Here's Why Twitter Briefly Suspended J.D. Vance's Campaign Account

Hint: It wasn't Big Tech censorship.


Twitter briefly suspended the campaign press account of Hillbilly Elegy author J.D. Vance, a conservative critic of Big Tech who is running for an Ohio Senate seat. Vance took the opportunity to slam Twitter for engaging in "election interference" and "censoring conservative voices."

The actual reason for the suspension is less sinister: Moderators at Twitter thought the campaign account—which has many fewer followers than Vance's main account—was an impersonator. The company suspended the account in error, and reversed course after a few hours.

"The account you referenced was suspended for violations of our impersonation policy in error," a Twitter spokesperson tells Reason. "That enforcement has been reversed and the account has been reinstated. The account's followers will take 24-48 hours to fully restore."

There was no conspiracy on the part of Twitter to throw the Republican primary election to Vance's competitor Josh Mandel (whose passion for breaking up Big Tech is no weaker than Vance's). There was no nefarious plot to silence Vance for surrendering "to the politics of hate," as Reason's Stephanie Slade put it. At a quick glance, the account looked illegitimate, and Twitter took erroneous action to protect the integrity of Vance's feed.

Yet Vance is already using this small and inconsequential incident to further his case against Twitter and other social media platforms.

Now that Twitter has provided a satisfactory explanation for the improper suspension, it would be good for Vance to acknowledge it.

NEXT: Meet the Property Owner Who Created a Toilet Garden to Protest Local Officials

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Funny how all those accidents and errors exclusively happen to those who run afoul of the Democratic Party, and never ever happen to anyone else.

      Rachel Maddow constantly spreads Covid “misinformation” by Twitter’s own standards and her account trucks along. Rashida Tlaib uses hate speech by Twitter’s own standards and her account and her account is left pristine. The Taliban, the Iranian government and some of ISIS mullahs are still merrily tweeting away their solution to the Jewish Question. NAMBLA advocates are still tweeting about their craft.

      1. Funny how all those accidents and errors exclusively happen to those who run afoul of the Democratic Party, and never ever happen to anyone else.

        Not just one-sided accidents. One-sided accidents indiscernable from overt hostile action… and both of those juxtaposed against favorable one-sided accidents… on multiple fronts and at several levels.

        Was Vance accidentally blocked? I dunno, was Trump? Was Gabbard? Was talk of Hunter Biden’s laptop?

        1. Find USA Online Jobs (800$-95000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Access To Information. Simple in use. All the Answers. Multiple sources combined.HNm Fast and trusted. Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match……

          Start now……………. VISIT HERE

      2. You’d think Twitter would suspend Biden’s account for impersonating the President.

        1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.HNj Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

          Here is I started.…………… VISIT HERE

      3. I don’t disagree, but it is possible that a genuine error gets mixed in there as well.

    2. It would not be bad at all to accept some wisdom of the anti-immigration ethno-state called Wakanda. The basic wisdom consists of knowledge that migrants brought their problems with them. No hatred was left behind. No wrong was forgiven or even forgottenClick here.

  1. in error, or “in error”?

    That being said, I think Vance is an ass.

    1. Commentariat around here is almost exclusively made of asses. What’s your point?

      1. He thinks Vance is an ass, and questions if his account was really suspended I’m error. Seemed like two very simple points to me.

  2. Yeah, sure.

    Just like how every error the MSM makes is all in the same direction

  3. You believe any lie sent to you by leftists don’t you Robbie.

  4. Things that need discussing other than twitter sewage

    – Why are people still in prison months after interrupting congress by taking selfies and boorish behavior, while 2018 protestors didn’t get the same treatment

    – Why is KSM still not prosecuted after two decades

    – Why is the Biden admin holding onto information about the Saudis two decades later

    – Why did the Biden admin prevent charter flights from evacuating people from Afghanistan

    – What about Newsom’s recall vote coming up

    I mean there’s got to be these or something else other than social media gossip you can write about.

  5. The first one is pretty easy. Cameras.

    1. that was in response to buttitup.

    2. So your argument is that people being held without bail on mostly misdeamenor trespass charges for months is because of cameras? That is a fairly unprecedented action to take (lots of cameras also at the riots during summer of 2020, some of which also trespassed on federal property, destroyed federal property and even stated part of their goals were the over throw of the government unlike the January 6th rioters) and not consistent with judis prudence as it’s been understood since 1784. I mean even Lee and other Confederate officers were paroled and not taken into custody despite actively rebelling against the elected government. Sorry, but the lack of a proper explanation (and cameras is a pretty weak, trust top men, argument, especially for a self professed libertarian) as to the ongoing treatment is downright Orwellian. I condemned the riots and condemn the reaction and denial of basic rights to those elected even more. If anything cameras make it less likely that the defendants won’t show up for court (especially those who turned themselves in and are still being held) therefore there is no logical explanation for there continued incarceration without bail. Especially from someone who has argued for being in favor of bail reform in the past. The only thing one can assume from your defense of the governments actions is that you don’t apply equally your principles when it involves people from the tribe you don’t like. Rather than principles you have principals. It is the only logical conclusion one can draw from your flippant analysis and response.

