Twitter permanently suspends Milo Yiannopoulos over row with 'Ghostbusters' actress

Arcade_Tryer

Wibbs wrote: »

Agreed. I personally prefer to know what people really think, not their nice little facade for the neighbours.

But you're kind of right. Though I didn't intend to play it as a card, it was a cheap shot nonetheless.

Little CuChulainn

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Just in case I'm being misrepresented - I am making no statements about the rights of wrongs of moderatorial actions on AH. To do so on thread is contra-indicated and I am aware of that. My point was that there were similarities between what occurred here and on Twitter and if one wanted to defend Milo out of a sense of fairness or free speech then thanking a post where somebody was then silenced on this thread smacks of doublethink. And I do believe that is on topic and relevant to the discussion. For some reason this then devolved into some digs about my history and motivation for posting and created some sort of poopstorm which was also not my intention.

Boards is a discussion site, Twitter is not. Different things are relevant in each site. That posters retorts would have been ok on Twitter but added nothing to the discussion here. A person can apply different standards depending on the existing circumstances without being a hypocrite. If two people started punching the head of each other in front of me I'd consider them to be out of line, if they were in a boxing ring I wouldn't think twice about it.

If Milo wrote what he did on Boards he would probably be banned. I doubt many would try and defend him. Boards has a well established rule set for that kind of thing. But what he said on Twitter is pretty standard for the Twittersphere. It makes no sense that he was banned for it on a platform that is used by everyone from Isis to Pornhub.

Arcade_Tryer

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Boards is a discussion site, Twitter is not. Different things are relevant in each site. That posters retorts would have been ok on Twitter but added nothing to the discussion here. A person can apply different standards depending on the existing circumstances without being a hypocrite. If two people started punching the head of each other in front of me I'd consider them to be out of line, if they were in a boxing ring I wouldn't think twice about it.

If Milo wrote what he did on Boards he would probably be banned. I doubt many would try and defend him. Boards has a well established rule set for that kind of thing. But what he said on Twitter is pretty standard for the Twittersphere. It makes no sense that he was banned for it on a platform that is used by everyone from Isis to Pornhub.

Not necessarily true. Twitter is a business. And it may well have made business sense to ban him.

dr.bollocko

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Boards is a discussion site, Twitter is not. Different things are relevant in each site. That posters retorts would have been ok on Twitter but added nothing to the discussion here. A person can apply different standards depending on the existing circumstances without being a hypocrite. If two people started punching the head of each other in front of me I'd consider them to be out of line, if they were in a boxing ring I wouldn't think twice about it.

If Milo wrote what he did on Boards he would probably be banned. I doubt many would try and defend him. Boards has a well established rule set for that kind of thing. But what he said on Twitter is pretty standard for the Twittersphere. It makes no sense that he was banned for it on a platform that is used by everyone from Isis to Pornhub.

The details of the rules on each site are not necessarily relevant. Revelling in one silenced voice while protesting another is.

Wibbs

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

But you're kind of right. Though I didn't intend to play it as a card, it was a cheap shot nonetheless.

In fairness, cheap shots can still hit their intended target.

Outlaw Pete

dr.bollocko wrote: »

The details of the rules on each site are not necessarily relevant.

lol. Of course they are relevant. This is insane :P

If you get done for speeding on a rural section of the Autobahn, I and most people, will have sympathy for you, but if you get done doing 200 on the M50, we won't. There is NO hypocrisy in that.

Revelling in one silenced voice while protesting another is.

Who's reveling in it? Or delighting in it, as you said earlier? Come on man.

dr.bollocko

There seems little point in further pointing out what is plain as day to me but to you is completely invisible as it will devolve into "yes it is" and "no it isn't".

Some people are only interested in defending the silenced voices they agree with. and that smells of hypocrisy.

Outlaw Pete

You're an intelligent guy doc and I don't for one nano second buy that you can't see the difference between endorsing something in one arena and condemning it in another. Keep saying it's hypocrisy as much as you like, but that won't make it so.

One of your final acts as mod of this forum was to waffle on about how sexism was a major issue, how it had to be stamped out and how you were no longer gonna close your eyes to it all. Yet here you are taking issue with a handful of users who thanked a post thread banning someone who implied the men she was disagreeing with, who she was laughing at, were manbabies. You wanna talk hypocrisy? Well there's a slice of it for you.

