Twitter Rolls Out Stricter Rules On Abusive Content (apnews.com) 261
Twitter has begun enforcing stricter policies on violent and abusive content like hateful images or symbols, including those attached to user profiles. From a report: The new guidelines, which were first announced one month ago, were put into place Monday. Monitors at the company will weigh hateful imagery in the same way they do graphic violence and adult content. If a user wants to post symbols or images that might be considered hateful, the post must be marked "sensitive media." Other users would then see a warning that would allow them to decide whether to view the post. Twitter is also prohibiting users from abusing or threatening others through their profiles or usernames. While the new guidelines became official on Monday, the social media company continues to work out internal monitoring tools and it is revamping the appeals process for banned or suspended accounts. But the company will also begin accepting reports from users.
Like I need another reason not to go on Twitter (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Usenet.
Wikipedia
Slashdot
Latex support boards are even getting that way.
It doesn't fucking matter whether you implement a moderation system or not. Old-timers with bad attitudes tend to take over unless you have a moderation
Re: (Score:2)
* For those not familiar with the history of
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Pay attention. 'Nazi' now also means anybody less authoritarian than Stalin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no "middle ground" to be had there. There's no, "well, you have a point, but...."
Fuck that noise. They don't deserve a seat at the table.
Yup, that's pretty much what Hitler said about the Jews. There's always an excuse to demonize those you don't like. The best cure for idiocy is exposing it to the light of day.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because wanting to cut out people advocating mass murder is EXACTLY the same as carrying out mass murder. Except, you know, it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Totalitarians always have an excuse why this time it's OK to crack down.
Re: (Score:2)
To shamelessly appropriate from The Babylon Bee, "private companies shouldn't be allowed to control what people see on the Internet, say people who think private companies should be allowed to control what people see on the Internet".
And they supposedly support "net neutrality"?! (Score:1, Insightful)
It's hilarious to see how many of the major discussion or social media platforms raised a huge ruckus about the very recent "net neutrality" policy change in the US.
Yet despite these platforms demanding that "net neutrality" be applied to telecom infrastructure providers, we've seen them act the exact opposite when it comes to the data they control. They're very in favor of showing partiality toward certain political beliefs, for example. They have ever-expanding definitions of "abusive" content that often
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
False equivalency is false.
Real net neutrality means that packets aren't judged by their content or source/destination, but net neutrality also means that comments don't get deleted/hidden/censored and users don't get banned just for engaging in perfectly reasonable and legal discussion that some thin-skinned mental weaklings on the political left dislike.
Says the right-wing snowflake. BTW, it's funny how the right-wingers are always going on and on about how businesses shouldn't have to serve gay people if it goes against the belief of the business owner, but if a business determines they don't want toxic, alt-right trolls on their website you guys suddenly do a 180 and baaaah like little babies. The sword cuts both ways, snowflake.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Look, another SJW making false equivalences. The right to free speech is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. The right to buy a cake - yeah, I don't see it there, anywhere.
In fact, if you listened to the baker's argument, he has a very good point: he was essentially being contracted to make an artistic statement he disagreed with. Wedding cakes are less about the cake being eaten and more about the art and sculpture of the cake being made. He refused to make an artistic statement he disagreed with.
If a sculpt
Re: (Score:1)
Exercising my right to free speech to tell you you're a fucking moron who has no idea what they're talking about or what the 1st amendment actually means.
Re:And they supposedly support "net neutrality"?! (Score:5, Informative)
So, you're wrong. But you probably already knew that.
In the case of the baker/cake/gay-wedding:
When you operate a business of public accommodation, that is, a business that is open to the public, you have to operate under certain rules and laws. One of those laws is that you cannot deny service to a person solely based on that person's inclusion in a protected class.
Now, federally, there are several protected classes. They include, sex, age, nation of origin, and race. (This list is not exhaustive.)
Now, that means, if you operate a business open to the public, you cannot refuse service to someone simply and solely because they are a woman, or because they are black.
States can add to the list of federally protected classes, but may not remove anything from that list.
Colorado, where the bakery/gay-wedding case took place has added sexual orientation to that list.
Which means that the bakery could not, legally, refuse service to the couple simply because they are gay.
If the bakery had been booked solid, and could not have produced the wedding cake in the time required, it wouldn't have been a discrimination case.
If the bakery didn't even offer wedding cakes as one of the services they offered, it wouldn't have been a discrimination case.
