This is truly terrifying. The fact that the US government will pursue this kind of action, potentially exposing and punishing criticizers of the government -- seems like this is how dictatorships/autocracy/totalitarianism start.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If we believe in the free America, this should be what we should all fight for, if we want to keep America for the reason it became great in the first place.
>"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If we believe in the free America, this should be what we should all fight for, if we want to keep America for the reason it became great in the first place.
We're talking about the same Twitter that shut down Milo Yiannopolis' account because Twitter didn't like what he was saying?
There's an incredibly important difference between a corporation exercising its power to control speech on its platform and the US Federal Government exercising powers not granted to it by the laws of the United States to control speech in general.
1.) The government has made no request to impede upon the speech of the account owner, nor has the gov asked to shut it down the account. The gov asked for the account holder identity because they suspect (with reason) that someone is impersonating a federal agent through the account.
2.) Twitter invoked "free speech" to deny a reasonable request from the government. Right or not, I am mocking Twitter for acting like "champion of free speech" on one hand and then shutting down what they deem as "hate speech" (which the ACLU explicitly protects as free speech) on the other hand. Twitter can reinstate Milo's account at any time, yet they don't.
3.) We have just as much evidence to believe that the account holder is a fake federal employee as we do to believe they are real.
1a) You don't have to impede speech to be violating the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that anonymity is protected under the First Amendment. https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
1b) Additionally, "impersonating a federal agent" is a flimsy reason to violate the First Amendment, especially when the only harm they're causing is making the government look bad. Typically "impersonating a federal agent" is used as a charge when the suspect has committed another crime while impersonating someone. The only crime here is making Trump look bad.
2) Get out of here with your false equivalency bs. Equating the government making a (likely) unconstitutional request to reveal the identity of a critic's Twitter account to Milo getting banned from Twitter for harassment is stupid. Hate speech is protected from the government, not from Twitter trying to create a safe platform for its users.
3) I thought everyone was innocent until proven guilty? The government has the burden of proof here, not some rando on Twitter.
On 2) parent is not equating the goverment's position on this case to Twitter's positions on Milo. He is equating Twitter's position on this case to Twitter's position on Milo's case, and noting that there is indeed a double-standard. Twitter's message seems to be: Speech must be free - but only if that speech is for left-wing causes.
Milo was not banned for "free speech". He was banned because he was harassing people, which he very much was doing. If you want to say Twitter was banning people solely for their beliefs, find a better example.
Additionally, protecting your speech from the government is not the same as giving you a platform on which to speak. Twitter protected their users under the Obama administration as well, they were not one of the tech companies that shared data with the NSA according to the Snowden leaks.
No he wasn't. Twitter claimed he incited other people to harass LJ.
You are also correct that, very often, the freedoms granted to Americans concern the ability of government, specifically, to impede; Hence it is correct that twitter would act differently when the government involves itself.
His account was suspended many times. It wasn't just banned out of nowhere.
Twitter hasn't released information surrounding the ban. Just a brief, very general, statement. Makes sense to me they don't want to spread news that could be considered libel/slander.
If they say "Milo did this, this is why he was banned" now it's open to opinion. "Did this" is an opinion, and now suddenly Twitter says an individual did something.
Twitter gains nothing by clarifying (in the eyes of their lawyers) so they didn't. Why get sued over this?
> We don't know if twitter banned Milo for other reasons, but we also don't know if "He was banned because he was harassing people" by the same measure.
This is the exact point I'm trying to make. It doesn't matter why he was banned, Twitter can ban anyone.
As long as they didn't ban him because he was a part of a protected group, it's kosher.
Milo wasn't harassing anybody, except by the broadest and most over-sensitive possible interpretation of the already diluted word 'harassment'. Milo himself never did anything to anybody other than toss out singular, one-off quips about people. But people like to hold those with many followers responsible for what their followers say. While it's emotionally tempting to do so, it's also stupid, unworkable, and ultimately always serves as the go-to excuse to ban someone with the wrong views.
It isn't hypocritical to choose who you want on your platform. Twitter has no obligation to be some neutral platform. They have never claimed this and have never tried to do this.
At Twitter's scale, they do have an obligation to be a neutral platform. They own the modern digital "town square". Things have changed since the old days.
Businesses have obligations beyond just barely staying within the law. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's ethical.
Several people were taken by the police for social/twitter threats against the (then Obama) President and such -- of the kind that we see 100 per day against Trump.
Threatening POTUS is always an offence, and those law enforcement investigations have been happening for years under all presidents, under both parties.
> 43. The CBP Summons states that Twitter is “required” to “produce[] for inspection” “[a]ll records regarding the [T]witter account @ALT_USCIS to include, User names, account login, phone numbers, mailing addresses, and I.P. addresses.”
That doesn't really sound like they politely asked for it.
No one's making the argument that twitter is some bastion of free speech, but it seems reasonable to respect them for not complying to government strongarm tactics to criminalize their own users. The law is well on twitter's side on this one.
Comparing this to selectively banning trolls from their own business is just a false equivalence.
> That doesn't really sound like they politely asked for it.
How is it impolite? It's a legal request. Legal requests are always objective and to the point. You should argue objective facts and not whine because "its not polite enough"
>No one's making the argument that twitter is some bastion of free speech, but it seems reasonable to respect them for not complying to government strongarm tactics to criminalize their own users. The law is well on twitter's side on this one.
The government has not criminalizing anything. The account is deriving its authority from the fact that owner claims to be federal agent. The law is not on twitter's side. If the government suspects the impersonating of a federal agent they have the right to investigate.
If you say "Trust me I'm a federal agent." the government can ask for your identity. If someone says "trust me I'm a cop" you have the right to ask for their name and badge number.
The difference is that the account is claiming to be a federal agent. If the account were for example just an anonymous reporter who did not claim to be employed by the government, the government could not force twitter to reveal the identity.
>Comparing this to selectively banning trolls from their own business is just a false equivalence.
Twitter is explicitly citing "free speech" as their reason for denying a federal investigation.
> failure to comply with this summons will render you liable to proceedings in a U.S. District Court to enforce compliance with this summons as well as other sanctions.
It's not a request if you're threatening legal consequences, is it?
I'm not "whining that it's not polite enough", it's clearly not a request at all but instead a strongarm tactic by an overreaching government agency.
> Twitter is explicitly citing "free speech" as their reason for denying a federal investigation.
Free speech != businesses can't censor whatever the hell they want from their own user created content. It's surprising to me how often people don't understand this. The comparison is absolutely a false equivalence in this case.
> If you stand up say "Trust me I'm a federal agent." the government can ask for your identity. If someone says "trust me I'm a cop" you have the right to ask for their name and badge number.
Yes, if you're doing something illegal - speaking out against government policy is not, hence Twitter's free speech argument.
In truth, free speech DOES mean business shouldn't censor arbitrarily on their own platform.
Free speech isn't just a quirky law to restrain the government. It's a social virtue which should all try to uphold, everywhere, because it makes our society better.
Free speech is comparable to honesty in this way, as a generalized social virtue.
The law against government censorship is to the principle of free speech as the law against perjury is to the principle of honesty.
Honesty and free speech are universal principles; violating them is often legal but generally not ethical.
This becomes more and more important as our public squares are increasingly moved on to online private platforms. Soon enough almost all communication will be digital, and the corporations will have more censoring power than the government does. At that time, it'll be pretty regretful that all these people have been upholding businesses' "rights" to silence anyone they please for any reason.
Obviously the context of the phrase "free speech" in my responses refers to the first amendment, not the general concept of free speech as a whole.
That said, as someone who has ran online businesses, I still don't agree with you that it's some universal principal that businesses should be held to. I've dealt with trolls of the same ilk as Milo Yiannopoulos, and you know what? When I think about how things went, it would have sucked up a hell of a lot less resources and time of myself, the business, and my other customers if I had simply censored them immediately.
> You're saying Twitter isn't obligated by the law about free speech.
The concept of freedom of speech is that pure speech is free from government-imposed consequences, but that private parties can and do choose what expressed ideas to support, oppose, reward, and punish. That's the fundamental concept of the marketplace of ideas.
The idea of freedom of speech is not that speech should be free of all consequences.
Now because businesses (especially those that are creations of government, like any that operate as juridical entities distinct from the constituent natural persons) are creatures of government and/or often depend on exercise of government powers, there is an argument for limiting the consequences that they can impose for speech in certain cases, especially when they are in monopolistic roles, and even more especially when that is in regard to key communications media, because those are in effect acts of government by other means.
It's troubling that anyone would downvote your comment, and clearly several people have.
Free speech requires more than merely the government allowing it; if the underlying society does not permit it to be exercised, it is effectively defeated.
Equally obviously, I am referring to the bigger picture. If the government is restrained, but society ostracizes, freedom of speech is effectively useless. The law is the minimum, not the optimum.
Could you cite the law you're thinking of? Simply claiming to be a federal agent to set the context for a discussion is very different from claiming to be one and then acting under the authority of that pretended identity.
> Any claimant or representative of a claimant who knowingly and willfully makes a false statement or representation for the purpose of obtaining a benefit or payment under this chapter shall be guilty of a felony...
The threshold of "obtaining a benefit" or "obtained thing of value" is pretty low. Is a massive Twitter following a benefit? Is positive press coverage or access a benefit or valuable?
Alternatively, this person is a federal employee and they've been actively working against their boss and employer (aka POTUS).
Your first link is from Title 33, Chapter 18, which is titled "LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION". The words "federal" and "agent" appear nowhere in it, so... I think not. Maybe this is what you're looking for (as referred to in your second link):
> The threshold of "obtaining a benefit" or "obtained thing of value" is pretty low. Is a massive Twitter following a benefit? Is positive press coverage or access a benefit or valuable?
Absolutely ridiculous. If you want to play these sorts of word games, though, I might point out that this person is not pretending (or not) "to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof". They are not pretending (or not) to act under any authority. Anyone can post whatever they like on Twitter (at Twitter's discretion and according to their TOS).
In other words, it would be illegal to flash a fake badge at someone and then tell them you'll take them to jail if they don't follow you on Twitter, but that's not what this is.
> Alternatively, this person is a federal employee and they've been actively working against their boss and employer (aka POTUS).
On their own time and using their own device(s), presumably. Is this illegal?
Oops, you're right on the first link. Sorry about that.
> On their own time and using their own device(s), presumably. Is this illegal?
Since they're discussing official matters, it's probably illegal. Federal employees are always covered by rules concerning their engagement with the press and public communications.
Just like if you spoke on behalf of your company and/or leaked internal information, they could definitely sue you and potentially get you arrested (depending on the details). When your employer are the Feds, they can usually skip the "sue you" step.
Right now, the account includes this in its "about" text:
> Not the views of DHS or USCIS
Whether or not that's always been there, I think it's probably always been true for this account. It's somebody saying "I work at <agency>, and here are some opinions and publicly available information". So really all they're guilty of is being publicly negative about their employer. That's not illegal for employees of corporations, and I'd be really surprised if it was illegal for employees of the government (but I haven't looked into it).