      1. “So your argument…”

        Actually “excuse”.

        1. And like most excuses it is worthless.

          1. Like I teach my kids, if you are having to make excuses for your actions, it is a strong possibility that your actions probably weren’t defensible in the first place. Or more succinctly put, in the words of my drill sergeant “the maximum effective range of an excuse is exactly zero meters”.

      2. The proper explanation has been given.
        They were republicans, not socialists; they believe in individual freedoms.

    3. Also are you arguing there weren’t cameras around when protestors disrupted congress in 2018? I mean CSpan was only carrying the hearings live at the time. Again a stupid argument on your part.

    4. Cameras made the Jan 6 people more easily identifiable than riotous nighttime mobs. That’s all I’m saying.

      1. But that doesn’t explain why they are still being held without bail for misdemeanor trespass. Even the FBI says it wasn’t an insurrection.

      2. And cameras didn’t make the 2020 rioters more easily identifiable or the rioters that stopped the 2018 Kavanaugh hearings?

  6. You actually think “Twitter has provided a satisfactory explanation for the improper suspension”, Robbie?

    AOC, or ANY Prog for that matter, would accept “but we thot somebody was impersonating you” as satisfactory, TO BE SURE.

    1. It’s just like when Bed, Bath & Beyond (and Target, et al) stopped carrying My Pillow products … and then lied about why. I don’t care what retailer carries who but don’t lie about it. If you are gonna virtue signal, have the balls to actually VIRTUE SIGNAL.

      1. They weren’t virtue signaling, they were following party orders.

        Americans need to wake up to the fact that business, the media and the institutions are all behaving like America will be a one-party state indefinitely. They know you already had your last legitimate election a while back, and there’s now a new game to be played.

        1. And what’s the definition of “Fascism”?

  7. Wouldn’t it have been better for Twitter to contact Vance and ask if that was his senate campaign account? It isn’t any secret that Vance is running for the Senate, so why did they assume it was an imposter account? If nothing else this once again how poorly Twitter does at monitoring it’s site, and once again how that poor management seems to heavily be biased against conservatives, especially Trump conservatives.

    1. Also Robby accepts the explanation as satisfactory but I find it convenient, especially as Twitter states it will take several days to undo it all. There are still a lot of unanswered questions (see my above comment). Robby may be satisfied with the explanation but that doesn’t mean Vance has to be or anyone else. Vance has no need to clarify the record if the explanation is unsatisfactory to him or his supporters.
      Sorry Robby, your analysis is somewhat shallow here. Be a journalist and ask how this occurred in the first place and why it takes several days for them to restore full usage but no time to shut down the profile without even contacting the individual involved. At bear it demonstrates a total ineptness of the investigatory process Twitter uses and a sluggishness on their part to make remedies to undo their mistake.

    2. “Wouldn’t it have been better for Twitter to contact Vance and ask if that was his senate campaign account?…”

      Yeah, suspend first and then wait to see if anyone gripes?
      Not like the guy is hard to get hold of, either directly or a staff member; probably take 5 minutes or so.

      1. One type of censorship is to harass individuals rather than outright ban them. The aim of this type of censorship is to force the assaulted party to self censor to avoid further harassment. This type of action is growing more popular with the cancel culture. I don’t have any evidence this is the case here but it also doesn’t fall out of the realm of possibility.

    3. I wonder what their TOS says about suspending genuine accounts accidentally without notice?

      Oh, that’s right, “Good faith even when acting without faith, fuck you.”

      1. It’s funny you think that TOS applies to anyone but the peon users. If anything juris prudence suggests that we can’t sue carriers for violating their own TOS because the courts have twisted the protections of section 203 completely out of shape to protect social media from any lawsuit, even breach of contract.

        1. *section 230.

    4. Having thought about it for about half an hour, it’s either a testament to Twitter’s dishonesty or their top-to-bottom incompetence.

      I routinely get automated emails from blogs and other web services saying “This is a notice saying your account is being shut down for lack of use. You have 72 hrs. (or 30 days or whatever) to reply in order to prevent it from being deleted.” and “We’re sending this automated reply in response to [event]. Not you? No clue what we’re talking about? Then ignore this email.” Probably half the time it’s in response to an account that some co-worker signed everyone up for and a response from any one of us prevents the shutdown.

      Just dumb. Wilfully malicious or liably stupid.

    5. re: “Wouldn’t it have been better for Twitter to contact Vance and ask …”

      In theory, yes. In practice, that solution won’t scale. Consider:
      1. Most twitter accounts are created pseudonymously. There’s no one to contact.
      2. Even twitter accounts that are created using the person’s real name do not require the addition of contact information.
      3. Once you figure out who to contact, you’ll chew up time by both your own employees and customers figuring it out.
      4. I don’t have actual numbers for twitter but scaling from a website I used to run for our local bee club that tried to use an open wiki software, I imagine they get tens of thousands of spam and other fraudulent accounts created every day.

