Milo Yiannopoulos banned from Twitter.

[Alvecia]

I'm sorry, what? You've failed to prove anything. You just posted an image of some screenshots and asserted that was all of them

It is all of them. It should be trivial to show otherwise if that were the case. I trust my sources.
I expect they simply performed a wayback search.

Well don't just expect us to take your word for it.
If you have legitimate sources, post them so we can verify.

[Heidisteinian Fempire]

i wanted milo banned regardless if he broke the rules

as he said he is in favor of the destruction of free speech

What.

Look at the OP. I gave a reason why Milo should just accept it and go be Milo somewhere else.

Not here though. We already have cringy alt-righters everywhere.

[Imperializt Russia]

WE NEED TO BUILT A WAR....around Milo.

And make him pay for it.

You meant "wall" right?

He'd probably post less if we build a war around him.

An electronic war!

[Chestaan]

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12226070/m ... -explained

He also called her fat and implied that she was a man.

But that wasn't an interaction between them, now was it.
He was commenting on a media appearance of hers. That does not and cannot constitute harassment. She isn't tagged in it, and there's no reason to believe she saw it.

Also lolol Vox.

You're laughing at Vox when you use Milo's own page as a source? Seriously? And who said it can't constitute harrassment?

Twitters rules don't say that you have to specifically interact with another person to be harassing them. In any case, twitter clearly saw what Milo did as harassment by their own interpretation of their rules.

[Ostroeuropa]

It is all of them. It should be trivial to show otherwise if that were the case. I trust my sources.
I expect they simply performed a wayback search.

Well don't just expect us to take your word for it.
If you have legitimate sources, post them so we can verify.

What do you count as legitimate?
Like I said, it should be trivially simple for someone to disprove my post here.

[Nariterrr]

But that wasn't an interaction between them, now was it.
He was commenting on a media appearance of hers. That does not and cannot constitute harassment. She isn't tagged in it, and there's no reason to believe she saw it.

Also lolol Vox.

You're laughing at Vox when you use Milo's own page as a source? Seriously? And who said it can't constitute harrassment?

Twitters rules don't say that you have to specifically interact with another person to be harassing them. In any case, twitter clearly saw what Milo did as harassment by their own interpretation of their rules.

And their interpretation is law, end of story. There is no 'free speech.'

[Ostroeuropa]

But that wasn't an interaction between them, now was it.
He was commenting on a media appearance of hers. That does not and cannot constitute harassment. She isn't tagged in it, and there's no reason to believe she saw it.

Also lolol Vox.

You're laughing at Vox when you use Milo's own page as a source? Seriously? And who said it can't constitute harrassment?

Twitters rules don't say that you have to specifically interact with another person to be harassing them. In any case, twitter clearly saw what Milo did as harassment by their own interpretation of their rules.

That's not my source. It's the KotakuInAction reddit. They're big on media ethics
Which of these do you think he fell afoul of?

if a primary purpose of the reported account is to harass or send abusive messages to others;
if the reported behavior is one-sided or includes threats;
if the reported account is inciting others to harass another account; and
if the reported account is sending harassing messages to an account from multiple accounts.

[Chestaan]

You're laughing at Vox when you use Milo's own page as a source? Seriously? And who said it can't constitute harrassment?

Twitters rules don't say that you have to specifically interact with another person to be harassing them. In any case, twitter clearly saw what Milo did as harassment by their own interpretation of their rules.

Which of these do you think he fell afoul of?

if a primary purpose of the reported account is to harass or send abusive messages to others;
if the reported behavior is one-sided or includes threats;
if the reported account is inciting others to harass another account; and
if the reported account is sending harassing messages to an account from multiple accounts.

I think he fell afoul of this:

Harassment: You may not incite or engage in the targeted abuse or harassment of others.

Notice that what you quoted is said to be some of the factors they may take into account, it's not an exhaustive list. Also, he fell afoul of the first one you mentioned as well probably, the primary purpose of his account is to harass.

[Khadgar]

Leslie Jones did the same thing he did. :lol2:

https://twitter.com/TurkeySpoony/status ... 4784914432

If it's not photoshop, thanks pretty damming.

Considering it's posted from an account with the gamergate tag 99% chance it's faked.

[Ostroeuropa]

Which of these do you think he fell afoul of?

I think he fell afoul of this:

Harassment: You may not incite or engage in the targeted abuse or harassment of others.

Notice that what you quoted is said to be some of the factors they may take into account, it's not an exhaustive list. Also, he fell afoul of the first one you mentioned as well probably, the primary purpose of his account is to harass.

The primary purpose of his account is to peddle his articles, that much should be obvious.

[Vlamistaatti]

Face it, alt-right. We won. We will take your childhoods and your video games and we will make them into something you will hate forever. Now the SJW cabal has taken over Twitter and Reddit and all those sites you love. Donald Trump is behind in the polls

cis males are done

Hehe.

[Chestaan]

I think he fell afoul of this:



Notice that what you quoted is said to be some of the factors they may take into account, it's not an exhaustive list. Also, he fell afoul of the first one you mentioned as well probably, the primary purpose of his account is to harass.

The primary purpose of his account is to peddle his articles, that much should be obvious.

That's debatable. In any case, its irrelevant seeing as he engaged in the targetted abuse or harassment of another user. Twitter has interpreted their rules as such that deem that he has been harassing others.

[Alvecia]

Well don't just expect us to take your word for it.
If you have legitimate sources, post them so we can verify.

What do you count as legitimate?
Like I said, it should be trivially simple for someone to disprove my post here.

