Milo Yiannopoulos banned from Twitter.

[Jochizyd Republic]

No matter what one says, calling a massive group cancer is a fast way to get booted out of a social media site.

To be fair he didn't call feminists cancer.
He held an open poll asking which people would prefer their child have, cancer or feminism, and cancer won.
So he implied feminism was worse than cancer, and a majority of respondents agreed with him.

Lol!

geez, too bad he was kicked out for something so stupid. Might not agree with him on everything. But still.

[Ostroeuropa]

Is everything a massive feminist conspiracy these days or something?

Who said anything about a conspiracy?
People being disingenuous isn't a conspiracy. It happens in politics all the time.

You're doing it now, in fact, by insisting we're talking about a conspiracy.

As i've pointed out before when your side pulls this conspiracy smear, you're actually the one with the mind of a conspiracy theorist if you can't comprehend this situation without some kind of nefarious cabal being involved. Is that the case, or are you actually just knee-jerk mocking things that challenge your worldview and trying to discredit the opposition?

No cabal needed, just people with a particular worldview and a belief that lying or being disingenuous to advance an agenda is acceptable. Like how anti-abortionists keep repeating the "Planned parenthood sells babyparts!" thing isn't them engaged in a conspiracy.

Difference is, they at least have the honesty not to accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist when you point out they're lying about it.

[Radiatia]

So Twitter are happy to host ISIS but not happy to host Milo?

Whatever floats their boat, I guess...

All the more reason for me to not use Twitter. You can't spell Twitter without Twit.

[Jochizyd Republic]

So Twitter are happy to host ISIS but not happy to host Milo?

Whatever floats their boat, I guess...

All the more reason for me to not use Twitter. You can't spell Twitter without Twit.

They have blatant Nazi sites up there too. Literal Nazis.

This whole thing is just blatant hypocrisy.

[Vassenor]

Is everything a massive feminist conspiracy these days or something?

Who said anything about a conspiracy?
People being disingenuous isn't a conspiracy. It happens in politics all the time.

You're doing it now, in fact, by insisting we're talking about a conspiracy.

As i've pointed out before when your side pulls this conspiracy smear, you're actually the one with the mind of a conspiracy theorist if you can't comprehend this situation without some kind of nefarious cabal being involved. Is that the case, or are you actually just knee-jerk mocking things that challenge your worldview and trying to discredit the opposition?

No cabal needed, just people with a particular worldview and a belief that lying or being disingenuous to advance an agenda is acceptable. Like how anti-abortionists keep repeating the "Planned parenthood sells babyparts!" thing isn't them engaged in a conspiracy.

Difference is, they at least have the honesty not to accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist when you point out they're lying about it.

You're the one claiming he's being punished for not toeing the party line.

So there is no conspiracy yet they have control over everything and punish people for disagreeing.

[Ostroeuropa]

Who said anything about a conspiracy?
People being disingenuous isn't a conspiracy. It happens in politics all the time.

You're doing it now, in fact, by insisting we're talking about a conspiracy.

As i've pointed out before when your side pulls this conspiracy smear, you're actually the one with the mind of a conspiracy theorist if you can't comprehend this situation without some kind of nefarious cabal being involved. Is that the case, or are you actually just knee-jerk mocking things that challenge your worldview and trying to discredit the opposition?

No cabal needed, just people with a particular worldview and a belief that lying or being disingenuous to advance an agenda is acceptable. Like how anti-abortionists keep repeating the "Planned parenthood sells babyparts!" thing isn't them engaged in a conspiracy.

Difference is, they at least have the honesty not to accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist when you point out they're lying about it.

You're the one claiming he's being punished for not toeing the party line.

I'm arguing there's no evidence he broke their terms of service, that their terms of service are routinely broken by people who align with their politics without any action on their part, that their anti-conservative bias is well known, and that as a result the only conclusion to be made is either that they made a mistake, or are silencing opposition.

[Eisarn-Ara]

So Twitter are happy to host ISIS but not happy to host Milo?

Whatever floats their boat, I guess...

All the more reason for me to not use Twitter. You can't spell Twitter without Twit.

They have blatant Nazi sites up there too. Literal Nazis.

This whole thing is just blatant hypocrisy.

You saw my post earlier, with all of that Unfunny-Comedian's posting, right? I guess it's the "Not racism if it's against white people" trope kicking in.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Problem is, even with a few tweets, he fanned those flames, and directly insulted her. He's been suspended for similar things in the past. He went there anyway, violated their terms of service by participating in what appeared to be targeted harassment of a single individual, and got his account deleted for it. It's no different from when someone gets banned from NSG for similar nonsense; it's just a larger audience.

