Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

Twitter made the direction that their ban-punching goes clear some time ago.

[Loud Whispers]

Apparently threatening to beat up that one mother whose kids died in a (texas?) terrorist attack because she's anti hillary is not ban worthy, but being Milo is? :v

Nor is threatening to kill a woman in Nevada because she is pro hillary.

Milo engaged in systematic attacks that hurt their bottom line for years.

People cite their sources when they attack Hillary waifu, can you cite your sources when you attack Milo waifu

[Rolan7]

Curse you, I almost clicked on that.  Good thing I read URLs.
Not even weighing in on his recent controversy, I just don't like the guy.

(Edit:  In fact I don't think he should have been banned.  Twitter had the right, of course, but I don't think it was right.  Even though he's a professional troll.)

DOHOHOHOHOHO~

Not sure if I understand, but I mean it though.  I don't think he says anything worthwhile.  I think he just drums up controversy, and uses his unusual status as a gay conservative for attention.  Not that he'd be the only person using their orientation for attention, hahaha *cries*. 

Shouldn't have been banned, though.  He wasn't harassing, he was just trying to score points by criticizing an unpopular thing.  Specifically, calling someone fat and ugly because they were associated with a terrible movie that somehow became controversial.

He's a worthless, desperate dick.  Shouldn't have been banned though.
Wasn't inciting attacks, just desperately chasing the bandwagon.

Edit:  As WKNC proudly proclaims:  "The publication of this material is the price we pay for FREEDOM in this country!"

[TempAcc]

Most of the anti milo sources usualy consist of "he was mean to me omg :CCCCC" and other several levels of non sanctioned disagreement. Its kinda like banning george carlin for making offensive jokes.

[Loud Whispers]

Not sure if I understand, but I mean it though.  I don't think he says anything worthwhile.  I think he just drums up controversy, and uses his unusual status as a gay conservative for attention.  Not that he'd be the only person using their orientation for attention, hahaha *cries*. 

Our senses of humour are very different
Anyways I would agree with you, in fact I do - he has long outlived much political usefulness and has become an e-celeb. Still, he refuses to stop enjoying everything he does, and I find it extraordinarily difficult to hate someone who's having that much fun, and thrives in his own ecological niche. For example, what political use is it to the right to criticize ghostbusters being shit? What did it gain? Everyone knows the movie is shit, he could've been focusing on more worthwhile banter, but I won't fault him for having a different sense of humour to myself, any more than I would you, or hope you would me :P

Shouldn't have been banned, though.  He wasn't harassing, he was just trying to score points by criticizing an unpopular thing.  Specifically, calling someone fat and ugly because they were associated with a terrible movie that somehow became controversial.

Milo didn't get banned for calling Les a talentless unfunny comedian who can't act, Milo was banned for telling his fans to attack Les despite there being zero evidence of him doing so - Jack took Les's word for it that Milo was leading a homocrusade against her.
Which is hilarious because:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Twitter's gone full retard
I find it hilarious when they pulled down #DNCleaks from #1, #DNCleak immediately replaced it at #1
ayy lmao wikileak my shit up fam
Hopefully you guys get a RNC leak or something to balance things up

He's a worthless, desperate dick.

He's not desperate for dick, he's got plenty

[mainiac]

He wasn't harassing, he was just trying to score points by criticizing an unpopular thing.

An unpopular thing you say?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ghostbusters-is-a-perfect-example-of-how-internet-ratings-are-broken/

IMDb average user rating among men: 3.6 out of 10, of 7,547 reviewers
IMDb average user rating among women: 7.7 out of 10, of 1,564 reviewers

The movie isn’t even out in theaters as I’m writing this, but over 12,000 people have made their judgment

[Rolan7]

He's a worthless, desperate dick.

He's not desperate for dick, he's got plenty

Why do you think I hate him
But yeah, I think we pretty much agree.  And yeah, maybe I've laughed at one or two things he's said in an interview...

I hate that regressives are trying to silence people.  I agree with some of what they say, but uggh.  It's been going in such a bad direction for a few years now.

He wasn't harassing, he was just trying to score points by criticizing an unpopular thing.

