nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

Kermit.de.frog

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ExMachina1000

Better Than Christ wrote: »

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

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.

Danzy

We live in a very conformist era.

Your modern progressive is worse than Archbishop Mcquaid

Better Than Christ

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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.

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/AGildedEye/status/1276865265305882625

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?

[Deleted User]

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.

jam_mac_jam

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

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.

ExMachina1000

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

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?

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.

BarnardsLoop

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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/

B.A._Baracus

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

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.

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.

BarnardsLoop

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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.

Zaph

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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.

KiKi III

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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.

jam_mac_jam

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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.

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.

Kermit.de.frog

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

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.

Rodin

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

igCorcaigh

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.