https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...reene-n1254557
"The account referenced has been temporarily locked out for multiple violations of our civic integrity policy," a Twitter spokesperson said.
She got caught when they were purging Qanon related tard accounts.
Feel free to report any leftwing accounts for ToS infringements.
Yes, I can feel free to report any left wing (or foreign) accounts for ToS infringements.Originally Posted by gimmick
EXCEPT....
There have been ZERO prominent left wing leaders banned.
There have been ZERO prominent foreign leaders banned, even ones calling for violence.
There have been ZERO warnings of "inaccurate" or "misleading" placed upon any left-wing tweets.
I'm sure this is because the only misbehavior on Twitter occurs on the right, and not because a crazy SJW is now in charge of the day-to-day operations of the place. Oh, and remember when Martina Navratilova, famous lesbian tennis player, got banned in 2019 for stating that she didn't feel trans women should be playing in women's sports leagues?
The woke censors are coming for you at Twitter! But I'm sure gimmick thinks they do a great job enforcing their ToS equally.
I'm sure they might show more leniency to people they've personally met or play for their team. Surprised you'd be offended by that.Yes, I can feel free to report any left wing (or foreign) accounts for ToS infringements.
EXCEPT....
There have been ZERO prominent left wing leaders banned.
There have been ZERO prominent foreign leaders banned, even ones calling for violence.
There have been ZERO warnings of "inaccurate" or "misleading" placed upon any left-wing tweets.
I'm sure this is because the only misbehavior on Twitter occurs on the right, and not because a crazy SJW is now in charge of the day-to-day operations of the place. Oh, and remember when Martina Navratilova, famous lesbian tennis player, got banned in 2019 for stating that she didn't feel trans women should be playing in women's sports leagues?
The woke censors are coming for you at Twitter! But I'm sure gimmick thinks they do a great job enforcing their ToS equally.
So wait, you still believe the information from the Hunter Biden laptop was fabricated?You as a republican should probably come to terms with twitter being a private company, and did she not break the tos?
also please post evidence about hunter biden story being true
also what office did he run for?
You poor, poor, misinformed Norwegian.
Twitter hasn't enforced their ToS uniformly or equally at all. If you're on the right, you get banned for the slightest "ToS" violation if they don't like you. If you're on the left, you have carte blanche to do what you want.
Twitter isn't just a "private company". It is the equivalent of a giant town square, which is used by major politicians, public figures, governments, and celebrities to disseminate information to their mass audiences.
There is no excuse to ever ban a major politician from Twitter. Politicians should always have access to major media to reach their constituency. Petty ToS crap shouldn't apply to them.
They're not even showing leniency. They are enforcing only on one side of the aisle.I'm sure they might show more leniency to people they've personally met or play for their team. Surprised you'd be offended by that.
Wonder if one side is more prone to spreading blatant lies. That said the proud republican representative was banned in the same wave with 70k Qanon related accounts.They're not even showing leniency. They are enforcing only on one side of the aisle.
Before that they've purged Russian bots and view-bots. As result conservatives lost many patriotic followers.
And 2014-2016 they removed 360k terrorism related accounts. ISIL and friends. You can have them on your team, if you want to keep your "only on one side of the aisle"-argument.
Wasn't not breaking the rules if you don't want to be punished one of those common sense law and order idioms?
Parler CEO and family in hiding after receiving death threats I guess it's the BLM and Antifa members again?
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/...threats-655698
Nice try moving the goalposts, but.... no.Wonder if one side is more prone to spreading blatant lies. That said the proud republican representative was banned in the same wave with 70k Qanon related accounts.
Before that they've purged Russian bots and view-bots. As result conservatives lost many patriotic followers.
And 2014-2016 they removed 360k terrorism related accounts. ISIL and friends. You can have them on your team, if you want to keep your "only on one side of the aisle"-argument.
Wasn't not breaking the rules if you don't want to be punished one of those common sense law and order idioms?
I'm not complaining about the bot purge, nor am I complaining about the removal of accounts created by terror groups. I have never spoken out against Twitter being allowed to ban people, and you know it.
My issue is with Twitter removing accounts of major politicians, which should be a huge no-no. It's especially a no-no when their censorship-related actions (which includes warning labels) is 100% aimed at the right. As I said, not a single left-wing politician was banned, and not a single left-wing tweet ever had a warning label on it. Not a single foreign leader was banned -- not even ones directly calling for violence.
