Milo Yiannopoulos banned from Twitter.

[Jolet]

Well considering the movie was basically just one big troll maybe the people are just mad they wasted their money on it.
Oh goddamn public figures get abuse for playing in a bad movie, guess me admitting that fact makes me racist.
Obviously the abuse isn't right, but the world isn't nice and she acts like a baby and victim. Milo got banned because of an innocent comment and what is followers did. Is that fair?

As this abuse was occurring long before the film was even released, I have a hard time believing that any of the people harassing her even saw it. This also eliminates the "She got abuse for being in a bad movie" line. Even then, though, while criticism is fine, misgendering her and comparing her to a gorilla is not.

I find it stunning that people are interpreting this as film criticism, when nearly every tweet was either about her looks (often expressed in racist terms), or her physicality. Let's not pretend that this had anything to do with the movie itself, okay? This had to do with little boys pissed that their childhoods had been "ruined forever" because a director dared to cast a remake with a distaff cast, and because the black lady didn't fit their preconceptions of what a black woman in film should look like. Milo was not content to simply criticize the film on its merits, but was happily engaging in bullshit woman-hating rhetoric for months before the release, in bitchy comments regarding the appearance of the women involved, and then decided to encourage the waves of abuse being sent towards one of the breakout starts of the film.

And I care... Why? While Twitter was well within their rights, they shouldn't have shut up someone simply because they didn't agree with them. At least, that's how I'm reading the issue.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, Milo implicitly encouraged it by dismissing the harassment as "hate mail" that "everyone gets". This added to the frenzy, and Twitter seems to believe that it encouraged further harassment. This, in combination with previous tweets that he regarding her that referred to her as a man or attacked her for her looks, was enough to get him dinged for a TOS violation, and as he's already had two suspensions in the past, it was also enough for his account to be deleted.

Oh, and referring to her snidely as "that fat lady" doesn't help you make a case.

Milo is snide in an honest way and that's why people love him. You can't handle the truth and neither could Leslie Jones

The truth is that she's male?

The truth is that she's a gorilla?

That's the hill you want to die on, here?

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

So I never really followed Milo before this because I try and avoid the far-right's propaganda machines, it gets me too mad. Anyway though seriously you guys aren't joking about the BBC fetish...

[The Flutterlands]

*sigh* The Suppressiing of free speech is the first step towards a dictatorship.

"People who sacrifice freedoms for security deserve nither." -Benjamin Franklin

First, that's a misquote. The line is "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." .

Second, this has nothing to do with free speech, as Twitter has specific terms of service that users are required to comply with, and Milo violated them.

Really? I'll have to remember that...

Fair enough. It just sounds like he was banned for something stupid...

[Valrifell]

As this abuse was occurring long before the film was even released, I have a hard time believing that any of the people harassing her even saw it. This also eliminates the "She got abuse for being in a bad movie" line. Even then, though, while criticism is fine, misgendering her and comparing her to a gorilla is not.

I find it stunning that people are interpreting this as film criticism, when nearly every tweet was either about her looks (often expressed in racist terms), or her physicality. Let's not pretend that this had anything to do with the movie itself, okay? This had to do with little boys pissed that their childhoods had been "ruined forever" because a director dared to cast a remake with a distaff cast, and because the black lady didn't fit their preconceptions of what a black woman in film should look like. Milo was not content to simply criticize the film on its merits, but was happily engaging in bullshit woman-hating rhetoric for months before the release, in bitchy comments regarding the appearance of the women involved, and then decided to encourage the waves of abuse being sent towards one of the breakout starts of the film.

And I care... Why? While Twitter was well within their rights, they shouldn't have shut up someone simply because they didn't agree with them. At least, that's how I'm reading the issue.

But remember, if Twitter really wanted to do that, why haven't they banned far more prolific and (arguably) worse people? Like Donald Trump or neo-Nazis, for instance.

[Saiwania]

Second, this has nothing to do with free speech, as Twitter has specific terms of service that users are required to comply with, and Milo violated them.

Which ones? Because it is Milo's fault that many of his followers broke Twitter's TOS on his behalf, how?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, Milo implicitly encouraged it by dismissing the harassment as "hate mail" that "everyone gets". This added to the frenzy, and Twitter seems to believe that it encouraged further harassment. This, in combination with previous tweets that he regarding her that referred to her as a man or attacked her for her looks, was enough to get him dinged for a TOS violation, and as he's already had two suspensions in the past, it was also enough for his account to be deleted.

Oh, and referring to her snidely as "that fat lady" doesn't help you make a case.

Everyone get hate mails when in the public sphere, this lady is obese, both those statement are objectively true. Ghostbuster and its creator should be the topic of mockery, it is indeed the right anwser to the slap to the face it was.

But alright, thanks for confirming what I was thinking. Twitter wants to virtue signal, fine by me, let's see how far that kind of customer behaviour will get them - it's not a big deal anyway.

