Just wanted to chime in and say I thought your argument was reasonable. After you sent those counterexamples of conservative tweets that Twitter hadn’t deleted, I think the other commenter stopped engaging meaningfully. Sorry you had to suffer through this.
My answer was not whether Twitter did delete all conservative tweets or not. My answer was to this statement by the original commenter:
> Twitter is already very judicious when it comes to any use of the word 'kill' nowadays=s, or anything that could be violent. Just requires a report.
Which is not true. Even those counterexamples of conservative tweets being violent and Twitter not removing them proves my point itself. That no matter how much you report Twitter won't remove violent posts. It doesn't matter if the tweet is from left or right. Which is the entire premise of Amazon booting Parler from using AWS. That Parler isn't removing such low engagement violent tweets (and cites 98 examples in their email). While Amazon signed a deal with Twitter renewing their cloud contract inspite of Twitter not removing thousands of low engagement violent tweets (be it on the left or the right). This is hypocritical.
However, whenever Twitter has censored it has censored right wing accounts. Name one prominent left wing account that Twitter has banned. Can you name even one? I'll wait.
Provide one example of a prominent “left wing account” that ought to have been banned because they doxxed someone or made violent threats that wasn’t banned. I’ll wait. Did Bernie Sanders tweet that we should hang Mike Pence?
I don’t consider myself a left winger. Name a prominent mainstream conservative (in the vein of say Bush) that ought to have been banned that wasn’t. I’ll wait.
I can’t name a single mainstream libertarian, paleoconservative, neoconservative, kooky rationalist, or anarcho-primitivist who has been banned, and that’s simply because the Cato Institute and Less Wrong don’t go around saying we should execute politicians by firing squad. If that’s the only kind of intellectual contribution you have to make to society, I think you need to take a long hard look at your priorities.
Are you kidding me? Who TF is @SmashRacismDC? I looked them up and they had only 800+ followers on Instagram. This is in no way, shape or form a prominent left wing account.
> Provide one example of a prominent “left wing account” that ought to have been banned because they doxxed someone or made violent threats that wasn’t banned. I’ll wait. Did Bernie Sanders tweet that we should hang Mike Pence?
That is a direct threat of assassination towards the sitting President of the United States. Whether you like him or hate him you do not get to threaten a sitting President with decapitation.
Quoting her verbatim: "All I had to do was delete the post". That is all that these hate inciting leftist handles get on Twitter. A slap on the wrists. All that was required for her to do is issue a fake apology and then delete her tweet. But then she posts tweets gloating about how she could get away so easily. Utterly shameful!
Did Twitter not ban Steve Bannon for calling for beheading of Dr Fauci (and rightly so)? I support the ban on Steve Bannon. But when Twitter can ban Steve Bannon and it lets go of Kathy Griffin that is when I have a problem. This is clearly selective enforcement of policy. Because it is ideological. Twitter is known to employ people who are left wing leaning and do not have tolerance for right wingers. Jack Dorsey admitted it himself. So it is obvious that their ideological beliefs have percolated through to even moderating content. That is fine if that is what they want their platform to be. No issues with that. But when they start taking a moral high ground and dictating to Parler on what is right and what is wrong I call them bloody hypocrites. Because that is what they have also been doing themselves! They are no saints.
Also, let us not forget what Twitter was. Twitter was a platform that enabled ISIS propaganda to spread unchecked for 2 years - from 2013 to 2015 until finally it deleted all terror material from the site after intense public pressure. And during those 2 years they enabled ISIS to recruit sympathizers from across the World. Twitter even got sued in 2016 for the same : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/14/widow-ame...
Quoting from the article:
"Tamara Fields, a Florida woman whose husband Lloyd died in the 9 November attack, accused Twitter of having knowingly let the militant Islamist group use its network to spread propaganda, raise money and attract recruits. She said the San Francisco-based company had until recently given Isis an “unfettered” ability to maintain official Twitter accounts.
“Without Twitter, the explosive growth of Isis over the last few years into the most-feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible,” says the complaint filed on Wednesday in the federal court in Oakland, California.
Fields says that at the time of her husband’s death, Isis had an estimated 70,000 Twitter accounts, posting 90 tweets per minute."
