The Twitter censorship thread

Feeling sorry for the fair skinned. They say that they ban targeted harassment campaigns. Of course, all you have to do is not be white to be protected. I hope the Covington Kids get every nickel and dime they're suing for.
 

CynicalContrarian

Owl
Gold Member
Sure, it can readily be argued that no one can actually expect the truth from an outlet such as Twitter (of all places).
Yet still, it should not be up to the Soycialist NPC cretins of Twitter itself, to be the arbiters of what may constitute the truth.

 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
These lawsuits are important even if they fail because of the evidence the courts have the power to demand access to.

But if the plaintiff wins then this will be a game changer that could potentially bring down the whole rotten social media system.
 

Chrome

Robin
There just needs to be one mole engineer at Twitter who sells out with some damning, indisputable evidence. Surely it can't take that much bobs and vagine to make a good honeypot.
 

CaptainS

Hummingbird
Didn't know where else to put this, but Roosh got a mention in the latest Ben Garrison comic/cartoon.


T1Yxn1F.jpg
 

SlickyBoy

Hummingbird
Pre-blocked on twitter?

Not sure where else to ask this, but I have had it happen where it looks like I've been "pre-blocked" from following or viewing certain accounts.

This happened about three times with accounts of people or groups I don't consider ideological enemies, but interesting commenters. But for some reason they have me blocked despite my never even knowing they existed before visiting their pages for the first time.

I thought it might be if I followed X that I am blocked from following Y if Y does not like X, but not seeing anything like that capability anywhere in the account settings.

Thoughts?
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
A while back I remember the ugly fememist cunt Clementine Ford talking about some sort of third party software that allowed people to copy-paste each others block lists.

Ostensibly this was designed to create a kind of walled off safe space in places like Twitter for people that were totally globo-homo converged.
 

Aurini

Ostrich
Leonard D Neubache said:
A while back I remember the ugly fememist cunt Clementine Ford talking about some sort of third party software that allowed people to copy-paste each others block lists.

Ostensibly this was designed to create a kind of walled off safe space in places like Twitter for people that were totally globo-homo converged.

I've seen the list; I'm on it. If you ever liked or retweeted Milo or Roosh you may be on it too.
 

Foolsgo1d

Peacock
SlickyBoy said:
Not sure where else to ask this, but I have had it happen where it looks like I've been "pre-blocked" from following or viewing certain accounts.

This happened about three times with accounts of people or groups I don't consider ideological enemies, but interesting commenters. But for some reason they have me blocked despite my never even knowing they existed before visiting their pages for the first time. You can view the subs but no posts or threads can be made.

I thought it might be if I followed X that I am blocked from following Y if Y does not like X, but not seeing anything like that capability anywhere in the account settings.

Thoughts?

Its the same method they use on Reddit.

If you're subscribed to certain subs you are put on a list for the major subs. It is censorship and allows people to form their own narratives and on reddit this means $$$ and safe spaces for advertisers.

The method for Twitter is liking or retweeting certain individual accounts who are put on a black list.

This is allowed by the owners of both platforms.
 

Darth

Pigeon
I seem to remember that there is some legal precedent that once something like Twitter because a widespread enough public forum, legal restrictions can be placed on their ability to censor users. I don't remember the details.

Maybe someone else can find the case. I only read it in passing when a friend got screwed over and suspended by Twitter after he figuratively beat the mental crap out of some libtard, figuratively speaking of course, in a debate on Twitter. The thing is the libtard was using all sort of invective and so on, while my friend never said a harsh word but HE was the one that got suspended and he quit twitter in disgust.
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
tenor.gif


It's just an automated profile status that improves as you reach a higher number of posts. No need to feel insulted.

p.s. please no one tell Darth what the next status is :evil:
 

godfather dust

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Darth said:
I seem to remember that there is some legal precedent that once something like Twitter because a widespread enough public forum, legal restrictions can be placed on their ability to censor users. I don't remember the details.

Maybe someone else can find the case. I only read it in passing when a friend got screwed over and suspended by Twitter after he figuratively beat the mental crap out of some libtard, figuratively speaking of course, in a debate on Twitter. The thing is the libtard was using all sort of invective and so on, while my friend never said a harsh word but HE was the one that got suspended and he quit twitter in disgust.

They are allowed to exist because they are platforms not publishers. If they censor they become publishers and legally responsible for the content posted, which means they would be sued out of existence very quicky... Hundreds of millions in lawsuits by people insulted/libeled etc on the platforms.