It's not like I'm complaining that 60% of the censorship is against the right. I'm complaining that 100% of the censorship is against the right. This means one of two things. Either:
1) Only the right breaks rules on Twitter and/or posts false information, and it absolutely never occurs on the left or from foreign leaders.
-or-
2) There is a really high level of bias when it comes to censorship on Twitter.
I'll let you figure out which one is more likely true.
As I said, the better approach is simply to allow all major politicians to speak freely, and for all major publications to link stories freely. If they want to censor or use warning labels, then this needs to be done fairly, with people on both sides of the aisle making such decisions, or it shouldn't be done at all.
Yes, I can feel free to report any left wing (or foreign) accounts for ToS infringements.
EXCEPT....
There have been ZERO prominent left wing leaders banned.
There have been ZERO prominent foreign leaders banned, even ones calling for violence.
There have been ZERO warnings of "inaccurate" or "misleading" placed upon any left-wing tweets.
I'm sure this is because the only misbehavior on Twitter occurs on the right, and not because a crazy SJW is now in charge of the day-to-day operations of the place. Oh, and remember when Martina Navratilova, famous lesbian tennis player, got banned in 2019 for stating that she didn't feel trans women should be playing in women's sports leagues?
The woke censors are coming for you at Twitter! But I'm sure gimmick thinks they do a great job enforcing their ToS equally.
Your thoughts
What world leaders or The Left are we referring to, after Twitter started banning people for inciting violence and/or spreading disinformation?It's not like I'm complaining that 60% of the censorship is against the right. I'm complaining that 100% of the censorship is against the right. This means one of two things. Either:
1) Only the right breaks rules on Twitter and/or posts false information, and it absolutely never occurs on the left or from foreign leaders.
-or-
2) There is a really high level of bias when it comes to censorship on Twitter.
I'll let you figure out which one is more likely true.
As I said, the better approach is simply to allow all major politicians to speak freely, and for all major publications to link stories freely. If they want to censor or use warning labels, then this needs to be done fairly, with people on both sides of the aisle making such decisions, or it shouldn't be done at all.
Also twitter isn't a publication. They do have to remove hate related posts and few others because they are a global platform. EU enforces that. So instead of splitting the followers, they follow EU regulation.
This wasn't about EU regulation. Even if it was, it's extremely trivial to simply cut off display of tweets to people from specific geographic areas. Nice try, though.What world leaders or The Left are we referring to, after Twitter started banning people for inciting violence and/or spreading disinformation?
Also twitter isn't a publication. They do have to remove hate related posts and few others because they are a global platform. EU enforces that. So instead of splitting the followers, they follow EU regulation.
Oh, and to answer your first question:
That's from the alt-right rag known as the NY Times, just three days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/t...k-twitter.htmlIn Sri Lanka and Myanmar, Facebook kept up posts that it had been warned contributed to violence. In India, activists have urged the company to combat posts by political figures targeting Muslims. And in Ethiopia, groups pleaded for the social network to block hate speech after hundreds were killed in ethnic violence inflamed by social media.
“The offline troubles that rocked the country are fully visible on the online space,” activists, civil society groups and journalists in Ethiopia wrote in an open letter last year.
For years, Facebook and Twitter have largely rebuffed calls to remove hate speech or other comments made by public figures and government officials that civil society groups and activists said risked inciting violence.
The companies stuck to policies, driven by American ideals of free speech, that give such figures more leeway to use their platforms to communicate.
But last week, Facebook and Twitter cut off President Trump from their platforms for inciting a crowd that attacked the U.S. Capitol. Those decisions have angered human rights groups and activists, who are now urging the companies to apply their policies evenly.
So basically Twitter ignored disinformation from the left, ignored other leaders around the world inciting real violence, ignored the repeated incitement of violence during the summer riots (many tweets praised the violence as "necessary"), and suddenly they've grown a conscience and banned Trump for supposedly inciting violence.
Yeah, total coincidence. Not biased at all, right?
They have labeled exactly zero left-wing posts as disinformation. They have banned exactly zero other world leaders for inciting violence. They have put warning labels on exactly zero left-wing posts.