      Your proposed solution would require paid employee time to research the legitimate account, then research a valid phone number, place the call, explain the situation, have it escalated to someone on the customer side who can verify your identity, do their own research and make a decision, log the decision, then finally act. All for a situation where the algorithm gets it right most of the time. Or we could wait for the inevitable but relatively few mistakes to impact real people who will call in.

      I’m not saying that what they did to Vance was right. Nor am I arguing against your claim that Twitter is biased against conservatives. But your proposed solution is not feasible.

  8. Twitter is a private company so if it wanted to ban Vance, or his campaign account, or even ban any candidate who’s not a Democrat, that would be fine.


  9. Are you genuinely so gullible that you can’t tell the difference between a reason and a pretext?

    Here’s a clue: Would they ever have done that to a candidate they liked? If not, it’s a pretext.

    No, I don’t think you’re that gullible. You’re just a useful idiot making excuses.

    1. It is entirely possible that this is a form of soft censorship, a type of harassment aimed at getting Vance to remove his profile.

      1. People are erroneously suspended all the time. If Twitter wanted to hurt conservatism, it wouldn’t give them something like this to whine about.

        But it is obligatory to mention that it’s a private company that’s free to do what it wants for whatever reason it wants, just as you believe about restaurants and News Corp.

        1. And it is entirely reasonable for me to criticize their actions, rather it was done out of pure stupidity and sloppiness or malice. Being a private corporation doesn’t absolve them from people calling out their biased bullshit.

          1. A mass communication business should have a bias toward truth and not killing people with pandemic conspiracy theories. If they go on permitting rampant deadly lies, that’s when the well-deserved threat of government regulation emerges.

            1. The truth? According to whom? This is the problem. And what deadly lies? Who defines the truth? Oh right in your world it’s the government, and if the mass media doesn’t want regulations (here is a hint regulating free speech by the government is an assault on the Constitution, even lies are protected by free speech) it has to follow the government’s approved truth. Or else. It is a self serving exercise. Either you only allow approved speech or we will regulate you so you have to only allow approved speech. Do you know how Orwellian that concept is?

              1. I thought you people were really into bitching about postmodernism and its supposed critique of truth.

                The truth is that the only way to end a pandemic without killing vast numbers of people is to develop a vaccine and have 80% of the people take it.

                The truth is that a horse dewormer doesn’t work on a virus.

                Those are truths. I’m glad we agree on at least that much.

                1. Actually, ivermectin has a number of uses in battling viruses and had been used for decades to treat viruses. And the research on ivermectin is actually still ongoing and no definitive results are in. Ergo, it isn’t the truth. It demonstrates your lack of understanding of medicine and science. And the preliminary, in vitro studies of ivermectin give a clear mechanism of action and are overwhelmingly in favor of it’s use in slowing the reproduction of COVID, in vivo research is only in it’s preliminary stages and findings remain unclear. That is how science works.
                  And the truth is that your proposed ending to the pandemic actually isn’t even viable when it is a fast mutating, zoological pathogen,such as COVID. And there newest data suggest that even if you vaccinate 100% of the population with the current vaccines, their efficacy against the two newest strains, delta and lambda may be lower than 40%, in which case even 100% vaccination (which is unattainable because it is not approved for those under twelve and a significant minority of the population can’t take the vaccine for health reasons). So your supposed truths aren’t actually truths, from a scientific viewpoint. And are just as bad as those who promote experimental treatments.

                  1. * in which case even 100% vaccination won’t eliminate the virus or stop infections. As with any zoological pathogen, it is as close to impossible as to be functionally impossible, to eliminate the virus or stop mutations. In fact, the more vaccinated the population is, and the increasing number of vaccinated who become infected, the more likely the probability that a vaccine resistant mutation will emerge. That is how science works.

                    1. And a growing number of immunologist have warned the Biden administration and others if exactly this scenario.

                  2. Question for Tony do you know what in vitro and in vivo means? Do you know what a zoological pathogen is? Do you understand how pathogen mutations drive evolution and how this impacts vaccine efficacy? Do you know what the term vaccine efficacy means, and what impacts it has on virus persistence in the population? Do you understand a growing number of well respected immunologists are no saying that the focus on vaccination may be misguided and that we should be focusing on better treatment modalities? Do you understand that the vast majority of immunologists agree that we can’t focus on elimination, because that is nearly impossible to achieve, and instead we need to learn to live with it.

                    1. * now saying

                  3. Another question for Tony do you know what a mechanism of action is and how that guides proposed treatments and research?

                2. And if you hadn’t guessed yet, your truths aren’t actually truths, their opinions not currently supported by the scientific data.

                  1. Thanks for proving my point Tony, even if it was unintentional.

                3. I thought you fake libertarian progs were always arguing about the necessity of open debate and having a discussion. Yet anytime someone disagrees, like the spoiled children you are, you throw a tantrum and change the rules.

