Martin Shkreli banned from Twitter for allegedly harassing journalist Lauren Duca


TechSpot Addict
I was only insinuating I didn't know. I wasn't meaning you didn't. Sorry about that.
No offense taken..(y)

I posted the photo and article so everyone could see him, "in action". He's a sociopath.

From the context of the thread, it doesn't seem to have registered the difference between an overly enthusiastic fan, and being stalked by a psychotic troll. Even Twitter has to draw the line somewhere. The more he "friends" this woman, the more her name becomes associated with his, which is something I don't think many of us would cherish...:D
  • Like
Reactions: cliffordcooley


TechSpot Addict
Whether Shkreli had it coming to him is irrelevant. The issue is not who but why.

These people start with people we all agree are bad or, at least, have some level of infamy. Then they expand it to anyone who doesn't fall in line with their will.

Here's the pertinent fact. This special snowflake, Lauren Duca, was granted upon request the banishment of a billionaire from a platform for a photoshop job. Somebody with more power and influence than she will ever sniff, let alone possess. She simply said, "get rid of him" and they did, establishing that photoshopping someone's image constitutes harassment. The media has run with this narrative.

Meanwhile, if you, I, or anyone else not on Duca's side of the fence receive death threats, targeted harassment, or abuse, it'll be a cold day in June before anything is done about it. Let alone someone publishing an article on our "ordeal."

Recall the leftist dweeb from a couple years back who "would have us all banned" from Techspot if he had "his way" for our terribly problematic postings.

Celebrating this is like celebrating a gangbanger's property being seized two hours before they come for yours.

Yeah, the guy is seen to be a bad dude. But they are using that to establish new rules that will directly impact the rest of us for the worse. The Beiber comparison illustrates the point perfectly.

Here's an example. And I will archive it this time if a mod wants to play games again.

This is one of hundreds of messages a follower of mine received for posting a few Tweets about how Muslims need to leave Middle-Eastern norms in the ME if they are going to integrate into America. The girl in question is a Muslim herself, of Persian descent:

Twitter did nothing to this account or others that piled on publicly and via DM. She had to protect it until they got bored. No tech "journalists" or mainstream outlets have written much at all, if anything, about how often and unimpeded this goes on. Although, if you search this site, you'll see they've written plenty about Pepe (see: right wing "harassment") and the great struggles of Zoe Quinn, the black chick from the female Ghost Busters, et. al. Now, compare the above to this:

Shkreli isn't the story. What he deserves isn't the story. The double standard is the story.

He wasn't stalking her. He was trolling her like he does (did?) most snowflake accounts on social media (I'd say to check his feed for similar examples, but Twitter took care of that). The only difference this time is that he finally passed under a bridge too fragile to be ignored.

Note: I could care less about Shkreli. I just think justifying Twitter's action and the version of events being spun here on the basis of him being a bad person ignores the real problem. They are quite literally peddling a fake narrative.
I would simply love to discuss this with you on a point by point basis. However, IMO there's no point to it.

The person at least as guilty of "demanding double standards" is you. Somehow, you seem to believe that "freedom of speech" is an absolute value, and Twitter is to be deemed its sole proprietor. Twitter is a "social network", so it seems logical that it should be able to declare a limit(s), on what it considers, "social behaviour".

Now, if we substitute your term, "a bridge too fragile", for mine, "a bridge too high profile", we'll have some common ground.

There always has been been limits of decorum placed on public figures. (Well, at least until a segment of our population came up with rap music). Nonetheless, our society does favor the famous, and you simply can't harass the POTUS to the extent you can the homeless junkie hanging on your steps. In that case, you simply call the police, and he, (or she), gets gone without all this bullsh!t fanfare, and pontificating about "freedom of speech", and, "double standards".

EDIT: In the case of your Persian friend, you have to wonder, would she have been better off having the hate tweets blocked, or having them let through and try to fnid out where they were coming from?
Last edited:


TS Evangelist
Martin Shkreli is a flat out piece of sh!t. Whatever evil befalls him, can't happen soon enough.

It's naive and uninformed on your part to make a nonsense comparison to a "Beiber fan". This Twitter crap is just the tip of the iceberg. It's one small worthwhile step, in removing him from society altogether.

He bought a drug company, raised the price of a much needed medicine something like 5000%, so that he could pay off investors in another of his hedge funds. In other words, it was a Ponzi scheme that sick people and insurance companies were forced to pay for.

Now go f***ing Tweet that.
Why bother bring out anything unrelated to this article. We are talking about this twitter sh*t not that medicine drug pill sh*t. But outside of the twitter universe, I do agree this pig is sh*t. Better remove him then.

Now Im gonna f***ing Tweet that.


TechSpot Addict
Why bother bring out anything unrelated to this article. We are talking about this twitter sh*t not that medicine drug pill sh*t. ...[ ]......
Twitter, and other "social media websites", are primarily designed, "to bring people together". However, that being true, it's difficult to separate, one's offline life and value system from what that person brings to social media. This is absolutely true in the case of someone posting as themselves. Since Shkreli is a thief, con man, all around greedy piece of crap and sociopath unto himself, why give him a voice to inflict his value(less) system on others.

It's always going to be a difficult to determine fine line between being a fan, a stalker, or someone in the process of "cyber bullying". In this case, IMHO, Shkreli crossed that line, when he posted an unwanted picture "collage" of himself, with his arms draped around a married woman. In certain circumstances, "I was just kidding", doesn't cut it, and this escapade surely was one of those occasions.

Point being, you wouldn't want this creep in your home and/or managing your money, why should people be forced to tolerate him online? Further, since Twitter is a social setting, some level of acceptable social behaviour should attach.

Twitter isn't, nor should it ever be perceived to be, "the last bastion of free speech".

Accordingly, since there are always sanctions attached to "anti social behaviour", it is meet and just that this a**hole ran into one of them... After all being banned from Twitter isn't the end of the world, even if Shkreli is deluded enough to think that very same world, revolves around him.
Last edited:


do you really think shkreli isn't a "lefty"?
Don't know; don't care. Raising the cost of prescription drugs without first greasing the pockets of the media sounds pretty right wing to me. I could be wrong.


TS Enthusiast
A bunch of people who can't understand anything are going to expound on the definitions of words and spout sets of rules and define things and say free speech and that is why Trump is about to gut you all like hogs.