alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts

[juan]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 00:01:34 +0000
Ben Tasker <ben at bentasker.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:30 PM, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >         'Their' service exists only thanks to the users and the
> > fascist government they work for.
> >
> >
> Twitter is entirely dependant on it's userbase, yes. If they feel that
> allowing that kind of speech is going to lead to users not feeling
> comfortable using the service (leading to a reduction of the
> userbase) the only sane commercial decision is to remove the
> problematic speech, no?
> 
> 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.


> 
> 
> 
> >         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.



> 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'...

	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.



> 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.



> 
> 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 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.



> I think
> encouraging hundreds, if not thousands, of followers to hurl abuse at
> one user is probably well over it though.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >         The 'terms of service' of the corporate mafia are null and
> >         void, in case you never noticed.
> >
> >
> >


> Not if you plan to use a service provided and controlled by that
> mafia. 

	They still have no value from a moral or legal point of view.
	Except of course inside the same legal fascist system that
	created them. Circular logic backed by guns.


	I realize it may be expedient to comply with some mafia
	requirement or 'regulation', the complying being done under
	compulsion of course, but as soon as they turn their back, it's
	legitimate to blow their brains if possible. Same thing with
	twitter, figuratively speaking. 




> The (non-corporate) mafia, in fact, tend to be quite insistent
> that you abide by their terms

	Yes, but see above.

 
> 
> 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? 




> 
>