WikiLeaks threatens to start its own Twitter because of ‘cyber feudalism’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE]WikiLeaks and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey have had harsh words over Twitter’s recent decision to ban noted Breitbart editor and troll Milo Yiannopoulos. This afternoon, WikiLeaks’ Twitter account [URL="https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/756206619860561920"]declared the ban[/URL] an example of "cyber feudalism," saying that Twitter had "banned conservative gay libertarian [Yiannopoulos] for speaking the 'wrong' way" to Ghostbusters star Leslie Jones. According to an earlier Twitter statement, Yiannopoulos was banned for "inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others" after Jones began posting examples of racist and misogynist abuse she had received on the platform. Dorsey soon replied to WikiLeaks, echoing this language. "We don't ban people for expressing their thoughts," he wrote. "Targeted abuse & inciting abuse against people however, that's not allowed."[/QUOTE] Check out some more info here: [URL="http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/21/12253580/wikileaks-twitter-milo-yiannopoulos-ban-cyber-feudalism"]http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/21/12253580/wikileaks-twitter-milo-yiannopoulos-ban-cyber-feudalism[/URL]

could wikileaks just maybe stop oh my god cyber feudalism. fucking hell. didn't even think the fevered paranoid idiocy of julian assange could come up with something so ridiculous

Twitter is a private company, they can ban whoever they want.

[QUOTE=download;50754454]Twitter is a private company, they can ban whoever they want.[/QUOTE] Yeah but this is exactly what he's saying?

[QUOTE=download;50754454]Twitter is a private company, they can ban whoever they want.[/QUOTE] No one is arguing that they aren't allowed to. I think it pretty self-evident to most people that they are not legally obligated to really do anything if they so chose. Instead the argument is that Twitter's policy is toxic, either because Twitter selectively chooses who to ban on some 'other' ruleset (e.g. political affiliation) or they simply lack the ability to enforce their own platform. And as the article points out, it seems likely that it's the former.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50754448]could wikileaks just maybe stop oh my god cyber feudalism. fucking hell. didn't even think the fevered paranoid idiocy of julian assange could come up with something so ridiculous[/QUOTE] there is literally nothing wrong with wikileaks

Good luck, it'd be like starting your own Facebook now like Google+ tried, everyone already uses Twitter and won't bother switching, especially if the only difference is "We won't ban you for being a dick".

"threatens" That's how I would describe it if they were launching nukes, not setting up a social network.

[QUOTE=download;50754454]Twitter is a private company, they can ban whoever they want.[/QUOTE] Who is arguing that they can't? Please people stop bringing this up, it's a straw man. The point is that Twitter portrays itself as a bastion of free speech while they so obviously are not. This coupled with the fact that they have a monopoly on that type of platform creates a problem.

Twitter did good. People still find a way to complain. Just weird that it's Wikileaks doing it.

[QUOTE=Selek;50754556]Twitter did good. People still find a way to complain. Just weird that it's Wikileaks doing it.[/QUOTE] They ban one person for inciting hate/making offensive comments, when the other person was doing exactly that and has done in the past. You can't say there's no double standard at play.

Wikileaks is just not happy that they aren't getting enough attention now

[QUOTE=Selek;50754556]Twitter did good. People still find a way to complain. Just weird that it's Wikileaks doing it.[/QUOTE]Twitter did not do good, they're obviously biased as fuck and their bans are quite motivated by personal reasons and are very picky instead of enforcing same ruleset on all users.

[QUOTE=download;50754454]Twitter is a private company, they can ban whoever they want.[/QUOTE] Your point? We still have the ability to have our own thoughts and opinions regarding the decision to do such a thing. There's absolutely no reason to post something almost everyone knew.

Good on Twitter for getting rid of the Breitbart cancer.

