Twitter suspends high-profile accounts after introducing permabans for impersonations

[umbala]

The point of free speech, is that people can speak up when conspiracies are introduced... instead of being silenced.

Making fun of someone is funny... impersonating someone's identity is illegal.


Correct, twitter is gutted of all the multiple accounts and the idiocy that has been taking place on that platform. Now an adult is in charge and all the children are crying...

No, you got the whole thing backwards. In Elon's world (and in the world of the right wing nutjobs) freedom of speech means you can spew as many conspiracy theories as you want and no one can do a damn thing about it. Your idea of speaking up against conspiracies is laughable when all the nutjobs simply drown out any voices of reason.

This is the same nonsense Truth Social is running on too. You get free speech... as long as you don't offend the Bloated Orange Dumpster or the platform itself.

 

[umbala]

I love how when Trump was removed, the comments were alight with comments of Twitter being so anti-conservative, dare they say fascist. That they shouldn't have the right to do this! They're a public outlet!

But the second a conservative is doing it, it's fine. This kind of selective reasoning is why y'all are unfit to vote or lead.

You can explain anything with truth adjacent alternative facts, don't you know?

 

[umbala]

Twitter could ban anyone that they wanted to.
He owns the company. He can ban anyone he wants to.

LOL! Really? Let's rewind and see if you were singing that same tune when Twitter was banning all the right wing scumbags like the flaming orange dumpster.

 

[PEnnn]

The Vulture Capitalist Has No Clothes.

 

[fps4ever]

Those crying Musk is "evil" either don't use twitter (they even admit it) or are mad the shoe is on the other foot. Funny how they only focus on conservative parody's that are bad to begin with. Think of the vile and worthless Kathy Griffin troll as an example.

 

[someOtherGuy]

I love how when Trump was removed, the comments were alight with comments of Twitter being so anti-conservative, dare they say fascist. That they shouldn't have the right to do this! They're a public outlet!

But the second a conservative is doing it, it's fine. This kind of selective reasoning is why y'all are unfit to vote or lead.

The conservative that sells electric cars because of climate change? Are you sure the political landscape is as simple as conservatives and progressives? Maybe the guy is kinda independent and "believes" in climate change AND freedom of speech AND private property (he paid A LOT of money for Twitter, is not that is "publicly own" at this point). I guess you could call him "run of the mill" american, with him being south african, the irony.

 

[seeprime]

I fart in Twitters general direction.

 

[someOtherGuy]

"Obscene Content" is not strictly defined and open to interpretation. Pornography sure. Physical threats? Veiled ones? Content that is veiled racism and promotes violence against certain groups?

Silence is violence, haven't heard of that one? Maybe the problem is not the lack of definitions on the law, is the re-definition of the terms that constitute the law: what is a woman? All laws that apply to women get a new scope depending on that definition. What is violence? Who gets to define it? That's how you make the 230 into a swiss army knife

 

[someOtherGuy]

Free speech isn't so free after all... apparently it costs $8/month.

Free as in freedom, not free as in beer (old OSS distinction) ;-)

 

[someOtherGuy]

No, you got the whole thing backwards. In Elon's world (and in the world of the right wing nutjobs) freedom of speech means you can spew as many conspiracy theories as you want and no one can do a damn thing about it. Your idea of speaking up against conspiracies is laughable when all the nutjobs simply drown out any voices of reason.

What's freedom of speech in your world? Saying what's "publicly accepted", probably set by the government? By your definition the whole world has freedom of speech, you can cheer for the Chinese government as laud as you want while on China, you have freedom of speech there after all. Same on every dictatorship (not sure why they call it that): you can cheer for the dictator and repeat what they say all day long and you'll get a lot of approval, after all, those are places with free speech. You just can't incite violence with your "conspiracy theory" that the Great Leader is a killer, a monster or any other derogative term, that would be too nutjobby of you.

 

[axiomatic13]

Here are the real facts. Musk has no idea what he's doing and Twitter is flailing and taking Tesla stock down with it. I know as I am an investor in Tesla. It's down 100 since September.

 

[nnguy2]

"you can't impersonate other people!" - Elon Musk stans that has never seen a Saturday Night Live skit before.

 

[Uncle Al]

Sounds like he should have been a little more exacting like saying he was all for "Free Speech", but would not tolerate "hate speech". Certainly won't make him a great guy but the refinement might tone down the criticism a bit more; not that he doesn't deserve every bit he gets .....

 

[gamerk2]

What's freedom of speech in your world? Saying what's "publicly accepted", probably set by the government? By your definition the whole world has freedom of speech, you can cheer for the Chinese government as laud as you want while on China, you have freedom of speech there after all. Same on every dictatorship (not sure why they call it that): you can cheer for the dictator and repeat what they say all day long and you'll get a lot of approval, after all, those are places with free speech. You just can't incite violence with your "conspiracy theory" that the Great Leader is a killer, a monster or any other derogative term, that would be too nutjobby of you.

Even in the US it's well accepted certain forms of speech are not protected by the Constitution; the argument is *where* that line is drawn. I also not some of the more notable people recently banned by Twitter were doing what could be interpreted as speech inciteful against the Federal Government, which is widely understood as being not protected by the First Amendment (but again, you get into interpretations and definitions as to what falls under "inciteful" speech).

I also note that argument is completely invalid for the purposes of this particular discussion as Twitter is not the Federal Government & Elon Musk is not a Federal Employee, and thus First Amendment arguments do not apply in any case. Twitter can ban any content they so choose, so long as they are not mandated to do so by the Federal Government (which WOULD be Unconstitutional for obvious reasons).

