alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 11:25:19AM +0000, Ben Tasker wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
> > At what userbase level would you consider a communication platform to
> > have crossed the line into "service provider"?
> >
> > 100 million? More? Less?
>
> I think, to an extent, it depends as much on how the provider behaves as it
> does on userbase level. Although actual function would need to come into it
> too.
> 
> The platform that twitter provides is one that lets you "reach" millions of
> people. In some ways, it's almost unrivalled, in the sense that it's (IMO)
> far easier to stumble across someone new on Twitter than it is on FB etc.
> 
> Whether that's an essential service, obviously, is up for debate.

Please try to avoid shifting ground, or further twisting my words.
I don't mind genuine efforts to explain a corporation's position to the
world in a functional way, but massaging the questions is fundamentally
deceptive, and ought be avoided.

"Essential service" would be something like water, or electricity (for
cooking). Internet access is not an 'essential service', yet ISPs are
"service providers", Internet Service Providers to be precise. Like a
telephone.

I'm sure it called be argued that Twittering on Twitter makes one a
Twit, but it's also easy to say that once any communication platform
reaches a 100,000,000 user base, it has become a utility, a service
provider, albeit not an essential utility.

Arguing otherwise is arguing -for- a feudal corporatist world,
ESPECIALLY given that these corporations (in particular in this instance
the one you're spruiking for) build themselves to such heights with
statutory corporate and monopolistic protections, defended by government
and the courts. Zuckerberg is protected from personal legal attack by
the corporate veil of protection(ism) provided by the 100% artificial
corporation entity. "Twitter" in the "communications domain" at least
but possibly "all domains" is (presumably) a "protected" (for exclusive
use of Twitter Inc) trademark.

> > Do you agree that "Twitter" has become a communication platform/
> > conduit?
>
> To some extent, yes.

Would be difficult to argue otherwise.

> > And do you agree that no one is obliged to "follow" anyone else?
>
> Yes. But, not following you doesn't mean that you can't dump stuff into my
> notifications by simply including an @. If you've got many hundreds of
> people doing that, are you going to sit and block all of them?

OK, so Twitter does have an "email" type of targetting function. I didn't
know that.

Sounds like the technology is flawed - it's centralised, and a walled
garden - at least you can set up your own email server.


> > > 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.
> >
> > So you say. This is Twitter we're talking about - where the only way you
> > can be "attacked" (you should at least be saying 'verbally' attacked)
> 
> Yes, I should have been saying verbally, you're right
> 
> 
> is
> > if you "follow" the person "attacking" you.
> >
>
> Untrue. Depending on your settings, you'd need to be following me to for me
> to send you a direct message.

Ok. Didn't know that (as above).


> But I can still include you in mentions which'll end up in your
> notification area. As an added "bonus" those mentions are visible to anyone
> who is following you, so they can reply to them (which'll also ping me). A
> DM would, at least, be hidden from your followers
> 
> If you look at Razers tweet earlier, you'll probably find he's not
> following any of those

His ability to create such "non-following" is perhaps above the ability
of "the average Twitter user"?


> > > 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.
> >
> > So now "speech == actions".
>
> At what point, in the online world, would you consider something becomes
> analogous to a real-world action?

When either:
 a) it has criminal consequences
 b) it falls subject to civil claim of damages

Other than that, Rayzer's (personal) approach seems reasonable.

ISTM that Twitter Inc perhaps ought make it easy for "common folk" to
ban individuals or groups algorithmicly, sort of how Razer does this.

But for Twitter Inc to get into the business of completely banning
individuals for using a communications platform, when that platform is
essentially a walled garden, is not acceptable.

This could also expose Twitter Inc to a class action lawsuit if there
are some motivated bunnies around - as others have been saying, the
"statutory privileges" that corporations have, give rise to certain
obligations to the rest of society, in particular when those
corporations become large and dominant, or extremely dominant, in their
particular "market" (and yes, even if they are the original creator of
that market) - you cannot ethically have the protectionist benefits of
being "a corporation", with no consequential obligations and duties to
the wider society commensurate to those protections.

Thus, class action lawsuit against Twitter Inc.


> Their action was that they verbally attacked someone (and encouraged others
> to do so) - obviously doing that requires speech but the two are not the
> same thing.

The same can happen with email. Or telephone. Or text messages. Or
Facebook "friends".


> > The Ministry of Truth congratulates you; take notice that
> > the Ministry's cheques take up to 48 hours to arrive.
> 
> Please ensure it's made out to CASH ;)

What? Twitter Inc's HR/accounts department not paid you last month?
Shoddy...