MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Twitter Implementing European-Style Hate Speech Bans

Will it stop toxic behavior or just encourage more demands for censorship?

Jack DorseyRon Sachs/SIPA/NewscomTwitter's leadership announced this morning that it is broadening its bans on "hateful" conduct to try to cut down on "dehumanizing" behavior.

The social media platform already bans (or attempts to ban, anyway) speech that targets an individual on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, and a host of other characteristics. Now it intends to crack down on broader, non-targeted speech that dehumanizes classes of people for these characteristics.

Here's how the company's blog post describes the new rules:

You may not dehumanize anyone based on membership in an identifiable group, as this speech can lead to offline harm.

Definitions:

Dehumanization: Language that treats others as less than human. Dehumanization can occur when others are denied of human qualities (animalistic dehumanization) or when others are denied of human nature (mechanistic dehumanization). Examples can include comparing groups to animals and viruses (animalistic), or reducing groups to their genitalia (mechanistic).

Identifiable group: Any group of people that can be distinguished by their shared characteristics such as their race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, serious disease, occupation, political beliefs, location, or social practices.

Directly under that rule, they ask for feedback. If you find this definition vague, you can let them know. They actually ask for examples of how this rule could be misapplied to punish "speech that contributes to a healthy conversation." Feel free to fill them in.

As a private platform, Twitter can decide that it does not want to make space for speech it finds unacceptable. Newspapers and other media outlets have often declined to run letters to the editor or otherwise provide platforms for speech that uses such "dehumanizing" language. It's their right to do so.

To the extent that there's a "but" here, it's about how toxic the political discussion on Twitter has already become. A large number of people actively try to get other people banned for saying things they don't like, flopping and shrieking like pro soccer players at every piece of criticism they don't like in hopes of drawing out a red card from a ref. If you add to the reasons that Twitter will censor tweets and shut down accounts, surely you'll just increase the volume of people shrieking at Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey demanding that he and Twitter do something.

Also, while this new rule is a product of the creepily-named Trust and Safety Council that Twitter organized in 2016, its language echoes the broad anti–hate speech laws of the European Union and United Kingdom. This morning Andrea O'Sullivan noted that the European Union is attempting to regulate what online companies permit and forbid. It's a lot harder to see what Twitter is doing as a voluntary reaction to consumer pressure when we know that there is additional governmental efforts to try to force them to censor users. And it won't just be ordinary citizens who use this rule to yell at Twitter and demand they shut down speech they don't like. Politicians certainly will as well.

Both Twitter's blog post and Wired's coverage of the rule change point to the research of Susan Benesch of The Dangerous Speech Project as an inspiration for the new rule. Yet while one might think an organization that says certain types of speech are actually dangerous would be pro-censorship, that's not really what the group is about.

While The Dangerous Speech Project does say that "inhibiting" dangerous, dehumanizing speech is one way to prevent the spread of messages meant to encourage violence and hatred toward targeted groups, that's not what the group is actually encouraging. It says outright that efforts to fight "dangerous" speech "must not infringe upon freedom of speech since that is a fundamental right." It adds that "when people are prevented from expressing their grievances, they are less likely to resolve them peacefully and more likely to resort to violence."

The Dangerous Speech Project calls instead for engaging and countering bad speech with good speech. In fact, last year Benesch co-wrote an article specifically warning against online Twitter mobs that attempt to shame or retaliate against people in real life for the things that they've said, even when those things are full-on racist. When naming-and-shaming is used as a social tactic to suppress speech, she notes, it often ends up with the majority oppressing minorities. And besides, it doesn't really work:

Shaming is a familiar strategy for enforcing social norms, but online shaming often goes farther, reaching into a person's offline life to inflict punishment, such as losing a job. Tempting though it is, identifying and punishing people online should not become the primary method of regulating public discourse, since this can get out of hand in various ways. It can inflict too much pain, sometimes on people who are mistakenly identified—and in all cases it is unlikely to change the targets' minds favorably.

It's a little odd to see this group's work being used to justify suppressing people's tweets.

Photo Credit: Ron Sachs/SIPA/Newscom

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • damikesc||

    Then it's time for them to lose all protections for being a platform and not a publisher.

  • rocks||

    Twitter is 95% hateful comments against white people. Those posts are not being deleted.

