Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

«13456738

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/twitter-closes-graham-linehan-account-after-trans-comment-1.4290547?mode=amp

    Isn't this censorship rather than protecting anyone?

    That's what it looks like to me.

    No, censorship would be the government attempting to deny Linehan freedom of speech.

    Private companies have no obligation to offer any individual a platform. Particularly if you break their rules. We agree to this when we hit “accept” on terms and conditions without reading them.


  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47,368 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    No, he's been a dick for so long now that it was inevitable. You can't consistently target and abuse one particular part of the community and expect to get away with it indefinitely.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 55,590 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    Mod: Moving to Current Affairs, reminder to read the charter here before posting


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    absolute censorship


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,557 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Depends on what twitter define themselves as: an open platform for all, or a service of which they can pick and choose what stays up and what warrants a ban.

    It's clear they've gone for the latter option - however this makes them liable for any ****e posted that they dont get rid of - there's a hell of a lot of ****e on twitter of questionable legality - not to mention the radicals of certain beliefs openly planning on it.
    Only a matter of time before they're taken to court for some of the stuff that hasnt been removed by them - they are complicit in hosting it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,231 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    Whether you agree with him or not he made the biggest mistake of posting his opinion on social media.

    We live in a world today where if your opinion 'goes against the social grain' you will be outed and targeted. So... Don't go posting things on social media.

    Also in his case it looks like he was prodding. But hey, you don't even have to prod to get reactions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,348 ✭✭✭✭ricero


    I worry for the world when freedom of speech can be so easily censored.

    I dont agree with Lineham on most of his views but we are heading down a dangerous road when we can easily mute differing opinions that go against the woke culture.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    If you stood up in a pub and started giving out about trans people every day, you’d probably get a few warnings from bar staff but soon enough you’d get barred.

    This is the same principle.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,885 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    KiKi III wrote: »
    No, censorship would be the government attempting to deny Linehan freedom of speech.

    Private companies have no obligation to offer any individual a platform. Particularly if you break their rules. We agree to this when we hit “accept” on terms and conditions without reading them.

    I wouldn't mind that if they were consistent, but they aren't.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭BarnardsLoop


    Nah. Even sites like Boards have rules against insulting and abusing other people. Time was when someone was banned because they were being an arsehole like that, we didn't have hordes of hand-wringers screeching about 'free speech'. Well, we didn't have quite so many of them.

    You know the rules when you sign up to a site like that. Can't stick to them? You should be banned. Thinking the people that person is abusing are fair targets doesn't really change that.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 12,254 Mod ✭✭✭✭igCorcaigh


    Deadnaming is a pretty sh1tty thing to do.
    He's a bully.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    A truth is not judged by the number of people who hold the view


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,885 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Nah. Even sites like Boards have rules against insulting and abusing other people. Time was when someone was banned because they were being an arsehole like that, we didn't have hordes of hand-wringers screeching about 'free speech'. Well, we didn't have quite so many of them.

    You know the rules when you sign up to a site like that. Can't stick to them? You should be banned. Thinking the people that person is abusing are fair targets doesn't really change that.

    Trump abuses people every day.

    Where is his ban?

    It's cynical hypocrisy, going after the less influential and visited accounts.

    Anyone breaking the rules should be banned if they were serious about it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    Rodin wrote: »
    A truth is not judged by the number of people who hold the view

    He’s not being banned on the basis of whether what he says is truth or lies, he’s being banned for expressing his views in a hateful way.

    J K Rowling has very articulately expressed similar views without being hateful and I believe she has never been suspended or banned.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,733 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    I wouldn't mind that if they were consistent, but they aren't.

    That's my issue with it. As someone on the other thread said have all the people who threatened JK Rowling been banned. There are violent threats against women all the time yet they do not seem to treated with the same rules.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    Trump abuses people every day.

    Where is his ban?

    It's cynical hypocrisy, going after the less influential and visited accounts.

    Anyone breaking the rules should be banned if they were serious about it.