                  1. Tony has no pretense of being any kind of libertarian.

                4. That is some unmitigated bullshit of the highest order.

                  1. Notice he didn’t respond to any of the actual science I presented him with. Or answer any of the science related questions I proposed to him.

            2. “A mass communication business should have a bias toward truth and not killing people with pandemic conspiracy theories….”

              This is shitstain’ fitness program – lugging strawmen around. Unfortunately, he thinks someone is as stupid as he is and might be confused.

              1. It also demonstrates his lack of scientific understanding. Because I am sure he is labeling stuff such as HCQ and Ivermectin as deadly misinformation, even though the research is still ongoing. As is the research on vaccine efficacy and side effects. Ongoing research means there isn’t an accepted scientific truth and we know what he is really calling for is what the current administration’s official line is.

                1. “It also demonstrates his lack of scientific understanding…”

                  Could be, but occam’s razor suggests that any scientific knowledge he might possess is not about to be allowed to interfere with his raging case of TDS.
                  (and the spell check here doesn’t recognize “occam’s”?!)

  10. Was anyone fired or suspended for this “error” ?

    1. The bot has been sent for reprogramming – – – – – – – – –

      1. Just wait until Skynet takes over, the punishment of bots and blaming of bots will be all the justification it needs to build terminators.

  11. “This is what happens when we allow five companies to control what we’re allowed to say.”

    Well, what you’re allowed to post on the internet anyway. Some of us communicate with people the way God intended, by personal text message. Getting on a soapbox and “tweeting” your opinion at the world is not communication but vanity. I should know.

    This is, of course, an example of being hoisted on your own retard. You support maximum neoliberal policy that turns a blind eye to whatever corporations do, including forming monopolies, and you’re going to get them censoring you when they control the means of communication. That’s what happens. That’s why monopolies are bad. Congratulations. Like every conservative, you discover a problem the moment it personally affects you. Maybe when you have a lesbian daughter you’ll understand why gay marriage equality is good, just like Dick Cheney.

    1. “Some of us communicate with people the way God intended, by personal text message.”

      So, *THAT’S* how you get all the little boys …

    2. You seem to be under the dismally stupid idea that unfettered capitalism requires one not to criticize the bad actions of private corporations. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. Those who support unfettered capitalism fully support public pressure and consumer choice to correct bad actors, rather than leaving it to the government. No one is hung on their own petard. Twitter did something extremely imbecilic, Vance criticized them and Twitter reversed itself (sluggishly). Capitalism works once again.

      1. To take it even further, the only reason that these monopolies even exist is because of regulatory capture that stunts any meaningful competition (even the robot in charge of Facebook has stated he wouldn’t be able today to create Facebook and make it a success because of all the regulations). So, if anything the existence of monopolies shows how those who aim to regulate free commerce actually stunt free commerce with the results being exactly opposite of what the pro-regulators profess to want. In a free market environment, monopolies fail because of their own hubris, which pushes people to seek out alternatives. In a managed economy monopolies persist because they use the process to hinder any real competition, which shields them from the excesses of their own hubris.

      2. Any moment now you’ll be joining a picket line in protest of McDonald’s low wages, I’m sure.

        1. Why would I? First of all, compared to other fast food, McDonald’s actually pays a better wage. Secondly, as a consumer it doesn’t impact me their wages. Third, I realize that most McDonald’s are actually franchises and therefore the owners are small business owners not the corporation. Fourth considering the service you get from McDonald’s, why should I want them paid more? The sorry excuse that better pay will equal better service is pure bullshit. If you want better pay, earn it by demonstrating competence and drive. If I give shitty service I don’t get a raise. If I want a raise I have to provide good service and competence. That is how the market works.

          1. So of all the bad corporate practices in the world, the moment you pipe up is when some asshole gets his Twitter account suspended.

            Maybe this isn’t a matter of extremely selective conservative outrage, but of the mysterious power Twitter seems to have over everyone. Do you believe that life is possible without Twitter? I just need to figure out why everyone thinks it’s so goddamn important.

            They don’t really want me as a customer at Ann Taylor, and I never once thought to bitch about it.

            1. First, I don’t think McDonald’s wage policies are bad corporate practices for the reasons I outlined. Second, I don’t support censorship, period, and I don’t care if it is private or public censorship. I don’t draw a distinction. And third, if it wasn’t for government regulatory capture Twitter would have real competition but because of managed economy proponents like you, Twitter is an unchallenged monopoly. And their actions require public pushback. If regulatory capture made McDonald’s a monopoly or Ann Taylor, your examples would be more pertinent. And in today’s electoral world, no you can’t run an effective campaign without a strong social media presence. Ergo, their actions have a dramatic impact on the free exercise of democracy. Especially when they have idiots like you calling for regulating them more if they stray from your accepted definition of truth (which as I point out above isn’t actually scientifically true).