  • damikesc||

    No joke. Twitter is an unbelievably racist and sexist place. It's just that they support the racism and sexism

  • Quixote||

    Just as long as their plan includes taking action against the unwanted Trolls, and in particular against the perpetrators sending out inappropriately deadpan tweets in the "names" of our distinguished university presidents, we should give them our full support. They could begin by reporting these "free speech" abusers to the police. See the documentation of our nation's leading criminal "parody" case at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • Quixote||

    Really, when are they going to arrest these criminals and put them in jail?

    www.chronicle.com/article/when.....lege/47269

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Twitter is the single most appropriately named social media service. 99.999% of their users are twits.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Matthew, a lot of them are also twats.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Forget white people.

    You may not dehumanize anyone based on membership in an identifiable group, as this speech can lead to offline harm.

    No more harassing of Republicans!

  • Drave Robber||

    And no more calling people 'bots' just because you disagree with them... oh wait.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Identifiable group: Any group of people that can be distinguished by their shared characteristics such as their race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, serious disease, occupation, political beliefs, location, or social practices.

    By the letter of their own policy, you'd be correct. I won't hold my breath for them to actually act on someone calling Trump supporters white supremacists though.

  • Magnitogorsk||

    All this handwringing over twitter is just hilarious to me. If you don't like their rules, don't use their service. It's not hard. You may be surprised to find out that twitter is completely stupid and pointless and you can easily live your life without ever using it.

  • ||

    You may be surprised to find out that twitter is completely stupid and pointless and you can easily live your life without ever using it.

    Case in point: I have lived my life up to this very minute entirely twitter-free. I have zero interest in 156-character celebrity hot-takes, and I think my quality of life is all the better for it.

  • Shirley Knott||

    +1

  • Dillinger||

    hashtagmetoo

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    But without Twitter, how will journalist read the pulse of the nation?

  • Trollificus||

    A valid point! I had for years decried the state of what the MSM contended was 'journalism' as "can't get worse than this".

    Until I started seeing news stories reporting "Twitter response was swift and savage" and "Public Figure X issued an apology after being subjected to Twitter outrage", etc., etc...as if the hot takes of a self-annointed group of Mean Girls and Woke Allies conveyed the thoughts of the most important segment of the US population.

    I'm afraid that without the direction of Tweets to interpret, American journalists will have to go the Guardian route: Start with desired message and reverse-engineer the 'story', 'quotes', and 'facts'...though how this will move the "journalistic product" closer to or farther from useful truth is unclear.

  • Sevo||

    "Case in point: I have lived my life up to this very minute entirely twitter-free. I have zero interest in 156-character celebrity hot-takes, and I think my quality of life is all the better for it."

    Ditto for Facebook, Linkedin, and the rest of the 'social media'.
    No interest at all.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    LinkedIn is pretty good.

  • Just Say'n||

    "All this handwringing over record albums is just hilarious to me. If you don't like their warning labels, don't buy their albums. It's not hard. You may be surprised to find out that record albums are completely stupid and pointless and you can easily live your life without ever using them."

    - Magnitogorsk, circa 1982, during the PMRC hearings

  • Just Say'n||

    Note that the warning labels were voluntarily created by record companies

  • ||

    Note that the warning labels were voluntarily created by record companies

    Check the history, that is a very odd take on "voluntary".

  • Just Say'n||

    Similar to the history of Twitter's speech restrictions.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    The music industry horse traded the warning label for a cut of all blank tapes sold. Was that not voluntary? Should they have not done that?

    Yeah kinda of hard to say that was voluntary when two other parties the consumer and manufactures of blank tapes are left out of the deal.

  • ||

    Yeah kinda of hard to say that was voluntary when two other parties the consumer and manufactures of blank tapes are left out of the deal.

    And the whole thing was only possible in the first place because of the really tight consolidation of the record industry in the mid-80s. By 1990, there were only six companies producing all the recordings in the world.

    You couldn't pull that shit today.

  • The Last American Hero||

    We were a handful of dangling chads away from President Gore. What cause do you think his wife would have taken up as first lady? Hint, it ain't childhood literacy.

    It could totally happen today, as most music is distributed via 2 app stores and 3 or 4 online services (one of which is owned by one of the app stores) who have already been caught colluding to get rid of what they consider "undesirables" off their platforms.

