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 Bans Far-Right Activist Laura Loomer

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard


I never mentioned the 1st Amendment. Please don't conflate the two.


Just accept the fact that you are defending censorship.




posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Laura Loomer has exposed the "F" in Fascism.

😎



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Tanga36

1. Ilhan Omar is critical of the Israeli government. This does not make her an anti-Semite or anti-Jewish

2. While it is true that some Muslims are anti-Jewish, it is not tru that All Muslims are anti-Jewish. Just like some Christians are anti-Muslim, and some are not.

3. Being Muslim may make Ilhan Omar more conservative regarding some issues such as those involving LGBTQ in her personal life, for herself. It remains to be seen if she will translate that into policy votes or not, however, her public statements have garnered her endorsement by at least one large LGBTQ rights group.

All that being said, Laura Loomer has spouted lies and insults for a long time on Twitter.

Perhaps it’s best to see this as “the Tweet that broke the camels account.”

Peace,

AB


Thank you, AB! And I truly mean that. You came with a coherent opinion and argument, not one just based on feelings or being totally PC. You made points and backed them up. This is the kind of respectable back n forth I have desperately needed!

To be honest, I don't know much about Ms Omar so I will concede to you and your research. I will more than concede to your point about Loomer spouting off and saying uninformed things, even blatant lies at times, and will 100% agree with you about that. She has absolutely said insulting and hurtful things on social media for quite some time, as well. All of those points are valid, true and not able to be argued against.

So, with those things being true, why is Sarah Jeong still allowed on Twitter? She actually called for violence against white people, especially men. Candace Owens gets locked out of her account for copying one of Ms Jeong's tweets but replacing "white" with "Jewish." BTW....Sarah even got her account verified.


I know I got away from the story and went to the "whatabout" argument but I just cannot understand how there are rules against these hateful or untrue tweets but they only seem to be put into play when its helping to silence the opinions they do not agree with. That is a pretty scary thing, in my opinion, no matter which side you belong to. Personally, I feel like everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want as long as it doesn't incite violence. If you don't like it, you don't have to look at it but that is just my opinion and it doesn't count for anything.



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist


Censorship is the opposite of freedom.


People are choosing censorship. Hell, it's even being defended here!


We've become conditioned (as a society & culture) to simply accept limits to speech and ideas.


I heard not too long ago, someone say that everyone has freedom of speech, but what differentiates us from the rest is that we used to have freedom after speech.



No one is taking away First Amendment rights at Twitter.

Laura lies her @ss off.

Isn’t removing the spread of “fake news” a thing?

Also, corporate censorship is not evil. It’s how I know I can take my kid to a movie and know it isn’t going to have porn or ultra gratuitous violence, etc.

Perhaps Twitter exercising their Corporate rights to censor lies and insults is offensive to those who like/believe those lies and insults? Therefore they feel picked on and victimized by said banning?.

Twitter isn’t at war with conservatives, the are at war with Douchery.

Your point about the movies ratings is not the best analogy IMO. The movies are rated by the Motion Picture Association of America.www.mpaa.org...
According to the website

Established in 1968, the film rating system provides parents with the information needed to determine if a film is appropriate for their children.
Ratings are determined by the Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA), via a board comprised of an independent group of parents.

I feel like having an outside organization, made up of a group of independent parents, making the rules for what the ratings will be for movies and then applying those rules without discretion is a totally different thing than having rules only being applied when wanted.

Because the movies stick to their rules and apply them without bias, it gives the Director the ability to CHOOSE which rating and audience they are attempting to target. They know and understand that if they are wanting to have a G or PG rating, they probably should cut the scene where Santa gets his legs chopped off and sprays blood everywhere. They also might want to delete all of the F-Bombs. There is a guide to follow when creating content. There is no guide to follow on Social Media. Depending on the day and who you are, you never know if what you type will be what gets you banned.

I said it earlier, don't hide behind vague and general T&Cs...just come out and say what is accepted, what isn't accepted and then stick to it. Even if it says "we do not allow Nazi, Fascist, NPC/Pepe/Kek memes. Also, anything that is a typical conservative value is not allowed.....etc," it would be better to just step up and own it. At least everyone would be clear on where the line is and could choose whether or not they wanted to abide by those rules. Right now it is not clear.



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Tanga36

Sorry my analogy wasn’t the best for you.

The point was two fold. 1. I know what to expect at the theater and can make choices as to what I expose myself and my child to, and 2. I, as a parent, can then “censor” what my child sees.