              1. Tony’s just posting bullet points from a Media Matters talking points pdf.

                He’ll largely ignore your argument, but I guarantee that if you pressed him on any of the issues you raised, you’ll find that he doesn’t actually know what you’re talking about.

                1. See my above argument with him on his “truths” about COVID.

                2. Nor what he’s talking about.

                  1. As demonstrated by his above posts about COVID (which I rightly guessed before he posted that is what he meant by truth) in which he gets every scientific point wrong and as a result his truths aren’t even close to the truth, scientifically speaking. He just unintentionally proved exactly what I was talking about in regards to “truth”.

                    1. And yes I am patting myself on the back, even if it was the intellectual equivalent of Tyson at the height of his career fighting a bunch of no names and aged has beens, which almost universally resulted in a knockdown in the first round.

            2. “…Maybe this isn’t a matter of extremely selective conservative outrage, but of the mysterious power Twitter seems to have over everyone. Do you believe that life is possible without Twitter? I just need to figure out why everyone thinks it’s so goddamn important…”

              No “maybe” here; this is but one more of shitstain’s attempt at misdirection.
              Shitstain probably thinks this is so clever, no one will spot it for the mendacious attempt it so clearly is.
              Shitstain is busted again.

            3. “Do you believe that life is possible without Twitter? I just need to figure out why everyone thinks it’s so goddamn important.”

              We are all trying to figure that one out.

          2. Hmm, Twitter pays pretty well and has a pretty decent bottom line. It seems to me that covers your bases for what constitutes a “decent” company. Why are you then constantly fucking bitching about [selected] private enterprise? Isn’t that my job? You know, as a socialist.

            1. Your analysis is like the Platte River… A mile wide and an inch deep.

              1. You can also substitute the Powder River, a mile wide and an inch deep.

        2. McDonalds pays the market value for their labor, adjusted by minimum wage laws.
          You are free to leave monetary tips or open your own burger joint and pay no less than what you think the minimum wage should be.

          1. Channeling my inner Tony (I keep him in my left pinky toe) “No, no if unskilled entry level McDonald’s workers don’t make as much as a civil engineer, with a masters degree, who builds bridges, it is UNFAIR.

            1. Thanks for pointing out the contradictions of the modern socialist. We’re supposed to organize alongside rich billionaires to keep fascist morons in the RP out of the government now?!? I’ll adm

              1. Did that make sense in your head?

                1. Socialism isn’t about logic, it’s about murderous envy and power lust.


    3. Like every conservative, you discover a problem the moment it personally affects you. Maybe when you have a lesbian daughter you’ll understand why gay marriage equality is good, just like Dick Cheney.

      ^What you say when you personally have never had to sue a contractor for violating a service agreement/failing to deliver.

    4. “Maybe when you have a lesbian daughter you’ll understand why gay marriage equality is good, just like Dick Cheney”

      Yes Dick and his lez daughter are just as statist as you.

      A real libertarian would rather the state have no licensing requirements for marriage, or much of anything. Assuming they wanted the state to exist anyway.

      But instead of ending the power to license what humans have done for millennia, you wanted to go the equity route by government and its many enforcers. That’s a disease of the left, and their simpering neocon twats.

      1. Yeah if the USSC had ruled correctly and stated that the federal and state governments have no valid reason to require a marriage license, we would have far fewer lawsuits against bakers forcing them to make cakes.

      2. “A real libertarian would rather the state have no licensing requirements for marriage, or much of anything.”

        So, the government should not enforce contracts?

    5. Some of us communicate with people the way God intended, by personal text message.

      Twitter’s default signup validates via phone dumbass.

  12. “when we allow five companies to control what we’re allowed to say”

    I think Vance may be confused about the difference between using a private platform to distribute your speech and having your speech sensored. Besides I didn’t think people were allowed on Twitter if their IQ edged above room temp.

    1. “censorship can’t be cause muh private company”

      Anyone can censor speech, an individual, school, church, institution, corporation, political party, elected official, government entity.
      I think you’re confused and conflating the first amendment restrictions on government censorship, with the definition of censorship.

      Twitter is definitely censoring people. Even on the rare occasions when it’s not acting in the interests of elected Democratic Party officials.

    2. Unfortunately, that’s quite a few of the voters; witness shitstain in this thread.

  13. So why don’t they give the reason at the time an account is nuked?
    Could it possibly be that they wait to see if they get away with it, and if not, blame some poor ‘clump of ones and zeros’ and take it back?

    1. I think you’re right, they wanted to see if they could get away with it.

      1. Who should they give that reason to? The account that they think is fraudulent?

        While I hate defending Twitter, in this case I have to. Your proposed solution is unworkable. Consider the many thousands of fraudulent accounts that must get created every day for the sole purpose of spam, phishing and other frauds. If you have a policy of giving the reason for your block of a probably-fraudulent account, you give the real fraudsters valuable information about how to make their next account look less fraudulent. You will erode the effectiveness of your anti-spam efforts.

