money.cnn.com/2016/11/16/technol … index.html
I don’t support the so called Alt-Right, but denying them a voice is deeply disgusting and terrifying. We are heading back to the McCarthy era with this mindset.
Yea, but, did you read Twitters policy? Their site , they made the rules, those they banned agreed to abide by those rules, they did not abide by the site rules. So, banned.
From the OP link:
How many accounts which contain “hateful conduct” towards men, and specifically white men, has Twitter suspended?
Men and white people can be bashed all day on social media. 
They got banned because of their political views and not because of not following the rules.
It’s not like the rules have no room for interpretation and they weren’t applied to anybody but those affiliated with the term ‘alt-right’ in an organised fashion. And it’s not like they got banned one after another over time but instead in one swoop. And it’s also not the first time that they got banned either, the difference was that this time it was in a coordinated fashion.
Nobody says they can’t ban them, they do so all the time.
It’s about pointing out the coordinated political fashion so that people know what is going on and whether or not they approve of such developments.
The reality is that sexism, racism, whatever-ism are not tangible things but they are open to interpretation and their interpretation has changed over time.
What the alt-right does is pushing the overtone window to the right. For anybody who thinks the so-called center position is much too far to the left this is a good development.
No surprises. The fascists are zealous as fu k and they troll here too.
We won but they are sore losers. Theyre losers and sore by nature.
We always win.
Time to celebrate…
No they didn’t, they were held hostage to a unreasonable agreement, null and void. Free speech always trumps save in situations of life and death. You can’t contractually write away free speech, anymore than a private commercial gated community can restrict what you write on the internet while you live in said community, no matter how explicitly the contract states it. In California, they try claiming if businesses in the sidewalks, they can have you removed away time, for any reason, and will sink bricks saying so in the sidewalks or side of buildings- but it is still a public space, and the capacity of landowners to enforce that “contract” you “agreed to abide to” by merely using the it service if a free sidewalk is heavily restricted, as it is largely unenforceable in terms of free speech (I told a federal security guard I would take him down while dressed in security uniform myself if he didn’t respect the right of a man by us to protest in SF near a courthouse, I do not fuck around when it comes to these rules).
Likewise, Second Life has a variety of rules built further on similar arguments. Contracts are not involiable in the face of free speech, and these web platforms are acting well out of the scope of contractual obligations Under these circumstances, the contract udnt merely null and void, but Twitter is liable for damages as well.
So you must(according to your interpretation) children in a school can act out and not be disciplined. People act out at work should keep their job. No one that allows public into their premises has a right to control what occurs within. A library must allow mayhem.
An experiment was recenty conducted.
So why was the name of the person hating whites blacked out? I do not trust the experiment. Too many ways to copy, delete and change. Programs are out there that can change posts that are copied.