    Twitter openly admits Trump breaks their rules. But they feel that as leader of the USA, they can’t ban him. So they’re fact-checking his tweets instead.


  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47,368 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    Trump abuses people every day.

    Where is his ban?

    It's cynical hypocrisy, going after the less influential and visited accounts.

    Anyone breaking the rules should be banned if they were serious about it.

    I don't disagree, they should be consistent and Trump should be banned. If he wasn't president of the USA I've no doubt he would have been long ago. But just because one person hasn't been banned it doesn't mean that another person shouldn't be banned.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭BarnardsLoop


    Trump abuses people every day.

    Where is his ban?

    It's cynical hypocrisy, going after the less influential and visited accounts.

    Anyone breaking the rules should be banned if they were serious about it.

    I don't disagree but we both know the fallout from banning the current US president (especially when Twitter is his main outlet to his faithful) would be far, far more trouble than it's worth.

    Plus Twitter is an American company so... yeah, not sure how well that'd go down.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,885 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Zaph wrote: »
    If he wasn't president of the USA I've no doubt he would have been long ago.

    It's not even because of that. He has 40 million followers, it's a business decision.

    Which is fine and to be fair they are up front about the moral bankruptcy in that regard.

    No one with that reach is getting banned for commercial reasons.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,231 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    I don't disagree but we both know the fallout from banning the current US president (especially when Twitter is his main outlet to his faithful) would be far, far more trouble than it's worth.

    Plus Twitter is an American company so... yeah, not sure how well that'd go down.

    Totally agree. Banning Trump would just bring more problems.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    timmyntc wrote: »
    Depends on what twitter define themselves as: an open platform for all, or a service of which they can pick and choose what stays up and what warrants a ban.

    It's clear they've gone for the latter option - however this makes them liable for any ****e posted that they dont get rid of - there's a hell of a lot of ****e on twitter of questionable legality - not to mention the radicals of certain beliefs openly planning on it.
    Only a matter of time before they're taken to court for some of the stuff that hasnt been removed by them - they are complicit in hosting it.



    This is an important point. By making these censorship decisions they take an editorial stance and should therefore be held responsible as publishers for what their platform hosts. And it hosts a lot of very strange stuff.
    Aside from all the accounts who remain in place in spite of threatening anyone who criticises gender theory with rape or death, there has been a huge increase in so-called virtuous paedophiles on Twitter. MAPs and NOMAPs congregate there. The site hosts child pornography also.
    Twitter is responsible for almost half of the child abuse material found by UK investigators being hosted openly on popular tech sites, according to figures seen by the Telegraph.

    Statistics from the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) show that 49 percent of the images, videos and url links it found on social media, search engines and cloud services in the last three years were on the social network, making up 1,396 of the total 2,835 incidents found.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/10/twitter-responsible-half-child-abuse-material-uk-investigators/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    KiKi III wrote: »
    He’s not being banned on the basis of whether what he says is truth or lies, he’s being banned for expressing his views in a hateful way.

    J K Rowling has very articulately expressed similar views without being hateful and I believe she has never been suspended or banned.

    How did he do it in a hateful way? I've never seen his twitter.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭Better Than Christ


    I'm glad Twitter has finally done something about him. There was something unedifying about watching a man's protracted, public nervous breakdown being played out on social media. He has paid an enormous personal and professional price for his behaviour.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,481 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/twitter-closes-graham-linehan-account-after-trans-comment-1.4290547?mode=amp

    Isn't this just censorship rather than protecting anyone?

    That's what it looks like to me.

    It's perfectly fine for someone like Trump to spew his hatred on the platform every day of the week but when it comes to debate on social issues action is taken.

    He has the right to free speech, not to use someone else's platform.

    I wish people would stop abusing that word.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭BarnardsLoop


    How did he do it in a hateful way? I've never seen his twitter.

    With the account suspended, I can't see the tweets but from what I've read, he's been accusing people of grooming minors. Including an associate professor at a university.

