Illuminati banker overlords bully avian-themed chat service into submission, order them to silence d - Polidicks

[quote]The founding editor of Business Insider UK, Jim Edwards, had a bank delete two of his tweets today. In an e-mail, Bank of America told Edwards that his tweets violated the bank's copyright and that if he kept it up, they'd see to it that his Twitter account was deleted. "Investment banks apparently have the power to censor journalists on Twitter, simply by asking," Edwards wrote in a short post on Business Insider describing the situation. "That is depressing." Edwards had quoted a research document produced by analysts. He says the tweets were "probably trivial," but can't really be more specific—in part because the frequent Twitter user can't even remember exactly what they were about.[/quote] SOURCE: [url]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/bank-of-america-gets-twitter-to-delete-journalists-joke-says-he-violated-copyright/[/url] SOURCE: [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/bank-of-america-merrill-lynch-persuaded-twitter-to-delete-my-tweets-2015-12?r=UK&IR=T[/url] Personally I think it's a little bit shitty that Twitter more or less rolled over and complied with this while all the other crazy tweets out there are somehow okay. Seems extremely inconsistent, especially since the request was laughably bogus.

One more reason to not use Twitter. Also, why is Bank of America shitmailing at him about how they DMCA'd his shit, why isn't [B]Twitter[/B] handling this? I hope this guy's lawyers are hungry, because even if this is in Twitter's ToS some shit's going sideways here.

i remember when all these major sites prided themselves on free speech

[QUOTE=Wii60;49374245]i remember when all these major sites prided themselves on free speech[/QUOTE] Free speech is expensive. And I don't think Twitter has [I]yet[/I] turned a profit despite the increasing monetization and the killing of the third-party client ecosystem.

[QUOTE=Wii60;49374245]i remember when all these major sites prided themselves on free speech[/QUOTE] They still do. They're all two-faced.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49374244]One more reason to not use Twitter. Also, why is Bank of America shitmailing at him about how they DMCA'd his shit, why isn't [B]Twitter[/B] handling this? I hope this guy's lawyers are hungry, because even if this is in Twitter's ToS some shit's going sideways here.[/QUOTE]I have no goddamn idea, BoA's mailing him like that was really, really unprofessional but unfortunately they're so big that nobody will ever be able to raise enough of a stink about anything they do. Unless there's mass riots in the street and people are torching banks they're probably just going to laugh. I thought that it was made clear that a violation needs to be proven though and a filer needs to consider fair use though... I'm trying to find something about that but my slow fucking internet is making that hard. I can't remember if it was the EFF or somebody else, but I'm pretty sure that Bank of America needed to prove it had a legit bitch in all this. [editline]23rd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=usaokay;49374271]So is the title a parody of Wickedplayer's Kim Dotcom's thread?[/QUOTE]No, I was reading some of the comments on the article and I'm like "wow calm down buddy."

