.

I don't.

Either ideas/thoughts are all free, or none are. Does that clear it up for you?
edit on 12/18/2017 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

people fight with violence when they are unable to fight with words.
censoring people does not discourage their ideas, it only empowers them and removes them from discussion about why their ideas are bad.


now is probably a great time to take out a short on twitter. ;D



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
a reply to: TinySickTears

people fight with violence when they are unable to fight with words.
censoring people does not discourage their ideas, it only empowers them and removes them from discussion about why their ideas are bad.


now is probably a great time to take out a short on twitter. ;D


Well said. Its crazy that mere words in many cases, cause people go Apeshot



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: TinySickTears

This will be the death of Twitter. No one can censor politically charged content fairly and not piss off everyone eventually.

(Also, I personally don't care who they censor, because I don't use Twitter.)


I know right same here. I wonder if Twitter hired an army of like 20,000 people to censor because it’s going to take that many. Perhaps they are using a new algorithm in their narrow AI



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
what do you all think about this?
i think its a good thing. i hate censorship but [...]

Yeah, well, that's what happens.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence
Since that's directed at a dead person, I suppose that is good behavior and they are just a socially conscious group, who want to bring us all together and sing Kumbaya.

If they want to purge the hate groups, it's a lie if they don't get rid of them all. I'm just curious which hate groups they let stay.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

If they (@officalantifa) have made specific threats or abusive behavior against people or groups in violation of Twitters terms, then they should be suspended according to the new TOS.

But that image you embedded by itself does not violate those terms, nor is it abusive or threatening.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   

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?



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   

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.


There comes a point where private companies become so ubiquitous they are quasi public services and should be regulated in the same way as government departments, else the power they wield becomes toxic.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

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.


There comes a point where private companies become so ubiquitous they are quasi public services and should be regulated in the same way as government departments, else the power they wield becomes toxic.


Then why was cable never regulated as such?



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   

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?



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join