Of course, corporations and the government might like to fire employees who do this, and they'd be within their rights to do so (I think, in general) but if said employees are anonymous then they don't know who to fire, and if speaking freely is perfectly legal then they have no grounds to compel Twitter (or whoever) to unmask the account.
In most roles of federal law enforcement and/or the intelligence community, you aren't allowed to speak to the press or make public statements without express consent of your communications team. You don't get to "talk negatively about your employer" and you sign agreements to that effect going in.
And it doesn't take sharing classified information to get in trouble. Pointing someone to public information validates them as accurate - including whatever conjecture included - and counts.
I spent time in the intelligence community. Your opinion and my opinion don't matter.. only the law, the agreements in place, and the tenacity of those who choose to enforce them and to what degree.
These are the only things I'm interested in. My personal opinions aside, I'm genuinely curious whether the government has a legitimate legal leg to stand on here. The reason I'm still replying is that none of those you've suggested have been terribly convincing.
Whether anonymous political speech by someone claiming to be an employee of the federal government but not acting in an official capacity is or is not a violation of the Hatch Act or any other applicable law (dubious) or any agreement they may have signed as a condition of employment is one question. Whether the fact that this individual has claimed anonymously to be a federal employee can compel Twitter to release their personal details on the basis of an assumption that either or both of the aforementioned factors (laws, agreements) will apply to them is another question entirely. While they're anonymous, how would you know which agreement they signed, if any? How would you know whether they are actually a federal employee?
"Tenacity" aside, this seems like the most plausible theory yet, but still a stretch. But I am not a lawyer.
They have explicitly labeled themselves as 'rouge USCIS agents' and said they are real in multiple tweets.
It's not the same as making a "fake steve jobs" twitter account where everybody knows you're not really steve jobs. They actually claim to be subversive workers within the agency.
> It's not the same as making a "fake steve jobs" twitter account where everybody knows you're not really steve jobs
First, let's dispel the absurdity that "ICE official with a critical Twitter account" == "impersonate a law enforcement officer/agency".
There's no impersonation. Everybody knows that @ALT_* is not an official channel. The entire account namespace was created specifically as a protest mechanism.
Government's claims regarding IMPERSONATION are baseless as a pure and simple matter of fact.
> They actually claim to be subversive workers within the agency.
Could the federal government have cause to fire these employees for their political speech? Perhaps.
Should we, the people, grant the government have right to infringe upon private company's property rights in order to settle petty shop politics? NO.
Government can be as petty an employer as it wants. But this ISN'T impersonation, and we SHOULDN'T sacrifice OUR liberties and property rights for the sake of fucking petty shop politics.
If law enforcement wants to track down and fire people who disagree with the chief executive, they're free to waste my tax dollars doing so. But unless they can show substantive evidence of ACTUAL impersonation, they can conduct their witch hunt without barging into our homes and offices.
So if I say I'm James Mattis and I think Trump is a dork I'm violating the law? Come on, no judge is gonna buy that nonsense. It's a far different to talk smack on twitter under an alt account (an UNVERIFIED account even) than it is to actually say things under the color of law like ordering a contingent of military to fire upon civilians while I'm saying I am James Mattis Sec of Defense. See the difference?
>The gov asked for the account holder identity because they suspect (with reason) that someone is impersonating a federal agent through the account.
I wasn't familiar with this account previously, but I'm not seeing any reason to suspect impersonation of a federal agent. What exactly are you citing here?
While this is an important distinction, corporate censorship is a real social problem when the corporations control the platforms most people use to speak.
A circumstance where a single entity controls the conversations of billions is unparalleled, and our practices need to be re-evaluated.
There have been many right-wing accounts banned that were much better behaved than Milo. Twitter definitely censors based on progressive American sensitivities:
Is that article some kind of joke? Using flowery academic language to defend what basically amounts to children posting trolling memes that make fun of fat people.
Also, it did not cite a single source backing up your claims. Can you try to be a bit more specific?
There are countless "liberals" who have called for the murder of straight white men on Twitter (as a very simple example see the #KillAllMen hashtag). They weren't banned, despite being against the fabled "terms of service". But if someone criticises a feminist or other "liberal" group, they are likely to get banned.
To pretend there isn't a clear bias by Twitter is just being disingenuous. I say this as someone who very left on most issues, its quite depressing seeing everything descend into authoritarianism.
No, I've never been on Twitter. I make up all of my opinions on the spot. It's not like Twitter's "Trust and Safety Council" is made up predominantly of "liberals"[1], and their entire purpose is to decide what accounts should be banned and how the process of "keeping people safe" should be done (thus introducing massive bias, especially since many of the members have shown that even disagreements are considered some level of harassment).
I honestly don't care all that much about Twitter. If Twitter wants to run their website into the ground by pandering to a vocal minority, that's their business (I've never liked Twitter anyway and preferred GNU Social et al). It's just a bit frustrating when people go full Orwell and suddenly redefine "harassment" to mean "disagreement" and various other definition changes.
> If you want a platform of alt-right trolls go on the_donald or 4chan.
Ah yes, I don't like a certain group of liberals because they act in an authoritarian way and therefore I'm part of the "alt-right". That makes perfect sense.
> It's just a bit frustrating when people go full Orwell and suddenly redefine "harassment" to mean "disagreement" and various other definition changes.
It's tough. So, at the end of the day, Twitter doesn't want certain content on their platform. Milo was determined to be that content. Twitter didn't say he was harassing people, they were extremely vague about it.
> Ah yes, I don't like a certain group of liberals because they act in an authoritarian way and therefore I'm part of the "alt-right". That makes perfect sense.
I didn't say you were part of the alt-right: just that if you want the kind of stuff that Milo was spewing those are the places for it, not Twitter (by their own decision.)
> GNU Social
It's not like if it has "GNU" in the title it's instantly a completely-free platform.
There is this weird effect in American politics where each wing considers the other to be the authoritarian one.
The American right loves its military industrial complex, its police crackdowns, its bank bailouts, its manifest destiny, and so on. These are not left wing institutions in creed or membership. You could ask the same question: do you not see rightism (ingroup loyalty, moral purity, respect for authority) as naturally decaying into authoritarianism?
> There is this weird effect in American politics where each wing considers the other to be the authoritarian one.
It is weird, in a way, yes. I think, though, that when you think from each side's point of view, it makes sense that that's the case.
> The American right loves its military industrial complex, its police crackdowns, its bank bailouts, its manifest destiny, and so on. These are not left wing institutions in creed or membership.
I think you are painting with too broad a brush. There is far more nuance in what is considered "the American right" than you imply. Five minutes on the Internet and you can find people who are obviously considered "on the right" who don't agree with any of those things.
> You could ask the same question: do you not see rightism (ingroup loyalty, moral purity, respect for authority) as naturally decaying into authoritarianism?
I would ask you to more clearly define rightism, because those three things are just as prevalent on the left, if not moreso.
> You could ask the same question: do you not see rightism (ingroup loyalty, moral purity, respect for authority) as naturally decaying into authoritarianism?
Respect for authority is _by definition_ authoritarian and is completely separate from the left-right axis. As for loyalty and moral purity those seem more like talking points than actual political views.
Twitter's only statement is that some of Milo's followers behaved badly. If they followed this rule consistently they'd ban a lot of popular left leaning accounts to.
Instead, left-leaning accounts that directly violate the Terms of Service by doxxing others (Shanley publishing Milo's cell phone number) and advocate for violence (various self-styled 'antifa' accounts) remain up.
Yes, legally you have no right to free speech on a non-government platform. But as a Twitter user - and a left leaning person - I'd rather not have my platform dictate who I can and can't listen to.
The story of Milo and the terms he broke has been widely publicized. He broke those terms, and that is not in question. Other people's behavior has absolutely nothing to do with Milo being banned for his behavior.
You'e new here. Generally on HN, someone asking for a reference is responded to with a reference. If it's not in question - it is BTW - you'll be able to find one.
> Other people's behavior has absolutely nothing to do with Milo being banned for his behavior.
Indeed, it simply calls into question why Twitter seems to ignore the Terms of Service for some users while apply it to other users for the actions of their followers.
That difference lasts only as long as it takes for federal interests to infiltrate that corporation under the guise of normal employees and board members.
That's not true. The us government is asking for the account holders identities (no shut down request) because the government suspects that the account owners are civilians (or possibly foreign actors) posing as federal employees. The account derives it's authority by saying that it is run by employees of a federal agency. It's a serious federal crime to impersonate a federal employee. The government has not asked to shut down the account.
I suspect the government will make a decision after they know the identities, but there is just enough evidence to assume the account holder is faking their authority as there is to believe its real.
> (possibly foreign actors) posing as federal employees
> impersonate a federal employee
Just one look at the twitter account in question makes it clear this entire line of reasoning is absurd. Can't wait to hear more ham-fisted nonsense like this in the weeks to come.
Impersonating a Federal Agent is not a "serious" federal crime. And typically it's only prosecuted when done in relation to another crime. The only crime here is saying mean things about Trump.
I thought it was impersonating a federal agent in the line of duty that was a crime, ie it would not be a crime to claim that you work for the USCIS at a party, but it would be a crime to claim you work for the USCIS and demand to see someone's green card.
Claiming to be a federal agent, ex-military, a doctor, etc. is NOT a priori a crime. You can claim all manner of things. They may be unethical, but claiming something is very rarely criminal.
Spreading propaganda is not criminal. Many days I wish it were, but it is not.
You have to proceed to ACTION before something becomes criminal. So, if that account shared confidential information, now the feds can probably go get a subpoena and crack the identity.
Unless they have a subpoena, this is a fishing expedition for the purposes of intimidating others.
Are you sure about that? Police impersonation to my knowledge do not require additional criminal actions to be illegal, and it is enough to verbal claim that you are a police officer or change the appearance of a car to look like a police car.
The only case I know where police impersonation is legal is if those involved recognize the imposter is not a real police officer, and the imposter is not trying to deceive those involved into thinking he/she is. That is some very clear criteria of both intent and results which is part of the "rarely criminal" cases where without it it is criminal.
You don't need to pull someone over and do something which is illegal for a civilian. If you just modify a car to look like a police car and driver around with it, then that is likely enough. Similar, even if you only walk around in a police uniform with a fake badge and don't do anything more, it will likely end up badly.
Context matter, which is why intent and result are part of the equation. If people are being fooled into thinking someone is a police, and someone had the intent to fool others (maybe with the intention to create false association), then that is likely fully enough to get a person charged with impersonating a police officer.
That's the equivalent of stolen valor, which is a separate issue of fabricating past accomplishments. The commentator did not claim they were a current CIA officer.
There are, I'm certain, many people impersonating Donald Trump on Twitter -- after all, his account goes out of its way to specify that he's the real Donald Trump.
The same is certain to be true for high-ranking members of his administration. The same is true for, I'm sure, quite a lot of members of Congress. My list of fake Supreme Court justices on Twitter unfortunately is down to just the fake Scalia who tweets from beyond the grave, since the other former members apparently went inactive or dropped off the service.
And it's not just the current government, either -- there's a Richard Nixon impersonator on Twitter who's been known to do some pretty biting commentary on current affairs.