Also, exaggerating someone's position by suggesting that they feel removing Milo from Twitter was akin to Rosa Parks being told to sit at the back of the bus, does not qualify as a counterargument. Or at least it shouldn't.

mzungu

dr.bollocko wrote: »

That ain't what I said broseph. What I said was the poster who was banned was expressing a counter point to the milo should not be banned side.

Fair enough. I read that incorrectly.

mzungu

Samaris wrote: »

On a totally personal note - I really can't bring myself to give a flying about Milo Yiannopoulos. He sounds like a raving arse. Assuming Twitter is a personally owned website, no-one has a God-given (or even US Constitution-given) right to be allowed to post on a website. They can boot him out because they don't like the colour of his avatar if they really want.

Basically, if you're enough of an arse that the website runners are fed up dealing with your crap, you can moan all you like when you get booted, but it's pretty much entirely your own fault. Or the fault of the website in some cases, but one shrugs and moves on rather than standing outside the door of the establishment either a) crying loudly or b) trying to break in. Unless they've actually attacked you based on something that's generally considered illegal to refuse service for, like the colour of your skin or something stupid like that. You can absolutely get kicked off Twitter for the colour of your opinions, as Twitter has just proved. If they're arsehole-coloured, eventually people will get bored/sick of you.

I can't even recall what the ban was about in the first place! Was it for directing a mob on Twitter?

dr.bollocko

mzungu wrote: »

I can't even recall what the ban was about in the first place! Was it for directing a mob on Twitter?

I think that was the final straw, yes. And the trouble with that type of dog whistling is that Milo can stand back and let his army of followers then harass somebody and say "was them, not me". But his followers are directed by him.

I think he's been suspended before however so there were indications he was on his way out.

My main issue is not what he said but how he had the ability to direct his followers simply by re tweeting them. That provokes harassment.

Samaris

mzungu wrote: »

I can't even recall what the ban was about in the first place! Was it for directing a mob on Twitter?

I don't know all of it, but as I've gathered, Milo made some snarky comment at the woman who played the lead in the new Ghostbuster's movie. She responded, and he directed, whether blatently or just irresponsibly, his army of minions to attack her, which they gleefully did. All got a bit out of hand and Twitter decided he was more trouble than he was worth and banned him.

Outlaw Pete

mzungu wrote: »

I can't even recall what the ban was about in the first place! Was it for directing a mob on Twitter?

Essentially, yes (also claiming that there were repeated instances of it) but ironically, on that occasion at least, it was Leslie that engaged in that kind of nonsense.


https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352

Samaris

Twitter doesn't tend to ban people much, do they? That's what most of the controversy is about - he said this and this, Milo only did this, why is he getting banned and not the everyone else? (The shadings of feminist conspiracy are probably also provoking some of the publicity of it). Maybe they did just take a stand on this one and it's a sign there will be a clampdown on trolls and furthermore, people who use it for criminal acts (yeah, the order of priority is a bit skewed!) after testing how much backlash they'd get banning/"censoring" people compared to the lax attitude before.

Be interesting to see if Twitter do start getting more aggressive to their more dubious userbase.

Grayson

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

My intention wasn't to use it as a card. It was simply an observation based on reading boards recently. Also, playing a racism card doesn't necessarily imply that one is trying to shut down conversation. I fully support people's right to espouse racist views. Boards, Twitter and wider society often does not. That's the problem.

I don't know if you've ever been a mod on a board but to keep things civil and keep the discussion from descending into nastiness those rules are needed. I used to mod a college bulletin board and you need to have rules in place to stop it getting too nasty. I guarantee that even if you went to the forums at storm front you'd find they have rules too (although probably not for racism).

A general rule of thumb is attack the post, not the poster and post evidence not opinion. So it's ok to say "that argument is stupid because x, y, z" but not "You are stupid". Likewise you can say "That argument is racist because x, y, z" but not "You are a racist".