The DMCA is a shoot-first-argue-about-it-later move. But I suspect BoA didn't actually DMCA it, because Twitter would have been required to pass the DMCA notice on to give the user an opportunity to counter-claim. DMCAs also come with an explicit agreement that filing a false claim is perjury. Not that it [I]ever[/I] stops any big corp from shitting them out by the tens of thousands through bots and inflicting tons of collateral damage. Instead, they probably just told Twitter that this journalist guy was tweeting [I]inconvenient things[/I] and [I]it'd be nice if those inconvenient things went away[/I] so BoA didn't have to get rough with Twitter corporate.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49374250]Free speech is expensive. And I don't think Twitter has [I]yet[/I] turned a profit despite the increasing monetization and [B]the killing of the third-party client ecosystem.[/B][/QUOTE] For people who don't know, Twitter has a third party API which is terrible compared to the first-party API. This means that the official Twitter app will always have priority on new features and compatibility. IIRC you can't have group DMs or even send pictures via DMs on third party apps because the third party API doesn't even support it yet. Also, there is a token limit for each developer. So when a third party app runs out of tokens, it can't get any more unless people revoke the app the token in their Twitter settings. Of course, most people don't end up doing this and no more people can log in and use that third party app.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49374250]Free speech is expensive. And I don't think Twitter has [I]yet[/I] turned a profit despite the increasing monetization and the killing of the third-party client ecosystem.[/QUOTE] You're allowed free speech, you just have to pay for it. Free speech being free? That's silly. They disabled organic reach for a reason, after all.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49374288]The DMCA is a shoot-first-argue-about-it-later move. But I suspect BoA didn't actually DMCA it, because Twitter would have been required to pass the DMCA notice on to give the user an opportunity to counter-claim. DMCAs also come with an explicit agreement that filing a false claim is perjury. Not that it [I]ever[/I] stops any big corp from shitting them out by the tens of thousands through bots and inflicting tons of collateral damage. Instead, they probably just told Twitter that this journalist guy was tweeting [I]inconvenient things[/I] and [I]it'd be nice if those inconvenient things went away[/I] so BoA didn't have to get rough with Twitter corporate.[/QUOTE]Oh, no, there definitely was a claim. Here, from the second source it seems like what you're talking about is precisely what's going on: [quote]I suspect that neither Twitter nor BAML actually knew about this. The DMCA claim came from a person called Devon E. E. Weston at something called Attributor Corporation. There is a Devon Weston who works at Digimarc, a company that does digital rights management, and Digimarc acquired Attributor Corp. in 2012. Assuming it is the same person, I reached out to her by email and on LinkedIn for comment. [B]Digimarc/Attributor Corp. is probably sending out DMCA notices on behalf of BAML en masse.[/B] The fact that one of the deleted tweets in the claim seems to have come from someone else makes it look as if the claim was dumped in there by error.[/quote] Now that right there seems fucked up to me, if you're a company or a corporation or whatever and you want something taken down [U]you[/U] should be the one to do it, not outsource it to somebody else. If they were really outsourcing it though why email the guy? So they get somebody else to make a claim, then threaten the journalist to stop it... that doesn't make any sense. I don't understand the point here when even the journalist's saying the tweets were likely completely inconsequential anyway.

Well, okay, from the second story, maybe it's a shotgun of DMCAs that accidentally hit this guy. But how does that square away with [QUOTE]In an e-mail, Bank of America told Edwards that his tweets violated the bank's copyright and that if he kept it up, they'd see to it that his Twitter account was deleted.[/QUOTE] Then again, nothing big corporations do involving DMCAs makes any sense anymore.

So what were the messages that's the important thing here

A perfect example of why the big banks have to be broken up, when they start to control the flow of information they control the minds of the citizen and the country. Bernie can use this article and case to his advantage as one of many reason to break them up.

[QUOTE=650leetARIMI;49374760]So what were the messages that's the important thing here[/QUOTE] He found a funny caption in a research document and posted a screenshot of it [media]https://twitter.com/Jim_Edwards/status/639366761758986240[/media] They didn't take down the other tweet where he did it, so it doesn't feel like censorship, just thirsty copyright lawyers not understanding fair use

[QUOTE=kaze4159;49380039]They didn't take down the other tweet where he did it, so it doesn't feel like censorship, just thirsty copyright lawyers not understanding fair use[/QUOTE]Why threaten the guy though? I mean none of this would have made it to anyone's attention if it was just some copyright trolling, why the hell make it worse?

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49377694]A perfect example of why the big banks have to be broken up, when they start to control the flow of information they control the minds of the citizen and the country. Bernie can use this article and case to his advantage as one of many reason to break them up.[/QUOTE] Which do you reckon is more likely? A) someone from the legal and public relations department of the bank doing their job, albeit taking it a bit too far maybe, or B) the big bad banks are covertly collaborating on a mind control scheme through deleting a few tweets here and there, to somehow control the 'flow of information' (exclusively through the medium of social media?), and somehow they are able to keep the details of this scheme a secret despite each of the banks employing hundreds or thousands of people? Also, why haven't they asked Garry to delete your post yet? Well it's fascinating to see the kind of crowd which Sanders attracts

[QUOTE=Antdawg;49386265]Which do you reckon is more likely? A) someone from the legal and public relations department of the bank doing their job, albeit taking it a bit too far maybe, or B) the big bad banks are covertly collaborating on a mind control scheme through deleting a few tweets here and there, to somehow control the 'flow of information' (exclusively through the medium of social media?), and somehow they are able to keep the details of this scheme a secret despite each of the banks employing hundreds or thousands of people? Also, why haven't they asked Garry to delete your post yet? Well it's fascinating to see the kind of crowd which Sanders attracts[/QUOTE] I've got to hand it to you. It's been a while since I've seen such a right and proper misrepresentation of a point. Well done.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49380352]Why threaten the guy though? [/QUOTE] Isn't that a pretty standard tactic anymore? Make vague legal threats to scare them out of doing what you don't want them to do because if you try and fight they just slog it out in court until you run out of money.