I'm not a lawyer and that's a fairly bad explanation, maybe someone else can chime in.
 

Sp5

 
godfather dust said:
Darth said:
I seem to remember that there is some legal precedent that once something like Twitter because a widespread enough public forum, legal restrictions can be placed on their ability to censor users. I don't remember the details.

Maybe someone else can find the case. I only read it in passing when a friend got screwed over and suspended by Twitter after he figuratively beat the mental crap out of some libtard, figuratively speaking of course, in a debate on Twitter. The thing is the libtard was using all sort of invective and so on, while my friend never said a harsh word but HE was the one that got suspended and he quit twitter in disgust.

They are allowed to exist because they are platforms not publishers. If they censor they become publishers and legally responsible for the content posted, which means they would be sued out of existence very quicky... Hundreds of millions in lawsuits by people insulted/libeled etc on the platforms.

I'm not a lawyer and that's a fairly bad explanation, maybe someone else can chime in.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. §230, absolves platform providers from liability for copyright violations, defamation, threats, etc.

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

And Nunes is a moron for suing those anonymous accounts and Twitter.
 

Darth

Pigeon
Handsome Creepy Eel said:
tenor.gif


It's just an automated profile status that improves as you reach a higher number of posts. No need to feel insulted.

p.s. please no one tell Darth what the next status is :evil:

Haha..Ok Bro. Thanks for the info.
 

SlickyBoy

Hummingbird
Foolsgo1d said:
Its the same method they use on Reddit.

If you're subscribed to certain subs you are put on a list for the major subs. It is censorship and allows people to form their own narratives and on reddit this means $$$ and safe spaces for advertisers.

The method for Twitter is liking or retweeting certain individual accounts who are put on a black list.

This is allowed by the owners of both platforms.

Thanks, this is kind of what I thought. But let's say I want to use that feature for my account - I don't see a way to load a black list into my preferences or settings.

Also, there must be a couple of different black lists out there - the accounts I tried to follow are exactly the types of commenters who would be put on a Blue Check NPC's black list instantly. These aren't the kinds of guys that Twitter would want to protect. If anything, they'd rather dox them for being politically obstinate.

Yet little ol' me gets blacklisted from following them? Hilarious. I do follow some shitlibs including AOC, so who knows, maybe that's enough to bring out the 'sperg in some of the most alt of alt right commenters.
 

Coja Petrus Uscan

Hummingbird
Gold Member
ZeroHedge suspended from Twitter. Apparantly facilitated by SoyFeed hack. They are waiting for the tiniest of possible micro-infringement to ban all their opposition.

First it was Facebook, then all of New Zealand; now Twitter has decided to suspend Zero Hedge.

Just as in the prior bans, which were eventually overturned, so in this case it is unclear what prompted Twitter's abrupt censorship: the only notification we received from twitter was the following:

twitter%20ban.jpg


It is news to us that this website has (ever) "engaged in the targeted harassment of someone."

What appears to have happened is that twitter received a complaint from the website best known for publishing the discredited Steele dossier when no other media outlet would touch it, and making cat slideshows of course, Buzzfeed, in which someone called Ryan Broderick writes that Zero Hedge "has released the personal information of a scientist from Wuhan, China, falsely accusing them of creating the coronavirus as a bioweapon, in a plot it said is the real-life version of the video game Resident Evil."


A few points: the article referenced by Buzz Feed, "Is This The Man Behind The Global Coronavirus Pandemic?", is as the title implies, a question, and one which considering the huge significance and life or death import of the Coronavirus pandemic, has to be answered, especially since even the establishment's Foreign Policy magazine writes bat soup, which is widely being cited and circulated by the mainstream press as the cause of the coronavirus breakout, is not the cause of the Wuhan virus. The widely read website Health.com also chimes in: "No, Coronavirus Was Not Caused by 'Bat Soup'". Meanwhile, Business Insider writes "Experts think the Wuhan coronavirus jumped from bats to snakes to people. Bats have been the source of at least 4 pandemics."

So considering that Peng Zhou, who currently works at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is the Leader of the Bat Virus Infection and Immunization Group at the Institute, the question certainly is a reasonable one and, in a normal world, would demand an answer from the established media (assuming it wasn't afraid of risking lucrative Chinese funding) instead of leaving it to "fringe" websites.