Was Twitter ever held accountable for this? Never. It will never be held accountable. Because rules on facilitating hate speech and terror networks only apply to Parler. Not to Twitter, Facebook and Google. These platforms are above the Law and above everyone else. You and me included.
> I don’t consider myself a left winger. Name a prominent mainstream conservative (in the vein of say Bush) that ought to have been banned that wasn’t. I’ll wait.
There isn't any left. Those who ought to have been banned have been banned along with those who did nothing egregious. It was a proper purge. Either you are with the Establishment and Big Tech or you are purged. As simple as that. So now the only thing left is to ask Twitter when it is going to take action on prominent left wing accounts that violated its policies but Twitter gave them a free pass.
> I can’t name a single mainstream libertarian, paleoconservative, neoconservative, kooky rationalist, or anarcho-primitivist who has been banned, and that’s simply because the Cato Institute and Less Wrong don’t go around saying we should execute politicians by firing squad.
Because you have your eyes and ears closed. Maybe you should take a good look at the photo Kathy Griffin posted. You don't need anyone to say they will "execute politicians by firing squad" when they themselves hold the decapitated head of the sitting President of the United States.
> If that’s the only kind of intellectual contribution you have to make to society, I think you need to take a long hard look at your priorities.
Calling out hypocrisy has nothing to do with intellectual contributions to society. Both can co-exist. Just because you are incapable of calling out hypocrisy doesn't mean I shouldn't. I'll do what I feel I should do with my life and you can do what you feel with your life. Thankfully I am not a Citizen of USA else I'll be shunned/shamed/cancelled/boycotted/banned or worse killed for my beliefs or my skin color. You are happy being in a Big Tech dominated, censored internet, with an invisible social ranking system which can boot you out based on the political flavour of the day... then that is your choice. Remember that what is popular today will not be 20 years from now. Politics change, people change. You may in the future be at the receiving end of such a digital purge too because a Party of your opposing belief might come to power. Why? Because the red line has been crossed when it comes to censorship. A precedent has been set. Now it can be used for the right reasons or misused for the wrong reasons. Knowing how humans think I am leaning safely towards the latter.
> > I don’t consider myself a left winger. Name a prominent mainstream conservative (in the vein of say Bush) that ought to have been banned that wasn’t. I’ll wait.
> There isn't any left. Those who ought to have been banned have been banned along with those who did nothing egregious. It was a proper purge.
Lol ok, “there isn’t [sic] any left.”
Perhaps as an American I’m not familiar with what passes for conservatism in your country. But if your definition of conservatives excludes George Bush, Lindsey Graham, David Koch, Ron Paul, etc., then sure, all conservatives have been banned from Twitter!
I’m a gun-owning Christian non-Democrat living in the downtown of a big city. Having a pearl-clutching violence-endorsing non-American tell me I should worry about BLM and the Democrats “purging” people with my beliefs is surreal. If Bush is a liberal to you guys then I guess I’m as liberal as can be.
> George Bush, Lindsey Graham, David Koch, Ron Paul, etc., then sure, all conservatives have been banned from Twitter!
Do I feel they are truly conservatives? Nope. Not at all. At least not in the what conservatism means.
> violence-endorsing non-American
When did I endorse violence? Are you out of your mind? I literally said that I would want to see the insurrectionists thrown behind bars for what they did. Point to the part where you found me endorsing violence or take back your words.
> I should worry about BLM and the Democrats “purging” people with my beliefs is surreal
I never once mentioned BLM or Democrats purging conservatives. I accused the leftist lobby in Big Tech doing the purge because of how tied they are to their ideology. Whether BLM/Democrats had a role in it I don't know. So I won't even drag them into this. You want to extrapolate to include BLM and Democrats that is your headache not mine.
> If Bush is a liberal to you guys then I guess I’m as liberal as can be.
