Milo Yianopoulos banned from Twitter-Bad precedence for censorship in social media

In regards to "Safe Spaces" and privilege.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOMfTFW29lI

Where is the censorship though? It has nothing to do with his opinion about the movie seemingly, but rather how he is a luminary in a twitter troll net. It's their service, they make their rules, and decide how to enforce them. Twitter has no authority over this Milo person beyond his use of the service... and the rules were broken to such an extent they could not not notice. I assume they choose to not notice minor infractions to allow the service to grow. Sounds like a conspiracy theory type fantasy to conflate the two, when all its seems to say is those on one side seem to break the rules more then the other.

Freedom of speech has never truly been free. It's an idea, a concept created with all good intentions which is now in today's age being used for a plethora of reasons such as marketing and politics, none of which possess a drop of virtue held over from it's original intended purpose. It exists on the premise of convenience, and is manipulated to talk over people in attempts at gaining attention, more so than being included in the process of exchanging ideas used towards open discussion. With that said, I cannot stand the guy, lol. The supposed "council" of twitter and Milo both stand on opposite ends of the free speech argument, and nether is really without blame. Free speech cannot exist without someone getting offended, simply put.

What's more important, the freedom of speech, or people's feelings? Is everyone claiming to have had their feelings stepped on really offended, or are a percentage of these said individuals merely using the idea to yell their point across knowing that waving the victim card also gains attention and is seldom scrutinized by the majority, and if so, the attempt to scrutinize itself is also viewed with scrutiny. Language is quickly losing its effectiveness when any attempt of an idea expressed can and usually is used in someone else's personal agenda. Such is no longer a process of discussion in order to convey ideas and understanding, but merely an outlet to shout over everyone else...

It's Joe Rogan, so expect a bit of profanity...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCNsJKVd3BA

Twitter is a service whose terms he agreed to (though presumably didn't read!) when he signed up..

...are a percentage of these said individuals merely using the idea to yell their point across knowing that waving the victim card also gains attention...

I sorta feel that Milo is using a similar tactic.. yelling his point across knowing that it creates division and p***es people off. What does he expect really?

New acronym perhaps, SMJW, social media justice warrior. Joe Rogan becomes his own worst enemy :silly:

Edan wrote: Twitter is a service whose terms he agreed to (though presumably didn't read!) when he signed up..

That is what I was thinking, the user agreement is to self censor, and so twitter is not the one censoring but rather just penalizing what it considers a significant enough breach of that agreement. For this to be inconsistent, they would need to show consistency among examples of any inconsistency.

This is really terrible. Milo was not responsible for any of this and was punished unjustly.

Edit: Also, his Ghostbusters review is legitimately hilarious.

TheDude wrote: This is really terrible. Milo was not responsible for any of this and was punished unjustly.

I'm curious as to why you think that...

Given that some of the stuff I've seen that he's posted on twitter is obviously purposely offensive, it does not surprise me at all that he's been banned..

He deserves to be jailed in my opinion. Ironically, those who lean to the right, are not right.

Edan wrote:

TheDude wrote: This is really terrible. Milo was not responsible for any of this and was punished unjustly.

I'm curious as to why you think that...

Given that some of the stuff I've seen that he's posted on twitter is obviously purposely offensive, it does not surprise me at all that he's been banned..

Milo is a funny guy. He's not politically correct, no, but he's incredibly intelligent. Offense is something taken, never given. I mean he's a gay guy and (mods censor this if it's too offensive for TOTJO) he calls his speaking tour the "dangerous faggot tour". I've listened to tons of his interviews and speeches. Milo only wants to support the freedom of speech and right to personal expression, because he thinks that the first and second amendments are exactly what makes America great and gives it the potential to be the greatest country in the world.

Banning him for a bunch of trolls reacting to a terrible movie, which he did NOT provoke, is blatantly unjust and only serves to demonstrate his point exactly. That we live in a culture which thrives on censorship rather than open public discussion. Milo is a master troll and a sophisticated individual. He likes to poke fun at people, sure. Maybe he offends some people. If we're living in a world where peoples delicate sensibilities are considered more important than free speech, where opposing viewpoints are silenced rather than debated, where you can get banned from a community for no other reason than that you have a different opinion, that's not the kind of world I want to live in.

Milo is a demagogue who, by his own standard, got what he deserved.

Stance: A private company has the right to refuse service to anyone.

Action: Milo gets banned.

Reaction: Help! I'm being oppressed. Freedom of Speech is being infringed upon. The cancerous liberal feminists are at it again!