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Kathy Griffin uses dead mom's Twitter to call Elon Musk an 'a**hole'

Kathy Griffin, 62, was suspended from Twitter Sunday for challenging a new policy against impersonation by changing her handle to 'Elon Musk' without making clear it was a parody account.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Eflow]

The point of free speech, is that people can speak up when conspiracies are introduced... instead of being silenced.

Making fun of someone is funny... impersonating someone's identity is illegal.


Correct, twitter is gutted of all the multiple accounts and the idiocy that has been taking place on that platform. Now an adult is in charge and all the children are crying...

People following the Twitter rules about parody-label still had their accounts suspended, lmao.

I guess free speech is protected on Twitter so long as users don't use parody. Then the site will need to determine if Elon's feefees were hurt on a case by case basis.

Talking about "identity impersonation" being illegal is a desperate attempt to support Twitter's actions.

 

[paul1122]

Elon Musk stans defending Elon Musk unironically with "his company, his rules" while also championing unrestricted free speech. The hypocrisy is deafening.

Done heard me that the Facebooky thing is layin off thousands. Start defending, lol.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Done heard me that the Facebooky thing is layin off thousands. Start defending, lol.

Excellent.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1589361703938293760

 

[AlaskaGuy]

People following the Twitter rules about parody-label still had their accounts suspended, lmao.

I guess free speech is protected on Twitter so long as users don't use parody. Then the site will need to determine if Elon's feefees were hurt on a case by case basis.

Talking about "identity impersonation" being illegal is a desperate attempt to support Twitter's actions.

If you get banned from this board and afterwards get caught using another account to continue posting on here what would be the consequences.

Kathy Griffin uses dead mom's Twitter to call Elon Musk an 'a**hole'

Kathy Griffin, 62, was suspended from Twitter Sunday for challenging a new policy against impersonation by changing her handle to 'Elon Musk' without making clear it was a parody account.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Hassanabi]

It's hilarious to see people being angry at Elon for this, false impersonation is a felony in most states in the US and illegal in most developed countries in the world.

Be glad he just bans them and not drag them to court for false impersonation, because judges will definitely side with him as they made enough effort to make it seem like it was Elon himself saying it, with the same avatar and such.

I'm not a fan of Elon, but doing things like this is childish and pretty stupid as well.

 

[someOtherGuy]

Even in the US it's well accepted certain forms of speech are not protected by the Constitution; the argument is *where* that line is drawn.

No, the question is "who" gets to draw it. If it's the government... you could probably foresee the result, right?

I also not some of the more notable people recently banned by Twitter were doing what could be interpreted as speech inciteful against the Federal Government, which is widely understood as being not protected by the First Amendment (but again, you get into interpretations and definitions as to what falls under "inciteful" speech).

Cool, so the 1st protects the Government from the People? You can learn a lot of stuff on the internet every day.

I also note that argument is completely invalid for the purposes of this particular discussion as Twitter is not the Federal Government & Elon Musk is not a Federal Employee, and thus First Amendment arguments do not apply in any case. Twitter can ban any content they so choose, so long as they are not mandated to do so by the Federal Government (which WOULD be Unconstitutional for obvious reasons).

Ohh, but they all are doing it (if some reports are to be believed), with some portals for the government to "flag" posts on different platforms. Even Psaki said so once, but then the one that has to enforce this is... the government. Weird, right? So this idea of yours even though "correct" is mostly educational at this point: the private companies collude with the government to get some mutual backscratching and the government founds no fault on that, it is what it is.

 

[m3tavision]

No, you got the whole thing backwards. In Elon's world (and in the world of the right wing nutjobs) freedom of speech means you can spew as many conspiracy theories as you want and no one can do a damn thing about it. Your idea of speaking up against conspiracies is laughable when all the nutjobs simply drown out any voices of reason.

This is the same nonsense Truth Social is running on too. You get free speech... as long as you don't offend the Bloated Orange Dumpster or the platform itself.

So you are a spin doctor and use to not having to source yourself...?

Because Elon just fired over 3k people who were banning accounts of people they didn't like, due to their political ideology. Liberals have lived in an echo chamber for the last 5 years, with no diversity in thought, being told what to think by Joy Reid and other elitists...

You are just mad, that $8/month means your friends can't run multiple accounts and over saturate conversation with wokeness. They are going to have to put their money where their mouth is.

Lastly, what I think You are trying to say is that on Truth Social.. you can (if you wanted to) offend and call Trump a Bloated Orange Dumpster and nobody will laugh with you, just at you. And that upsets you, bcz you can't make friends there, because TDS gets sympathy votes.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

So you are a spin doctor and use to not having to source yourself...?

Because Elon just fired over 3k people who were banning accounts of people they didn't like, due to their political ideology. Liberals have lived in an echo chamber for the last 5 years, with no diversity in thought, being told what to think by Joy Reid and other elitists...

You are just mad, that $8/month means your friends can't run multiple accounts and over saturate conversation with wokeness. They are going to have to play their money where their mouth is.

Lastly, what I think you are trying to say is that on Truth Social you can offend and call Trump a Bloated Orange Dumpster and nobody will laugh with you, just at you. And that you can't make friends there, because TDS gets sympathy votes. And that upsets you...

The left freaks out when they can't control the narrative.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588646721260818438

 

[p51d007]

LOL! Really? Let's rewind and see if you were singing that same tune when Twitter was banning all the right wing scumbags like the flaming orange dumpster.

Nope, doesn't bother me if Twitter banned Trump. Their company, they are free to ban anyone that they want. I could care less.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Nope, doesn't bother me if Twitter banned Trump. Their company, they are free to ban anyone that they want. I could care less.

Time to revoke Section 230.

What's in the law protecting internet companies - and can Trump change it?

U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to order a review of a federal law known as Section 230, which protects internet companies like Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet's Google from being responsible for the material posted by users.

www.reuters.com