On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:00 AM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 00:01:34 +0000
Ben Tasker <ben@bentasker.co.uk> wrote:

> Working for the government or not, they're hardly likely to stand and
> defend harassment when that'll cost them users. Especially given that
> it sounds like they do a terrible job of making money out of those
> users anyway


        The profits of businesses like twitter are certainly no concern
        of mine...though from a purely commercial point of view you are
        right. On the other hand, that means they should suppress
        ANYTHING that the mob doesn't like. Or pander to anything the
        mob ikes, be it clever and uplifting, stupid or outright
        criminal.



Which unfortunately, corporations sometimes do. It's a very hard line to draw to define when that's right or wrong, especially as it's always going to be based on individual bias and opinions. What you find gravely offensive I might find funny as fuck, and vice versa.
 
>
>
>
> >         What kind of sane 'cypherpunk' 'activist' would defend
> > fascist corporations like twitter? Rhetorical question of course....
> >
>
> It's not intended as a defence of Twitter per se.
>
> I'm not a fan of corporations by any stretch of the imagination, and
> certainly not of the American capitalism rules all mindset.
>
> But you know what, I believe in individual rights,


        So do I. that's why I'd never invoke individual rights to
        defend fascist twitter or their laughable (from a legal and
        moral point of view) 'terms of service'.

        More important, the people who call themselves 'twitter'
        don't believe in individual rights. If they did they would
        not be a leading company under 'jurisdiction' of the US state.


I've been on this list more than long enough to know you're not a statist Juan, and I don't entirely disagree with a lot of your views, so I'm not going to try and disagree here. 

All I will say, is that the corporate entity is made up of lots of individuals, though the corporate ethos (if you'll forgive the term, I know it implies ethics which might actually be absent) will be dictated from on high.

 


> and that includes
> the right not to be party to something like harassment. If you're
> being made to carry things you staunchly disagree with, in a world
> where people will associate them with you, that's - in effect-
> compelling speech which is just as bad (if not worse) than
> suppressing speech.
>
> A corporation actually take a stance to try and prevent some of the
> targeted abuse that flows online is a good thing.


        Oh yes. Censorship is a 'good thing'...


It's a little more fine-grained than that. A corporation trying to protect users (even if it does simply view them as a revenue source) is a good effect for the majority of users. Doesn't help much if you're in the minority though.

 
        Anyway, I should mention that this incident is just
        propaganda, as usual.
        Twitter and their political masters need to pretend that they
        are not 'racists' so they lynch a few racists..so that all the
        official racism of the US empire can happily continue. It's
        called 'plausible deniability'...hypocrysy...or The American
        Way.


Here, I agree.
 


> It might not (nay,
> doesn't) offset the myriad faults with the system, but it's a lean
> towards benefiting the userbase (even if driven primarily by
> self-interest). The world isn't black and white, even the truly evil
> can perform good acts from time to time.
>
>
> Don't forget these guys weren't banned for being right-wing, or for
> expressing "alt-right" views. Most (if not all) had a habit of
> directly harassing people for race, gender, whatever.


        How did they harrass people? By posting bullshit on twitter? It
        must have been that, since, as far as I know, twitter hasn't
        become the thought police in the offline world...yet.


See the answer to your final question below

 


>
> They're still free to continue running websites promoting their
> views. I'd have a bigger issue with a hosting company refusing to
> host what amounts to a political (if extreme) opinion or news site.


        It's the same thing. You can claim that  'property rights'
        trump free speech in that case too.


The difference is in the presentation. If you view something I've tweeted, you've got twitter.com in the address bar, twitter branding spewed across the page and have probably consciously chosen to visit twitter. Twitter is associated (even if they're at pains to say they don't agree with everything posted).

If I host my website with (say) godaddy, most visitors will be completely unaware (unless I've deliberately added "hosted by go-daddy" to the site). How many users look at who owns the IP block before visiting a site?

Not that I'm saying they couldn't try to apply your argument, just that there are nuances.

 

>
>
> The line seems to be drawn at launching direct attacks, which doesn't
> seem unreasonable, especially given the reality is we live in a world
> where capitalism currently exists, and most of society doesn't want
> to have to deal with that type of bullshit.


>
> Course, there is the question of how direct attacks should be defined
> too, and there's no good way to do that definitively.

        Right. Which means twitter can ban and censor whoever they wish
        for whatever 'reason' they can come up with, or none at all.

        I'm sure their 'terms of service' say exactly that.


They're actually reasonably explicit in what they consider "hateful" - https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175050 - not that there isn't wiggleroom if they wanted to though

 

>
> I know you'll probably disagree with huge chunks of that, if not all
> of it, and it's probably a bit muddled where it's been rattled out.
>
> The TL:DR is, there isn't a good answer that works in the world we
> currently live in. Those that were banned (or at least those I've
> bothered to look up) were assholes. Not because of their speech, but
> of their actions.


        But were their actions anything but speech?



Analogies tend to be flawed, but let me offer one anyway.

Say we meet in a bar. 

- Case 1: You say something offensive and I punch you. Who's most in the wrong?

Fairly cut and dry, you may be a dick, but I'm in the wrong there. You used your right to free speech, whereas I've taken an action that some (most?) would consider unacceptable.


- Case 2: You decide you don't like me, and proceed to loudly tell the rest of the bar that I'm (for example) a queer thats clearly in need of a beating. Half the bar takes the opportunity to beat the shit out of me.

Half the bar crossed the line I crossed in case 1, so clearly they're in the wrong.
You still only used speech (assuming you didn't get a crafty kick in, anyway), but you used it in order to incite the bar to cause harm.

Physically, you didn't take any action, but I'd argue that convincing others to do it for you is effectively an action by proxy.

Physical harm still came to me though, so we're still not close enough to the Twitter angle.


- Case 3: Same as in case 2, except they don't beat the shit out of me. Instead, they yell abuse and threaten to beat the shit out of me every time they see me for the next month (or week if you prefer).

Again, you've only used speech, but you've used it to try and ensure that my life is made a living hell (for whatever period of time). That's not without it's ill effects (for me)


I'll agree that "action" isn't necessarily the best word for it, but incitement sounds too much like something the government would say and I don't like repeating it. 

Most people just aren't equipped to deal with intense, persistent verbal abuse, so if they're the victim of it, most don't cope too well. For much the same reason, bystanders tend to be afraid to speak up in their defence too. Which plays merry havoc with the ideal that the best defence against "bad" speech is more speech, at least on the individual level.  At a higher level it works over time, but it's the individual revenue sources that corporations are trying to keep happy

--