But because they do make wedding cakes, and because the owner made it clear he wasn't selling the couple a wedding cake because they were gay, it was discrimination, and it was illegal under Colorado's laws.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Creating a work of art is a First Amendment act, and cannot be compelled - even if the artist is otherwise running a business. No public accommodation law overrides the First Amendment rights of the artists that would be creating the cake.
Notice that in the Masterpiece Cake case, the owner of the store offered to sell the couple an undecorated cake AND the decorations so they could make it themselves. This would have allowed the couple to get their cake and for the artist to avoid being compelled to speak
Re: (Score:2)
In that case any business could make some trivial artistic expression and put up a "no dogs, no n*ggers, no Irish" sign. I'm not an expert on US law, but that doesn't seem right.
Anyway, it's not about compelling them to make a cake. Criminals can't be compelled to apologise and show remorse, but if they don't the punishment will be harsher. This is punishing unacceptable behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a music recordist and producer, do you support the government's compelling me (at gunpoint, or under the threat of incarceration or large fine) to record and produce white supremacist music?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can have one, or the other, but not both.
Re: (Score:2)
The right to free speech is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
Yes. It's why Concepcion Picciotto was able to protest at the White House for 35 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
However, Twitter is a corporation. They have no legal obligation to provide you a platform. If you don't like Twitter's policies you can use an alternate platform or go make your own Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be mixing up right wing and alt-right.
alt-right are a populist leftists that got tired of the worst progressive bullshot and yet still don't like the conservatism of the rightwing.
Conservatives dont care for alt-right populists either. They see both progressives and alt-right populists as two sides of the same mob mentality coin. Both sides of that coin are intersectional identitarians looking to embrace victimhood as a virtue in different ways. They can both rot.
Re: (Score:3)
You are confusing the alt-right with various other non-right groups, such as neo-Nazis. The press has been doing that on purpose for the last couple of years, and some people who have nothing to do with the alt-right have been trying to pretend that they are for fun and profit.
Here is the core of alt-right philosophy: What the Alternative Right is [blogspot.com]
And here [weeklystandard.com] is an article about a writer going to a meeting organized by Richard Spencer. Spencer likes to pretend that he is alt-right, but he supports about 95%
Re: (Score:2)
Whose word shall I take on this, noted asshat Vox Day or Wikipedia? Wikipedia says:
"The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism. White supremacist[1] Richard Spencer initially promoted the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism and did so, according to the Associated Press, to disguise overt racism, white supremacism, neo-fascism and neo-Nazism.[2][3][4] The
Re: (Score:2)
They have nothing at all to do with one another. Completely separate things. The vast majority of "alt right" belongs to the populist group, and they hate Neo-Nazis just as much as anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the guy, the blog post and the quote. In this case - yes. Yes it does.
If you want to argue around the edges, that's one thing. But when two groups disagree on ~90% of core fundamental topics, they clearly are not close to each other, philosophically.
Re: (Score:2)
The alt-right you are talking about is an alternative to the right, while the alt-right that you actually encounter in real life is an alternative for the right.
That second sort of alt-right is very much on the right - the goals of the two groups are nearly indistinguishable. The difference is that the alt-right isn't content playing noble loser while the left wins every battle over and over again for decades. We want to win, and we don't run and cower every time someone calls us a bad name.
President Trum
Re: (Score:2)
False equivalency is false.
(...)
Says the right-wing snowflake. BTW, it's funny how the right-wingers are always going on and on about how businesses shouldn't have to serve gay people if it goes against the belief of the business owner, but if a business determines they don't want toxic, alt-right trolls on their website you guys suddenly do a 180 and baaaah like little babies. The sword cuts both ways, snowflake.
Just like 'You can buy any cake in the store, or any cake in the catalog, but I am not creating a new 'gay' wedding cake design for you' has been heralded from day one as 'refusing service'
Most conservatives seem pretty ok with just voicing concerns, but liberals seem to be all about coercion.
Re: (Score:2)
That's so cute watching you guys try to turn that term around. It must really sting.
You misunderstand: it's a term commonly used as an insult by nutcases. We generally assume they must find it insulting, and we figure turnabout is fair play. Funny thing is only nutcases actually consider it an insult.
No, sorry, you are the ones with the "safe spaces"
Yes? And?
Re: (Score:2)
The term "snowflake" is used by a great many people, only a small minority of whom are "nutcases".