An unpopular thing you say?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ghostbusters-is-a-perfect-example-of-how-internet-ratings-are-broken/

IMDb average user rating among men: 3.6 out of 10, of 7,547 reviewers
IMDb average user rating among women: 7.7 out of 10, of 1,564 reviewers

The movie isn’t even out in theaters as I’m writing this, but over 12,000 people have made their judgment

That was before the movie came out and normal people realized it really was shit.
The time when it was just "FEMNMISM" vs "RDPILLZ" because the public hadn't seen it.

Besides, I was mostly saying it was unpopular with his fans.  Conservatives, and an above-average amount of actual misogynists.  He chose his side, and he pandered to it.  Nothing ban-worthy there, I just don't respect him.

[mainiac]

Even if we accept all of that, isn't that incompatible with "he was just criticizing an unpopular thing to look good?"  He wasn't criticizing an unpopular thing.  It wasn't unpopular yet.  He was making an unpopular thing along with other dickheads.  And him doing that hurts twitters bottom line.  The movie companies are gonna look at how a dickhead could tear down a big investment of theirs by starting a war with an actress.  They'll do the reasonable thing and tell their actors to stop tweeting.  Even the slightest danger of that is a hell of a lot more important to Twitter then this dickhead.

[Rolan7]

That's a good argument for why Twitter's decision made business sense!
And I've made it clear that I don't like the guy at all...

But people have every reason to be outraged.  It's supposed to be a fairly-open forum.  That allows for people being crass to one another.  This is the same service which helps third-world insurgents organize riots.  But this is too far?

Beyond that, he didn't break the terms of service.  He didn't harass, and he didn't incite harassment.
I'm not happy to see him go, not because of this.

(I really wanted the new Ghostbusters to be good, too.  I wanted it to shame all the MRAs, but nope.  It was just a bad cash-in which then also cashed in on the gender controversy)

[Loud Whispers]

He wasn't harassing, he was just trying to score points by criticizing an unpopular thing.

An unpopular thing you say?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ghostbusters-is-a-perfect-example-of-how-internet-ratings-are-broken/

IMDb average user rating among men: 3.6 out of 10, of 7,547 reviewers
IMDb average user rating among women: 7.7 out of 10, of 1,564 reviewers
The movie isn’t even out in theaters as I’m writing this, but over 12,000 people have made their judgment

Written:  Jul 14, 2016 at 11:24 AM
Premiered Los Angeles: July 9, 2016
Released theatrically UK: July 11, 2016 (in the UK it had #1 opening in its first week)
Your article writer is confused and arguing that people should be ignored in favour of mongs like them, ghostbusters clearly had been out for 5 days before they wrote the article and out for 3 days theatrically before they wrote that article. Not even factoring in dodgy Cambodian merchants or

Spoiler: alternatives (click to show/hide)

For Americans too impatient who didn't live in LA or UK or have dodgy Cambodian merchants xD

Even if we accept all of that, isn't that incompatible with "he was just criticizing an unpopular thing to look good?"  He wasn't criticizing an unpopular thing.  It wasn't unpopular yet.  He was making an unpopular thing along with other dickheads.  And him doing that hurts twitters bottom line.  The movie companies are gonna look at how a dickhead could tear down a big investment of theirs by starting a war with an actress.  They'll do the reasonable thing and tell their actors to stop tweeting.  Even the slightest danger of that is a hell of a lot more important to Twitter then this dickhead.

Mfw you want to silence an innocent man over lies just because he hurts the profits of a multinational corporation
Mfw you're spreading lies
Mfw you're Shillary
Mfw I have no face

Why do you think I hate him
But yeah, I think we pretty much agree.  And yeah, maybe I've laughed at one or two things he's said in an interview...

I hate that regressives are trying to silence people.  I agree with some of what they say, but uggh.  It's been going in such a bad direction for a few years now.

What is the difference between progressives and "regressives"? Dead serious, I haven't found any traits to make the two distinguishable, and I've been looking. The liberation vs idpol wasn't really helpful in finding any either

*EDIT

That's a good argument for why Twitter's decision made business sense!