On Twitter, they are inconsistent, that is true. I doubt there is a bias against “conservatives “ however.
That may “feel” true to some people, but I doubt the stats would bear that out.



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: oloufo

originally posted by: odzeandennz
No one forced her to use Twitter. Twitter does what Twitter likes....per the terms and conditions of use.


period.

Wait, wasn't Tim Berners-Lee's vision of a free and open internet? You know, the real person behind the WWW?



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AboveBoard


I never mentioned the 1st Amendment. Please don't conflate the two.


Just accept the fact that you are defending censorship.



I’m glad you understand the diffe even between the First Am and T&C. Not everyone does...

And you think it has no value ever. What about libelous language. You ok with that? Perhaps the trolls being “censored” are lying with the intent to defame and stir up bad sentiment against someone isn’t ok? But yeah censorship.




posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

I'm not the one defending censorship, ma'am.

You are.



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tanga36

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Tanga36

1. Ilhan Omar is critical of the Israeli government. This does not make her an anti-Semite or anti-Jewish

2. While it is true that some Muslims are anti-Jewish, it is not tru that All Muslims are anti-Jewish. Just like some Christians are anti-Muslim, and some are not.

3. Being Muslim may make Ilhan Omar more conservative regarding some issues such as those involving LGBTQ in her personal life, for herself. It remains to be seen if she will translate that into policy votes or not, however, her public statements have garnered her endorsement by at least one large LGBTQ rights group.

All that being said, Laura Loomer has spouted lies and insults for a long time on Twitter.

Perhaps it’s best to see this as “the Tweet that broke the camels account.”

Peace,

AB


Thank you, AB! And I truly mean that. You came with a coherent opinion and argument, not one just based on feelings or being totally PC. You made points and backed them up. This is the kind of respectable back n forth I have desperately needed!

To be honest, I don't know much about Ms Omar so I will concede to you and your research. I will more than concede to your point about Loomer spouting off and saying uninformed things, even blatant lies at times, and will 100% agree with you about that. She has absolutely said insulting and hurtful things on social media for quite some time, as well. All of those points are valid, true and not able to be argued against.

So, with those things being true, why is Sarah Jeong still allowed on Twitter? She actually called for violence against white people, especially men. Candace Owens gets locked out of her account for copying one of Ms Jeong's tweets but replacing "white" with "Jewish." BTW....Sarah even got her account verified.


I know I got away from the story and went to the "whatabout" argument but I just cannot understand how there are rules against these hateful or untrue tweets but they only seem to be put into play when its helping to silence the opinions they do not agree with. That is a pretty scary thing, in my opinion, no matter which side you belong to. Personally, I feel like everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want as long as it doesn't incite violence. If you don't like it, you don't have to look at it but that is just my opinion and it doesn't count for anything.


First of all, thank you for being polite and attempting to have a decent discussion.

Here’s the thing with Twitter and many other websites. T&C isn’t enforced equally all the time in part due to reporting. I’ve seen a lot of “resistors” get put in twitter jail for lesser things too. Just like ATS, they (Twitter) deal with what gets put in front of them.

Bear in mind also, that saying something merely offensive isn’t going to get someone banned, and one person may spin a statement from “the other side” to mean something it doesn’t- like take it out of context or distort the meaning/intention of what is said, etc. People may do this to try and get someone banned, and the Twitter mods have to figure out if that is what is happening versus if someone is breaking theirT&C. Sometimes the number of complaints is factored in as well. I’m not saying this applies to Jeong specifically, as I honestly don’t know.

I will say that I went and looked at some of her tweets after you showed the one that was altered and got someone suspended. She seems very sarcastic to me, and also uses “what if it were you being hurt by this policy” type arguments.

I didn’t see the tweet from her that you referenced, so I have no idea if that’s the context for it or not. Can you see how someone on the right might take her literally instead of taking her point that they would be outraged if something they ignore happening to others were happening to them?

Again, I’m NOT defending the specific tweet you posted, and I might find it inappropriate or even ban-worthy if it was truly against Twitter T&C, but am just not willing to take someone else’s interpretation of it as gospel, given how easily words can be mis-interpreted.

In other words, whether the right or the left is doing the “interpretation” of someone’s words and intent, a more objective view might disagree with that interpretation and not ban someone.

Also bear in mind that Alex Jones was not banned for many years. It seemed to me to happen when legal issues regarding his old Sandy Hook claims started coming to the public eye. So we don’t always know all the factors that go into a banning. Perhaps a cease and desist was given to Loomer and copied to Twitter?? I don’t know, but with someone as full of BS as Loomer, legal ramifications for her words wouldn’t surprise me at all.