How did he fan the flames?

So what if he directly insulted her. He's been suspended accused of similar things in the past.

If the milo standard were consistent, why do feminist and anti-racist campaigns of a similar nature get a free pass when hounding people?

*Please forget that I wrote anything here*

EDIT: Oh, Jesus, how did I miss that I just got sucked into a conversation about gender issues and trolling with Ostro? I cannot and will not waste another second of my life on that nonsense. Forget that I said anything.

[Alvecia]

How did he fan the flames?

So what if he directly insulted her. He's been suspended accused of similar things in the past.

If the milo standard were consistent, why do feminist and anti-racist campaigns of a similar nature get a free pass when hounding people?

Yes, he's been suspended for doing similar things in the past, which is likely why he lost his account this time

If you see no difference between political activism (and this was not political activism) and personal insult, then I'm not sure how to continue this conversation. Let me try this: If he still had his account, and people were sending him messages disagreeing with positions that he'd taken, that would be within the realm of normal discourse. If you get enormous numbers of users calling him "faggot", calling him a woman due to his sexuality, or otherwise engaging in simple trolling, then that's a different matter. You've been here a while now. You know the difference. The standards are actually looser over at Twitter, and he still couldn't follow some basic rules of behavior.

He'd violated the terms of service in the past. He'd mocked her appearance on Twitter and called her a man in the past. There was a pattern of trolling her. When the onslaught of racist tweets against her began, he could have kept his mouth shut and stayed out of it, knowing that he had two suspensions on record. He could have even gently dissuaded his followers from engaging in the more vicious forms of attack, though that's obviously not in his character, and would be too much to expect. What he did not have to do was mock her for reacting negatively and with hurt towards the barrage of racist images, comments on her personal appearance, intentional misgendering of her as a man, and other abuse, nor (secondarily) did he have to implicitly encourage further abuse by doing so. At that point, he became a part of the problem, and with his record, he got axed along with a number of other people.

I feel that's inportant to note. This whole thread is about one person, but he was just one of many.

[CoraSpia]

How did he fan the flames?

So what if he directly insulted her. He's been suspended accused of similar things in the past.

If the milo standard were consistent, why do feminist and anti-racist campaigns of a similar nature get a free pass when hounding people?

Yes, he's been suspended for doing similar things in the past, which is likely why he lost his account this time

If you see no difference between political activism (and this was not political activism) and personal insult, then I'm not sure how to continue this conversation. Let me try this: If he still had his account, and people were sending him messages disagreeing with positions that he'd taken, that would be within the realm of normal discourse. If you get enormous numbers of users calling him "faggot", calling him a woman due to his sexuality, or otherwise engaging in simple trolling, then that's a different matter. You've been here a while now. You know the difference. The standards are actually looser over at Twitter, and he still couldn't follow some basic rules of behavior.

He'd violated the terms of service in the past. He'd mocked her appearance on Twitter and called her a man in the past. There was a pattern of trolling her. When the onslaught of racist tweets against her began, he could have kept his mouth shut and stayed out of it, knowing that he had two suspensions on record. He could have even gently dissuaded his followers from engaging in the more vicious forms of attack, though that's obviously not in his character, and would be too much to expect. What he did not have to do was mock her for reacting negatively and with hurt towards the barrage of racist images, comments on her personal appearance, intentional misgendering of her as a man, and other abuse, nor (secondarily) did he have to implicitly encourage further abuse by doing so. At that point, he became a part of the problem, and with his record, he got axed along with a number of other people.

If abuse is too much for you to handle, the internet is not the best place for you. We shouldn't be clamping down on free speech because people get their feelings hurt.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yes, he's been suspended for doing similar things in the past, which is likely why he lost his account this time

If you see no difference between political activism (and this was not political activism) and personal insult, then I'm not sure how to continue this conversation. Let me try this: If he still had his account, and people were sending him messages disagreeing with positions that he'd taken, that would be within the realm of normal discourse. If you get enormous numbers of users calling him "faggot", calling him a woman due to his sexuality, or otherwise engaging in simple trolling, then that's a different matter. You've been here a while now. You know the difference. The standards are actually looser over at Twitter, and he still couldn't follow some basic rules of behavior.