And many of those accounts "spread political propaganda", if by that you mean "express and advocate for views contrary to those of the actual people the accounts impersonate".
Would you advocate that they all be rounded up for their vicious, heinous, nation-threatening crimes? Also, when did expressing a political opinion become a federal crime?
Is spreading political propaganda a crime? I'm sure the US Government would have loved to have had your legal advice back during WW2 when it was spreading anti-Hitler propaganda throughout Europe.
Almost everything the CIA does is illegal in the countries it operates in. Regardless of whatever US law says, I am certain that spreading anti-Hitler propaganda in German-controlled WWII Europe was certainly illegal.
Well then if the Trump administration is searching for "Foreign actors posing as federal employees", shouldn't it first look into a mirror instead of twitter first?
Sick burn. However, about ten paragraphs in, and after mentioning Trump serveral times, the article states:
> There is no indication that the White House was aware of the summons, which was signed by a Florida-based supervisor who works in an office that investigates employee corruption, misconduct and mismanagement. The supervisor could not be reached for comment.
So while this supervisor might be serving as a catspaw of the administration (who can say at this point?), this article (and the related discussion) seems to be using it to stir up controversy about Trump, whose only known involvement at present is as one of the subjects `ALT_uscis` tweets about.
Can you please post a single tweet where Milo incited people to harass Leslie Jones?
If, instead, you believe mocking and criticizing someone is inciting people to harass, do you think all popular accounts that mock and criticize others should be removed from twitter"?
All the tweets are deleted now so obviously I can't post any of them. Twitter does have access to Milo's DM history, however, and you can be banned for inciting harassment through direct message.
You want them to reveal Milo's private DMs with other people? I think they absolutely shouldn't: Milo still has a right to privacy. I get that it makes things inconvenient for us onlookers because we can't independently verify these things to determine if Twitter is overreaching, but the alternative is exposing private information about Milo to the world. If Milo were to say "go ahead and release everything you have on me, I've got nothing to hide" that would be different.
Easy: they don't benefit at all from it. I'm not a lawyer, but I can easily see how it's not a good idea to talk bad about someone who used your platform.
There's nothing to gain, and a lot to lose by doing so. It's kinda lose-lose for Twitter, but few people seriously care about Milo getting banned.
I'm not really debating you since there isn't much to debate. I'm just curious why you care so much about what a private company allows on their platform.
The comment you are replying to didn't even MENTION twitter. They aren't praising Twitter for refusing the order, they are criticizing the government for requesting the order. Why is what Twitter has done in the past relevant to that critique?
They don't have to be the same. Apples and oranges are not the same but they have enough similarities to be comparable in certain cases.
When Twitter's defense against the government's request is because of the ideal of free speech, not the First Amendment but the ideal that it is based on that predates the First Amendment, then it is worth pointing out the double standard in Twitter's own behavior not upholding that ideal.
That said, Twitter having a double standard does not invalidate their argument. From a purely logical perspective, an argument does not depend upon who says it or why they say it. But rarely are people interacting on that purely logical level, and so Twitter's double standard does allow us to both poke fun at Twitter and to call into question their actual reasoning as potentially being different than their stated reasoning.
>When Twitter's defense against the government's request is because of the ideal of free speech, not the First Amendment but the ideal that it is based on that predates the First Amendment, then it is worth pointing out the double standard in Twitter's own behavior not upholding that ideal.
There's no double standard though. This is like saying: "how can a newspaper say they're in favor of free speech if they're not willing to publish any story that's submitted to them?"
Twitter can support free speech by advocating for their right to control their platform, and for other people to have the right to create their own platforms and put content on it. The government using strong-arm tactics to unmask critics is a threat to free speech through any medium.
That is not even what's happening. Did you even read the report?
The US is asking for the identities, because they suspect someone is impersonating a federal agent. The government has made NO REQUEST to shut down the account.
No-body believes that narrative, the account is called "Alt [Emoji] Immigration" and the bio says "Immigration resistance . Team 2.0 1/2 Not the views of DHS or USCIS. Old fellow drank russian soup."
While it's difficult to move everyone over to another social media account, it's easier than moving everyone over to another government. So yeah, it's quite different.
> We're talking about the same Twitter that shut down Milo Yiannopolis' account because Twitter didn't like what he was saying?
Nope! We're talking about the same Twitter that shut down Milo Yiannopolis' account because he openly encouraged people to harass an actress (Leslie Jones), including sharing fake screenshots making it look like she tweeted a bunch of offensive stuff, because she was in a movie he didn't like (Ghostbusters).
Those goalposts keep moving. Did you happen to see what that tweet was in response to? @whitebecky1776: "hey @Lesdoggg you look like a pregnant gorilla" "I was so hyped to see harambe on the big screen @Lesdoggg" "Harambe gave birth to @Lesdoggg don't disrespect harambe."
My impression is that Twitter leans towards letting minor offenses slide and punishing only the most egregious. I'm not saying I agree with that policy, but it is consistent.
So, unless you think that losing your temper at someone who repeatedly calls a black person an ape is morally equivalent to leading an extended harassment campaign against someone and fraudulently attributing statements to them because they were in a movie you didn't like, you've got no grounds at all to say that Milo was only banned for his politics.
May I suggest, as a matter of tactics, that you pick some less thoroughly reprehensible martyrs next time? Surely there's someone who's been banned from Twitter who didn't obviously deserve it.
As far as I can tell, none of the ape comments were made by Milo? Which specific comment of his did he do so, or incite harassment?
I researched Milo for a while, after seeing his initial interview with David Rubin, where he explained some of the politics behind Gamergate. Although his own politics is quite contrary to mine, I agree with him that there is a regressive left that would rather shutdown conversations than debate. They have a blatant disregard of facts and data, exactly what they accuse conservatives of doing, but they feel they are uniquely justified by noble motives which is misguided at best. I would agree with Milo on that being a nonsensical approach, and should be admonished by any true liberal who supports free speech and the exchange of ideas. Twitter effectively held Milo accountable for the actions of other people who were simply on the same side of the argument, that being that the new Ghostbusters was a terrible movie, on a pretty weak premise of his inciting harassment, but as far as I can tell from his quotes, all he was guilty of in that context was being downright nasty in his criticism of Leslie Jones' appearance and her illiteracy (as her spelling and grammar is atrocious), at the same time as stating his sexual proclivity towards African American men. But perhaps I missed some of his quotes, as I didn't follow the original conversation and have only found quotes of him in various articles, so please enlighten me with specific quotes if I'm mistaken.
> As far as I can tell, none of the ape comments were made by Milo? Which specific comment of his did he do so, or incite harassment?
Milo wasn't doing the racist jabs, no. shitgoose said that Leslie Jones was just as bad as Milo because she also tried to sic her fanbase on someone (Whitebecky1776). I was pointing out that Whitebecky1776 provoked Jones with repeated racial slurs, whereas Jones provoked Milo by being in a movie he didn't like; perhaps Jones should have received some sort of disciplinary action, but the situations aren't really equivalent.
(1) Jones sends her followers to harass Milo, (2) Milo does not like Jones's movie. Milo gets banned. Jones doesn't. Yea, situations aren't really equivalent.
if anything, it shows that Twitter is able to tell the difference between a harassing troll, that requires moderation like any public communication platform on the net needs to moderate, and the other being someone who needs their right to free speech defended when criticising the government.
I wanted to downvote you but did not because I suppose this is an important question to ask and it adds to the discussion. However, the way you frame the question, the feigned incredulity, almost makes me reconsider. Unless you truly mean you're unable to spot the difference between the two (in which case I don't need to hear about it).
For values of "didn't like what he was saying" equal to: flagrantly and repeatedly violated their terms of service and broke the law by using twitter to organize targeted harassment of individuals.
What ToS did he break? Because as far I know he broke none. He did however call out that actress who has a twitter account full of racist tweets which do violate the ToS and her account is still active and actively posting racist tweets.
You talking about Leslie Jones? He photo-shopped some images to look like screen grabs of Leslie Jones saying racist things. Can you link to a racist tweet she has actually posted?
And the TOS term he broke was actively inciting others to personally harass Leslie Jones.
As for inciting others to personally harass someone, Leslie Jones herself is very guilty of that, even moreso than Milo. Nowhere did Milo say (as far as I remember) something like "go and harass her", while she did exactly that to someone https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352
EDIT: I don't understand the downvotes, can someone explain why? Those are links directly to her twitter, primary source. Nothing is made up by me. Just because it goes against your opinion?
"Replying to @PetriJonathan @whitebecky1776
bitch I want to tell you about your self but I'm gonna let everybody else do it I'm gonna retweet your hate!! Get her!!"
Inarguably inciting harassment.
The last couple of years have been a disaster in terms of brigading and willful ignorance of evidence that does not fit the narrative of the commentator. Rational views are easily drowned out online, becoming a signal vs noise issue.
I see this on a daily basis, on all aspects of the politial spectrum. Bigger issue than fake news in my opinion.
Whoa. So many comments. Don't know where to start..
I was definitely not commenting on Twitter's action on this order, though I am glad that they're fighting for free speech. That doesn't mean I agree with all of Twitter's past decisions, and I don't know enough about Milo Yiannopolis's case to express a strong opinion about where I stand on the issue.
As with a lot of things in life, I think there's a huge gray area in this spectrum of freedom vs security debate, but I hope that we can all agree that being prosecuted for criticizing the government is past the gray area, as is citing freedom of speech as the justification to tweeting out a bomb threat. (I would put harassment that incites fear in others in this category, but whether to penalize those who encourage harassment or just those who actually do the harassment seems to be a matter to debate about.) And this particular case seems to be in the former bucket; even though there may be some parts of the law that allows the government to order the identity of the account, making use of that is abusing its power with bad implications.
Someone in the thread pointed out that the white house may not have known anything about the order (~10th paragraph in the article), and the article might be part of the fear-mongering happening on the leftist news. While I hope that that is the case, I think we should all still be vigilant to these signs of threats to freedom and our rights. I did not grow up in a dictatorship so I can only guess at how it starts; I don't think it happens overnight, I think it's a gradual process of taking away our freedom, spreading only their version of the news as truth, then more and more until we are that boiling frog in the pot that did not see it coming. But we can be vigilant and fight each time anything like this happens, as Twitter is doing now by fighting and publicizing this case.
Does the same sentiment protect Manning or Snowden?
In this case:
> The account is claimed to be the work of at least one federal immigration employee...
> ...the account describes itself as "immigration resistance."
Are government officials resisting their own roles covered by the same sentiment?
Lets face it, Trump has no end of critics; there is a reason this one is being targeted, so general "free speech" discussions are missing the target here.
doesn't NSA have access to all my gmail, facebook, yahoo ect. I have no idea what govt can see and what it can't so I assume govt know everything.
It think its unfair to call this "criticizers of the government" there are thousands of such accounts. This account is undermining immigration actions that people elected this govt for.
If the government were to pursue this kind of action against "criticizers" of the government on Twitter, that's all they'd be doing. Your imaginary scenario may well be terrifying to you. But it's not reality, as you seem to know by using the word "potentially." Focus on reality instead of a dreamed-up fantasy, and you won't be so truly terrified.