        1. Or, and this one is really easy, the first step should be to check the ip logs of the users logging in. It is unlikely that someone using their real name will be consistently running a VPN for Twitter, thus if the account they think is an impersonation account has a shitload of matching IP logs, it’s not an impersonation account.

          1. Your starting assumption (that “it is unlikely that someone using their real name will be consistently running a VPN”) is false. Statistics on the percentage of users connecting via VPN shows that number to be steadily rising. It is currently at about one-quarter of all internet users.

            1. And of that percentage regularly using VPNs, how many use their real names on their Twatter account? Or did you just take an unconnected statistic and assume uniformity.

              1. Given the uses of VPNs self-reported in that survey, I have no reason to believe that the ratio of VPN users who use their real names on twitter is any different from the larger ratio of twitter users who use their real names. Do you have any evidence to rebut that assumption?

                More to the point, you don’t – and mostly can’t – know who is really using their real name on twitter as opposed to a plausible pseudonym. John Smith could be an alias – but it works as an alias because it’s also a common real name. My real name, on the other hand, is sufficiently unusual that you might well mistake it for a pseudonym.

  14. At a quick glance, the account looked illegitimate, and Twitter took erroneous action to protect the integrity of Vance’s feed.

    Protecting the integrity of the feed of a Republican politician? I guess kicking Trump off twitter was protecting his feed as well.

    Sure, whatever you say.

  15. This is just Twaddle’s version of the knee jerk Ivermectin Overdoses that the MSM is so accustomed to. It’s all the same, “we don’t know, hit the bullshit button and go live!!”

    Idiocy is universal in bullshit times.

    1. Actually it is a bit difference. In the ivermectin story, the media didn’t reach out to find the truth before running the story. In the Vance/Twitter instance Twitter didn’t provide an explanation to Vance until after it made the media and didn’t reverse itself until it made the media. And many, including Vance, finds the explanation lacking and apparently ass covering by Twitter.

      1. And interestingly enough in both cases simply contacting someone would have avoided any problems. In the ivermectin case simply contacting the hospitals would have discredited the story, in the Twitter case, simply contacting Vance would have shown it was a legitimate profile and eliminated the need to wrongly suspend the profile. In both cases no one did their due diligence and both ended up with egg on their face as a result.

  16. I’d like to propose an important cosmological variable, which I’ll refer to here as the Petersen-Weinstein constant. That constant is given by the following equation:


    Where A is the Petersen-Weinstein value (yr/hr)
    B is the time right-wing babies will bitch about and/or grift off of it (yr)
    C is the actual length of the Twitter ban (hr)

    Interestingly, my current research indicates that the value is 3.1415. How curious!

    1. Pretty lame even for you, nancy.

    2. That reminds me, I have more math to express how well the richest people on the planet are doing since their preferred political party (Democrats) regained control of the American federal government in January.

      719,000 years
      times 365.25 days / year
      times 24 hours / day
      times $7.25 / hour (federal minimum wage)
      equals about $45.69 billion

      Larry Page’s net worth increase in 2021: $45.7 billion

      Someone making the federal minimum wage would need to work nonstop — no sleep, no days off — for 719,000 years to make almost as much as Larry Page has made in about 8 months of the #BidenBoom.


  17. And if Tony’s “truth” weren’t enough, we now have AmSoc’s pseudo intellectualism.

    1. I try to introduce you peanuts to science and math and look at the thanks I get. No wonder you guys are making yourself horse dewormer cocktails.

      1. Dude, you didn’t introduce me to anything. I will gladly stack up my corriiculum vitae against yours when it comes to science and math, any day of the week.
        And peanuts is exactly what you offered up, only those peanuts where what peanuts become once they have passed through the alimentary tract of any mammal.

      2. Do you know the actual uses of ivermectin? Or it’s history of use as both an antiparasitic and an antiviral? Can you explain the mechanism of action? Can you explain the difference between in vitro and in vivo research and how in vivo research is actually only in its infancy and how that impacts any declaration of it’s usage as a treatment modality?

        1. It always amazes me (not really) how those who ridicule others for not following the science can’t actually explain the science themselves and run and hide when confronted with actual pertinent science questions.

      3. If you want we can also compare the number of peer reviewed science papers each of us have published?

        1. Or the number of peer reviewed scientific presentations each of us have presented to internationally recognized organizations? Or even the number of times we have been asked to be peer reviewers for other publications and presentations?

          1. Or if that is to hard for you, we can compare the number of times we have been asked to lecture on scientific matters at either the collegiate level or the non-collegiate level.

            1. Or the number of professional internationally recognized science organizations we both belong to.

      4. “I try to introduce you peanuts to science and math and look at the thanks I get…”
        Every bit of which you are do for your lies and general bullshit; you couldn’t recognize either one of those if you caught them in bed with your kid. Try to introduce yourself to mortgage payments, pay them and then please, to make the world a better place, fuck off and die.
        Slowly and painfully.

    2. “…we now have AmSoc’s pseudo intellectualism.”