He'd violated the terms of service in the past. He'd mocked her appearance on Twitter and called her a man in the past. There was a pattern of trolling her. When the onslaught of racist tweets against her began, he could have kept his mouth shut and stayed out of it, knowing that he had two suspensions on record. He could have even gently dissuaded his followers from engaging in the more vicious forms of attack, though that's obviously not in his character, and would be too much to expect. What he did not have to do was mock her for reacting negatively and with hurt towards the barrage of racist images, comments on her personal appearance, intentional misgendering of her as a man, and other abuse, nor (secondarily) did he have to implicitly encourage further abuse by doing so. At that point, he became a part of the problem, and with his record, he got axed along with a number of other people.

If abuse is too much for you to handle, the internet is not the best place for you. We shouldn't be clamping down on free speech because people get their feelings hurt.

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Free. Speech. On. Privately. Owned. Social. Networks. Understand that, and we can continue the conversation.

[Vassenor]

Yes, he's been suspended for doing similar things in the past, which is likely why he lost his account this time

If you see no difference between political activism (and this was not political activism) and personal insult, then I'm not sure how to continue this conversation. Let me try this: If he still had his account, and people were sending him messages disagreeing with positions that he'd taken, that would be within the realm of normal discourse. If you get enormous numbers of users calling him "faggot", calling him a woman due to his sexuality, or otherwise engaging in simple trolling, then that's a different matter. You've been here a while now. You know the difference. The standards are actually looser over at Twitter, and he still couldn't follow some basic rules of behavior.

He'd violated the terms of service in the past. He'd mocked her appearance on Twitter and called her a man in the past. There was a pattern of trolling her. When the onslaught of racist tweets against her began, he could have kept his mouth shut and stayed out of it, knowing that he had two suspensions on record. He could have even gently dissuaded his followers from engaging in the more vicious forms of attack, though that's obviously not in his character, and would be too much to expect. What he did not have to do was mock her for reacting negatively and with hurt towards the barrage of racist images, comments on her personal appearance, intentional misgendering of her as a man, and other abuse, nor (secondarily) did he have to implicitly encourage further abuse by doing so. At that point, he became a part of the problem, and with his record, he got axed along with a number of other people.

If abuse is too much for you to handle, the internet is not the best place for you. We shouldn't be clamping down on free speech because people get their feelings hurt.

So people should be allowed to conduct harassment campaigns and issue death threats whenever they like? If you did this to someone out in the real world, chances are you'd get arrested for it. So why should you get a free pass just because you're doing it on the internet?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yes, he's been suspended for doing similar things in the past, which is likely why he lost his account this time

If you see no difference between political activism (and this was not political activism) and personal insult, then I'm not sure how to continue this conversation. Let me try this: If he still had his account, and people were sending him messages disagreeing with positions that he'd taken, that would be within the realm of normal discourse. If you get enormous numbers of users calling him "faggot", calling him a woman due to his sexuality, or otherwise engaging in simple trolling, then that's a different matter. You've been here a while now. You know the difference. The standards are actually looser over at Twitter, and he still couldn't follow some basic rules of behavior.

He'd violated the terms of service in the past. He'd mocked her appearance on Twitter and called her a man in the past. There was a pattern of trolling her. When the onslaught of racist tweets against her began, he could have kept his mouth shut and stayed out of it, knowing that he had two suspensions on record. He could have even gently dissuaded his followers from engaging in the more vicious forms of attack, though that's obviously not in his character, and would be too much to expect. What he did not have to do was mock her for reacting negatively and with hurt towards the barrage of racist images, comments on her personal appearance, intentional misgendering of her as a man, and other abuse, nor (secondarily) did he have to implicitly encourage further abuse by doing so. At that point, he became a part of the problem, and with his record, he got axed along with a number of other people.

I feel that's inportant to note. This whole thread is about one person, but he was just one of many.

Exactly. It's not like he's being singled out here. He's someone who has already run afoul of their TOS in the past, got caught up in a sweep of people who were targeting a public figure for often racist abuse, and got his account deleted as a result.

[Alvecia]

Yes, he's been suspended for doing similar things in the past, which is likely why he lost his account this time

If you see no difference between political activism (and this was not political activism) and personal insult, then I'm not sure how to continue this conversation. Let me try this: If he still had his account, and people were sending him messages disagreeing with positions that he'd taken, that would be within the realm of normal discourse. If you get enormous numbers of users calling him "faggot", calling him a woman due to his sexuality, or otherwise engaging in simple trolling, then that's a different matter. You've been here a while now. You know the difference. The standards are actually looser over at Twitter, and he still couldn't follow some basic rules of behavior.