  • ||

    Oh, I in no way suggest that their passion for trying is in any way diminished. But you can't put the genie back in the bottle - there are now nearly infinite ways to record and disseminate music cheaply. That was resoundingly not the case in 1990.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    All this handwringing over twitter is just hilarious to me. If you don't like their rules, don't use their service.

    Bingo! It's the same with chicken. If you don't like your chicken with a side of old-timey bigotry, pick KFC or a taco.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    ???

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Artie is referencing Chick-Fil-A, never mind that Truett Cathy does not use the stores as a platform for his views, treats all his employees fairly and equally, and his stores have never denied service to anyone. But Artie has never been one to let facts get in the way of a stupid cheap shot.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Arthur L. Hicklib goes back to his racist roots by listing two stereotypical foods. Next on his agenda will be promoting "flied lice".

  • jonnysage||

    I loved Twitter as a format, but I stopped using them when they appeared willing to work with the govt to censor and report on their users. Facebook will have to go next. But then what? What social media doesn't censor?

  • ||

    Then it's time for them to lose all protections for being a platform and not a publisher.

    Honestly, they should just advertise it as a running communal Mad Libs... game(?)

  • Dillinger||

    booger!

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Past time. Applies alike to Google, CatNet, SnapFace, and WhomEver. Everyone who aggregates an audience for media, accepts contributions, and publishes content, is a publisher. Make every publisher read everything before it goes online, and re-empower civil suits for defamation and copyright violation against both publishers and contributors.

    That will solve the problem, keep government out of it, and support an enormous increase in publisher diversity, to more than offset any loss of content diversity attributable to private editing on any particular platform. As an extra benefit, it will generate thousands of media-related jobs—initially, as replacements for jobs previously wiped out by monopolistic media consolidation online, but with more to come later.

    Almost best of all, we can be certain it would work. It is no more than resumption of the publishing legal regime which prevailed in this nation (and many others) for centuries. Under that rule, publishing became widely regarded as an ornament of civilization.

    Best of all, doing that would not throw away a key advantage the internet promised initially—far broader access to publishing opportunities. That broader access would continue, because it depends almost exclusively on a combination of lower publishing costs, and relief from the need for specialized skills to accomplish publication. Those the internet will continue to offer to everyone.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Will it stop toxic behavior or just encourage more demands for censorship?"

    Will speech codes stop mean words or will it just be used to silence unpopular opinions?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Name one time appeasement didn't work.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Let me give President Carter a quick call...

  • Hank Phillips||

    May 8, 1945.

  • Just Say'n||

    That is a cryptic response....

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    It's the day Germany officially surrendered during WWII.

  • Just Say'n||

    I got that. And I still don't get it.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    I don't get how it has anything to do with appeasement either. He probably meant to give a date at the start of WWII like I posted below for the Treaty of Munich.

  • Just Say'n||

    Maybe he endorses the Morgenthau Plan?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    He is referring to the Canadian troops moving into Amsterdam. Don't mess with the Canucks.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Your link doesn't say anything about Canadian troops or Amsterdam.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Yes it does.

  • Dillinger||

    rooted for Krauts.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    30 Sept 1938 Treaty of Munich

  • Trollificus||

    Well, there was that first time. Then every time in between, until this most recent time.

    Minus, of course, all those times when. via application of "argumentum ad asseritur", it was just stated "See? That worked just fine!"

  • Hugh Akston||

    This is literally the worst thing that has ever happened.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Twitter or the policy?

  • damikesc||

    And, of course, their Trust and Safety Council is a bunch of hardcore prog activists who don't think one can be mean to conservatives.

  • esteve7||

    Hate speech is not a thing. All this is is a power play by the fascist left who want to control what opinions you can express and hear. You see the same thing on college campuses when Ben Shapiro needed 600 police officers to give a mildly conservative speech.

    Also, you are a fucking idiot if you think suppressing speech will make it less likely. The best way to get rid of bad ideas is to air them out. People don't show up for Richard Spencer speeches not because they can't but because they've already heard his ideas and don't want any of it.

    But it gets to the real issue, is that leftists don't believe in Freedom, or Individual Responsibility. You see, people can't be trusted to not act like animals when they hear things they don't like (safe spaces), can't be responsible enough to sort through a bad opinion, etc, so everything you do has to be controlled. All they care about is control.