You can keep dancing around this and cite EU regulations, terms of service, and a supposed campaign against misinformation, but none of this makes any sense. They have shown zero consistency, and this is clearly politically motivated. If you aren't swift enough to see that, just admit it.
There is a greater debate whether they should be censoring this stuff at all. As I said, the truth is that they shouldn't ban or censor any world leaders or major politicians. However, if you're going to advocate such censorship, it needs to be done equitably and fairly. Instead, they have been ignoring these "ToS violations" for years, and yet suddenly they spring to action when they want to defend a woke cause or censor Republican ideology.
The hypocrisy is just stunning. Weeks after Donald Trump's stolen tax returns were discussed in detail in the NY Times -- and Twitter did nothing -- they banned the NY Post and the Hunter Biden story because it violated the "hacked materials" policy. What?
They banned Martina Navratilova -- a famous left-wing lesbian tennis player -- for speaking out against allowing trans athletes to ruin women's sports.
How many more examples do you need to understand that Twitter is being highly censored in order to push a leftist agenda?
Sure, you can make the argument that they presently have the legal right to do it. I won't argue with that. But the question here is whether or not they SHOULD do it, and whether such behavior is appropriate for a democracy supposedly based upon free speech and freedom of expression. The answer is NO.
Twitter is a giant online public square where politicians (major and minor) speak to their constituency, where people get information from their governments (all over the world), and even where celebrities and corporations make announcements. It is a pseudo-public space with a massive reach. By shutting off communication from portions of one political side, they are committing acts of censorship -- even if such censorship is presently legal.
If you were running Twitter, would you ban major politicians? Do you think that's good practice? Should I start banning users here because they have different political views than me?
Alright I think you've had enough. Join a cult, get beamed up or get a lobotomy. This world where not everyone agrees with you is obviously not sitting right. There are cliffs I could suggest but committing social suicide with this Breitbart offshoot should do it. I've already written to BidenThis wasn't about EU regulation. Even if it was, it's extremely trivial to simply cut off display of tweets to people from specific geographic areas. Nice try, though.
Oh, and to answer your first question:
That's from the alt-right rag known as the NY Times, just three days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/t...k-twitter.htmlIn Sri Lanka and Myanmar, Facebook kept up posts that it had been warned contributed to violence. In India, activists have urged the company to combat posts by political figures targeting Muslims. And in Ethiopia, groups pleaded for the social network to block hate speech after hundreds were killed in ethnic violence inflamed by social media.
“The offline troubles that rocked the country are fully visible on the online space,” activists, civil society groups and journalists in Ethiopia wrote in an open letter last year.
For years, Facebook and Twitter have largely rebuffed calls to remove hate speech or other comments made by public figures and government officials that civil society groups and activists said risked inciting violence.
The companies stuck to policies, driven by American ideals of free speech, that give such figures more leeway to use their platforms to communicate.
But last week, Facebook and Twitter cut off President Trump from their platforms for inciting a crowd that attacked the U.S. Capitol. Those decisions have angered human rights groups and activists, who are now urging the companies to apply their policies evenly.
So basically Twitter ignored disinformation from the left, ignored other leaders around the world inciting real violence, ignored the repeated incitement of violence during the summer riots (many tweets praised the violence as "necessary"), and suddenly they've grown a conscience and banned Trump for supposedly inciting violence.
Yeah, total coincidence. Not biased at all, right?
They have labeled exactly zero left-wing posts as disinformation. They have banned exactly zero other world leaders for inciting violence. They have put warning labels on exactly zero left-wing posts.
You can keep dancing around this and cite EU regulations, terms of service, and a supposed campaign against misinformation, but none of this makes any sense. They have shown zero consistency, and this is clearly politically motivated. If you aren't swift enough to see that, just admit it.
There is a greater debate whether they should be censoring this stuff at all. As I said, the truth is that they shouldn't ban or censor any world leaders or major politicians. However, if you're going to advocate such censorship, it needs to be done equitably and fairly. Instead, they have been ignoring these "ToS violations" for years, and yet suddenly they spring to action when they want to defend a woke cause or censor Republican ideology.
The hypocrisy is just stunning. Weeks after Donald Trump's stolen tax returns were discussed in detail in the NY Times -- and Twitter did nothing -- they banned the NY Post and the Hunter Biden story because it violated the "hacked materials" policy. What?