So taking one other “liberal” and holding them up against Loomer isnt something I can really comment on. I don’t follow Sarah Jeong and have no context for her tweet or for understanding her intent. IF she turns out to be a left side version of Loomer, I would expect her to eventually meet the same Twitter fate, and good-riddance to her. If she is not, then I would expect her to weather controversial tweets more or less unscathed. Perhaps I am wrong. Time will tell?



edit on 22-11-2018 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Tanga36

Wow, banned for criticizing a politician. My how far we've fallen.



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AboveBoard

I'm not the one defending censorship, ma'am.

You are.



Hey, you can be ok with no censorship. Fine by me.

I’m surprised you post here though, since we must obey censorship rules to participate on ATS.

Of course, part of those rules protect our anonymity from doxing and aid in creating decorum so ATS doesn’t devolve into Dark Web Land. So if you don’t want censorship, you can always go there and let it all hang out. Personally, I’d rather hang out here...


Whatevs.



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AboveBoard

I'm not the one defending censorship, ma'am.

You are.



PS: you forgot the raspberry and “neener neener”

Or perhaps you self-censored them? Huh.



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: Tanga36

Wow, banned for criticizing a politician. My how far we've fallen.


Is that really why Loomer was banned??

Perhaps it was more the “malicious defamation of character?” That’s still frowned upon, isn’t it?

I can guarantee she wasn’t banned for being critical of a politician, as Twitter would have to ban nearly everyone!! Lol!



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: Tanga36

Wow, banned for criticizing a politician. My how far we've fallen.


Is that really why Loomer was banned??

Perhaps it was more the “malicious defamation of character?” That’s still frowned upon, isn’t it?

I can guarantee she wasn’t banned for being critical of a politician, as Twitter would have to ban nearly everyone!! Lol!


Well, they probably justified it with some appeal to hatred or abuse . But there is no such thing in that tweet.



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: Tanga36

Wow, banned for criticizing a politician. My how far we've fallen.


Is that really why Loomer was banned??

Perhaps it was more the “malicious defamation of character?” That’s still frowned upon, isn’t it?

I can guarantee she wasn’t banned for being critical of a politician, as Twitter would have to ban nearly everyone!! Lol!


Well, they probably justified it with some appeal to hatred or abuse . But there is no such thing in that tweet.


Again, I think (and it’s my opinion only) that this tweet was the final straw rather than a “banned for one tweet” sort of thing.



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: Tanga36

Wow, banned for criticizing a politician. My how far we've fallen.


Is that really why Loomer was banned??

Perhaps it was more the “malicious defamation of character?” That’s still frowned upon, isn’t it?

I can guarantee she wasn’t banned for being critical of a politician, as Twitter would have to ban nearly everyone!! Lol!


Well, they probably justified it with some appeal to hatred or abuse . But there is no such thing in that tweet.


Again, I think (and it’s my opinion only) that this tweet was the final straw rather than a “banned for one tweet” sort of thing.


You could be right. I don't know this person or (oh lord) their tweeting habits. Either way, for a company that once touted themselves as the free speech party, they definitely operate under a different mantra now.



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Flatcoat

I would boycott it.

Who is forcing you to use these platforms?


I don't use these platforms. We're having a discussion about fair market practices. I have no problem with capitalism. I do have a problem with one small group of companies basically having total control over the entire internet and forcing everyone to comply with their political ideologies or be deleted from the web.




Again it's a pitfall of capitalism, a little like 6 corporations own all the media platforms. Power wealth and influence is concentrated and trickled down to the rest of us.



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Twitter, Facebook, Google, pretty much any of the sites that have been converged by social justice warriors are living on borrowed time.

Their Day of Reckoning is coming. In fact, their death spirals have already started.



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: gallop
They weren't this way before 2016, it's only since then that their guns have been drawn.

"Come tweet, come talk face to face with old friends, insta gram your relatives, ra ra ra..." but now it's all "But don't you dare be politically opinionated against the narrative."

No one joined these places for political reasons, but suddenly it's all wrong to have political leanings against their bent.

So, yeah, sure they have the right... but it's complete rubbish to support it.





I don't support it, I don't use it, you can choose to do the same, or you can keep complaining about it...



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
That word doesn’t mean what you think it does, lol. Maybe you should try using a dictionary. a reply to: DBCowboy




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join