Bush was an opportunist. An establishment war hawk. A Conservative only by name but a Statist in every sense of the word. Bush was anything but for limited Government. These are the people you resonate with? People who bombed other countries ruthlessly based on a hunch that there are "weapons of mass destruction" (ex: Iraq and Afghanistan)? And you have the gumption to say I endorse violence? Look into a mirror and you'll see the person who endorses violence stare back at you.
lol @ someone claiming to promote limited government in America putting the Cato Institute in scare quotes
Listen buddy, if none of George Bush, Lindsey Graham, David Koch, Ron Paul, or the Cato Institute represent “true conservatives” to you, then I’m glad the notion of conservatism wherever you’re from is not one shared by my fellow Americans. Have a good day and please don’t come here.
Suspended on Twitter? More like locked out for 5 minutes until she removed her tweet. She is doing perfectly fine with her 2.1 million followers right here: https://twitter.com/kathygriffin?s=09
I can't find Steve Bannon's Twitter account anywhere. Now why is that so? Can you find it for me?
Unless you are talking about a different Kathy Griffin she hasn't been suspended.
As far as losing her job is concerned that is not something I was even bothered about. Since when did discussion on Big Tech censorship turn into resultant unemployment because of stupidity?
I don't mind those terrorists who invaded the Capitol be tried and thrown behind bars let alone be put in no fly lists or be removed from their jobs. Insurrection has to have consequences. I just don't want Big Tech's ideological censorship. Because this emboldens Big Tech to do more ideological censorship not less. Let the law take its course. Let the insurrectionists face real life consequences for their treason including but not limited to loss of job, putting on no fly lists and even prison time. It doesn't require Big Tech censorship to achieve those consequences. Or apply the rules to everyone in the same way. If you are going to ban Steve Bannon for beheading statements then ban Kathy Griffin for holding a decapitated head of the President. As simple as that.
If the Big Tech companies can't do it then I'll call them hypocrites. Then they have no moral standing when it comes to Parler. What is the difference between Parler and them? Nothing at all.
Notice how you completely skipped the part where I mentioned how Twitter enabled ISIS to operate with impunity for 2 years and only focused on my last paragraph? Yeah that shows where your mind is.
You realize the account in question for Bannon had also gotten away with temporary suspension in the past right?
It's almost like you didn't realize suspensions default to being temporary... it's newsworthy to be permanently suspended, and it only happens with a heavy pattern of rule breaking, once or twice didn't do it...
You don't even know what a Twitter suspension is and yet you're going after this.
-
Also I skipped the part about Isis because:
a) Twitter literally spent years fighting Daesh on their platform and you're cluelessly trying to paint them as being in bed with them or something...
b) If I had followed every lazy diversion you dropped in that diatribe I'd need to start billing you here.
> You realize the account in question for Bannon had also gotten away with temporary suspension in the past right?
Nope. I never heard of Bannon's Twitter account being temporarily suspended in the past. Can't find any source for it. It can't be possible because this account was created post-pandemic (aka 2020). If you can point me to any source which confirms what you say I'll be willing to change my stance that Twitter did give him a "chance" first. If you are talking about Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos account being banned then that is not the same as Bannon's account (called War Room: Pandemic - Suspended account here: http://twitter.com/WarRoomPandemic).
The best part is that Bannon did not even put the video on Twitter but instead put it on Facebook. But still got suspended by Twitter. Whereas Kathy Griffin posted the photo and video of the photoshoot on Twitter and got a rap on her knuckles.
a) Twitter literally spent years fighting Daesh on their platform and you're cluelessly trying to paint them as being in bed with them or something...
Yeah that is why they were sued for it right? Maybe you can tell the widow of the man who died because of an ISIS attack this logical reasoning. Let us see if she will be convinced with your reasoning.
That lawsuit was thrown out. You know why? Because of Section 230. Which surprisingly only applies to Big Tech. Not to small tech like Parler.
trying to paint them as being in bed with them or something...
Isn't that what was done to Parler? Using the users posts to ban Parler from all platforms. By trying to paint them as being in bed with them or something. Section 230 was turned into a joke when it came to Parler. What is the use of Section 230 if a platform can be censored and banned nevertheless?
"A US judge...tossed out a lawsuit accusing Twitter of abetting terrorism by allowing Islamic State propaganda to be broadcast using the messaging platform. District Court Judge William Orrick granted a motion by Twitter to dismiss the case, reasoning that providing a platform for speech is within the law and that the company did not create the content. The Communications Decency Act protects online platforms from being held responsible for what users post."