[QUOTE=download;50754454]Twitter is a private company, they can ban whoever they want.[/QUOTE] Any company that would claim to support free speech but deliberately censor opinions they don't like and defend themselves in terms of legality would be massively hypocritical. The fact that most Western countries only forbid the restriction of free speech by the government does not mean that any other form of restriction is in keeping with the spirit of free speech, it only means that they're not breaking the law by restricting free speech.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50754570]Twitter did not do good, they're obviously biased as fuck and their bans are quite motivated by personal reasons and are very picky instead of enforcing same ruleset on all users.[/QUOTE] oh i didn't see the part where leslie jones sent a personal army to attack other people Milo broke the rules (repeatedly I might add), he got banned. Pretending like this is some kind of evil leftist plot to suppress free speech is both hilarious and incredibly sad in equal measure.

[QUOTE=Streecer;50754607]oh i didn't see the part where leslie jones sent a personal army to attack other people Milo broke the rules (repeatedly I might add), he got banned. Pretending like this is some kind of evil leftist plot to suppress free speech is both hilarious and incredibly sad in equal measure.[/QUOTE] This does not center around Milo and Leslie only.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50754611]This does not center around Milo and Leslie only.[/QUOTE] Really, then enlighten me as to where this mass spree of "biased" bans are occurring?

[QUOTE=Streecer;50754612]Really, then enlighten me as to where this mass spree of "biased" bans are occurring?[/QUOTE] Rather biased no bans, a fuckton of people on twitter spouting hate nonsense while not getting banned cause they're left.

just a reminder that feminist frequency is a part of the twitter safety council [url]https://blog.twitter.com/2016/announcing-the-twitter-trust-safety-council[/url]

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50754615]Rather biased no bans, a fuckton of people on twitter spouting hate nonsense while not getting banned cause they're left.[/QUOTE] so you don't really have any examples ok

[QUOTE=Streecer;50754618]so you don't really have any examples ok[/QUOTE] Keemstar and Leslie herself are two

[QUOTE=Streecer;50754607]oh i didn't see the part where leslie jones sent a personal army to attack other people[/QUOTE] Here: [url]https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352[/url] Now show me the twitter post where Milo was sending people after Leslie Jones.

[QUOTE=Streecer;50754618]so you don't really have any examples ok[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://sli.mg/veuwer2y5g.png[/IMG] Good friends with twitter trust and safety council.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50754672]I never looked at wikileaks except the last Turkey leak. The entire shit was just a dump of private emails of everything remotely related. Whether you politically disagree with them or not, privacy breach of a political party's members and the leak of their private lives should never be OK. They even released scam junk like Nigerian prince style, everything as long as it was received by an AKP Member. There was private info going as far as Blood type. There is a reason other leaks like Snowden or Panama scan first, dump second.[/QUOTE] You do realize that the dump was made because if they had taken their time scanning the emails Wikileaks would probably be unable to do dump [I]any[/I] at all? Especially with Erdogan clamping down on all of the things? Also, nice derailing.

[QUOTE=G.I.U.L.I.O.;50754782]You do realize that the dump was made because if they had taken their time scanning the emails Wikileaks would probably be unable to do dump [I]any[/I] at all? Especially with Erdogan clamping down on all of the things? Also, nice derailing.[/QUOTE] Wikileaks do this literally every time. No excuses.

[QUOTE=Streecer;50754607]oh i didn't see the part where leslie jones sent a personal army to attack other people Milo broke the rules (repeatedly I might add), he got banned. Pretending like this is some kind of evil leftist plot to suppress free speech is both hilarious and incredibly sad in equal measure.[/QUOTE] Leslie Jones broke the rules repeatedly too. Where is her ban? Fair is fair right? You're trying to draw a line in the sand between how much is too much. But the fact remains if you're going to have a rule that says no abuse, then it better apply to everybody. Not just the people who don't fit in your political agenda.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50754448]could wikileaks just maybe stop oh my god cyber feudalism. fucking hell. didn't even think the fevered paranoid idiocy of julian assange could come up with something so ridiculous[/QUOTE] Get a load of this fucking guy.

[QUOTE=Sprockethead;50754900]Get a load of this fucking guy.[/QUOTE] Alright, I'm personally not a fan of websites ran by rapist attention-seekers