avatar
10 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
  • 3 years ago

    This is a slippery slope. Twitter can't just start banning everyone if they don't like what they have to say or another user finds it offensive. 

    Milo Yiannopoulos didn't even say anything that we haven't heard on Twitter before, it was just trolls who agreed with him that took it to the next level. 

    What's to stop Twitter from completely censoring content now by calling it "hate speech"? I don't agree with what Yiannopoulos said but I do think he had a right to say it and post his opinion on Twitter.

    • 3 years ago

      "This is a slippery slope. Twitter can't just start banning everyone if
      they don't like what they have to say or another user finds it
      offensive. "

      They're a private company, Milo violated Terms of Service multiple times. Twitter's only crime here was waiting until he did it to someone famous. His ass shoulda been kicked years ago.

      "Milo Yiannopoulos didn't even say anything that we haven't heard on
      Twitter before, it was just trolls who agreed with him that took it to
      the next level. "

      This is not a defense. "But they do it too!" is not considered an acceptable excuse for pre-schoolers, why is it okay for an alleged journalist and his fanboys?

      "What's to stop Twitter from completely censoring content now by calling
      it "hate speech"? I don't agree with what Yiannopoulos said but I do
      think he had a right to say it and post his opinion on Twitter."

      He's been kicked off of one platform. He still has many others to choose from, many with "rules" even less strict than Twitter's (and Twitter is pretty shit about enforcing those rules most of the time anyway). He has not been silenced. He still has the Chans, and Reddit, and Breitbart, and his Facebook page and any other place that will take that little fascist fucknugget.

      Freedom of Speech does not and never has meant Freedom from Consequences.

  • 3 years ago

    Twitter is inconsistent in enforcing actions against users who violate their Terms of Service. I find it unlikely that they would have taken the same action against someone using the same rhetoric as Milo, but they were ultra-liberal instead of ultra-conservative. 

    There are also plenty of everyday users saying the same things, but just because their targets are not famous they get away with it. 

    • 3 years ago

      Banning 'hate speech' is in their right as a private company they can choose what content is on their website. However it is clear now that twitter is not a platform which promotes free speech and intellectual diversity. 

      But if this is allowed then private companies should be able to deny sales to a customer based on their preferences without paying a heavy fine, such as a christian baker refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. 

      • 3 years ago

        "However it is clear now that twitter is not a platform which promotes free speech and intellectual diversity. "

        This is true. If they were, they would've banned Milo sooner, as well as every other bully who uses threats, harassment, and doxxing to try and silence women and POC who dare to speak out about anything, from the consequential to the mundane.

      • 3 years ago

        Banning people is the opposite of free speech and intellectual diversity... It is censorship...

      • 3 years ago

        No. It isn't. Because Twitter is not the government.

      • 3 years ago

        censorship is not limited to government...

      • 3 years ago

        So do you think it's censorship if a bar throws you out for screaming at the other patrons?

        Is it censorship for a strip club to ban you if you keep trying to grope the dancers?

        If not, then you're being hypocritcal about what happened to Milo.

        And if you do then the Yazan needs to add a feature where we can block people because sweet jebus that would be creepy.

      • 3 years ago

        im done mate