But for the most part it has been used in a certain context by people of the political Right, and in fact it can be quite amusing to see people on the Left trying to use it properly, and as often as not failing hilariously.
Keep trying. You might get it right one of these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny how after the Unite the Right march it was Nazis crying out for safe spaces. Like they didn't realise they would get fired for marching with swastikas and chanting "blood and soil".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Real net neutrality means that packets aren't judged by their content or source/destination,
Correct.
but net neutrality also means that comments don't get deleted/hidden/censored and users don't get banned just for engaging in perfectly reasonable and legal discussion that some thin-skinned mental weaklings on the political left dislike.
Incorrect. Network neutrality is all about connecting people to websites. It's like allowing people to use roads to drive to their destination. Once you get to your destination/website then you have gone onto private property. So if you drive to the grocery store and start yelling obscenities at other customers, they can tell you to leave and the police will kindly escort you out the door if you refuse. Further, if the grocery store does not want to let you back in later, they don't have to bec
Re: (Score:2)
You don't support net neutrality, and you shouldn't pretend that you do.
You only want neutrality for the bottom 3 of the 7 layers of the OSI model [wikipedia.org].
Incorrect, I support all 7 layers because that is about the network. Neutrality on the part of the web server is NOT part of the OSI model, it's strictly about the network.
100% net neutrality means that users on social media web sites aren't banned for expressing legal ideas.
No, Network Neutrality has nothing to do with the content provider. If you become a content provider and your server (not rented) is removed as a destination then that would be a violation of network neutrality. Seeing as how that doesn't happen, you're being treated just like the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
No, troll, you're wrong (Score:2)
That's 100% incorrect. Net neutrality DOES happen at the packet level, with every user on the Internet, whether an individual or a for-profit business, abl
oh great (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If Twitter won't take steps, logically the next step would be to require them to keep appropriate records and provide them to law enforcement for investigation.
And if Twitter was being 'reasonable' (in quotes because it would probably not be in their financial best interests), they would not require a warrant to hand over logs relating to an obviously hateful post.
But in truth that's a really expensive option compared to just banning enough of the worst bile-spewing idiots from the service to keep their cus
Re: (Score:2)
>What content on Twitter breaks a law?
While Canada and the USA have different speech laws... there are all sorts of things posted on Twitter that are ultimately criminal in nature.
Death threats, inciting 'imminent lawless action', and encouraging suicide are three things that American courts have decided are not protected free speech, nor is defamation.
Trump himself is a big one for defamation, though his inciting of violence probably falls below the threshold of 'imminent lawless action' - a ridiculousl
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck Canada and, particularly, fuck their fascist 'human rights commissions'. What are they going to do?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, aren't you a precious little asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the one trying to impose PC fascism over a border. That, if fact, makes you an asshole.
They're also going to be watching you off-site (Score:2)
And they utterly fail to see the hypocrisy in their actions. Twitter has themselves become like the Nazis. Note how this rule doesn't apply to military or government.
Re:They're also going to be watching you off-site (Score:2)
Twitter has themselves become like the Nazis.
Making people mark content == OMG THEY MURDERED 10 million people !!!!1111111oneeleveONEone!11
Using marked media to train? (Score:2)
Been There (Score:3)
I got suspended once on twitter after I got carried away in a flame war and said something I was honestly ashamed of. I took my punishment meekly because I was very much wrong. What bothers me is that since that day I've reported 15 people for crossing that same line and not one of them was ever considered a problem by twitter. I came to the conclusion that twitter judges strictly on political grounds and I'm more convinced every day.
Re: (Score:2)
They are getting better. Britain First was banned today. Trump re-tweeted them recently, but I don't think they will ban him.
Re: (Score:2)
They're mostly banning bots. I'm glad of that, I had to spend too much time ridding my timeline of them.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, let the alt-right snowflakes baaaah about their butthurt on Gab. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
They're never gonna ban the president though. It's a conundrum.
Re:Good! Let the trolls leave (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Good! Let the trolls leave (Score:2)
Oh the wit and insight!
Re: Good! Let the trolls leave (Score:5, Funny)
Twitter should just prevent users from writing their own comments, and instead let users pick from a predefined list of comments that have been deemed acceptable. Based on what I've seen of Twitter comments lately, they could have approved comments like 'Fuck Drmupf!!;!!#!', and 'Women can have penises, too!' and 'That is racist!'. Those alone would cover about 95% of typical Twitter comments these days. They could even take it a step beyond that, and instead of having a user pick a pre-approved comment, Twitter could just choose one automatically on behalf of the user each day.
