alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts

[juan]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 01:37:31 +0000
Ben Tasker <ben at bentasker.co.uk> wrote:


> > > 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


	Good old George would be proud I think =) Twitter's ministry of
	love is fighting against hate. 

	"Freedom of expression means little if voices are silenced
	because people are afraid to speak up. " 

	"Freedom of expression means nothing if you can control what
	people post and effectively silence anyone you want to silence."

	Plus in this case it's important to not only look at what is
	being said, but who is saying it. We have self-appointed
	crusader against hate twitter, which is an arm of the american
	state. Their commitment against hate is hardly credible ;)



> >
> 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.


	Yes, that would make me morally responsible for it, and more.
	The people who carry the physical actions do it out of their
	own free will so they are fully guilty, but the 'intellectual'
	author carries a good deal of blame too.



> 
> 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.

	Indeed. 

> 
> 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)

	Right.
 
> 
> 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.


	The difference between your previous scenarios and the twitter
	thing is that if there were any threats, I doubt they were
	credible at all. I mean, what kind of threat is an anonymous
	idiot with a fake account half accross the world saying he'll
	kill you? Your own account probably not giving any real info
	about you either.




> 
> 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


	I had a facebook account for a few years, and a lot of fake
	libertarians ended up blocking me - surprise surprise. More than
	a few of them whined about the lazy poor on welfare...while
	literally working for the state themselves. Of course for those
	people tha ability to block anybody who called them out was
	essential.