  • Don't look at me.||

    The internet is a threat to central control. Look at how China handled it. Yeah.

  • Just Say'n||

    You mean, look how Google offered China the ability to handle it?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Feel free to fill them in.

    Is this Shackford mobilizing his army of followers to attack Twitter???

  • buybuydandavis||

    Army of bots and trolls

  • TuIpa||

    I have had the feeling lately that the tide is turning on Twitter.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    Not just lately.

    There's been talk of conservatives leaving twitter for at least a year and a half when I last used twitter.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Don't say mean things on twatter, but it's cool to shout a senator and his wife out of a restaurant, instead of just voting against him like civil people.

  • Just Say'n||

    You got to get woke and fast. It's not libertarian to not make excuses for fascistic behavior committed by the Left

  • Hank Phillips||

    Civil people vote for freedom in the guise of libertarian party candidates, not the LeftandRight. Socialists who hate Ted's National Socialism will (you could safely bet--if it were legal to bet) respond by voting for Bernie's Soviet Socialism. The thought of voting against both Left socialism and Religious socialism does not air on teevee.

  • Just Say'n||

    Like a Libertarian Party candidates that doesn't support private businesses be allowed to refuse services, unless their rationale is popular?

  • ||

    Baker's should be able to refuse service to anyone they choose, no questions asked, no strings attached.

    Now Twitter,. . .

  • Just Say'n||

    Twitter should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they like. I've never strayed from that position.

    But, in both cases it is more than proper for people to criticize their business practices.

  • Mark22||

    Twitter also shouldn't be exempt from liability for the content that is published on their platform since, obviously, they are controlling that content now.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Like Libertarian candidates that think the Team Blue candidate is dreamy and say so on the campaign trail?

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    What the fuck is a Twitter?

  • Don't look at me.||

    It's something that will be replaced by something else soon.

  • ||

    It's entirely possible that it didn't serve a great purpose to begin with and won't be replaced.

  • TuIpa||

    The thing that old people use instead of IG.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It's a little odd to see this group's work being used to justify suppressing people's tweets.

    Almost as odd as a "libertarian" calling for censorship.

  • Just Say'n||

    "While The Dangerous Speech Project does say that "inhibiting" dangerous, dehumanizing speech is one way to prevent the spread of messages meant to encourage violence and hatred toward targeted groups, that's not what the group is actually encouraging. It says outright that efforts to fight "dangerous" speech "must not infringe upon freedom of speech since that is a fundamental right." It adds that "when people are prevented from expressing their grievances, they are less likely to resolve them peacefully and more likely to resort to violence."

    Ignoring all historical precedent to the contrary, I believe them.

  • John||

    And beyond that they are not even pursuing that goal. If they were, they would be even handed about how they apply the rules. They are anything but. So, Louis Farrakhan and Hamas and Hezbollah keep their accounts while conservatives lose theirs for the smallest and most vague of reasons. Twitter is okay with violent speech and hatred. It just has to be violence and hatred coming from the left.

  • Just Say'n||

    If you can't trust social media platforms who work hand and hand with Chinese communists, who can you trust?

  • John||

    Don't be evil unless doing so comes with a big fat check from the CHICOMS.

  • Just Say'n||

    Do as the Fonz says, be better to socialists

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Twitter is also heavily funded by the terror masters of Saudi Arabia. I'm pretty sure that "Prince" Alaweed (or whatever his name is) still owns more of Twitter than Jack Dorsey.

  • Just Say'n||

    You mean the prince that the president is so enamored with?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    +1 chemjeff

  • John||

    There at most five million people on Twitter in this country. That is five million out of an adult population of over 200 million. Twitter is run by the absolute worst sorts of SJW garbage. It would be nice if it wasn't. That said, I don't think what happens on Twitter means a damn thing in the grand scheme of things. Most people are not on Twitter, don't get their information from Twitter and don't give a damn what happens there. Twitter only seems important because journalists use it. And journalists being self absorbed half wits think anything that is important to them must be important to the world. No, it doesn't work that way. Ultimately, Twitter, like AOL before it and every other fad will just slowly die on the vine as people get bored and move onto something more interesting. As powerful as these tech companies seem today, that power is an illusion and will not last.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's just given a perverse amount of weight because 4.5 million of those users are journalists.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Explains the high disability rolls.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'll buy that with Twitter. Not so sure about the skinheads doing the same thing at BookFace, YouTube, and PayPal. They might have some legs.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Fucking auto-correct made a Freudian slip. "skinhead" was supposed to be "shithead" .