They banned Martina Navratilova -- a famous left-wing lesbian tennis player -- for speaking out against allowing trans athletes to ruin women's sports.
How many more examples do you need to understand that Twitter is being highly censored in order to push a leftist agenda?
Sure, you can make the argument that they presently have the legal right to do it. I won't argue with that. But the question here is whether or not they SHOULD do it, and whether such behavior is appropriate for a democracy supposedly based upon free speech and freedom of expression. The answer is NO.
Twitter is a giant online public square where politicians (major and minor) speak to their constituency, where people get information from their governments (all over the world), and even where celebrities and corporations make announcements. It is a pseudo-public space with a massive reach. By shutting off communication from portions of one political side, they are committing acts of censorship -- even if such censorship is presently legal.
If you were running Twitter, would you ban major politicians? Do you think that's good practice? Should I start banning users here because they have different political views than me?
So are you saying that Facebook and Twitter care more about the 1st world than 3rd world? I could have told you that the day Myspace died.This wasn't about EU regulation. Even if it was, it's extremely trivial to simply cut off display of tweets to people from specific geographic areas. Nice try, though.
Oh, and to answer your first question:
That's from the alt-right rag known as the NY Times, just three days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/t...k-twitter.htmlIn Sri Lanka and Myanmar, Facebook kept up posts that it had been warned contributed to violence. In India, activists have urged the company to combat posts by political figures targeting Muslims. And in Ethiopia, groups pleaded for the social network to block hate speech after hundreds were killed in ethnic violence inflamed by social media.
“The offline troubles that rocked the country are fully visible on the online space,” activists, civil society groups and journalists in Ethiopia wrote in an open letter last year.
For years, Facebook and Twitter have largely rebuffed calls to remove hate speech or other comments made by public figures and government officials that civil society groups and activists said risked inciting violence.
The companies stuck to policies, driven by American ideals of free speech, that give such figures more leeway to use their platforms to communicate.
But last week, Facebook and Twitter cut off President Trump from their platforms for inciting a crowd that attacked the U.S. Capitol. Those decisions have angered human rights groups and activists, who are now urging the companies to apply their policies evenly.
So basically Twitter ignored disinformation from the left, ignored other leaders around the world inciting real violence, ignored the repeated incitement of violence during the summer riots (many tweets praised the violence as "necessary"), and suddenly they've grown a conscience and banned Trump for supposedly inciting violence.
Yeah, total coincidence. Not biased at all, right?
They have labeled exactly zero left-wing posts as disinformation. They have banned exactly zero other world leaders for inciting violence. They have put warning labels on exactly zero left-wing posts.
You can keep dancing around this and cite EU regulations, terms of service, and a supposed campaign against misinformation, but none of this makes any sense. They have shown zero consistency, and this is clearly politically motivated. If you aren't swift enough to see that, just admit it.
There is a greater debate whether they should be censoring this stuff at all. As I said, the truth is that they shouldn't ban or censor any world leaders or major politicians. However, if you're going to advocate such censorship, it needs to be done equitably and fairly. Instead, they have been ignoring these "ToS violations" for years, and yet suddenly they spring to action when they want to defend a woke cause or censor Republican ideology.
The hypocrisy is just stunning. Weeks after Donald Trump's stolen tax returns were discussed in detail in the NY Times -- and Twitter did nothing -- they banned the NY Post and the Hunter Biden story because it violated the "hacked materials" policy. What?
They banned Martina Navratilova -- a famous left-wing lesbian tennis player -- for speaking out against allowing trans athletes to ruin women's sports.
How many more examples do you need to understand that Twitter is being highly censored in order to push a leftist agenda?
Sure, you can make the argument that they presently have the legal right to do it. I won't argue with that. But the question here is whether or not they SHOULD do it, and whether such behavior is appropriate for a democracy supposedly based upon free speech and freedom of expression. The answer is NO.
Twitter is a giant online public square where politicians (major and minor) speak to their constituency, where people get information from their governments (all over the world), and even where celebrities and corporations make announcements. It is a pseudo-public space with a massive reach. By shutting off communication from portions of one political side, they are committing acts of censorship -- even if such censorship is presently legal.
If you were running Twitter, would you ban major politicians? Do you think that's good practice? Should I start banning users here because they have different political views than me?