So a trump supporter couldn't say "Mexicans are criminals" but they could say "A study has shown a marked increase in crime by undocumented hispanic immigrants" My reply would be "This study showed that there is no more crime amongst that group than any other" and not "YOU'RE A RACIST"

Grayson

Samaris wrote: »

Twitter doesn't tend to ban people much, do they? That's what most of the controversy is about - he said this and this, Milo only did this, why is he getting banned and not the everyone else? (The shadings of feminist conspiracy are probably also provoking some of the publicity of it). Maybe they did just take a stand on this one and it's a sign there will be a clampdown on trolls and furthermore, people who use it for criminal acts (yeah, the order of priority is a bit skewed!) after testing how much backlash they'd get banning/"censoring" people compared to the lax attitude before.

Be interesting to see if Twitter do start getting more aggressive to their more dubious userbase.

Twitter has probably deleted millions of accounts. Most would have been spam accounts or fraudulent in some way. There's probably quite a few that have been banned for abuse too. It's just that this one is famous and the Milo supporters either feel he didn't cross a line or that there's little transparency.

Outlaw Pete

Samaris wrote: »

Twitter doesn't tend to ban people much, do they?

Well, not for Milo's kinda sins they don't tend to but they do close a lot of accounts.

Twitter closes 360,000 accounts for ‘promoting terrorism’

Twitter has shut down 360,000 accounts for threatening or promoting terrorist acts since the middle of 2015, the company said on Thursday. The social media platform has previously come under fire from Washington and third-party groups for not doing enough to stop accounts linked to Islamic State militants.

However, since February, it has suspended an additional 235,000 accounts, after halting 125,000 accounts since the middle of 2015, most of which were related to Islamic State. Twitter said its daily suspensions of terrorism-linked accounts have jumped 80 per cent since last year and that it has reduced its response time.

RDM_83 again

Samaris wrote: »

Twitter doesn't tend to ban people much, do they? That's what most of the controversy is about - he said this and this, Milo only did this, why is he getting banned and not the everyone else? (The shadings of feminist conspiracy are probably also provoking some of the publicity of it). Maybe they did just take a stand on this one and it's a sign there will be a clampdown on trolls and furthermore, people who use it for criminal acts (yeah, the order of priority is a bit skewed!) after testing how much backlash they'd get banning/"censoring" people compared to the lax attitude before.

Be interesting to see if Twitter do start getting more aggressive to their more dubious userbase.

I'd be curious about what twitters long term direction is in general, it's loved by the media but isn't it unprofitable (I know many sites aren't though) with a flatlined user base and falling share prices which combine for worrying times.

Samaris

Ah okay, I got the impression from the conversation that it didn't tend to ban accounts. Although I suppose banning a famous account is always going to get more publicity than some random bloke.

Wibbs

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'd be curious about what twitters long term direction is in general, it's loved by the media but isn't it unprofitable (I know many sites aren't though) with a flatlined user base and falling share prices which combine for worrying times.

The usual route of being bought out and taken over by some larger crowd and ether seen as a loss leader, or they attempt to monetise it and kill it stone dead. Hopefully it doesn't go this way, but I can certainly imagine a situation where in the future the majority of online chat traffic is owned by one or two companies. It's not too far off that nowadays.

Wibbs

Samaris wrote: »

Ah okay, I got the impression from the conversation that it didn't tend to ban accounts. Although I suppose banning a famous account is always going to get more publicity than some random bloke.

Oh they ban like crazy Sam. The vast majority don't kick up a fuss or have the fame profile and media avenues to complain about it. Add in the lines drawn US BS and in an election year where the choice is a warmonger or an orange haired muppet and all bets are off. Never mind the push to open the female market for an old and dead franchise and the almost inevitable pushback and it's easy to reach full retard all over the place.

The other problem can be actors and other "celebs" when set against media whores like Milo Snuffleupagus. They don't stand a chance. Few enough of them have the chops for debate. They get used to yes men, even if they start out bright enough, so tend to live in an ego bubble of crazy proportions. Agent provocateurs like Milo can have them for lunch.

IMH the studio really dropped the ball on that one. They could see the massive online backlash against the flic. Hell they even did reshoots to remark on it(just as thick as it sounds). Yet they pretty much left the actresses to their own devices in the online world.

Junkyard Tom

Milo reminds me of a modern-day Ian Paisley. Gather a band of followers often motivated by hate and stupidity, wind them up, and walk away when the trouble kicks off denying responsibility for any wrongdoing.