  • The Last American Hero||

    If HRC had won, Twitter would have gone belly up a year ago. The Donald's inability to tweet every stupid idea that crosses his brain has reinvigorated the brand.

  • ||

    Are Russian Hackers an identifiable group?

  • Dillinger||

    good band name for Pussy Riot opener.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Russian Bots

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Of course, saying "Kill all white men" if you're Sarah Jeong, THAT doesn't count as hate speech you see, because she's a comedienne and she's clearly joking and deserves to get the benefit of the doubt!

    And even if she's only say HALF-joking, well then in that case white men still don't really fully qualify under these rules, because even if they do count as an "identifiable group" white men are basically evil you see and sort of deserving of being dehumanized anyway.

  • John||

    Look man, she was provoked into saying that by all of these evil alt right trolls who said terrible things about her in tweets that are nowhere to be found. She was just using their tactics back against them ironically.

    The funniest thing about that whole sorry affair is to read Jeong's twitter feed today. It is absolutely the most middle of the road factual feed it could possibly be. The Times may not have fired her, but she apparently got the message that hating whitey isn't kosher if she wants to keep her job.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    A kavanaugh appointment would probably break that.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Well that would mean America is becoming the Handmaids Tale so #resist by any means necessary.

  • buybuydandavis||

    It's how you *get* the job

  • DajjaI||

    Twitter loves this because it basically makes them a monopoly in Europe where such bans are enforced by the government, and they hope in the US too, under the guise of 'net neutrality' or whatever. Startup platforms have little chance of getting similar restrictions in place and thus can be easily sabotaged and regulated out of business. But yeah, the way to fight hate speech is to expose and debunk, not to censor. In fact there is scientific evidence that banning people on Facebook actually leads to violence (against migrants in Germany, for example). However we have only ourselves to blame. Most people will sign a petition demanding the social networks ban hate speech and then go out for a drink and pat each other on the back for their activism. It's actually fun to fight hate speech and for the life of me I can't understand why more people aren't into it.

  • John||

    Other than damaging the bumpers of the trucks that the migrants use to run over them, I don't think there is too much "violence against migrants" in Europe. I mean some of those people have the nerve to damage the bumpers or stop the bullets used to kill them but that is about it.

    And lying never works in the long run when the truth is everywhere to be found. You can lie about small things but you can't lie about big things. So, all Twitter is doing by banning "hate speech", which is really just people people pointing out facts the SJWs don't like in most cases, is causing its customers to not trust it.

  • DajjaI||

    This is hate speech and I CONDEMN IT.

    Yes it really is that simple. Now you try:

  • Rockabilly||

    Fuck you twitter.

    If that is not hate speech how about these:

    Fuck ANTIFA

    Fuck Hitler

    Fuck Stalin

    Fuck Obama

    Fuck the EU

    Fuck Castro

    Fuck Bernie Sanders

    Fuck Karl Marx

    Fuck socialism

    Fuck communism

    Fuck fascism

    And fuck you again twitter

    And Fuck Hillary Clinton and every last democrat progressive communist.

    And Fuck Diane Finesteeennn

    And Fuck Chuck Scheemer

    And fuck the media especially CNN and the New York Fucking Times - where are the WMDs assholes???

    Oh yea, and fuck the Huffintooonpooost and all their fucking retarded reporters.

    All go fuck yourselves and each other.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    + 2

    Fuck Danny & Terry's Buffalo Chicken Wings!

  • Echo Chamber||

    .Lighten up on the Viagra.

  • Trollificus||

    -1, inadequate "Fuck you, Nancy Pelosi.", or the terrorists win.

  • Just Say'n||

    "The Dangerous Speech Project calls instead for engaging and countering bad speech with good speech. In fact, last year Benesch co-wrote an article specifically warning against online Twitter mobs that attempt to shame or retaliate against people in real life for the things that they've said, even when those things are full-on racist. When naming-and-shaming is used as a social tactic to suppress speech, she notes, it often ends up with the majority oppressing minorities."

    On the plus side, when speech codes start being implemented in the US, at least we know what the argument will be from fair weather free speech fans for why they totally trust that this time it's different.