Melissa McCarthy is obese. Leslie Jones is not. She's muscular, no doubt, and solidly built, but she's not obese. Please actually know which person is being discussed before you attempt to add to the conversation.

[Benuty]

So I never really followed Milo before this because I try and avoid the far-right's propaganda machines, it gets me too mad. Anyway though seriously you guys aren't joking about the BBC fetish...

You know the saying.

Once you go black you never go back. Until you are dead that is.

[Arachno-Satinism]

Very poor choice to censor him. I don't really agree with him. At all.

But mainstream social media sites shouldn't censor speech like that. It's pretty mild stuff.

He led a campaign of harassment with people posting semen pics. It's not mild stuff.

[Nerotysia]

Okay whatever. I'm pretty sure neither Milo, who has other outlets, nor Twitter, which is an emotionless corporation, particularly cares about this development, so we shouldn't either.

But seriously, the hamfisted emotional appeals on some of those NYT articles is pretty ridiculous. Isn't NYT usually better than that?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You heard it here first, folks. The act of banning people on a website is the first step towards dictatorship.

I mean, how can you not see the clear path?

Alright. Maybe I used my words wrong. I'm mostly talking about how the Regressive Left have been acting up by censoring anything they don't agree with...

Or maybe I'm just being stupid...

Heh.

Look, you can still say hateful things on Twitter. But you can't participate in a campaign of massive racist harassment.

[Romakivila]

Milo is snide in an honest way and that's why people love him. You can't handle the truth and neither could Leslie Jones

The truth is that she's male?

The truth is that she's a gorilla?

That's the hill you want to die on, here?

If he said she was a male it was probably a compliment. /joke

[The Flutterlands]

Alright. Maybe I used my words wrong. I'm mostly talking about how the Regressive Left have been acting up by censoring anything they don't agree with...

Or maybe I'm just being stupid...

Heh.

Look, you can still say hateful things on Twitter. But you can't participate in a campaign of massive racist harassment.

True. Otherwise you deserve to be banned...

[Jolet]

And I care... Why? While Twitter was well within their rights, they shouldn't have shut up someone simply because they didn't agree with them. At least, that's how I'm reading the issue.

But remember, if Twitter really wanted to do that, why haven't they banned far more prolific and (arguably) worse people? Like Donald Trump or neo-Nazis, for instance.

Firstly, Donald Trump generates far too many hits for them to do that. They never will censor him, especially not now.

Secondly, because they don't care about either Trump nor the Nazis. They're a company, not a group of good people. The only reason that they banned Milo- and this is mostly conjecture, though it would make sense- is because it generated enough bad press for them that Twitter viewed him as a threat to their image and shut him down. He's popular, the Nazis are not.

[Saiwania]

He led a campaign of harassment with people posting semen pics. It's not mild stuff.

I'm doubtful that anyone can prove this. My interpretation of the situation is that Milo's followers did this on their own and independently of Milo. Milo only posted 3 times at best, and at worst, he was simply being crass/rude.

[Raventsvo]

Also to anyone that calls Milo a racist; it's complicated, he says these things about immigration, yet he only sleeps with black guys.

That's not anti-racism. That's fetishism.

What are you trying to say?

Also to anyone that calls Milo a racist; it's complicated, he says these things about immigration, yet he only sleeps with black guys.

What has he said about immigration? Nothing explicitly racist.

I know

[Dameth]

Melissa McCarthy is obese. Leslie Jones is not. She's muscular, no doubt, and solidly built, but she's not obese. Please actually know which person is being discussed before you attempt to add to the conversation.

She appears to me as at least slitghly obese. She's overweight, that's for sure. She definitely have some meat on her bones, it's like her body is actively fighting thin privilege.

Altho I tried to google her BMi, but couldn't find it on the first page so I concede that point. Sorry. She's not fat. She's perfectly healthy.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

As this abuse was occurring long before the film was even released, I have a hard time believing that any of the people harassing her even saw it. This also eliminates the "She got abuse for being in a bad movie" line. Even then, though, while criticism is fine, misgendering her and comparing her to a gorilla is not.

I find it stunning that people are interpreting this as film criticism, when nearly every tweet was either about her looks (often expressed in racist terms), or her physicality. Let's not pretend that this had anything to do with the movie itself, okay? This had to do with little boys pissed that their childhoods had been "ruined forever" because a director dared to cast a remake with a distaff cast, and because the black lady didn't fit their preconceptions of what a black woman in film should look like. Milo was not content to simply criticize the film on its merits, but was happily engaging in bullshit woman-hating rhetoric for months before the release, in bitchy comments regarding the appearance of the women involved, and then decided to encourage the waves of abuse being sent towards one of the breakout starts of the film.

And I care... Why? While Twitter was well within their rights, they shouldn't have shut up someone simply because they didn't agree with them. At least, that's how I'm reading the issue.

It has nothing to do with not agreeing with the person.

It has everything to do with participating in massive harassment, much of which was explicitly racist.

One is a TOS violation. The other is not.