Banning the guy with 300,000 followers over Paul Feig's whining makes no business sense, and has undermined trust in their platform and incurred a media backlash
It's a bold strategy, not one I think will pay off. Time to rally Bernie blads

[Rolan7]

Why do you think I hate him
But yeah, I think we pretty much agree.  And yeah, maybe I've laughed at one or two things he's said in an interview...

I hate that regressives are trying to silence people.  I agree with some of what they say, but uggh.  It's been going in such a bad direction for a few years now.

What is the difference between progressives and "regressives"? Dead serious, I haven't found any traits to make the two distinguishable, and I've been looking. The liberation vs idpol wasn't really helpful in finding any either

I don't really know what the actual words mean.  I think regressive is a recent invention anyway.  So here's my take:
Regressives are liberals who try to silence people, and try to gate discussion based on "privilege", and manufacture controversy for the sake of scoring points with other regressives [and liberals].
They aren't open to discussion.  You really have to watch your words around them.  Even if you're being careful, trying to be diplomatic, you might trip across a verbotten word and BAM- you have lost points, and must atone or be an enemy of progress.

They're progressive, but a horrible and terrifying clique born of teenagers.  And it's waaaaay more relevant than it should be.  Apparently, like certain religions, it spreads well and is hardy.

[mainiac]

Banning the guy with 300,000 followers over Paul Feig's whining makes no business sense, and has undermined trust in their platform and incurred a media backlash

Oh wow!  Twitter followers.  Totally eough to start a revolution then

Mfw you want to silence an innocent man over lies just because he hurts the profits of a multinational corporation
Mfw you're spreading lies
Mfw you're Shillary
Mfw I have no face

Awwwww, did poor baby get hurt that someone disagreed with you on the internet?

[Loud Whispers]

Oh wow!  Twitter followers.  Totally eough to start a revolution then
Awwwww, did poor baby get hurt that someone disagreed with you on the internet?

Hahaha, the only source you had to back up your claims was based on lies and now you're only left with bait and passive aggressiveness. Mainiac, look at the thread title - these threads have consistently collapsed because when you get proven factually wrong, you get salty and start resorting to namecalling - if you don't want to be called a liar, don't lie xD

Eh, twitter is a corporation. They can do whatever they want to the accounts of individuals using their services; hell, it's in the never-holds-up-in-court agreement that every new user blindly agrees to whenever they sign up for the thing.
To satiate my curiosity, I figured to look through the user terms and conditions presented to a new user when making an account on Twitter:

We reserve the right at all times (but will not have an obligation) to remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, to suspend or terminate users, and to reclaim usernames without liability to you.

So yeah, his account being deleted is entirely within Twitter's right to do so. It's the agreement he signed when he made his account. Don't like it? Don't sign the agreement.

Quite so, and no one disputes that, what's taken issue to is blatant hypocrisy and arbitrary rules, all the whilst trying to maintain an air of objectivity and impartiality in order to keep business good. By all means Jake is allowed to ban everyone who disagrees with him, and by all means everyone else is allowed to laugh at Jake and ruin his brand's image of impartiality :P

Spoiler: Reposting (click to show/hide)

[Rolan7]

Eh, twitter is a corporation. They can do whatever they want to the accounts of individuals using their services; hell, it's in the never-holds-up-in-court agreement that every new user blindly agrees to whenever they sign up for the thing.

To satiate my curiosity, I figured to look through the user terms and conditions presented to a new user when making an account on Twitter:

We reserve the right at all times (but will not have an obligation) to remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, to suspend or terminate users, and to reclaim usernames without liability to you.

So yeah, his account being deleted is entirely within Twitter's right to do so. It's the agreement he signed when he made his account. Don't like it? Don't sign the agreement.

Certainly!  I did mention that (:  But it's well within the users' rights to be outraged, make demands, and potentially leave.
Technically Twitter didn't formally promise neutrality.  Doesn't stop people from demanding it or walking.

[Rolan7]

Well, he did abide by the specific terms and conditions of behavior.  Somewhat arguably, but I think he did.  I don't think it was obvious that he would be banned for this.  And even if it was obvious to him, it doesn't really change anything.  It's still Twitter violating neutrality (which they have no legal obligation to maintain).