The fact that they don’t is, in my view, rooted simply in a desire to remain neutral in an attempt to prevent their MAU growth from declining and resulting in lower advertising income and less attractiveness to investors.
In other words, it’s a business decision. Twitter could choose to be more restrictive in favor of civility, but it would be bad for business.
"In July 2016 he was permanently banned from Twitter for what the company cited as "inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others", referring to a harassment campaign against actor Leslie Jones and others."
Meanwhile Peter Fonda has spent this week making death threats and still has an active account.
He did a lot worse than that. He was very directly advocating for the kidnapping, harm and rape of a specific child.
You can't get any more open agenda than that as it pertains to the extreme bias in Silicon Valley. Their rules simply do not apply to their favored people. It will be necessary to regulate the tech platforms to stop it (and the Republicans will absolutely do just that, soon). I'm a socially liberal, political independent and the extreme SV bias has me cheering for aggressive regulation of the big platforms at this point.
It would be quite simple to implement: if they fail to consistently enforce their own terms, FCC fines that increase in scale with each subsequent violation. Something along the lines of a $10 million starter fine for allowing Peter Fonda to use the Twitter platform to directly threaten harm to a child and taking no action against the user. Ramp it up by $10m with each violation. Either Twitter stops selectively enforcing their own policies, or they get bankrupted (the fine stacking melts with good behavior over time). You'd either apply this regulation to only major platforms (based on users or revenue or both), or scale the fines / consequences to match the size of the service.
It’s more in a desire to maintain some level plausible deniability that they’re not engaging in mass political censorship. Civility and their legal entitlement to run their platform as they see fit really have nothing to do with it. It’s more they’d like to have their cake and eat it too. They don’t want certain viewpoints on their platform, but they can’t just admit that they’re censoring them.
Appear neutral. If they wanted to actually be neutral they wouldn't use shadowbans and other "hidden" mechanisms to silence and/or censor users whose agenda (political or otherwise) they didn't agree with.
When he isn't playing his troll persona he is actually a very intelligent and reasonable person.
So of the biggest trolls are just that. Trying to paint "trolls" are some drooling man-child in a basement does the world a massive disservice.
there are more right and left-wing fringe users that love to brigade other users.
> The truth, as always, is the opposite of what the media tells you. I sent a troll about “vigilante death squads” as a private response to a few hostile journalists who were asking me for comment, basically as a way of saying, “Fuck off.” They then published it. Amazed they were pretending to take my joke as a “threat,” I reposted these stories on Instagram to mock them — and to make it clear that I wasn’t being serious.
https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/posts/119449066068882...
Are you saying the screenshots on his instagram are doctored?
I will not take anything on his instagram as any kind of proof of anything; he has absolutely no credibility on anything.
Since you know he fabricated the screenshots, have you contacted a journalist? This is a huge scoop and hasn't been reported yet.
Yup, sounds like you.
We now have evidence the shooting had nothing to do with Milos comments:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5898141/At-four-shot...
Yet at least two people on this thread are acting like there is credible evidence his tweets caused the shooting.
This is the danger of fake news!
How? Without the fake news how would any of this be linked to Milo?
In fact without any of the fake news why would this be linked to the right wing at all?
If CNNs headquarters were shot up I'd understand - but why would anyone on the right target a random small center-left newspaper?
Preconceptions should at least make some sense!
You aren't content just to consume fake news - now you are trying to produce your own fake narrative!