Let me give you an example: Let's say that a user I disagree with, a "Yuckyucklunchtime" posted something that I disagreed with on NationStates. It would be perfectly within my rights for me to say that I disagreed. It would be a TOS violation for me to call Yuckyuck stupid, and would likely get me warned. It would likely end in a suspension or DEAT if I were to encourage harassment of Yuckyuck, and if I started using racist terminology or insulting Yuckyuck's looks even after two suspensions, I'd likely be permabanned. That's not because the admins agreed with me or disagreed with me, but rather because I went about engaging in a destructive manner, and in a way that violated the terms of service that I agreed to follow when I signed up.

This is the same thing, only with more publicity. He's a troll, and he got banned for it. Happens every day.

[Valrifell]

But remember, if Twitter really wanted to do that, why haven't they banned far more prolific and (arguably) worse people? Like Donald Trump or neo-Nazis, for instance.

Firstly, Donald Trump generates far too many hits for them to do that. They never will censor him, especially not now.

Secondly, because they don't care about either Trump nor the Nazis. They're a company, not a group of good people. The only reason that they banned Milo- and this is mostly conjecture, though it would make sense- is because it generated enough bad press for them that Twitter viewed him as a threat to their image and shut him down. He's popular, the Nazis are not.

That's more or less what I'm saying, it was a brand thing mostly, not an SJW conspiracy.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Second, this has nothing to do with free speech, as Twitter has specific terms of service that users are required to comply with, and Milo violated them.

Which ones? Because it is Milo's fault that many of his followers broke Twitter's TOS on his behalf, how?

He was already suspended twice in the past. By participating in online harassment, and because he likely had full knowledge of what his tweet would result in (as it's resulted in the same in the past), he violated the TOS.

[Arachno-Satinism]

He led a campaign of harassment with people posting semen pics. It's not mild stuff.

I'm doubtful that anyone can prove this. My interpretation of the situation is that Milo's followers did this on their own and independently of Milo. Milo only posted 3 times at best, and at worst, he was simply being crass/rude.

He still led a campaign of racist harassment. He didn't encourage his followers to post semen pic alright, but I expect him to be fully aware of consequence for his actions.

[Arcipelago]

Well considering the movie was basically just one big troll maybe the people are just mad they wasted their money on it.
Oh goddamn public figures get abuse for playing in a bad movie, guess me admitting that fact makes me racist.
Obviously the abuse isn't right, but the world isn't nice and she acts like a baby and victim. Milo got banned because of an innocent comment and what is followers did. Is that fair?

As this abuse was occurring long before the film was even released, I have a hard time believing that any of the people harassing her even saw it. This also eliminates the "She got abuse for being in a bad movie" line. Even then, though, while criticism is fine, misgendering her and comparing her to a gorilla is not.

I find it stunning that people are interpreting this as film criticism, when nearly every tweet was either about her looks (often expressed in racist terms), or her physicality. Let's not pretend that this had anything to do with the movie itself, okay? This had to do with little boys pissed that their childhoods had been "ruined forever" because a director dared to cast a remake with a distaff cast, and because the black lady didn't fit their preconceptions of what a black woman in film should look like. Milo was not content to simply criticize the film on its merits, but was happily engaging in bullshit woman-hating rhetoric for months before the release, in bitchy comments regarding the appearance of the women involved, and then decided to encourage the waves of abuse being sent towards one of the breakout starts of the film.

Well the movie put her in the spotlight and she got burned. But, she acts like all of this hate is so unexpected. And again Milo is snide and honest to what he sees and people like that. You can't expect any actor on a screen not to get critiqued on their looks. You act like an attack on one woman based on her looks is woman hating. When the directors probably chose her based on her looks as a black women who you know the rest. Milo is making fun of the fact that sexism in choosing all women for the main parts is fine, ugly women even better. If a all man main character show came out I bet you'd say they'd deserve the hate they got. That's the exact sexism Milo was being snide about.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That's not anti-racism. That's fetishism.

What are you trying to say?

That having a fetish for people of a certain race doesn't mean that you see them as equals. Plenty of white racists have slept with black women, but that didn't mean that they respected them, or saw them as equals. The idea of the geisha or the dragon lady turns on numerous men, but it doesn't mean that they see them as anything but sex objects.

[Saiwania]

It has everything to do with participating in massive harassment, much of which was explicitly racist.

That is where people lose me. I'm not seeing the evidence that Milo himself participated. Many of his followers however, clearly did.

[Nerotysia]

It would be a TOS violation for me to call Yuckyuck stupid, and would likely get me warned. It would likely end in a suspension or DEAT if I were to encourage harassment of Yuckyuck, and if I started using racist terminology or insulting Yuckyuck's looks even after two suspensions, I'd likely be permabanned.

And here's the other problem with the awful article in the OP. It doesn't actually provide any quotes or screencaps or anything evidencing Milo's involvement in the trolling. (Unless I just missed it?)

It does sound like something he might do, but seriously. Is there some other, better-in-every-way article the OP forgot? I didn't find one linked in the article itself.