He'd violated the terms of service in the past. He'd mocked her appearance on Twitter and called her a man in the past. There was a pattern of trolling her. When the onslaught of racist tweets against her began, he could have kept his mouth shut and stayed out of it, knowing that he had two suspensions on record. He could have even gently dissuaded his followers from engaging in the more vicious forms of attack, though that's obviously not in his character, and would be too much to expect. What he did not have to do was mock her for reacting negatively and with hurt towards the barrage of racist images, comments on her personal appearance, intentional misgendering of her as a man, and other abuse, nor (secondarily) did he have to implicitly encourage further abuse by doing so. At that point, he became a part of the problem, and with his record, he got axed along with a number of other people.

If abuse is too much for you to handle, the internet is not the best place for you. We shouldn't be clamping down on free speech because people get their feelings hurt.

This was in their terms of services and has been for a while. When signing up to use Twitter, Milo and other explicitly agree that they would not use Twitter for any kind of harrassment. They then promptly broke that agreement, as such Twitter is well within their right to prevent their use of their service

[Jochizyd Republic]

They have blatant Nazi sites up there too. Literal Nazis.

This whole thing is just blatant hypocrisy.

You saw my post earlier, with all of that Unfunny-Comedian's posting, right? I guess it's the "Not racism if it's against white people" trope kicking in.

I didn't see that one, sorry. Where is it?

And no. I hate racism against whites. BLM does it and Liberals in general do it all the time. I'm not supportive of it.

[Minzerland]

If abuse is too much for you to handle, the internet is not the best place for you. We shouldn't be clamping down on free speech because people get their feelings hurt.

So people should be allowed to conduct harassment campaigns and issue death threats whenever they like? If you did this to someone out in the real world, chances are you'd get arrested for it. So why should you get a free pass just because you're doing it on the internet?

Because it is the Internet.

[Vassenor]

So people should be allowed to conduct harassment campaigns and issue death threats whenever they like? If you did this to someone out in the real world, chances are you'd get arrested for it. So why should you get a free pass just because you're doing it on the internet?

Because it is the Internet.

[The Greater German Federal Republic]

Twitter has been taken over by pro-SJW leftists.
So much for free speech...

[Alvecia]

Twitter has been taken over by pro-SJW leftists.
So much for free speech...

Yes, enforcing contractual terms does sound like something only SJW's would do.

[The Greater German Federal Republic]

Twitter has been taken over by pro-SJW leftists.
So much for free speech...

Yes, enforcing contractual terms does sound like something only SJW's would do.

It is clear that he has been banned also for his right-wing views.

[CoraSpia]

Because it is the Internet.

If someone gave the same sort of abuse Milo gave in rl and got arrested, I would still think it wrong even if it was face to face.

[Alvecia]

Yes, enforcing contractual terms does sound like something only SJW's would do.

It is clear that he has been banned also for his right-wing views.

That is completely speculative and unsubstantiated.

[Val Halla]

Yes, enforcing contractual terms does sound like something only SJW's would do.

It is clear that he has been banned also for his right-wing views.

Err, no, he was banned for repeated provocation of harassment, something he had also been warned for many times.

[Tsaraine]

The thing to remember is that Twitter's support & enforcement is legendarily terrible. I mean, fucking ISIS uses it to recruit and Twitter just plain DGAF. It seems like the only way to actually get banned from Twitter is to be famous enough that your harassment hits the top ten trending hashtags.

So you can talk all day about "How come Yiannopaulos got banned when XYZ other shunt chunnels didn't" but that doesn't really matter, since "behaving badly" doesn't correlate with "being famous" ... as far as I can tell your continuing bad behaviour has to reflect poorly, and very publicly, on Twitter support before they'll take action.

So the question is rather "did Yiannopaulos deserve to get banned" ... and honestly, I think the answer is a resounding yes. But then we NS mods are a bunch of authoritarian far-right leftist commienazi atheislamic jackbooted thugs, so you could say that my answer was always going to be "ban all the things!"

[United Dixieland Territories]

You saw my post earlier, with all of that Unfunny-Comedian's posting, right? I guess it's the "Not racism if it's against white people" trope kicking in.

I didn't see that one, sorry. Where is it?

And no. I hate racism against whites. BLM does it and Liberals in general do it all the time. I'm not supportive of it.

I reckon' it was this post: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=384351&p=29392835&sid=2ccd35e8e9d81d07ac891bc8b221af8c#p29392835