Its disturbing the amount of posters here who are directly equating banning users who actively post racist, hateful bullshit and handing over the user info of somebody who opposes the president.
Because they did one they should do the other? what?
That may also be disturbing (if true), but in no world is it more disturbing than the executive branch of the federal government attempting to punish dissent. This is on a very short list of the most important things our system is designed to prevent from working. It hasn't worked yet, and the courts seem to be broadly willing to check the administration's behavior, but it's telling that they even had the gall to try.
The IRS also was scrutinizing liberal and Occupy groups. And it was all done at the request of senators. Political groups are not supposed to claim 501c4 nonprofit status. Tea Party and Occupy groups were breaking the law so the IRS started looking into the explosion in political groups claiming non-profit status. Keywords the IRS agents were on the lookout for included "Tea Party", "Patriots", or "9/12 Project", "progressive," "occupy," "Israel," "open source software," "medical marijuana" and "occupied territory advocacy".
Then Congressional Republicans turned it into a successful fake news witch hunt against Obama saying he was abusing his power by targeting conservatives.
Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party", "patriots", or "9/12" in their names.
...
While [Inspector General J. Russell George] had many sources confirming the use of "Tea Party" and related criteria described in the report, including employee interviews and e-mails, he found no indication in any of those other materials that "Progressives" was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention.[86] The letter further stated that out of the 20 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "progress" or "progressive", 6 had been chosen for more scrutiny as compared to all of the 292 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "tea party", "patriot", or "9/12".[85][89][90][91]
> Do you have any sourced information that suggests what is on Wikipedia is wrong?
Are you implying that everything on Wikipedia is correct?
> I'd love to hear it if so.
This implies that you've never read anything negative about Wikipedia. I feel like, if that's the case, you must either have avoided such information, or have just gotten Internet access for the first time. If you would honestly love to hear it, then you could have already found it by using Google.
The implication is that they've never read any sourced information about bias on Wikipedia, not that they've never read anything negative about Wikipedia. Certainly we've all read plenty of opinion and insinuation, but factual analysis is harder to come by, not just for this question, but for all questions. It's a pretty good rule of thumb that you can't do a simple Google for factual information on a hot topic, because your results will be drowned out by opinionated noise. So your implication that you can find this "by using Google" immediately makes me think that you haven't actually seen any yourself, but are parroting opinions you've read. I haven't seen any objective analyses of Wikipedia's bias myself, but this isn't something I look for information on, and I suspect they exist somewhere.
Edit: I didn't know what sea-lioning was, so I just looked it up. Asking for sources when someone makes a broad claim doesn't seem to fit the definition.
I disagree. "Sourced information" is arbitrary, vague, and ultimately meaningless. All information is "sourced," and each person must come to their own conclusions about the validity of information. Finally, while an objective study of factual accuracy might be feasible, any study of political bias would necessarily be subjective, because despite any attempted rigor, it ultimately boils down to the researcher's judgment. Therefore, believing that Wikipedia must be unbiased unless it can be objectively proven to be biased is unreasonable. On the contrary: since Wikipedia is made by humans, and humans are necessarily biased, it must be biased.
> So your implication that you can find this "by using Google" immediately makes me think that you haven't actually seen any yourself, but are parroting opinions you've read. I haven't seen any objective analyses of Wikipedia's bias myself, but this isn't something I look for information on, and I suspect they exist somewhere.
Fascinating: you make an unwarranted assumption about me, then accuse me of parroting, and then admit that you yourself have neglected to even attempt the most basic search. You seem to be accusing me of what you have convicted yourself of.
I perceive two definitions of sea-lioning, one of which is attempting to provoke by making demands for sources which meet arbitrary standards. It's typically followed by moving the goalposts until the respondent gives up, after which the sea-lion asserts victory. In other words, it's a form of trolling, not of serious discussion. Given the nature of the argument (whether Wikipedia is biased is necessarily subjective), and the arbitrary standard ("sourced information"), I conclude that it's sea-lioning. You're free to disagree.
Lookit, you made a very broad claim for which you still haven't even tried to give any evidence. It's fine to say, "in my opinion, based on what I've read, wikipedia is biased", but when you present something as a fact, if someone asks you for evidence, you shouldn't be outraged, you should either say, "oh you're right, here's some evidence", or you should say "I don't really have any direct evidence, this is my opinion based on my accumulated experience".
I really do understand the annoyance of finding and citing sources for things that you're pretty sure are true based on accumulated experience, but don't have any handy links for - we all have that problem, it's exhausting - but it doesn't mean you can just state your opinions as fact and expect to not be called out on sourcing them. I find the pattern of "go look it up yourself" that you used especially off-putting - you made the claim, you aren't willing to put the work in to cite sources, but you expect me to?
I'm not making a claim one way or another about wikipedia's bias. It isn't a topic that interests me enough to go research it. I only hopped into the thread because you triggered my pet peeve of "here's a claim, now you look it up!". But obviously that is always stupid to do. Edit: that is, hopping into threads you have no investment in is stupid to do.
I'm sorry I accused you of parroting, I couldn't think of a better word.
Look, I just explained that any claim about Wikipedia's political bias is necessarily subjective. Obviously, therefore, I am not claiming my statement as fact.
If your beef with me truly boils down to, "You didn't prepend the words 'I think' to your claim," then I would have to agree that this has been a waste of time. Just because someone uses the word "is" doesn't mean they intend their statement as a fact. This isn't an academic journal, it's the Internet Argument Clinic.
(I really wish the other guy had answered my question of whether he thinks everything on Wikipedia is correct. That's the real issue at stake.)
That's a good point, and you're probably right that a lot of it is due to that.
I would add my anecdotal observations that, whenever I have looked at the edit history and talk pages for anything remotely political, the non-left views are virtually shouted down and literally edited out ad nauseam. The editors by-and-large seem to have a strong left-leaning ideology.
Trying to avoid getting further into the muck - I meant the very specific way of punishing dissent: attempting to reveal the identity of anonymous dissenters.
It's just amusing to me how only one of those bad things seems to be "terrifying" or "disturbing". Which is worse, unmasking the twitter account owner, or Susan Rice's unmasking of intel reports on Trump's campaign staff?
Would it bother you if Nancy Pelosi's name did? After all, she's had meetings with the Russian prime minister, ambassador, etc. Photographic proof on Twitter.
"intelligence reports on Russia" = had a phone conversation with Russian ambassador. in soviet union one could easily get a prison sentence for talking to US ambassador. it is fascinating to watch the transformation of US into USSR.
While I don't doubt that there's an increasing trend to shout "hate speech" in an effort to shut down discussion (and that's obviously dangerous) there is equally a worrying trend of dismissing co-ordinated campaigns or harassment and personal attacks as "free speech".
There's more complexity here than you're acknowledging.
I don't see why criticism being normalized as hate-speech is more scary than equating banning users who actively post racist, hateful bullshit and handing over the user info of somebody who opposes the president.
One has people starting mobs against each other while the other has people thinking actions taken against demagogues is of the same vein as government suppression of dissent.
You're more afraid of mobs of people shit talking you than the government arresting you for your opinions if they don't agree with them?
That's a fair point as well. But, both of those are cultural issues we will work through eventually, IMO. The federal government abusing its power is a procedural error that needs immediate veto.
Surely this is really the fundamental disagreement.
Group 1: I would rather deal with harassment and hate speech than risk erroneously silencing someone I need to hear.
Group 2: I would rather risk silencing someone who's voice ought to be heard than allow someone use speech to hurt another person with harassment or hate.
---
Group 1 isn't trying to promote hate speech or harassment, they're just worried about the potentially malicious intentions of those that want to decide what speech falls under those banners.
Group 2 isn't trying to silence opinions they disagree with, they're just worried that people are getting better at subtly codifying their hate speech in a way that gives them plausible deniability to out-groups but is obviously hateful to the in-group.
I think the important takeaway is that neither 'side' is evil and despite the fact that it causes heated arguments one should maintain respect for those they disagree with.
Your description of the groups is oversimplifying things and isn't a very "fundamental" dichotomy at all. The key phrase is "silencing someone." There is a continuum of power that a private individual or corporation or government can have to "silence" someone.
At one end of the continuum is an individual hanging up the phone when they decide they've heard enough from whoever called them. I think most of us would agree that this doesn't violate the principles of free speech, even if the caller was expressing valid ideas.
At the other end of the continuum is a government imprisoning someone for their speech. I think most of us would agree that this violates the principles (and laws) of free speech, except in certain circumstances (e.g. falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre).
But there are cases in the middle of the continuum where things aren't so clear. If I run a small blog with occasional guest writers, a lot of us would probably agree that I can choose at will which content I publish without violating the principles of free speech.
But what if my blog has millions of viewers? What if it has become more of a "news site" or "forum" than a "blog?" What if it's the largest such site in the world, and the only one with significant market share? Perhaps then many of us would accuse me of violating the principles of free speech, since I have significant power to "silence" certain people or ideas.
I'm still a bit confused about libertarianism. Is this argument libertarian? It feels like it is because you're arguing in favor of allowing people to do as they please (freedom of speech) so long as it doesn't cause clear hurt to others (like yelling "fire" and giving someone a heart attack). You're arguing for the govt to get out of our way, and for private entities to fill in gaps, without restrictions. But if what you want is this unrestricted freedom, then shouldn't you be happy about Twitter? After all, by removing Milo, Twitter exercised the very freedom you seem to advocate for. They are a private entity, doing as they please. Why should Twitter be forced to store Milo's data on their servers and serve it up to users if Twitter, a private entity, chooses not to?
I understand libertarianism in many social contexts (e.g. "People who aren't straight are not hurting anyone by not being straight, so there should not be any draconian laws against people for not being straight"), but I can't wrap my head around libertarianism in the context of all these "free-speech" arguments. I feel like I'm missing something, which would make a lot of sense considering how little I have read about libertarianism
The key thing to understand about libertarianism is that all of the arguments against governments apply equally to any organization with sufficient coercive power.
Many libertarians believe that if not for government interference, monopolies wouldn't form in the free market. Those people are right in some cases (e.g. payment processing) and wrong in others (e.g. roads). But the dogmatic position asserts that it's true in all cases, and then no corporation would have sufficient coercive power so you only have to worry about the government.
If you take the practical approach and accept that there are always going to be some private monopolies and oligopolies, or even the pragmatic approach that they actually exist today and we have to deal with them today even if the wonder of the free market will eliminate them in the future, then we have to hold sufficiently coercive corporations to the same standards as governments. And at the same time try as hard as we can to destroy their coercive power, so that we can stop needing to do that.
Thank you so much! This comment has been very informative, and I'm glad you threw in the part about being dogmatic. I had been assuming libertatians were very dogmatic about libertarianism based on the libertarians I know, but reading your comment made me realize the stupidity of that.
I wouldn't call my previous comment particularly libertarian, although some of the claims seem to overlap with libertarianism as I understand it. Most of my comment is descriptive rather than prescriptive. I certainly think you're looking into my comment and find things I didn't say or imply, like the "private entities filling in gaps without restrictions" part.
Really, what I'm saying is that there are two ends of the continuum that look pretty obvious and which I suspect the vast majority of people would agree with, but within the continuum things get less clear are offer more room for disagreement.
I find it funny that someone isn't sure whether to agree with you until you put a label on your views. Once you pick a team, they'll be free to figure out what they think.
Lol my comment started with "I'm still a bit confused about libertarianism" and went on to ask for clarification on libertarianism, a subject I know little about. The reply was essentially "You looked deeper than my comment really went into libertarianism" - how did you arrive at your current conclusion? Who here is looking for a team? The person asking to understand a point of view? The person clarifying their original message? I don't think anyone hear is looking to team up based on labels
Sorry, I assumed you were libertarian based on your comment, and went from there. You definitely didn't say or imply anything about "private entities filling in gaps without restrictions" I just assumed you felt that way because I assumed you were libertarian based on your stance.
I definitely agree that it's not black and white, especially as you delve into the corner cases.
I'm well aware. I don't think that opposition to conscription is equivalent to falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, but the latter phrase is still the goto example.
But the point in that post is this "goto example" is actually an example of the vague rationalizations used in attempts to censor speech. It covers two pillars of free speech exceptions which are both controversial - incitement(the case where the phrase came from), which Brandenburg vs Ohio narrowed significantly, and false statement of fact, which is very controversial, with decisions like Sullivan protecting newspapers from almost any liability vs the government.
The problem with almost all of the exceptions on freedom of speech is that they're all meant to be just that, exceptions in the most extreme of cases, and none of them are without controversy and tons of reinterpretation. Handwaving them away with the simplistic "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" does not do any of them justice.
I really am quite aware of Schenck v. United States. Truly. I don't agree with that particular application of the phrase. However, the phrase still does describe what I believe is a genuine instance where speech ought to be infringed. Moreover, it is a common idiom for such instances regardless of its original application to criticism of conscription.
I think Group 2 is, in practice, more reasonable. It seems like the only time someone gets banned is when they're a huge asshole about whatever controversial opinion they may have. I've yet to see a tactful, levelheaded person be banned for their controversial views. It's like the only casualties with Group 2's ideals are annoying assholes, which hardly feels like a loss.
To me, having terrible people silenced in your community seems far better of a "drawback" than having marginalized people harassed in your community.
That may be an interesting debate, but it is a derailment from what's going on here. This is just about the executive of the US federal government attempting to determine the identity of an anonymous dissident.
I cannot agree with the way you've set up those groups. Mainly because I don't think it's that difficult to ban the harassment and hate speech without erroneously silencing someone who shouldn't be silenced. I don't buy the slippery slope argument on this one.
I honestly think that Group 1 is more often, "I'm fine with the others being harassed, so I'm going to pretend we're talking about criticism or something like that instead of harassment."
> I think the important takeaway is that neither 'side' is evil
I disagree. While group 2 may not intend evil, they are attempting to control others' speech. By their own standard, effect matters, not intent. To exercise control over others against their will is evil. Therefore they are evil.
Their sole principle is that the ends justify the means, which is the equivalent of might-makes-right. By that priniciple, whoever happens to be in power will get away with whatever they want. In other words, opportunistic authoritarianism rather than the rule of law.
Yes, milo yiannopoulos'a criticism of the ghostbusters movie. Show me the actual "hate speech". It's become common for any criticism of liberals to be framed as hate speech.
If all he'd done was criticize a movie or a celebrity, nothing would have happened but what what he actually did was to repeat racist slurs[1] and incite other people to attack her by reposting fake screenshots as if they're real[2], and continuing long after it was clear that she wasn't interested in hearing from him or the rest of the GamerGate brigades.
> Harassment: You may not incite or engage in the targeted abuse or harassment of others.
> Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease.
Not to defend Milo here (it certainly sounds like he deserved to be banned for harassment), but the tweet in this screenshot doesn't seem to be him? It's from "evyarb9000", and from a quick Google search, Milo's username was "Nero". (He must have grabbed that handle pretty early on...)
If a government employee publicly takes positions in opposition of their job duties, it's legitimate for the government to look to see if they are properly doing their job.
Everyone, gov. employees included, have first amendment rights. However they do not have the right to have their own agenda in their role as a government worker. That flies in the face of the core principle of the constitutional election of legislative and executive officers.
(If you want an example of twitter being inconsistent, just compare the suspension of Glenn Reynolds - instapundit - for tweeting "Run. Them. Down." in response to rioters on I277 and the lack of action on the multiple and explicit death threats the are tweeted regularly.)
> If a government employee publicly takes positions in opposition of their job duties
Civil servants swear an oath to defend the constitution, not the political interests of whoever happens to be in office currently. Anyone who doesn't want to live in a banana republic should strongly support that.
And the government is welcome to investigate. But they can't compel a third party to help them conduct the investigation just because it would be easier on them.
I doubt there's a legal basis for saying that these "alt_X" accounts are functioning in the role of a federal worker. They're obviously not advocating the official government position -- that's the whole point of them. They clearly state they aren't reflective of the views of the agency they're referencing. You'd effectively be arguing that no government employee could ever, in any capacity, express an opinion related to the function of their agency.
> But they can't compel a third party to help them conduct the investigation just because it would be easier on them.
This is a ridiculous statement. Who isn't a third party in an investigation, other than the investigated and the investigators? Bank records, third party statements, etc. This is one of those statements to save for posterity.
As many have noted, suspending accounts is very different than de-anonymizing them. And the government doing things is different than a private organization doing things.
What disturbs me even more, is how the media is able to shape the narrative that this is about president Trump's hurt feelings, and has nothing to do with anything else.
Like the whole Muslim ban story [that was really a list of countries numerating all the death sentence destinations to Americans].
Or kind of like the narrative that Assad likes to gas random civilians whenever the US peaks in its interest in having an intervention over there.
Even though none of this makes sense, people just don't look any further into what really is going on, and happily degenerate into the narrative.
But the real irony here, is that the people at the top, that made and control your side, aren't really on your side... They just want division (and sides) - so you lose even when you think you are winning.
What is this about, then? I don't see what it has to do with your other examples. It appears to be a straightforward case of trying to identify and punish a political dissident.
The concerning thing is that the headline frames it in the context of Trump, implying that the government is pursuing the information at the President's request.
However, about ten paragraphs in they mention:
> There is no indication that the White House was aware of the summons, which was signed by a Florida-based supervisor who works in an office that investigates employee corruption, misconduct and mismanagement. The supervisor could not be reached for comment."
So all we know at the moment is that some manager, somewhere in Florida, is looking into `ALT_uscis`.
And yet, the article mentions Trump multiple times (including in the headline) before that, giving the impression that Trump is pursuing legal action that would seem to compromise freedom of speech.
It's not unreasonable to infer that the journalists taking this angle on the story have an axe to grind.
Either way, I took a brief look at the `ALT_uscis` account and didn't see any tweets alluding to malfeasance or obstructive action in their official capacity, so I'm inclined to agree that this is government overreach.
Thanks. This is very fair. I agree with your assessment that it appears to be overreach but that the President-personally angle is being overplayed here.
You're right, not handing over user info of somebody who opposes the president is a lot like not banning users who actively post racist, hateful bullshit.
Yep, try and sue or suppress someone and you run a real risk of having it blow up on you, defeating your intent to keep it quiet. Sometimes the best action is to do nothing, and let it blow over.
I wish it worked the way you said, but the Streisand Effect is a myth. If you've worked in customer service, public relations, as a manager, you know that 99% of the time when something is suppressed the problem goes away.
It's just as true from the opposite point of view. If you're a customer, client, or user, and your complaint or comment is suppressed, 99% of the time you do nothing or it goes nowhere.
Once in a long while, something blows up but it's not the rule.
I believe the definition of Streisand effect requires an addendum stating that it applies only when a large audience is involved.
Customers or clients are individuals who're bereft of the social connections that'd provide solidarity and encourage them to follow-up on their complaints unlike that provided by a larger audience. Furthermore , clients are just tired of dealing with what is often BS from the customer-care dept. As they try to suppress the complaint and therefore prefer to take the easier route which is often to just switch their services.
Furthermore, I'm not even considering perseverant personalities who burn brighter when someone tries to suppress the bonfire by blowing at it.
Wouldn't the Streisand Effect require that the government asked twitter to shut the account down, rather than just reveal the identity? What suppression is happening here (beyond wild speculation)?
Striesand Effect is about censorship/exposure and is not relevant to this case which is about seeking the identity of the poster presumably because they are a federal employee. It doesn't seem like they're trying to do anything quietly, just get information for now.
Trump has countless vocal detractors. Trying to silence a solitary one seems pointless, though I wouldn't entirely put that past this administration.
Am I misreading Streisand effect? Trying to prevent a fact from becoming well known causes it to become well known. The general message "Trump does bad things" is not a secret.
Suppose that were true. Then they would want to conduct this as publicly and noisily as possible in order to propagate that fear. Which would be counter to what Streisand Effect suggests.
You'd want to do this loudly enough that other dissidents hear and are afraid but not so loudly that other citizens get word and potentially join the dissidents' side. You don't want a public lawsuit. You want Twitter to silently hand over the data and for the last tweet from the account to be "Got fired today :(".
The core idea of the Streisand effect is when someone's response to criticism backfires and brings much more publicity to the criticism.
I guess if you truly believe the government was "just asking questions" or honestly investigating a crime without the underlying motive of hushing a pesky critic, then it wouldn't be an example of the Streisand effect.
And while apologists may bring up the Yiannopolis case as an example of hypocrisy, let's keep in mind that Twitter is free to censor speech how it sees fit. The US government is explicitly not.
Let's also remind everyone that his banning was not censorship. He sent harassment trolls after another user, and impersonated another user in tweets, both of which are direct violations of the Twitter ToS, and for that, he was banned.
Jails are full of people who swear they didn't do it, too. That doesn't mean that you should credulously believe them without doing your homework first.
My point was simply that there is no shortage of people claiming that some rule was unfairly enforced because the alternative is to admit they did something wrong. I used the most common expression of that concept but if you must, feel free to substitute, say, a bunch of divorced people in a bar ranting about how their ex caused 100% of the problems but fooled the judge.
Well, I did some further research. It's best not to generalize, as I did, based on Google result headlines. What I found was that there were many examples of calls for violence on Twitter #blacklivesmatter. I also found several articles which laid out calls for violence on Twitter by Black Lives Matter "supporters". However, I did not find any calls for violence against police officers by the official Black Lives Matter Twitter account itself.
I implore you to respond to drakonandor's comment. Please just address it and help me understand how their point isn't valid instead of going silent, because I don't want to believe that people are actually willing to face blatant hypocrisy and simply shut their minds and mouths because it challenges their worldview.
Free speech doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's a cultural value. Once the cultural value disappears, so too will the first amendment, either by a new amendment or by judges raised in a society where wrongthink was censored on every platform they grew up with. Yes Twitter doesn't technically have to support free speech as a private corporation, but its censorship is nothing to celebrate.
I think it's important to remember the context in which the USA created its laws about free speech. In that time, it was your right to buy a printing press, paper, ink, movable type, and print your own pamphlets. The government was not to stop you from doing that. The government was not going to force you to print your neighbors pamphlets.
Your neighbor is Milo. Your printing press is Twitter.
It's much different now. It's a lot easier to get access to a printing press than to something equivalent to Twitter.
Everyone is mutually addressable in meatspace. If you're in the same space, and someone else talks, you have no choice but to hear it or leave the premises (note that here, the people who don't like the speech must vacate, not the people speaking unpopular things). There's a great equalizing power in that.
In ye olden tyme, you could walk up to your neighbor and give him a copy of your paper. He could throw it away or refuse to talk to you, but there was no [legal] way to totally disappear/silence you.
As for corporations, if they didn't like you, all they could do is print their own counter-arguments. Now the corporate entity can effectively disappear you and cut you off not only from the larger world, but your personal social graph.
This is particularly insidious when it comes to the practice of shadowbanning (and I'm speaking in general -- not trying to start a debate as to whether Twitter engages in this or not).
It is actually much much much easier to start something like Twitter than it ever was to buy your own printing press, run it, and distribute its pamphlets. The analogy is whether or not it was easier to get access to the Philadelphia Gazette's printing press (or whoever was big back then), or to Twitter. Clearly, it's still easier to get access to Twitter, but similarly to the Gazette, they can decide not to print and distribute your pamphlet.
And if they did agree to print your diatribe against the President of the day under an anonymous byline, they sure as hell would have claimed the right to not release your name to the government.
I know that's the analogy people make, but it doesn't hold up.
Newspapers were hawked by criers in the street, or sold at stands directly adjacent to competing newspapers, or delivered to your doorstep where the other guy could place his competing paper right next to it. All the conduct was in the real, person-to-person world where every physically able person has the same access.
That access is completely non-existent in cyberspace; the user pulls only what he wishes to receive. In the physical world, the user receives pushes from everything in his environment.
Twitter is not a publication, but a piece of telecom infrastructure. People do not go to Twitter to see what Twitter thinks. They go to Twitter because they believe Twitter will successfully carry the communication from the people they trust and want to listen to.
Is it equally OK for the phone company to kick you off and take your phone number because they didn't like what you said through "their" telephone infrastructure? What about your ISP kicking you off because they don't like what you're posting over "their" pipes? If you don't like it, you can go to another company, or heck, even start your own, right?
Not only were newspapers publications with a monolithic, easily attributable point of view, but newspapers did not have circulation that reached into the billions either (and if one newspaper did get that large, they'd have been broken up in antitrust).
Now, companies can alter or silence someone else's speech, and remove the entire audience, because ironically, the audience no longer needs to go into the real, physical world that exists behind the keyboard to find out what's happening. They implicitly trust these platforms to present the information they request.
There are many big differences between cyberspace and physical space. We've made a lot of short-sighted policy by pretending there's a 1:1 mapping. Let's not keep that habit up.
You're proposing a lot of regulation that I'm personally not interested in.
And why is it that Twitter has to carry that regulatory burden? At what point does a company/website become telecom infrastructure?
One of the issues with ISPs and other utilities is that they have been given local monopoly in exchange for regulation, so I would not say they are similar to Twitter. This is also why your statement "you can go to another company, or heck, even start your own, right?" is supposed to cut.
You're also not giving very much credit to the audience you speak of. The audience has always had to ensure their own information sources are good.
>You're proposing a lot of regulation that I'm personally not interested in.
I'm not really proposing any specific regulation. While it is telecom infrastructure, I'm not suggesting they must be subject to exactly the same regulations as hard-line providers, and there are reasons to craft a different class of rules for them.
The point is that just saying "they're a private company, they can alter things and silence customers however they want" shouldn't work anymore.
>And why is it that Twitter has to carry that regulatory burden?
Because they're a massive communication platform that people depend on to accurately represent conversations. Why should Comcast or AT&T have to carry regulatory burden? Same reasons.
>At what point does a company/website become telecom infrastructure?
Whenever they act a carrier or intermediary in conversations not intended to go directly to/from them. If you're talking to someone else through something and trusting it to carry your communication, it's a telecommunication device.
Of course, there can be limits on when/where any potential restrictions should become effective.
>One of the issues with ISPs and other utilities is that they have been given local monopoly in exchange for regulation, so I would not say they are similar to Twitter. This is also why your statement "you can go to another company, or heck, even start your own, right?" is supposed to cut.
Whether the monopoly is imposed by fiat or occurs organically, it should still be recognized and addressed as a monopoly.
>You're also not giving very much credit to the audience you speak of. The audience has always had to ensure their own information sources are good.
Yes, but in the past, it was not really possible to shut everything else out. There was an opportunity for competitors to get their attention in the physical world where everyone in the same vicinity shares equal access. You couldn't get outside information whilst remaining cloistered up inside your house; you at least had to go to the doorstep or mailbox, where people could leave their own publications.
In cyberspace, you have a blank window until you explicitly request some content. There is no opportunity to present anything that the user doesn't explicitly pull, and then the user is pulling that data from platforms entirely under the control of a very small handful of corporations.
When at least 90% of people are getting their data from the same sources, it's reasonable for some controls to be in place.
This isn't new; until the early 00s, we had rules that prevented a single corporation from controlling too many media outlets in a specific market. Until the late 80s, we had the Fairness Doctrine to ensure that controversial public issues were presented fairly.
If those controls were needed to help control broadcasters whose range was 50 miles, how is it absurd to suggest similar things apply to Twitter/Facebook whose range is infinite and whose user base reaches into the billions, an appreciable percentage of all humanity?
There is rightly a very high bar for a private entity to be regulated as a public utility, and definitely Twitter does not meet it. Twitter has nowhere near a monopoly on "the communication from the people they trust and want to listen to", or any structural advantages that would lead to one. The internet has an extremely broad and diverse range of venues where folks can make their voices heard. If that weren't true, I might have some sympathy for your argument, but as it is, I think it is very misguided.
I can't edit my post now, but the original intent was to point out that Twitter does not have to publish Milo according to my understanding of the USA free speech laws and how they would analogously be applied.
For some reason, it seems like most people interpreted this the other way around.
Nothing stops you from making your own website now and distributing it. Indeed, there are entire portions of the internet devoted to giving people like Milo a platform.
You're free to move on to another platform to "express" yourself if you feel the need to. There is no shortage of sites dedicated to reprehensible content. A whole World Wide Web full of them! If you don't find one you can even start your own! You've never been able to go to someone else's property to express yourself in ways they don't agree with. They would throw you out. Nobody is forced to host unwanted guests.
IRL everyone censors themselves. I don't say what I think of my in-laws in front of them, I smile and nod and limit my exposure to them to a few hours less than once a year to keep face. Later I go to a friend's house to bitch about them. This is how a functional society works.
The idea you ever had some sort of right to use a private platform to broadcast any random garbage that comes to your head at the time is just absurd. We never put a cultural value on random mouth diarrhea. We are polite in some company and sometimes say controversial things in other company. That's a cultural value.
Having non-mainstream discussion in non-mainstream places and business restricting activity that's bad for their bottom line and/or interests is not an insult to culture, it's normal social interactions.
Personally I like moderation/censorship and it's even necessary for a functional community, otherwise all forums would degrade to the lowest common denominator, spam, memes, and shitposts, given enough time.
Not much. Probably not. I don't know the particular instance because I don't follow US Twitter politics that closely. First time I heard about M. Y. was when he has blocked from giving speech at some college campus.
However, as a general argument, things that are cultural values include 1) trusting people to recognize the few who say stupid things by the virtue of those things being stupid and wrong things to say, and 2) in the public sphere of life the disputes are to be resolved with discussion. Words either fought with words, or ignored for their sheer stupidity, not by removing the words from the arena. (And Twitter is big enough that it counts as a "public sphere". It resembles more a public park where people can yell at each other than a newspaper.)
In general, it is about respect: that one respects their fellow humans to believe that there's enough civilization in left in humans that the civilization will prevail if one acts civilized. And these values can be furthered only be leading by example, because you can't make people into some mold, you can only make them realize who they can be.
Now, of course the line between free speech and speech that can't be allowed constantly muddy: one is not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, one is not allowed incite people to commit crimes. But the culture where people are allowed to say stupid and wrong things is necessary for a liberal democracy, and it does not hinge only on what kind of censorship government enforces. Why, history has plenty of examples where the government only quietly nods in the background when the private individuals enforce the censorship.
But this is a tangent to the main topic. From what I read, in this particular case Twitter is for once doing the right thing by fighting this order. It might look like somewhat hypocrite in the process of doing so, but that does not matter: While it's bad for the culture if Twitter shuts people down because that kind of thing slowly erodes cultural values of free speech, it's by a magnitude worse if the government does it as that could not only erode but crush those values into pieces.
There is no moral courage in defending people who advocate for destruction of others' liberties or lives. Why should others suffer existential anxiety so you can feel good about your inclusive attitude to speech while doing nothing to uphold their safety?
Which is where the "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" quote comes from. But I never believed the people who spread that quote.
Well maybe you'd like the first amendment to be removed? Just because something has no cultural value doesn't stop someone, in this country, from having the right to say it. That's the beauty of our country. We can say great things, boring things, vile things, agreeable things, dissenting things and it's all protected. You remove protection for one, and you risk losing all of it.
I agree it's within Twitter's rights to censor the data flowing through their own platform, it's fairly impossible to argue otherwise. That said, I think speech should absolutely be protected, even for racist dickheads. Otherwise, who decides what's "right" and what's "wrong?" Some government committee? A handful of corporations? What happens when your opinions are suddenly unpopular? Whoops, should have defended (or at the very least accepted) the idea of free speech for all people and ideas.
I don't see that defending the right to free/unpopular/hate speech is the same as providing a platform for it.
A grocery store owner might not want anyone to stand in their store screaming epithets about black people, or ranting about Trump, or Clinton, or whatever. That doesn't mean the store owner believes these things should be blocked, just that they should be done somewhere else.
Incidentally, California state law allows people to collect signatures and get their message out (as long as they don't disturb the peace) in any public place, and includes grocery stores in "public place."
I remember seeing people collecting signatures at the mall when I was a teenager. The mall always posted a professionally printed sign saying, essentially, "these people have a right to do this, but we don't agree with them and we ask you to ignore them."
> Just because something has no cultural value doesn't stop someone, int he country, from having the right to say it.
Nobody is denying them that right. You don't have a right to a twitter account. If someone won't allow you to post on their website, you're free to post it on your own website. That's free speech.
And? I don't have a stake in the integrity of twitter or any other private business. If I don't like the product, I don't use it, same as any other business. Frankly, my default assumption regarding any business is that its integrity only goes as far as it affects the bottom line, and that has proven to be true with pretty much every business I've encountered. None of this has anything to do with free speech.
Your right of free speech ends at the point where it reduces my safety. We do not have unlimited rights of speech, and for good reason. To paraphrase Justice robert Jackson, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
"Well maybe you'd like the first amendment to be removed?"
See, this is what I'm talking about. I said I see no moral value in racists harassing people. And make no mistake, the topic we were discussing is exactly that. Racists harassing someone on a private company's platform. And now you're trying to make it like I want the 1st Amendment repealed. Despite the fact that Twitter is not bound by the 1st Amendment, nor have I called for anyone to be jailed.
"Just because something has no cultural value doesn't stop someone, in this country, from having the right to say it."
No, but that thing being harassment, which the event in question absolutely was, does stop you from having a right to say it.
"We can say great things, boring things, vile things, agreeable things, dissenting things and it's all protected. You remove protection for one, and you risk losing all of it."
I do not agree in the slightest. I'm pretty sure Twitter can not allow hate speech and harassment on their private platform, and free speech would be absolutely fine. There would be no chilling effect whatsoever.
"That said, I think speech should absolutely be protected, even for racist dickheads."
And I believe they have absolutely no right to harass another user, which is what we're talking about.
"Otherwise, who decides what's "right" and what's "wrong?""
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that advocating for the genocide of an entire people falls very squarely within the "wrong" category, with absolutely no risk of any slippery slope.
"What happens when your opinions are suddenly unpopular?"
I don't call for the genocide of an entire people, and I don't make racist remarks. I'll be fine.
"Whoops, should have defended (or at the very least accepted) the idea of free speech for all people and ideas."
Yeah, no. I'm still never going to defend or accept the idea that harassment should be tolerated.
Great points, and as short as your comment was, I somehow missed the distinction between right to free speech and right to harass people. I do think that line is, also, a bit of a gray area.
I also have to admit, I don't know exactly what happened with Yiannopolis' account (seemingly removed for violating TOS, although the alt-right seems to cry "censorship!!").
I think after reading your response, while I share your views on a lot of things, I still think things like racial cleansing should be protected speech, slippery slope or not. I think the people who subscribe to these ideas are vile people, but I do think they have the right to express their ideas, whether or not I want to hear it.
Everyone agrees they have a right to say it. They can buy a domain name and a hosting account and go just a crazy as their racist little selves can be.
Both the alt-right Milo crowd and I agree on that. I also think that Twitter has the legal and moral right to say whatever they want to publish on their own privately owned site. However, the people who most cry about the "censorship" of Milo disagree here. They grudgingly admit the legal right exists, but believe there is no moral right to control what I publish. By giving you an account, they hold that that right has been taken away, and that ethically, you can prevent me from exercising my right to speak as I want on my own site. How am I the restrictive one here?
The topic is not moral value. The topic is freedom as an individual to say and think what I wish within the eyes of the law. When a special interest of people decide what is right and wrong in the eyes of the law, it becomes well... the law. If the law is "you may not verbally harass someone" then what is the interpretation of what verbal harassment is? What is sufficient harm to a victim that would justify legal action? What is the legal action for verbally harassing someone (not in a workplace but in a public setting).
Some sad news for the social justice crowd... these types of internet harassment problems are simply not that important to enough people, and do not cause enough harm for laws like this to be enacted or even seriously considered on a federal or state level. Corporations like twitter can do as they wish, and will be scrutinized for censorship by all Americans who value their first amendment right.
Who...surprise...are the majority! The united states has made its military so strong and has armed itself to incredible levels of overkill just to protect these rights from foreign powers who disagree. That's not just coincidence. The people who founded this country, as well as the ones who now live here clearly want and value those rights and freedoms. So much so, they are willing to die in massive numbers for them. That's almost the opposite of genocide.
>What is the legal action for verbally harassing someone
There is no 'legal' action. There is Twitter's right as a private entity to enforce its property rights. I can't tell what's causing this irrationality and whataboutism.
Why should AT&T be coerced into allowing racist phone calls? Why should ISPs be coerced into hosting racist web sites or allowing racists to download racist content?
The distinction between telecom infrastructure and Twitter/FB/Google is becoming less and less clear by the year.
If GoDaddy was the only DNS provider, would you feel the same way? At what point does the government need to step in and say the Constitution applies here?
In an environment where law, custom, or technical challenges makes it difficult to silence dissent you can speak out against popular injustice as well as voice unpopular racist opinions.
Lets also keep in mind that hypocracy is irrelivant to the merits of a position, or a point being made.
If a smoker tells you smoking is bad, is he wrong?
One of the oldest tricks when somebody does something you dont like is to point out what an awful hypocrite they are, even when its only tangetial, or unrelated entirely.
I would think Twitter can censor how it sees fit about as much as a baker can make deals as they see fit. But apparently I'm wrong and it makes no sense to me.
Well, you are logically consistent. The caveat is that society, invested with the power to regulate behaviors, chooses to regulate certain types of behavior deemed "discriminatory" towards "protected classes".
This is generally because there is some historical precedent showing that if you don't have such laws, some groups of people will treat other groups of people as less-than-human. Additionally, society believes that it is in the general best interest if such treatment is minimized.
You may disagree with what counts as discriminatory or which classes should be protected, but I hope this at least makes some general sense.
It doesn't make much sense at all, precisely because people disagree with what counts as discriminatory. Letting society arbitrarily decide what behaviors they like and don't like regardless of whether or not someone is being actively, materially harmed is the same reason you end up with sodomy laws (and then society does an almost complete 180 a few decades later).
While I agree with the premise that societal restrictions on behavior might be improved if they involve tests for harm, the particular constraints you disagree with exist precisely to prevent material harm.
Anti-discrimination laws are built on a history of groups being excluded from access to housing, loans, schooling, contracts, etc. I don't think it is hard to see that depriving certain groups of access to the instruments of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness causes material harm.
Why are people trying to twist this into a partisan issue?
Both sides agree that political speech is too censored. Agreeing is good - it gives us common ground where we can make progress instead of fighting forever.
Unless you're more interested in the act of fighting than making progress.
If the government can demand records for "an investigation to ensure compliance with duties, taxes and fines and other customs and immigration matters", they can demand records for anyone else with similarly vague justifications. It's fortunate that there are organizations like Twitter willing to take a stand against it, I guess many others would just hand over the data.
There are legitimate, appropriate ways for the government to subpoena, court order, and issue warrants for certain records from social media like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and HN. For some insight into this process, Reddit just published their 2016 Transparency Report:
On the one hand we live in a big brother dystopian society where government is plugged into the internet backbone, has backdoors into all software and hardware, and knows everything being said by anyone, and on the other, they can't find a Twitter account's email, whine to Apple about a locked iPhone, online banking by regular people on virus machines (PC's) never gets hacked, and we only get celeb nudie drops once a decade - are we really losing the security war that bad?
“The government” isn't a single group of people. It's entirely possible for the intelligence agencies to be simultaneously sucking up a lot of data but not sharing that data with civilians in a separate agency. From what I've heard, that's expected because there's a cultural expectation that they're not involved in domestic politics.
While I am totally on Twitter's side in his case, anyone who thinks Twitter is some sort of believer in free speech hasn't been paying attention the past couple years. Free speech isn't a core value at Twitter, it's a shield to protect their business interests.
I think it sometimes gets lost that there's a difference between being harshly critical of another group's opinions, and threatening or harming another group. There are multiple ways in which they're different, and they're not both free speech (IMO).
I believe the opposite, that so many who deliberately conflate the two do so to make it easier to do the second by trying to frame discussions in terms of the first.
Good lord, I am surprised they haven't disabled realdonaldtrump over the course of this election and presidency. Not to ruin the attention or users it draws, but just because they can.
There's a difference between banning an account for TOS violations and complying with a legal order to unmask an anonymous user to a law enforcement agency. Not sure why you would try and conflate them
The conflation between the two is happening throughout the comments for this story. It would take such a complete misunderstanding that I can't help but think these people aren't actually confusing two fundamentally different things and are just biased to the point that they can't think critically and are reaching for anything no matter how ridiculous to paint Twitter in a bad light. But perhaps I'm missing something that's obvious from their perspective.
This precisely. What is going on in here? This story has nothing to do with Twitter banning certain accounts, so why is half the discussion about that?
Because much of politics is circular and virtue signaling is just as important to the libertarian-leaning HN population as it is to the 'snowflakes' that they loathe.
The law and the right thing are not always the same. I personally prefer to do the right thing and $#it the law. Especially if I'd have the power to do like twitter does. Law is decided by stupid people (eg Trump) for stupid people (his voters).
This is great. Although part of me has a desire for the person to be outed so Trump can lose yet another horrendously baseless first amendment lawsuit.
Not a fan of Twitter, but kudos for doing the right thing here, whatever their motivations. Free speech is being attacked by the far right and the far left it seems these days. Lets keep this thread on the rails a bit and thank someone for taking the high road, no matter how expected it should be.
I agree with them for not removing this person. Twitter should be a free speech platform. Unfortunately they've proven remarkably inconsistent in the application, and people on the right are going to call this hypocritical. While it may or may not be true it does, on the surface, appear to be that way. I hope that moving forward Twitter can aspire to be a true free speech platform where they don't remove anyone for criticism or parody of public figures, but I won't get my hopes up.
This is one of the major reasons not to use social media. The Internet as a whole has free speech inasmuch as governments protect free speech, but centralized social media has no such protections, and as unpopular opinions make sites unprofitable, they are incentivized to censor. The debate on social media is not whether to censor, but what to censor, and that's a huge step to concede just for a little communication convenience.
> The debate on social media is not whether to censor, but what to censor, and that's a huge step to concede just for a little communication convenience.
You could make the same argument about media in general. A newspaper runs the stories that make money and ignores the stories that don't. A TV station runs the programmes that make money and ignores the ones that don't.
Should a programme or journalist cause more trouble than they're worth, they will get axed. And/or their stories no longer accepted by the newspaper/TV network.
You are not wrong but the question isn't whether a platform is allowed to have a pov and an agenda rather it is should we trust our time, our lives, our stories to such centralized platforms.
Further should be trust people like twitter to keep our secrets when we could trust software platforms where nobody holds the key to giving our identities to a man in a suit that will do his best to ruin us.
> You are not wrong but the question isn't whether a platform is allowed to have a pov and an agenda rather it is should we trust our time, our lives, our stories to such centralized platforms.
Surely it can be inferred that the question of whether a platform has an agenda is relevant to whether they can be trusted.
Unfortunately it's a circular problem. Nobody is using those platforms because no one is using them. There is not a lot of benefit for me to switch to one of those platforms if no one I wish to follow or talk to is on them.
Please don't fall into the trap of calling the things that are banned just "unpopular". We're not talking about disagreements over tax policy. These things are harassment, they are threats of violence, and they are white nationalist/white supremacist garbage.
Considering everything that Trump said on the campaign, supporting Trump doesn't automatically make you a white nationalist, but it shows that, along with sexual assault, you're not bothered by it.
I'm not a trump supporter but I know some and this is simply false.
There are many people who supported trump who strongly dislike him, especially when it comes to racism, but found key aspects of Hilary's platform unacceptable and didn't see another choice.
A Trump supporter decided that those things, things which would have disqualified someone from running not long ago, were not deal breakers. Thus, they were fine with them.
If they're only "letting you do it" because they know that they have no choice, and that even if they were to say something or speak out, they'd not get justice, but instead be negatively affected themselves, that is very much sexual assault.