      It’s spelled “lies”. Commie shit is pseudo a lot of things, but “intellectualism” ain’t among them to those who understand the term.
      Oh, and “stupidity” does well also; this ignorant pile of left shit probably sees shitstain as a mentor!

  18. Woke fatty acceptance. Thin privilege.

  19. In the words of Dennis Miller “I don’t want to get into a rant” but one of the biggest issues currently threatening this country is the growth of populism. This is the direct result of the ignoring the growing dissatisfaction with corporatism that birthed the TEA party and OWS. The correct way to combat corporatism is with fewer regulations, one of the few things Trump got right in my opinion, albeit his actual attempts at deregulation were mixed at best. Rather than take these lessons to heart, our betters have cynically embraced the anger to advance their own agendas. The left believes more regulation, and even some openly embracing socialism, is the answer. The right has cynically embraced populism and libertarians seem to be focused more on divisive social issues than on expounding on free market capitalism. This is exemplified by the fact that Afghanistan is mainly a forgotten issue now in the MSM and Reason, and it looks like no one will be held accountable for 20 years of lies or the botched withdrawal (and news now that the State Department is blocking private charters from leaving Afghanistan with US citizens and SIV holders).
    This inability to hold top men accountable just stirs up more anger and divisiveness. It isn’t going to result in more libertarian moments but rather in more Trump acolytes like Vance being elected in 2022 and a strong possibility of Trump 2.0 in 2024. Reason, rather than pointing out the evils or corporatism and by ignoring incompetence and malfeasance by the US Government (see their virtually ignoring the killing of an unarmed rioter on Jan 6 and their virtually ignoring the continued jailing without parole of Jan 6 rioters without parole or the fact that those who plead guilty were forced by the judges to swear an oath of allegiance much like what Confederates were forced to swear after they lost the Civil War and now the memory holing of Afghanistan) brings us an excuse for corporatisms ills, shallow scientific journalism on COVID and more divisive social issues. Libertarians are missing a chance to voice their message in a meaningful way. They are missing the boat and will be, in my opinion, just as guilty of the bad outcomes of populism vs socialism that is increasingly becoming the R’s and D’s answer to growing unrest in the population. Reason once was one of the most powerful voices for the Libertarian movement, but it’s recent (last five years give or take) editorial choices and a marked diminishing of journalistic quality, is quickly taking away any chance Libertarians, and even Libertarian leaning conservatives and liberals, will have a seat at the table any time in the near future.

    1. sorry misquoted Mr Miller. It should read “Now I don’t want to get off on a rant but”

    2. “growing dissatisfaction with corporatism” did not birth the TEA Party. That acronym neatly summed up the entire beliefs of the movement members – Taxed Enough Already. It was a reaction to George Bush’s reversal of his “no new taxes” promise and escalating fiscal irresponsibility on both sides of the aisle.

      The TEA Party movement was quickly co-opted by partisans with other agendas (and demonized by partisans on the other side) but it was “birthed” entirely and solely as an anti-tax movement.

  20. The actual reason for the suspension is less sinister: Moderators at Twitter thought the campaign account—which has many fewer followers than Vance’s main account—was an impersonator. The company suspended the account in error, and reversed course after a few hours.

    Youtube’s US-only blackout of Tulsi Gabbard immediately after the debate was also an unfortunate error. There have been so many unfortunate errors by the Tech companies.

  21. Neo-corporatism favoured economic tripartism, which involved strong labour unions, employers’ associations and governments that cooperated as “social partners” to negotiate and manage a national economy.[22] Social corporatist systems instituted in Europe after World War II include the ordoliberal system of the social market economy in Germany, the social partnership in Ireland, the polder model in the Netherlands (although arguably the polder model already was present at the end of World War I, it was not until after World War II that a social service system gained foothold there), the concertation system in Italy, the Rhine model in Switzerland and the Benelux countries and the Nordic model in Scandinavia.

    This system was championed by presidential candidates Michael Dukakis and Gary Hart. It was also favored by Barack Obama.

    Welcome to it.

    1. It bears a strong resemblance to another system that was strongly embraced in Germany and Italy and Spain in the interwar era.

      1. It absolutely does and I don’t think that has to be a big shocker. Economic fascism… by itself really has nothing to do with racialism, the Jews etc. Mussolini didn’t care about an ethno-state, that was Hitler’s thing. But the economic systems were very much the same, and all lean towards massive government power.

        China is essentially a neo-corporatist state.

        1. It can be argued, rather convincingly in my estimation, that it was also embraced by FDR in the 1930s.

          1. It was definitely embraced by FDR. And his legacy continues in the DNC to this day.

        2. And that is the point, most people limit their analysis of fascism only to how it was utilized in Germany, while they ignore how it was embraced and used in Italy and Spain. As a result their understanding of fascism is limited at best and ignores the experiences of 2/3rds of the countries that openly embraced it.