    After a quick search, the only link I can find is to the professor in question: https://twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1276697869504872454

    So... if that is indeed the case, it's not hard to see why Twitter might ban him for such libellous accusations.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 545 ✭✭✭CageWager


    Twitter is run by a bunch of ultra liberal nerds. It’s their toy and they can ban anyone who doesn’t conform ENTIRELY to their point of view. I’m amazed that people are shocked that users are shouted down or banned for daring to deviate from the agreed consensus, its woke strategy 101.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    Nah. Even sites like Boards have rules against insulting and abusing other people. Time was when someone was banned because they were being an arsehole like that, we didn't have hordes of hand-wringers screeching about 'free speech'. Well, we didn't have quite so many of them.

    You know the rules when you sign up to a site like that. Can't stick to them? You should be banned. Thinking the people that person is abusing are fair targets doesn't really change that.

    In that case pages that are set up just to insult and criticize people should also be banned?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,733 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    With the account suspended, I can't see the tweets but from what I've read, he's been accusing people of grooming minors. Including an associate professor at a university.

    After a quick search, the only link I can find is to the professor in question: https://twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1276697869504872454

    So... if that is indeed the case, it's not hard to see why Twitter might ban him for such libellous accusations.

    Although without the context of what was originally said it is difficult to judge.


  • Posts: 13,688 ✭✭✭✭ Joe Proud Oat


    Free speech is enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

    Being given a platform, on the other hand, is not enshrined anywhere within it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,140 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    There’s a certain irony in a guy running straight to post on Mumsnet to complain about being banned for the comment “men aren’t women tho”. Does he identify as a mum?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 51,744 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭Better Than Christ


    It's not even because of that. He has 40 million followers, it's a business decision.

    Which is fine and to be fair they are up front about the moral bankruptcy in that regard.

    No one with that reach is getting banned for commercial reasons.

    The owners of Boards.ie should be similarly upfront about their morally bankrupt tolerance of racism. A commercial decision, based on the fact that it generates traffic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,054 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    We live in a very conformist era.

    Your modern progressive is worse than Archbishop Mcquaid


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    If Glinner was banned for breaking the rules fair enough but there is a glaring lack of consistency on the implementation of that policy. To pretend this decision was in no way influenced by politics is laughable - no one believes that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    The owners of Boards.ie should be similarly upfront about their morally bankrupt tolerance of racism. A commercial decision, based on the fact that it generates traffic.

    Also allowing people to make fun of others regarding their religious beliefs. Goes unchecked


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    so the ayatollahs of WOKE banished an otherwise rock solid member of the PC fraternity ?

    our new clerical overlords grow more authoritarian by the day


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,536 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    Twitter are on their way to extinction, they'll be gone in next few years...not before time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    There’s a certain irony in a guy running straight to post on Mumsnet to complain about being banned for the comment “men aren’t women tho”. Does he identify as a mum?

    He certainly has a right to... the fact he has never given birth is irrelevant. He can identify as a mother in the modern world.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭BarnardsLoop


    No he can't. Obviously he's mentally ill if he does that and he needs to be mocked and ridiculed at every turnabout. Told that he's a paedophile and rapist and all that comes with it. (Am I doing this right?)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Tired Gardener


    He has broken the Twitter agreement, so it is only fair to suspend his account. What is odd is that Trump does this daily, and is still there, also all the rape and death threats that JK Rowling received.

    Twitter is a platform and can enforce its rulings however it wants, and as it isn't an arm of the government it doesn't have to entertain people saying things that go against its rules and code of conduct.

    I have no qualms with that part... what I find odd is the lack of consistency shown by Twitter.