So it's only okay to refuse service to gay people wanting a wedding cake or black people sitting at diner, but if Milo gets banned suddenly the integrity of free speech is in peril?

I don't like Milo, but I also wasn't jumping for joy when he got banned. I just thought it was remarkable how much of a crybaby he was about it given his staunchly conservative views.

Also, I managed to say how bad this film was without inspiring the ire of my feminist and leftist friends. 750/1000 words dedicating to saying this film is absolute crap.

But for what it's worth, this film was intentionally marketed as an "iconic feminist film" so that Sony could garner support for a film they probably knew was terrible after showing it to test audiences. I was not one of the people who got caught up in the "go see Ghostbusters for feminism!" and I hadn't read Yiannopoulos' review of the film. I just know that Jones got chased off Twitter with all kinds of nasty stuff.

Anyway, here's a fairly entertaining take on how Ghostbusters, a terrible film, became the most overblown feminist issue of 2016.

https://youtu.be/Sn_vAcFGTJU

No offense to anyone ... but America is not great. It never was .....

Edan wrote:

TheDude wrote: This is really terrible. Milo was not responsible for any of this and was punished unjustly.

I'm curious as to why you think that...

Given that some of the stuff I've seen that he's posted on twitter is obviously purposely offensive, it does not surprise me at all that he's been banned..

Well, it seems in todays world, people are waiting to be offended, and get offended easier, and easier.

However, in this case, writing a poor review on a movie, does not fall under such. Nor can you blame him wholesale for the harassment this Lady got. He in no way incited it, nor wanted it, and Twitter has only proved his point and I for one agree with Milos views on the "regressive left" and to be honest, think TotJo represents it in many ways quite well.

This is another instance brought to my attention from a friend at another site.

This isn't the first or last case of recent censorship form twitter either; I think it was literally yesterday that the #DNCLeaks hashtag was trending at #1 then it just disappeared. I also heard that when they got called out on it, they didn't put it back. Not sure if these are the exact details of how it played out, but I think they replaced it with a new hashtag, dropped the "s" (#DNCLeak) and as far as I know, that didn't make it to the top of their trending list. You can look it up if you want.

It wouldn't be so bad, except that the the CEO of twitter says his company is committed to "free expression". In fact, to quote him directly, he says "Twitter stands for freedom of expression" & " Twitter stands for speaking truth to power." And yet here they are, getting caught censoring on a seemingly regular basis. Freedom of expression...? Not so much.

When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." -Tyrion Lannister

Now we have a council that arbitrarily decides what counts and what doesnt, without any criteria, all the while it slowly infringes on ones free speech. Because being inflammatory, or offensive, in todays climate, given peoples ability and seeming desire to be offended, almost has no meaning. Eventually, everything is offensive, to someone, and so then, you lose a lot of ground in not only being able to express yourself perhaps yes, even in an inflammatory manner, but also to search for truth, and facts you are now stifled, because no one gets offended by that right? :whistle:

Milo is a master troll and a sophisticated individual. He likes to poke fun at people, sure. Maybe he offends some people.

I think there's something to be said in this world for treating others with a bit of respect, whether you agree with them or not.

You said it yourself, he's a master troll... Twitter, for all intents and purposes, is not governed by the laws of free speech. When you treat people like crap, you should expect others to get to a point where they are unwilling to put up with it.

Edan wrote:

Milo is a master troll and a sophisticated individual. He likes to poke fun at people, sure. Maybe he offends some people.

I think there's something to be said in this world for treating others with a bit of respect, whether you agree with them or not.

You said it yourself, he's a master troll... Twitter, for all intents and purposes, is not governed by the laws of free speech. When you treat people like crap, you should expect others to get to a point where they are unwilling to put up with it.

Khaos pointed out that this goes against the fundamental principles which are supposed to be represented by Twitter. Milo isn't harassing anyone. He's poked fun a few times. I greatly admire Milo's conviction and dedication to his moral standards. Have you seen the protesters who go to his events? Hundreds of people trying to shut him down. People steal the mic. People screaming insults and obscenities at him on stage. That's not the right wing folks being hateful, it's the left wing folks literally trying to stifle Milo's free speech. As far as I'm concerned, Milo deserves absolutely no punishment. He's just practicing what he preaches, which puts him ahead a lot of Jedi...

Also, I managed to say how bad this film was without inspiring the ire of my feminist and leftist friends. 750/1000 words dedicating to saying this film is absolute crap.

Well, I read his review and honestly didnt think it deserved the ire it got.