          1. Yeah, the equation of Fascism and Nazism really precludes intelligent discussion on a lot of questions.

        3. I recommend this book regularly and it as yet not got the exposure it deserves:
          “The Wages of Destruction”, Adam Tooze, in which it becomes obvious that Hitler and his cohorts hoped a centrally-planned economy to be the ideal. One of the new, gigantic steel-making plants was not named the “Goering Steelworks” for nothing.
          If you read Pipes “The Russian Revolution”, you will find little deviation in the time-span to ‘nationalize’ industries; Hitler was not lacking in the desire and intent, but did not have the requisite time.
          Most any history will tell you, without apology, that Hitler planned a “national socialism”, as opposed to the Soviet “international socialism” and it takes a dedicated ideologue to claim one is “right” and one is “left”; both are statist, which is Left to me.
          In an ironic note, Tooze, Speer and others mention Hitler’s desire to implement “Fordism” into the production of weapons, never admitting that “Fordism” had to do with the government fucking off.

          1. New Deal or Raw Deal by Folsom is a good read that deals with the actual impacts of FDR’s new deal programs and dispells the myth that the new deal had any impact other than prolonging the depression.

          2. Also, much like today’s leftist, the focus of Hitler’s statism had much to do with ideology. Yes the Jews were the largest group targeted in the Holocaust, but they only made up half the victims, differing political views and even religious views were also targeted in the Holocaust. A large number of Catholic and Lutheran ministers who objected to Hitler’s programs were also sent to concentration camps. One of the shortcomings of Holocaust education is that to many people only understand the antisemitism, buy rarely understand the persecution of non-Nazi political groups that were also persecuted. I remember we spent a whole quarter studying genocide in high school. One of the striking things was when we visited a synagogue in Spokane that had a Holocaust museum, we heard from a Holocaust survivor, and got to look around the museum. They had a number of artifacts from different concentration camps, and one of the artifacts was a Lutheran prayer book in German. As a Lutheran myself, it brought home to me that it wasn’t just Jews but anyone who didn’t agree with Hitler.

          3. In Europe the right is often just as statist as the left. Conservatism only means anything in a historical context and traditions of social/political organization are pretty different in Europe and the US.

  22. Big Tech apologist Robby Suave has a nice professional ring to it.

    1. One day he’s going to regret the hell out of this article, but it’s going to be too late.

      1. Fvck him

        1. Gonna wait for a better offer.

  23. If it were revealed that Jackson, MS Police pulled over exclusively black drivers for the last 18 months, and 100% of the tickets they issued were to black drivers, and half were dismissed in traffic court, what plausible excuse would Robbie except? Would he celebrate the 50% dismissal rate?

  24. One, how does such a mistake get made? Should not an account be suspended for something more than how it looks at first glance?

    Also presuming it was innocent, Twitter invites victims of these kind of errors to jump to the worst conclusions by not telling them why they are being suspended besides some vague reference to their vaporware TOS.

    1. Should not an account be suspended for something more than how it looks at first glance?

      Getting conspiratorial (and granting Twitter some good faith it doesn’t deserve); some unnamed staffer from the opposing team noticed the campaign account didn’t have a blue checkmark, picked up a burner phone or set up an anonymous email account, and sent a message saying “I’m Vance’s Sr. Vice Manager of Media and Public relations. This page is fraudulent, take it down.” and Twitter did so post haste. When someone actually from Vance’s campaign contacted them about the cancellation, they had to cover their asses about cancelling his account because of an anonymous tip.

      1. That does not make it better.

  25. Why do you assume that suspending an account is a proper response to the creation of an “impersonation” account? The fact that they claim to have had good intentions does not make their actions any less bad.

    Isn’t there a relevant adage about the paving on the road to Hell?

  26. “How JD Vance Surrendered to the Politics of Hate” and now a couple of days later another hit piece. I am discerning a pattern here…

  27. Hey Rico, did you know if you look up ‘credulity’ in Webster’s Online the link includes a picture of you?

  28. Robby’s busy fending off all the shit being thrown at him on Twitter for recommending that children get vaccinated. And today he doubled down on stupid, criticizing the (appropriate) outrage his ridiculous take generated. He’s a buffoon.

  29. Sorry, Twitter toady. Twitter and the other Big Tech firms have engaged in too much known malicious deception to be credited with an honest mistake. They need to be driven into bankruptcy. Let their users who are not bad guys join me on Gab.

  30. The “moderators” and “censors” at big tech are of the same lot…far left usually NYC type ivy league types. they get the gigs because their friends, relatives, and tribe who dominate hedge funds and the DNC get them the gig at Google or Twitter or FB. These folks are not “American” in any way but fifth column bolsheviks..just little “trotskyites”. They hate Catholics, Protestants, Irish, Italian, German, and other ethnic Americans with a passion. They have the chip on the shoulder, envy, bitter of a self described “minority” who have nothing but hate in their hearts and a desire to “get back” to the types of folks who did this or that in the “old country”..”this or that person did this or that”…big tech is an enemy of the people and as such should be broken up and open their digital bulletin board (which is all they really do) to obey the Bill of Rights…no censorship of any kind..

Please to post comments