    As for Graham Linehan, I do think he can go a bit too far at times, some of his points I agree with, some I do not.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 469 ✭✭Smegging hell


    He was also banned for 'platform manipulation' and using sockpuppet accounts, according to the Twitter statement in this article. https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/27/graham-linehan-suspended-twitter-12909978/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,240 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Why is Graham Linehan obsessed with this particular issue? It seems strange to continue his campaign, when on the face of it, doesn’t effect him. Accusing people of grooming their students is not free speech. I have never heard anyone who has anything to actually contribute to a subject ever have to use the defence of free speech. Quite often people are using it as A fancy way of being a Cnut.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭Better Than Christ


    He was also banned for 'platform manipulation' and using sockpuppet accounts, according to the Twitter statement in this article. https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/27/graham-linehan-suspended-twitter-12909978/

    In Linehan's case, 'platform manipulation' probably refers not to sockpuppet accounts, but to his tendency to encourage his followers to 'pile on' anyone who disagrees with him. Classic bullying behaviour. He did it to an actress from Derry Girls this week.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    I don't understand the heat that twitter sometimes gets. If I launch a website and allow people to post on it, I can delete what I like, I leave up what I like, I am not responsible for the content, nor am I forced to leave everything up. I am not producing a publication. If you don't like my website, don't use it. Those who publish material on my website are responsible for what they publish.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    I don't understand the heat that twitter sometimes gets. If I launch a website and allow people to post on it, I can delete what I like, I leave up what I like, I am not responsible for the content, nor am I forced to leave everything up. I am not producing a publication. If you don't like my website, don't use it. Those who publish material on my website are responsible for what they publish.

    You are unlikely, though, to become a major global corporation with far reaching media influence and attracting preferential tax rates (aka subsidies) from countries like Ireland, are you?

    This free enterprise lark is a bit of a fetch for these corps.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    With the account suspended, I can't see the tweets but from what I've read, he's been accusing people of grooming minors. Including an associate professor at a university.

    After a quick search, the only link I can find is to the professor in question: https://twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1276697869504872454

    So... if that is indeed the case, it's not hard to see why Twitter might ban him for such libellous accusations.

    Fair enough, though I would like to see the context. Tbh he's better off off twitter. Whole platform should be nuked. It offers humanity nothing. At least on fb there are housing groups and you can buy and sell stuff.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭polesheep


    They'll probably tear down his statue.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,431 ✭✭✭The White Wolf


    igCorcaigh wrote: »
    Deadnaming is a pretty sh1tty thing to do.
    He's a bully.

    Pretty sure he was sending unwanted DMs to people as well. He really lost the run of himself on this subject.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 469 ✭✭Smegging hell


    Fair enough, though I would like to see the context. Tbh he's better off off twitter. Whole platform should be nuked. It offers humanity nothing. At least on fb there are housing groups and you can buy and sell stuff.


    This is the original tweet he quote-tweeted calling Lavery a 'groomer'. It was a libellous and nasty smear and Twitter was well within its rights to remove it. https://twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1258176411346579465


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Why is Graham Linehan obsessed with this particular issue? It seems strange to continue his campaign, when on the face of it, doesn’t effect him. Accusing people of grooming their students is not free speech. I have never heard anyone who has anything to actually contribute to a subject ever have to use the defence of free speech. Quite often people are using it as A fancy way of being a Cnut.

    I’ve wondered this myself. Two things I think are to blame for it:

    1) He’s getting old and at the stage of his life where he’s offended by the world evolving because he’s realising it’s no longer ‘his’ world. So his brain just won’t allow trans people to be because accepting them means accepting his own diminished capacity to understand the world.

    2) He’s likely used to being the smartest person in the room, so it’s just a case of refusing to back down and hardening his stance because he got attacked when he first aired his views. The same thing we see dozens of times every day here on boards except this is a famous lad who devoted his entire life to it oddly.

    I agree that he had to go, his page became a cesspit for hatred. But I also really hope this isn’t the start of a trend to get rid of ‘unwanted’ opinions. Although I abhor his views, banning them doesn’t make them go away and just makes a martyr of these people for the ignorant to rally around. We need to change how we do discourse and as a society need to learn to calmly lead people over to your side or at least respect difference/ignorance in a way that makes the world more tolerable for those who experience it.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement