Twitter perma-bans Milo

[Angel Eyes]

http://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-permanently-bans-milo-yiannopoulos-2016-7

Not having read the "tweets" in question (not a Twitter user) I have no idea if the ban was justified.  It is apparently related to the SJW kerfuffle over the Ghostbusters movie, of all things.

Yiannopoulos further predicted that his suspension would be "the end for Twitter."

Well . . . probably not.

[Fly320s]

I love it when people demand free speech rights from a private company.   

[Ben]

Well . . . probably not.

Probably not, but a few more big users getting the ban will likely start to negatively affect them. Twitter is leaning really hard to the SJW side, and I think that's a bad business decision given that across the political spectrum, there's a growing backlash against the college crybabies.

Seems like a lot of these instances on Twitter are centered around being able to dish it out, but not being able to take it.

[cordex]

I love it when people demand free speech rights from a private company.   

Okay, so the First Amendment doesn't apply, and Twitter is acting within its legal authority to restrict communication.  Good deal.
But the company in question provides a communications service whose users by and large value freedom of speech.  There's no reason those users shouldn't be able to protest the ways in which the provided service fails to meet their expectations.  Was anyone demanding that Twitter be legally punished for banning someone or for censorship?  If so then that's stupid, but just because the First Amendment is not a restriction on private business does not mean that the ideals which it represents can't be used by private citizens to make their own decisions and complaints.

The Second Amendment doesn't mean that a given sporting goods chain has to sell AR-15s, but if they choose to kowtow to political pressure to stop selling them we can still complain about their choices and refuse to do business with them because of those decisions.

[RevDisk]

I love it when people demand free speech rights from a private company.   

Correct that people don't have free speech rights from a private company, with some obvious exclusions mostly related to public utilities.
However, people CAN demand free speech from a private company. Twitter is free to ignore it and throw itself into the loving arms of SJWs.

May or may not be the best business decision to be known for censoring users on political grounds, however.

[agricola]

Ah, Milo.  Can't you hurry along his citizenship application?

[never_retreat]

Whats a Milo?

[Ben]

Whats a Milo?

[Angel Eyes]

Ah, Milo.  Can't you hurry along his citizenship application?

We'll take him if you take Piers Morgan back.

[Perd Hapley]

Giggle-snort.

[agricola]

We'll take him if you take Piers Morgan back.

We already have, I think.  At least he is on one of our morning shows now.

[mtnbkr]

We already have, I think.  At least he is on one of our morning shows now.

I was in London this week (sitting in Heathrow for my trip back at the moment), I saw him on the morning show.  I did a double-take because I thought he was in the US.

Chris

[K Frame]

I was in London this week (sitting in Heathrow for my trip back at the moment), I saw him on the morning show.  I did a double-take because I thought he was in the US.

Chris

Whelp, so much for slipping that TSA guy $50 to get you on the no fly list...

[Balog]

http://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-permanently-bans-milo-yiannopoulos-2016-7

Not having read the "tweets" in question (not a Twitter user) I have no idea if the ban was justified.  It is apparently related to the SJW kerfuffle over the Ghostbusters movie, of all things.

Well . . . probably not.

A few things here.

1. Milo deserved the ban.
2. A lot of people who do the same kind of things he did deserve the ban, but don't get it.
3. The issue was victim selection. He picked a fight with someone who has more influence than him.
4. Twitter is going full SJW, and selectively enforcing its TOS.
5. However, what this generally (not always) means is that it lets lefties who violate TOS off the hook but bans righties for equivalent action.
6. Conservatives are not (for the most part) being silenced. They're just the ones who are more often held to the actual standards of the TOS.

[Ben]

A few things here.

1. Milo deserved the ban.
2. A lot of people who do the same kind of things he did deserve the ban, but don't get it.
3. The issue was victim selection. He picked a fight with someone who has more influence than him.
4. Twitter is going full SJW, and selectively enforcing its TOS.
5. However, what this generally (not always) means is that it lets lefties who violate TOS off the hook but bans righties for equivalent action.
6. Conservatives are not (for the most part) being silenced. They're just the ones who are more often held to the actual standards of the TOS.