Ideally corroborating stories from both sides.
I also don't need to disprove anything because there is nothing you have proven. You've asserted something is true but you haven't backed it up with any evidence.
You made the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you and so far you have not done so. In fact, so far you've actively withheld your supposed proof.
As far as triviality goes, you've already admitted you have sources ready and raring to go, it should be trivially simple to post them here.

[Hurdergaryp]

And here I thought the whole point of Twitter was to attack and abuse celebrities.

The times, they are changing. Pray that they shall not change even further.

[Ostroeuropa]

The primary purpose of his account is to peddle his articles, that much should be obvious.

That's debatable. In any case, its irrelevant seeing as he engaged in the targetted abuse or harassment of another user. Twitter has interpreted their rules as such that deem that he has been harassing others.

It's fairly clear from the tweets and the general tone of twitter that the standard used to say Milo was abusive is not consistently applied, and only seems to be used against conservatives, anti-feminists, etc.

Maher called Trumps son someone who "looks like the date-rapist in every after-school special."

Trump is also routinely hounded by various celebrities and pundits.
etc.

So no, he wasn't banned for that. He was banned for politically disagreeing with Twitters committee.

If Russia bans public display of religion, then only rounds up and imprisons muslims, what were those muslims imprisoned for, would you say? For another example.

[Vassenor]

Yes, yes, we get it. He's a martyr for the cause.

[Equalaria]

I'm glad this bigot is off Twitter. His virulent misogyny and racism where rampantly triggering outrage among vast numbers of people. His thoughts on feminism are utter garbage, veiled in senseless racism and homophobia. There is a difference between hate speech and free speech is very real. Speech that encourages hatred, bigotry, is against diversity, etc needs to be banned from social media. As a society were past such small minded language being necessary to exist.

[Ostroeuropa]

What do you count as legitimate?
Like I said, it should be trivially simple for someone to disprove my post here.

Ideally corroborating stories from both sides.
I also don't need to disprove anything because there is nothing you have proven. You've asserted something is true but you haven't backed it up with any evidence.
You made the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you and so far you have not done so. In fact, so far you've actively withheld your supposed proof.
As far as triviality goes, you've already admitted you have sources ready and raring to go, it should be trivially simple to post them here.

That screenshot is evidence.

"This is all of" is exactly the same claim as "there are no more."

Denying that is the positive claim of "There are more."
Which is what would require further evidence.

[Imperializt Russia]

So no, he wasn't banned for that. He was banned for politically disagreeing with Twitters committee.

If Russia bans public display of religion, then only rounds up and imprisons muslims, what were those muslims imprisoned for, would you say? For another example.

The Russian government controls the largest state in the world by land area, and its actions have real, harmful consequences. Thousands dead in Ukraine and Syria, pointedly, for examples over the last couple years.

We're talking about Twitter, mate.

[Gauthier]

So no, he wasn't banned for that. He was banned for politically disagreeing with Twitters committee.

If Russia bans public display of religion, then only rounds up and imprisons muslims, what were those muslims imprisoned for, would you say? For another example.

The Russian government controls the largest state in the world by land area, and its actions have real, harmful consequences. Thousands dead in Ukraine and Syria, pointedly, for examples over the last couple years.

We're talking about Twitter, mate.

Milo Yiannopoulous being banned for repeated rules violations is a bigger tragedy than a bunch of dead people in Ukraine and Syria obviously.

[Ostroeuropa]

So no, he wasn't banned for that. He was banned for politically disagreeing with Twitters committee.

If Russia bans public display of religion, then only rounds up and imprisons muslims, what were those muslims imprisoned for, would you say? For another example.

The Russian government controls the largest state in the world by land area, and its actions have real, harmful consequences. Thousands dead in Ukraine and Syria, pointedly, for examples over the last couple years.

We're talking about Twitter, mate.

Which is one of the corporations controlling a larger and larger amount of the public square for discussion and what is acceptable there.
It has real consequences too.

Besides which, the comparison was to highlight the disingenuous nature of these kind of rules and prejudiced enforcement. But you knew that.

[Nariterrr]

I'm glad this bigot is off Twitter. His virulent misogyny and racism where rampantly triggering outrage among vast numbers of people. His thoughts on feminism are utter garbage, veiled in senseless racism and homophobia. There is a difference between hate speech and free speech is very real. Speech that encourages hatred, bigotry, is against diversity, etc needs to be banned from social media. As a society were past such small minded language being necessary to exist.

'free speech' only exists to stop the government from censoring you. Twitter is not the government and can censor you all they like.

[Kelinfort]

I'm glad this bigot is off Twitter. His virulent misogyny and racism where rampantly triggering outrage among vast numbers of people. His thoughts on feminism are utter garbage, veiled in senseless racism and homophobia. There is a difference between hate speech and free speech is very real. Speech that encourages hatred, bigotry, is against diversity, etc needs to be banned from social media. As a society were past such small minded language being necessary to exist.

Your satire is noted.

[Gauthier]

I'm glad this bigot is off Twitter. His virulent misogyny and racism where rampantly triggering outrage among vast numbers of people. His thoughts on feminism are utter garbage, veiled in senseless racism and homophobia. There is a difference between hate speech and free speech is very real. Speech that encourages hatred, bigotry, is against diversity, etc needs to be banned from social media. As a society were past such small minded language being necessary to exist.

'free speech' only exists to stop the government from censoring you. Twitter is not the government and can censor you all they like.

Right wingers seem to miss that point, with incidents like the outrage over the temporary cancellation of Duck Dynasty.

[Khadgar]

'free speech' only exists to stop the government from censoring you. Twitter is not the government and can censor you all they like.

Right wingers seem to miss that point, with incidents like the outrage over the temporary cancellation of Duck Dynasty.

Like religious freedom it only applies to those who agree. If a company opts to not host speech I agree with then clearly their right to free speech doesn't exist.