Leaving aside threats of violence, which are properly illegal, what you're arguing for here is for free speech to be limited to the expression of ideas with which you agree.
I don't think so. They have the right to not be arrested for spouting their trash. They are not entitled to a platform to shove that in everyone else's face.
I think we're in agreement here. My point was relating to the legal freedom of speech, not any obligation on Twitter's part re. the use of their platform.
Not at all. I'm not calling for the government to arrest white supremacists just for spouting their garbage. However, I am stating my support for Twitter and everyone else to be able to exercise their free speech rights to not associate with them.
But doesn't that mean twitter isn't a platform for free speech, since only twitter-approved speech gets through, and therefore can't defend free speech rights of its users since they do not exercise such speech on twitter?
Well yes - they're free to tell them to leave (speech), and free to compel them (property). Interestingly some theorists consider freedom of speech a special case of property rights.
In the case of a platform like Twitter, blocking certain types of speech is also a meaningful expression in itself. Telling someone to leave is a form of speech in itself. But telling (for example) many environmentalists to leave would also express a view on environmentalism because of the effect it would have on the overall conversion. Shaping the discourse on the platform is similar to a media outlet shaping the discourse it drives with selective reporting.
No. Because there is a world of difference between speech and harassment.
Not to mention, Twitter is a business. Their business depends on having users. If too many of their users leave the platform because they are constantly being assaulted by white supremacist drivel or being harassed by other users, then they're in trouble (kinda like they are now)
I'm still uncomfortable with the use of terms like 'assault' for protected speech, because I've seen people use equivocation between speech and assault to shut down free speech.
Meta: I'm _so_ twitchy about this stuff. I'm sorry if that's lead me to read your posts less charitably than I should :(
I will reserve my kudos and thanks, of course its easier if you take the high road when the account concurs with your political views. If they can take this road, esp. when they oppose those political views then respect, kudos and thanks will be showered.
In 2010, JA/Wikileaks were Saints of the Left, until they went rogue in 2016 with DNC leaks. I would reconsider my stand if you provided a better example.
Not only that, many of the self-titled nazis have verified accounts. Twitter is remarkably broad in support of political speech, even that which is against its values.
I think it's because the person is emphasizing that they view something in a positive light in spite of a generally negative opinion of the entity doing the thing. I say "I think" to emphasise that something is my opinion in contrast to a fact read somewhere.
Nah, sorry. Too much black-and-white thinking. The "I think" is not unnecessary in general. There are definitely situations where it makes clear on what grounds a conclusion is drawn.
Just like the original statement: "Not a fan of twitter, but..." might be seen as a side-note and unimportant to the main point, but it certainly adds information.
"I think" is a modifier on certainty the way it's normally used, not merely redundant information (as the literal reading suggests). It is generally used when the person isn't certain.
Similarly, all of the phrases you mentiom carry information about how the comment should be interpreted.
Not a fan of X: I'm generally biased against X, so my opinion they did well here carries extra inferential weight.
Don't mean to be rude: I don't know how to say this politely and request that you "iron man" the question or statement. There are arguments about if you truly need to say such things, but I'm generally on the side that rudeness is better than censorship.
I'm not claiming X is right: I explicitly disclaim a typical inference one would draw from making an argument that something about X is correct.
What you see as "noise" are inclusions of internal probabilistic weights, parse requests, other meta-comments, etc.
Opinions for, by those against their topic, are usually valued higher than those for, by those in favor of their topic. It's more likely to be grounded in reality.
Maybe because 'opposite' is not an accurate statement, when the issue isn't a simple dichotomy.
In fact, one reason people might make these caveats is an attempt to ward off those people who seem to think every issue is an absolute dichotomy, and respond on the basis of that fallacy. I can't say that it is a very effective tactic.
I think it's because the political environment is so polarized that one must a) simply comment what an echo chamber expects to earn a cookie or b) nuance your answer or statements to make sure you are not blindly classified as "left-winger" or "right-winger" etc.
I mean, it's not like people want to risk being fired from their job just because they posted something in some random forum, but that is exactly what could happen in some quarters.
While HN tends to have really smart people voicing opinions, there are also people with knee-jerk reactions for whom anything that does not fit their view of the world require an immediate inquisition.
(Note how I started my last paragraph. I did not have to do that because it's obvious, but I have to because some people would then flame over the second sentence alone).
Anarchism is an organization? Anarchism is a contradiction: without organization you can't stop somebody from establishing a government, and with organization you've established a government.
You're confused. This has nothing to do with "free speech" rights. This is a confusion that many right-wingers seem to suffer from.
There's no "free speech" relevance when you act like an asshole, and people call you on it. It just means that you're being treated like an asshole should be treated.
Free speech also includes calling other who are being assholes out on being an asshole, and choosing not to associate with them.
One is entitled to say what they want. One is not entitled to a platform to say it on, nor are they entitled to not have consequences of saying those things.
Legally protected free speech is roughly as you describe. A platform built on providing free speech would be held to a different (higher?) standard. If twitter considers itself the latter would be a separate debate.
Morality as you define it. What's funny is how all the free speech supporters were so quiet when Milo was banned from speaking at CPAC. Nobody has any principles, it's all political.
You appear confused about what is "moral", as well. Let me give you a hint: defending politically-protected rights to anonymously criticize the government is moral, and defending hate speech is not moral.
Please don't complain about downvotes or make generalized claims about the community. Controversial and divisive threads are already on edge, so we have to take even more care to comment civilly and substantively.
Perhaps Trump will act as a sort of fascism vaccine in the long term.
Made from the same fascist fabric as the worst of the, causing society to develop the necessary anti-bodies and fight back, but weak enough to not do too much damage.
Or maybe one of those childhood diseases you fight off and develop immunity against, but leaves with with permanent scaring.
I hope so. The GOP wakes up, as if from a bad dream, and then runs Nikki Haley to prove that they can be the party of immigrants, women, and fiscally conservative socially-moderate people again.
The thing about the GOP is that even the promisingly normal among them get warped and mangled by the incentives of the primary process.
Bobby Jindal, Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie all looked like somewhat reasonable choices at one point, until they had to go through the primaries and came out the other end as twisted, raving loonies. Nikki Haley looks fine now but there's no reason to think she'd fare any better.
That's been the one reason for a sliver of optimism so far. He obviously wants to be a strongman, but he's so incompetent that maybe he can't pull it off.
Both of them take legal actions agains anybody who critize them. Even if it is against to right of speach. Even if both of them are wrong and the critisizer is right.
Accuse journalist that they lie and take legal actions. Even if the journalists are right.
Yeah seriously, when it's "their guy" Obama, HN is totally supportive of US government surveillance and retaliation against wikileaks, snowden, manning, etc. /s
Sort of. HN has moved in that direction more in the last few years when it became unmistakably obvious that Obama, on the most important issues, continued an ugly legacy that the US has made for itself over the past 60 years.
But that wouldn't happen. Twitter has a history of just banning/ignoring views that don't align with their own.
James Hetfield of Metallica said it best before he left the bay area "They talk about how diverse they are, and things like that, and it's fine if you're diverse like them."
Has he treaded carefully on twitter avoiding breaking the TOS? I imagine that, a- with the Milo ban, they wait for you to do something arguably in TOS violation if they want to get rid of you.
Being a Nazi is allowed under free speech though. Suppressing Nazi speech is the same as suppressing a social justice warrior right? You can't pick and choose your free speech.
>Suppressing Nazi speech is the same as suppressing a social justice warrior right?
No, but only because "social justice warrior" is a blanket perjorative for leftists, feminists, liberals, and anyone else right-wing antisocial types find annoying, not an actual ideology that people identify with, like nazism or white supremacy.
You can't suppress "social justice warriors" any more than you can suppress "cucks" or "landwhales."
Are you implying that the terms 'Nazi' and 'White Supremacist' isn't throw around by left-wing more sensitive idealists as a pejorative for people that hold conservative values? 'SJW' is a synonym for far-left ideologues, just as 'Nazi' has been used to describe the opposite end of the spectrum.
>Are you implying that the terms 'Nazi' and 'White Supremacist' isn't throw around by left-wing more sensitive idealists as a pejorative for people that hold conservative values?
No. While those terms are sometimes used by the left as general insults, they also describe actual movements, political ideologies and identifiable ideas.
However, "social justice warriors" don't actually exist, and the only equivalency that can be drawn between the views of one and the other, in the relevant context of free speech and censorship, is a false one.
In the past some minority rights activists described themselves as "social justice warriors"; it's a genuine subculture. There are a handful of people who still identify themselves that way.
"SJW" is about as well-defined as "alt-right" is. I also see the term SJW used by people on the left to criticise what they see as an over-emphasis on identity politics.
But one term is to you, a blanket pejorative used by anti-social types, and the other is not?
I think you're running up against the ambiguity of language in the definition of "speech." Is verbally ordering a hit on somebody speech? Obviously. Is it the same thing that the ideal of "free speech" seeks to protect? Obviously not.
So you can't just say "This is speech, therefore it must be free speech." Advocating genocide and harassing people in minority groups are different in a very salient way from saying mean things about a politician.
If you run a bar or cafe and someone is spouting racist crap, you can say "Free speech is great and all, but i'm not paying to host you and it's damaging my business" and kick them out.
You are making stuff up. "hate speech" is not a thing in the first amendment. Hate speech is protected. There are countless court rulings on this.
Exhibit A: "in 1977 a federal court upheld the right of neo-Nazis to goose-step right through the town of Skokie, Illinois, which had a disproportionately large number of Holocaust survivors as residents."
>>In this country there is no right to speak fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently.
In particular, application of "fighting words" pretty much requires that the speaker and listener were in close physical proximity, such that a fight could actually occur. Not really relevant to twitter, for the most part.
But they do all the time. Unless law enforcement forces them to do so for safety reasons, Twitter has, on multiple occasions, refused to release identifiable information to authorities about alt-right accounts. They would act the same way regardless of the content so long as the content wasn't threatening to someone's safety.
This is why we can't have (many) political articles on HN. I'd flag this as it's unnecessarily inflammatory but I don't want to do something like that when my judgement could be clouded by my own views.
I know I would. I would of any account under these circumstances. Where I draw the line is crimes that are not free speech, that a judge signs a warrant for.
HN does not stand for unrestricted freedom of speech. It’s a private platform with moderation policies that include downmodding comments and posts to lower their visibility, flagging posts to push them off the front page, and banning users.
And that’s why it works. And HN’s denizens are implicitly and often explicitly in favour of this.
HN stands for speech that is generally more free than, say, I would tolerate on a message board. But it’s not an absolute by any means.
Free speech is a great global idea: Somewhere on the internet, somebody ought to be allowed to rave about how the Negro is using rape to effect the genocide of White America. But free speech is not a great local idea: That raving doesn’t belong everywhere on the Internet.
I think tech in general is much more center left than it used to be. Probably due to the fact it's now seen as more socially viable to be in it, and it's now seen as an acceptable career choice for progressive people from middle class backgrounds.
A lot of people here would probably read the "Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal" story from the 1980s, and complain about all the sexism.