On #1, maybe. Again, I don't do the Twitter, so I have only seen the reporting on it. If he was in fact goaded by a fake account, one could argue "extenuating circumstances". One could also argue, "he shouldn't have taken the bait". Either way,  I think he'll do just fine with or without Twitter because:

Otherwise, 2-6 are pretty much spot on to what happened / is happening on Twitter. If Twitter continues to carry on in this way, five years from now it will be a "What's Twitter?" has-been.

[AJ Dual]

For Milo, it's win-win.

He didn't get banned, it's just one more tool to keep on poking sticks into PC eyes.

He gets banned, it raises his media profile, "Who is Milo?", "What did he do/say to get banned?" etc.

[grampster]

What's a Twitter?  Some kind of bird?  Or did someone misspell Titter.  Which is sort of a laugh or a certain human species with an overloaded upper area.

[Balog]

On #1, maybe. Again, I don't do the Twitter, so I have only seen the reporting on it. If he was in fact goaded by a fake account, one could argue "extenuating circumstances". One could also argue, "he shouldn't have taken the bait". Either way,  I think he'll do just fine with or without Twitter because:

Otherwise, 2-6 are pretty much spot on to what happened / is happening on Twitter. If Twitter continues to carry on in this way, five years from now it will be a "What's Twitter?" has-been.

Incitement is also against TOS. He called on his followers to attack her, so the hundreds (thousands?) of people calling her a n*gger and etc fall on him. It was a legit ban.

[Balog]

Popehat looks at whether or not this incident rises to the level of defamation.

https://popehat.com/2016/07/20/lawsplainer-are-milos-faked-tweets-defamatory/

[Regolith]

Incitement is also against TOS. He called on his followers to attack her, so the hundreds (thousands?) of people calling her a n*gger and etc fall on him. It was a legit ban.

Not a big fan of Milo myself, but I've yet to see any evidence that he actually incited his followers to attack her. Do you have any?

[Balog]

Not a big fan of Milo myself, but I've yet to see any evidence that he actually incited his followers to attack her. Do you have any?

He never specifically said "Hey guys go and tell this n*gger what you think of her!" if that's what you're asking. But he started the trolling, RTed her indignation with commentary about how she couldn't handle the hate, and RTed a lot of the abuse sent her way with positive commentary. It was incitement in the same way "You have a nice shop here, be a real shame if something were to happen to it" is a threat.

[MechAg94]

He never specifically said "Hey guys go and tell this n*gger what you think of her!" if that's what you're asking. But he started the trolling, RTed her indignation with commentary about how she couldn't handle the hate, and RTed a lot of the abuse sent her way with positive commentary. It was incitement in the same way "You have a nice shop here, be a real shame if something were to happen to it" is a threat.

So all he had to do was link to her stuff and comment on it and that is incitement?  Cause that is probably all it took.  Kind of a weak point to go after him on. 

Did he use the n-word or did his followers?  Was it just a couple?

[MechAg94]

A few things here.

1. Milo deserved the ban.
2. A lot of people who do the same kind of things he did deserve the ban, but don't get it.
3. The issue was victim selection. He picked a fight with someone who has more influence than him.
4. Twitter is going full SJW, and selectively enforcing its TOS.
5. However, what this generally (not always) means is that it lets lefties who violate TOS off the hook but bans righties for equivalent action.
6. Conservatives are not (for the most part) being silenced. They're just the ones who are more often held to the actual standards of the TOS.

#6 is for the most part the definition of silencing conservatives or whatever group is the target. 

[makattak]

what this generally (not always) means is that it lets lefties who violate TOS off the hook but bans righties for equivalent action.

Well, why not. Since we're descending into tribalism, we might as well get used to having different rules reflecting whether you are part of the "correct" tribe.

[Balog]

So all he had to do was link to her stuff and comment on it and that is incitement?  Cause that is probably all it took.  Kind of a weak point to go after him on. 

Did he use the n-word or did his followers?  Was it just a couple?

In context "Hey look at this thin skinned person that can't handle hate mail!" is inciting his followers, yes. He knew exactly what was going to happen. And he was delighted when it did.