Given all the other stuff this guy has said, this was by far one of the most tame things, but like most other things he said, it was spot on.

However, they are placing blame on him for harassment that one of the cast got, which, by all accounts he is not to blame. Unless everyone who wrote a poor review about Ghostbusters shares in some of it as well, and so far as I know, no one else was banned for it.

Stance: A private company has the right to refuse service to anyone.

Action: Milo gets banned.

Reaction: Help! I'm being oppressed. Freedom of Speech is being infringed upon. The cancerous liberal feminists are at it again!

Private company or no, it still sets a bad precedence for social media, and the "safety council" does as well. Especially with being so vague as to what constitutes a banning.

The reasoning is poor, and the evidence proves so, and in that, people should be a little more concerned.

Edan wrote:

Milo is a master troll and a sophisticated individual. He likes to poke fun at people, sure. Maybe he offends some people.

I think there's something to be said in this world for treating others with a bit of respect, whether you agree with them or not.

You said it yourself, he's a master troll... Twitter, for all intents and purposes, is not governed by the laws of free speech. When you treat people like crap, you should expect others to get to a point where they are unwilling to put up with it.

And yet, people are allowing Trump to run for president.

Does he have a Twitter account?

Are all trolls being banned wholesale?

Is respect walking on egg shells being afraid to speak as you would? Again, you use a word, but give no criteria as to how that word would be applied in such a world where people are offended by the littlest thing.

Good god, there was a post here about Pokemon Go destroying a generation.

How dramatic.

Khaos wrote: Private company or no, it still sets a bad precedence for social media, and the "safety council" does as well. Especially with being so vague as to what constitutes a banning.

The reasoning is poor, and the evidence proves so, and in that, people should be a little more concerned.

Yeah, I'll be honest it's hard to be upset that he was banned because I think he's an absolute gobshite, but you're right the idea of vague guidelines and standards and a safety council that's basically pushing out anyone they "don't like" sounds pretty dubious.

EDIT: Also, yes the reasoning is suspect, but my point was that by his own standards Twitter doesn't really need a reason to ban him.

I know very little about the details of this situation, but from what I understand in the little I've been able to catch up on, while Milo is intelligent and a comedian, he's also incredibly provocateur (no wonder you like him, Khaos, ha ha!). He stirs up trouble for the fun of it, then cries "freedom of speech" when his stirring gets him in trouble. Also, from what I understand about modern PR, his ban was likely at least in part "damage control" from Twitter and not "oppression." They'd been having issues with him for a long time and attempted various disciplinary actions - this wasn't out of the blue. More like the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. I also assume that Milo wasn't the only person to get banned, just the loudest and most famous one.

This isn't about "safe spaces and privilege" but human decency, which ultimately should trump free speech in those who have any. I think self-regulation is key, but I also think that there is a point (albeit a very blurry and difficult to place point) where others should step up where human decency is lacking.

Full disclosure, I'm at work and my work computer won't load the videos.

Free speech is always an interesting topic because it is somewhat vague. As far as the First Amendment goes it was designed to keep the government from shutting down and persecuting people who spoke poorly of them. That's a gross over simplification but still.

When using someone else's platform you are always subject to their rules. If Twitter feels that he violated those rules they are within their rights to do so. That's just the way it goes. Their house, their rules. Don't like it? Find another house to play in. It's that simple.

Personally, I think Twitter should be a place where people can say pretty much whatever they want short of actual threats. If you don't like what a person says on Twitter just don't follow them. Twitter is meant for people to be able to say what they want to anyone who wants to listen. You can always choose to just not listen. It's that simple.

There will always be someone out there who will offend someone. The difficulty comes from people seemingly searching for the things that will offend them. That is a problem. If I walk into a country music concert I don't have a right to complain about all the country music. Well...I guess I do, but it'd be really stupid of me to do so. What did I honestly expect?

As a whole people do need to be better at handling being offended, I think. That seems to be a societal problem, thinning skin. But, people also need to remember that there's nothing wrong with going out of your way to not be a jack a$$. Meet in the middle people. Those offended, toughen up a bit, you'll be happier. Those offending, learn some restraint, you'll be happier.

Is respect walking on egg shells being afraid to speak as you would? Again, you use a word, but give no criteria as to how that word would be applied in such a world where people are offended by the littlest thing.

I really don't think that I need to give criteria to the word respect. Respect is saying you disagree with someone or dislike someone without crapping all over them. That's not stepping on eggshells, that's just being a human being that recognises that everyone else is a human being too...