Re:Good! Let the trolls leave (Score:5, Insightful)
In all seriousness twitter has never really been a place where any even slightly valuable dialogue takes place. 140 characters and a massive potential audience is great for chanting slogans, both political and advertisement ones, mindless drivel and abuse (there's dozens of people who have regularly do what Milo Yiannopolis got banned for), but not much else. I don't think anything has caused as massive of a regression in public discourse as twitter has so the sooner they finally destroy their platform and run themselves into bankruptcy, which should have long since happened seeing how they've never come close to turning a profit, the better.
Re: (Score:2)
In all seriousness twitter has never really been a place where any even slightly valuable dialogue takes place.
Tell that to HuffPo. All they ever put out is long lists of random tweets attached to a clickbait headline. Unfortunately twitter probably won't go away until rags like HuffPo stop turning tweets from random people into "news."
Re:Good! Let the trolls leave (Score:4, Funny)
racists, crazies and trolls
You are probably not qualified to call anyone names, much less support the curtailment of their freedoms based on these judgements. You wave your hand and try to dehumanize others. You are missing the most important aspect of life: competition. You are claiming to be better but you refuse to compete. You are basically claiming to be a god on earth and above competition from the "mean things".
cried fowl
AVIAN BEAST! BIRD! BIRD!
In all seriousness twitter has never really been a place where any even slightly valuable dialogue takes place
Says you. Are the thoughts and actions of the hundreds of million people who use it invalid? Do they matter to nothing? Yet they are influenced by what they read on twitter. It's an important platform and it should by right be free for all to use.
The thing about marxist enforcement outlets is that they tend to be propped up regardless of profit. The hidden value is in how they are used to condition the population. They will be propped up as long as people keep going there. They will get endless investments for their contribution to the status quo, for their effort in rendering the human capital in this society to liquid.
Re: (Score:2)
The discussion is about Twitter, not "Fox News". I think you're confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Are the thoughts and actions of the hundreds of million people who use it invalid? Do they matter to nothing?
I've never tweeted and only follow one person (2 accounts). Are there other valuable "thoughts and actions" to explore? In my limited exploration I've seen a lot of fluff. I wouldn't describe DJT's tweets as fluff. I'm just on because it's a unique look into the mind of the lunatic at our country's helm.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have a right to arbitrary free shit.
Yes I do. I insist that I do and I will fight you or anyone else to the death who denies my right.
I have a right to be part of public discourse, I have a right to be int he same place as the majority and speak freely there. The livelihood, my future, and my freedom depend on this. So no matter what lesser or false law or rule would forbid me from doing so, I will do it anyway and if anyone tries to stop me I will fight back to the point of killing them or being killed myself if need be.
No, it's cooperation. Everything you see around you is the result of cooperation.
And how would we know
Re: (Score:2)
> You don't have a right to arbitrary free shit.
Yes I do. I insist that I do and I will fight you or anyone else to the death who denies my right.
lol OK. Go into a jewelery store and start taking arbitrary shit for free. Have fun fighting the cops to death, Mr. Internet tough Guy!
I have a right to be part of public discourse,
You have a right to be a part of public discourse free from government interference. You don't have a right to a twitter acconut.
The livelihood, my future, and my freedom depend on
Re: (Score:2)
You are severely, severely mentally ill.
Well I guess you've reached the limit of ability to rationally rebut my points then!
Everything you stand for is losing
But not this argument! Zing!
Re: (Score:2)
You have no points. You are just seeking status in a place where it's impossible to get. You do not care about knowledge, you care about image.
You appear to have your threads crossed, my good fellow, because this has nothing at all to do with the original discussion.
Also, you should dial back the paranoia in your sig. You probably kept getting downmods after you hit -1, so you have no idea how many you got. Same thing happened to me when I suggested Mr. Damore was not correct in many of his points. I'd like
BLM [Re:Good! Let the trolls leave] (Score:2)
Exactly, they even gave BLM an emoji. If twitter were to enforce their rules properly, they'd be deleting their platform!
I hate the Bureau of Land Management too, but I don't think that they use twitter very much
Re: Good! Let the trolls leave (Score:2)
I'll remember to mention your kind thoughts about power to the white homeless guys I see every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, just ostracize the very people that made them popular. Already seen plenty of companies that have tried to do the same only to become relics of the past. Good bye Twitter and good luck to the new next replacement! And all the people blabbing about the "rubbish" on twitter are just going to twirl around in a dead social medium like the others before it, because, guess what? People don't want filtered content despite complaining about the trolls and trash. They want to moderate or be at least able to c
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People who are 1-2 months of unemployment away from foreclosure proceedings...
...should have enough sense not to vote for people who'll push them into being 0.5-1 month of unemployment away from foreclosure proceedings?
Re:Good! Let the trolls leave (Score:4, Insightful)
...should have enough sense not to vote for people who'll push them into being 0.5-1 month of unemployment away from foreclosure proceedings?
8 years under Obama is generally what got those people there in the first place. Their options are: More of the same, or a different path. Looks like the choice of "a different path" is working out much better for most people already.
Most of what the democrats are pulling right now is "more of the same" and people are tired of it. It's the same reason that the democrats are experiencing what's called "party flight" where the core becomes more moderate and looks at 3rd party alternatives, or they simply switch because they want to see them burn. The democrats delegates just finished electing a full-on anti-white race baiter to the leadership of the party, that's not going to help them win either the rustbelt or the heartland. It's also not just happening in the US, but Canada as well. There has been a shift from Liberals to both Green and NDP effectively fracturing the "left-wing vote" into 1/3's. ~20 years ago it was the Conservatives(PC) and Reform Party(smaller government, more resource exports, etc). Canada did very well under the CPC(party that replaced both of them under unification), regardless of what your views on Harper are, Canada was the only G8 and G20 country not to enter recession during the 2008 crash. And was the only country to gain net FT jobs over PT jobs during the recovery period.
Re: (Score:2)
Because someone else would have handled Bush's parting gift better?
Considering Obama was basically Bush 2.0? It looks like most of the Obama administrations actions were more of the same while not having a clue as to what was going on. It also didn't help that while republicans started driving neocons out of the party(like David Frum), those same neocons were happily welcomed with open arms by the democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
It was Cheryl Crow and she was actually making a joke which a lot of idiots took seriously because they cannot comprehend that someone who cares about the environment might not be crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So it's a purge of conservatives (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So it's a purge of conservatives (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. A bunch of conservative accounts have already been banned including American Renaissance which has not posted anything violating Twitter's terms of service.
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives can sue Twitter today. In the US, you can literally sue any person or company you want for any reason you want. All you need is money that you don't mind wasting and a willingness to be a public laughing stock if your reasons are too stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, pretty sure that homonyms aren't well covered by phonics, what with phonics being about sounding words out, and homonyms being words that sound the same despite having different meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Hmm.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm
Remember that the antifa thugs attacked them first, and the police were told to stand down to "make it easier to arrest people." [vice.com]
You can read the entire report yourself [wixstatic.com]. The report puts the entire fault of it at the feet of the: Mayor, Police Chief, Governor, and the original agitators of violence(antifa and black clad protesters). If you dig a bit further? Well, I hope you're ready for your bubble to be burst on it.
The links don't support your statement. (Score:2)
The links you give do not support the conclusion you state.
The link states "They concluded that police were woefully unprepared, and that leadership was sluggish in its response to escalating violence, and as a result, they failed to protect public safety"-- which has nothing to do with what you stated, that "the antifa thugs attacked them first."
You then link to "the whole report" (https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/c869fb_a573de9ad4f04b0491b927ca9d48252c.pdf) -- but that doesn't support the statement you mad
Re: (Score:2)
The links you give do not support the conclusion you state.
That's because it's Mashiki.
He used to post lots of broken links. Then he switched ot links to things which directly contradicted what he said in short order. Now he posts links to vrey long things which eventually contradict what he said.
So I guess that's an improvement.
If you talk to him, you generally get a barrage of crazy back.
He's a bit like this chap http://www.flamewarriorsguide.... [flamewarriorsguide.com]
Re: (Score:2)
He used to post lots of broken links. Then he switched ot links to things which directly contradicted what he said in short order. Now he posts links to vrey long things which eventually contradict what he said.
Except the part where I never posted broken links, but you did a bang up job of showing how you were unable to click on something when it didn't suit your agenda, while screeching that it was about hacking you. That was more funny then anything else. You also did a bang up job of screeching that something was false because you refused to click on a link. BTW, you were more entertaining when you were posting as a AC.
If you talk to him, you generally get a barrage of crazy back.
This coming from a person that much like another person refuses to admit that they're wron
Re: (Score:2)
but you did a bang up job of showing how you were unable to click on something when it didn't suit your agenda, while screeching that it was about hacking you.
Good job that never happened!
BTW, you were more entertaining when you were posting as a AC.
I see you're confusing fantasy with reality again. I always post logged in since then my posts get auto-modded up to +2 because I have excellent karma.
Oh the irony of the adhom
It's not ad-hom.
Ad hom is: "you're an idiot therefore your arguments are bad".
This is
Re: (Score:2)
Good job that never happened!
Sure did, why don't you go look in your post history. Should be in the last 3 years, give or take a bit.
I see you're confusing fantasy with reality again. I always post logged in since then my posts get auto-modded up to +2 because I have excellent karma.
Uh-huh, sure thing. Strange you've got exactly the same writing style, which have the same grammatical and spelling as one particular AC.
This is: your areguments are bad therefore you're an idiot.
When you can't attack the argument, and attack the person you've already lost. It only makes you look petty to everyone else, just a useful tip.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, the murderer was one of the alt-right jackoffs.
And yet, the trial hasn't even happened. Good luck on them even proving 1st degree which is what they're going for -- that means premeditation. Plenty of video evidence showing the antifa shits coming towards the car with bats, poles and other blunt instruments too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seem to me that modern American conservatives are at least too comfortable with, or tolerant of, white nationalism. They voted in a president who hinted at white nationalist leanings before the election, and mostly continue to support one who has expressed those leanings more strongly. Centipedes comfortably hide under the tent of conservatism to complain about crackdowns on hate speech. Conservatives nearly voted in an ephebophilic turbo-deplorable with antebellum nostalgia in Alabama. These accusations
Re: (Score:2)
They've already exempted him as 'newsworthy'. Which of course really means, 'we are willing to profit at the expense of society'.
Re: (Score:2)
>It's adorable watching the Trump minions with mod points trying desperately to mod down any posts that point out the screamingly obvious fact that the guy is a bully, a liar, and a jerk even towards his ersatz supporters.
Well... obviously the correct moderating action would be -1 Redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be nice if people had recognized Twitter for what it was from the start, but... human nature.
Twitter also seemed to get a lot of notice in the news long before it was ubiquitous. Killing it will take more than a handful of people with a conscience bailing on it - it needs to become irrelevant.
The same forces that keep Trump on Twitter keep Twitter in the news, and that's not going to stop any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly certain that in Canada he'd be falling afoul of our hate speech laws. I mean, he's indiscriminately targeted Muslims and Mexicans with hate propaganda (and arguably also homosexuals and the transgendered, though I'm not familiar enough with his speech relating to those groups to say there's anything actionable there).
We kind of frown on that, especially when it's reasonable to see it as inciting people to act on it.
From Wikipedia: "Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for
Re:yet still Trump and FoxNews have accounts (Score:4, Informative)
Good thing you know less of the law then you're quoting. You see where the word "incite" is? Now go look up the definition, and show where he tells people to go out and do it.
Ex: You know what I hate? All those muslims and mexicans, damn well integrate into society and stop crossing over illegally and being a drain on society. - This is not a 319 offence.
Ex: You know what I hate? All those muslims and mexcians. We need to get the trees ready, and get the rope. And here's where we're starting boys! - This is a 319 offence.
Note that 319 also covers "reasonable discussion" the above is also not a 319, I could have a discussion on a street corner in Canada arguing both points of view and it's still not a hate crime.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're OK with Trump calling Mexicans rapists? I wouldn't want to lay money that no innocent person has been assaulted after being inspired by Trump's tweets.
Maybe you're OK with him telling cops to assault suspects, too? Or asking a crowd to beat up protesters? (Who were exercising THEIR free speech rights, BTW). Or just his general tendency to slander people he doesn't like?
There have to be limits, and there are - even in the USA. Court-tested and everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can easily not use Twitter.
Except where your government has turned around and directly uses it for public discourse, weather alerts/warnings/etc, policy announcements and so on right? Then we get into the area where twitter has moved from a private company with no protections, to a private company that has an influence on public discourse, information and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants to stay on a brand that has SJW reporting users, banning accounts?
Where all movie reviews have to be positive..