The impetus to ask the question if the disease originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology is especially relevant in light of social media reports such as this one which claims to "have evidence here that the outbreak originated from Wuhan P4 Research Institute. You need to find a truly patriotic journalist to publish it to the public. You can personally trust me to provide a complete chain of evidence. Thank you."

So did we have a right to ask the question if there is an alternative version for the emergence of the Coronavirus pandemic, especially with hundreds if not thousands of lives at stake? Absolutely.

Meanwhile, those who wonder if Dr. Zhou has any link to the possible emergence of the Coronavirus following years of experimenting with bats, we urge you to read our full article instead of relying on the hearsay of ideologically biased journalists.

Second, and contrary to the claims presented by Buzzfeed, we did not release any "personal information": Peng Zhou (周鹏) is a public figure, and all the contact information that we presented was pulled from his publicly posted bio found on a website at the Wuhan Institute of Virology which anyone with access to the internet can pull from the following URL: http://sourcedb.whiov.cas.cn/zw/rck/201705/t20170505_4783973.html, which is also the information we used.

peng%20bio.jpg


So about Buzzfeed's allegation, which was adopted by Twitter, that somehow we incited "targeted abuse", here is what we said:

Something tells us, if anyone wants to find out what really caused the coronavirus pandemic that has infected thousands of people in China and around the globe, they should probably pay Dr. Peng a visit.

To which we then added the information obtained from his own bio page on the Institute's website:

"Or at least start with an email: Dr Peng can be reached at [email protected], and his phone# is 87197311"

Are we then to understand that we have now reached a point the mere gathering of information, which our colleagues in the media may want to eventually do as thousands of people are afflicted daily by the Coronavirus, is now synonymous with "abuse and harassment"? According to Twitter, and certainly our competitors in the media, the answer is yes.

In any case, we have emailed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who incidentally happens to follow zerohedge...

jack%20follows%20ZH.jpg


... for the answer. If we get one, we will promptly share it with our readers. We aren't holding our breath, however, as we realize how important it is to today's media giants not to ruffle too many Chinese feathers or lack losing access to the Chinese market. After all, who can forget the following report from the New York Times about another of our media competitors that several years ago was itself engaged in "doxing" us (yet oddly wasn't suspended by Twitter):

The chairman of Bloomberg L.P. said in a speech here on Thursday that the company should have reconsidered articles that deviated from its core of coverage of business news, because they jeopardized the huge sales potential for its products in the Chinese market.

The comments by the chairman, Peter T. Grauer, represented the starkest acknowledgment yet by a senior Bloomberg executive that the ambitions of the news division should be assessed in the context of the business operation, which provides the bulk of the company’s revenue. They also signaled which of those considerations might get priority.

Acknowledging the vast size of the Chinese economy, the world’s second-biggest after that of the United States, Mr. Grauer, said, “We have to be there.”

“We have about 50 journalists in the market, primarily writing stories about the local business and economic environment,” Mr. Grauer said in response to questions after a speech at the Asia Society. “You’re all aware that every once in a while we wander a little bit away from that and write stories that we probably may have kind of rethought — should have rethought.”

Bloomberg, the financial data and news company, relies on sales of its terminals, which are ubiquitous on bankers’ desks around the world, for about 82 percent of its $8.5 billion in revenue. But sales of those terminals in China declined after the company published an article in June 2012 on the family wealth of Xi Jinping, at that time the incoming Communist Party chief. After its publication, officials ordered state enterprises not to subscribe to the service. Mr. Grauer did not specifically mention the article about Mr. Xi or any other articles.

“Being in China is very much a part of our long-term strategy and will continue to be so going forward,” Mr. Grauer said. “It occupies a lot of our thinking — Dan Doctoroff, our C.E.O.; me; Mike; and other members of our senior team.”

Some current and former Bloomberg journalists, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they had hoped the controversy surrounding Bloomberg’s China reporting would prompt the company to reaffirm its support for investigative efforts. Mr. Grauer’s comments were met with dismay, particularly because he is regarded as close to Mr. Bloomberg and would be unlikely to voice views that were not broadly accepted at the top of the company.

Unlike Bloomberg, or anyone else in the mainstream media, we don't plan on "rethinking" any of our articles just to curry favor with the powerful and we certainly will continue our own "investigative efforts", even if it means we lose some of our inbound traffic.
 
Top