There's literally no reason why Twitter or Facebook should be held to a different standard than less popular platforms. Trump still has IG, if he asks nicely i'm sure TikTok let's him have an account. I doubt Vimeo denies him, Myspace might pay for him to have an account.
Far as i know only TikTok was mentioned by the founding fathers. And actually free speech was cited as the reason for lax enforcement of rules regarding political figures before.
Few of the examples are before the rule change and tbh something really retarded had to happen before politicians got banned. In this case ruler of the free world endangered hundreds of other politicians.
But yea go figure apparently ethnic minorities in 3rd world countries are not considered as valuable as 1st world ruling elite.
Lol at "some of your examples are before the rule change".
So Twitter suddenly makes a rule change exactly when they decide to censor only Republicans. Quite the timing! Just a coincidence though, right?
Twitter has never been consistent about their rules. Ever. Even space cadet Jack admitted that in his nonsense 13-tweet rant I posted on the previous page. I wonder if you really believe the nonsense you're spewing, or if you're just trying to be your usual contrarian self.
So people are inciting violence all summer (in the US, not the third world) and Twitter doesn't care. Suddenly some yahoos attack the Capitol and cause a fraction of the damage, injury, and death, and suddenly they snap into action.
You still can't explain why not a single left-wing tweet has been banned or given a warning label. Not a single one! Is the left 100% truthful?
Come on dude, just admit that Twitter is run by an acknowledged far-left SJW (and I'm not talking about Jack), and she's part of the segment of the left which loves censorship and suppression, in the name of "preventing hate" and "fighting misinformation". That's what's going on here, and anyone with two eyes and a functioning brain can see it.
There is never an excuse to ban major politicians from giant social media, unless censorship is your goal. This cannot be justified, and in fact it's anti-democratic.
I'm sure you can come up with an event from The Left or Foreign Countries that's even close to storming to capitol. I'll wait patiently. I'm sure it's coming any day now.
If you're concerned about anti-democracy, maybe you shouldn't be backing the party that legalized corruption and enabled the current corporate kleptocracy. Until that, WTF are you babbling about. You got exactly what The Right has been fighting for decades.
Market has decided. Fuck Trump and Qanontards was their decision. If you don't like that, move to Commiestan or Union of Sweet Socialist Republics.
awwYes, I can feel free to report any left wing (or foreign) accounts for ToS infringements.
EXCEPT....
There have been ZERO prominent left wing leaders banned.
There have been ZERO prominent foreign leaders banned, even ones calling for violence.
There have been ZERO warnings of "inaccurate" or "misleading" placed upon any left-wing tweets.
I'm sure this is because the only misbehavior on Twitter occurs on the right, and not because a crazy SJW is now in charge of the day-to-day operations of the place. Oh, and remember when Martina Navratilova, famous lesbian tennis player, got banned in 2019 for stating that she didn't feel trans women should be playing in women's sports leagues?
The woke censors are coming for you at Twitter! But I'm sure gimmick thinks they do a great job enforcing their ToS equally.
you guys are always the poor victims!!
poor right wingers always getting picked on by the big bad libs
You as a lefty libtard fascist idiot should come to terms with the fact that you idiots prosecuted a private company for refusing to bake a cake for a wedding. You had absolutely 100% no respect for this company's, and others like them, right to refuse service. You intended to force companies to provide services they didn't want to provide.
But now, when you want to suppress political speech all of a sudden it's "they are a private company" "they have a right."
FUCK YOU, FASCIST.
POKER FAG ALERT! FOR BLOW JOB SEE SLOPPY JOE THE TRANNIE HO.
If Jack Dorsey is so terrified of violence then why has he allowed #KillTrump on Twitter for so long. That's because Jack's bullshit is a one-way street. He's just out to suppress conservative speech. He's a fascist piece of shit.
Oh, and Antifa has a big riot planned for Portland on Inauguration Day. You libtard idiots that have been so vocal in condemning the "attempted overthrow of the US government" should know that the declared plan of Antifa is the OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
POKER FAG ALERT! FOR BLOW JOB SEE SLOPPY JOE THE TRANNIE HO.
Not Antifa. The clue is in the account that tweeted whatever that was. Pacific Northwest Youth Liberation Front.
That's antifa dude. You can't make this shit up
POKER FAG ALERT! FOR BLOW JOB SEE SLOPPY JOE THE TRANNIE HO.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