Wibbs

He started out OK, quite reserved and balanced, but when he got popular in the US he realised like others before him that you can't throw in enough obvious or go enough slapstick for the cross eyed and the hard of thinking in that culture. What we see now is that media invention, the act that gets the bums on paying seats. The reserved and balanced doesn't earn nearly so well.

We see that increasingly at play in media in general throughout the world. Tabloid sells and crazy gets clicks. The British Daily Mail is the most visited news website on the planet last time I looked. Yep. Think on that and shudder. And start building shelters and hoarding food.

mzungu

dr.bollocko wrote: »

My main issue is not what he said but how he had the ability to direct his followers simply by re tweeting them. That provokes harassment.

I am not sure if he did orchestrate a campaign (and it may very well have been his intention) but it seems it was just taken for granted that he did.

Although, taking the tweet OP posted here, it does seem like there was a pair of them in it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352

Samaris wrote: »

I don't know all of it, but as I've gathered, Milo made some snarky comment at the woman who played the lead in the new Ghostbuster's movie. She responded, and he directed, whether blatently or just irresponsibly, his army of minions to attack her, which they gleefully did. All got a bit out of hand and Twitter decided he was more trouble than he was worth and banned him.

I guess this is what it comes down to. Given the blokes reputation and prior actions it would not be beyond the realms of possibility, but in the absence of any proof, then I guess the decision was made at Twitter HQ that it was more trouble than it was worth. It could also have been the race element to it too. Although, if that were the case, then Leslie's tweet above ticks both boxes. If Twitter was consistent, they would have banned/suspended them both.

Venom

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh they ban like crazy Sam. The vast majority don't kick up a fuss or have the fame profile and media avenues to complain about it. Add in the lines drawn US BS and in an election year where the choice is a warmonger or an orange haired muppet and all bets are off. Never mind the push to open the female market for an old and dead franchise and the almost inevitable pushback and it's easy to reach full retard all over the place.

The other problem can be actors and other "celebs" when set against media whores like Milo Snuffleupagus. They don't stand a chance. Few enough of them have the chops for debate. They get used to yes men, even if they start out bright enough, so tend to live in an ego bubble of crazy proportions. Agent provocateurs like Milo can have them for lunch.

IMH the studio really dropped the ball on that one. They could see the massive online backlash against the flic. Hell they even did reshoots to remark on it(just as thick as it sounds). Yet they pretty much left the actresses to their own devices in the online world.

Twitter has had it in for Milo for a while tho Wibbs and removed his verified status a few months ago which is pretty dickish move on their part. The whole Leslie Jones issue was just an excuse to ban him and its the lack of any proof of his wrong doing on the companys part that made this an issue.

As for celebs deserving bans, Kanye West, Azealia Banks and Leslie Jones have posted way worse stuff than Milo ever did and Twitter has done smeg all until Banks went full retard one time to many and got her account suspended.

Wibbs

The oft randomness of the service is one reason I'd not be arsed using it TBH. That and it's ready made for trolling/general nonsense/ego wankery. IE this nonsense involving a low end "comedienne" and a flouncy right wing troll.

dr.bollocko

mzungu wrote: »

I am not sure if he did orchestrate a campaign (and it may very well have been his intention) but it seems it was just taken for granted that he did.

Although, taking the tweet OP posted here, it does seem like there was a pair of them in it.

It can be done very passively. And many people do this on Twitter all the time but usually to point out positive opinions rather than negative ones. If you or I have a million Twitter followers and then re-tweet an opinion we don't agree with then that gets sent to our million followers. They then can see it and act accordingly. Of course you or I did nothing but retweet however that simple act mobilised a mob and pointed them at a target. So on the one hand the guy just had an opinion. Big deal. On the other hand, he painted a target on the back of a person and plenty took aim. And as a vocal and popular political outlier there was a spotlight on him. In fact he'd already been warned and had his Twitter account suspended for bad behaviour in the past.

Of course the point was forced home because of the public outcry against the poor treatment of ghostbusters lady by a large number of Hollywood elites. Twitter was compelled to act by the negative publicity. And Milo knew too, that when taking a potshot in the manner he did, he mobilised his fans in that direction. His behaviour wasn't too bright, Bart.