  • John||

    When the speech codes come they will be clothed in the language of class and tolerance such that everyone left or right will feel they must support them as a way to signal their membership in the upper class. They will be all about keeping the wrong sorts of people from making things hard. The people on the Right who today mindlessly refer to Milo Yianopolis as a "troll" and rub their chins about how it is not right for Antifa to attack his appearances but at the same time Yianopolis is just as wrong for provoking them, will rub their chins and thoughtfully say that sure free speech is good but some people have abused it to such an extent that the government should do something.

    These idiots are nothing if not predictable.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Just like real socialism has never been tried, real censorship has never been tried. But enlightened wokatarians are ready to lend the assist.

  • John||

    Pretty much. And if you doubt that at all, just look at how quickly they all fell in line on transgenderism to see how quickly they will fall in line on speech codes.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    In just the last week they have called for censorship and an abolition of the rules of evidence.

  • John||

    It is a credible allegation Skippy. What else do you need to know?

  • Rob Misek||

    What kind of democracy censors free speech, knowledge, and installs Orwellian laws to promote propaganda?

    We don't know what we are restricted from knowing.

    When a controversial issue arises and evidence of logic and science, truth, is censored and only biased propaganda is LEGAL, how will people form their opinions?

    Hate speech is undefined. Truth is illegal.

    Supreme courts rule that the evidence of science and history, THE TRUTH, is inadmissible when considered hate speech by some special interest lobby group. When you tell the truth, they charge you, your defence evidence is inadmissible and you're convicted in our western kangaroo courts.

    It's a brave new world order.

  • ||

    When a controversial issue arises and evidence of logic and science, truth, is censored and only biased propaganda is LEGAL, how will people form their opinions?

    Like the TRUTH that (((Paul McCartney))) is dead!

  • Just Say'n||

    More likely stuff like that academic paper on transgenderism that the college took down, because it didn't meet prevailing attitudes on campus.

    www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/30/.....unity.html

  • John||

    Your bourgeois facts and logic are transphobic.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    That's because it wasn't credible. And how do we know it wasn't credible? Well, because I didn't like it.

  • ||

    No - this guy is a no-shit Holocaust denier. Not a "the-dominant-narrative-is-over-simple" "denier," but a "Hitler actually loved the Jews and was trying to save them and all those 'survivors' are paid actors" denier.

    His main source is a guy who also wrote the referenced completely-serious book on Paul McCartney's 1966 death.

    It's guys like this who are emboldened by this kind of censorship - he wants badly to believe that his "ideas" are being suppressed, rather than that they are idiotic. I don't have a link to the book he wants us all to read, and I had to coax him pretty hard to get it out of him the last time I came across him, but maybe he'll brave the Ever-watching Eye of the Man to link to it again, so we can be Enlightened.

  • John||

    I ran into a Holocaust denier on here a few weeks ago. Between Hihn and his various sock puppets, and whatever leftist troll is operating the various leftist sock puppets on here, and now this nonsense, Reason is suffering from a worse troll infestation than usual. It is getting increasingly hard to have a rational conversation about anything without some troll showing up to shit on the thread.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Assuming Hihn is really Hihn, we know where he lives. Perhaps someone in Boise should get the old nutcase civilly committed?

  • ||

    I ran into a Holocaust denier on here a few weeks ago.

    This is the same guy. He shows up every couple of days with his "Science and Truth are being suppressed" bit. I seem to recall you pointing out that the Holocaust may be the best-documented event in history, but he wasn't having it.

  • John||

    Yeah, it is the same guy. Where are these people coming from?

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    No you didn't, John!

    (I'm a Holocaust denier denier)

  • Just Say'n||

    I never heard of that guy. The Beatles are so popular that they even count anti-semites among their loyal fans. That's weird as hell

  • ||

    The guy seems more attracted to nutty conspiracy theories than than the Beatles per se. But you wouldn't think a guy going for "take me seriously" would dedicate a whole book to a stoner theory arising out of album-cover analysis.

  • Trollificus||

    The Jews supposedly killed in the camps were used for the labor to pull off that Moon Landing Hoax.

    It must be true, because suppressed as hell!

  • Rob Misek||

    How would sharing evidence of science and history be considered "initiating coercion"?

    When the evidence that contradicts a narrative is censored under threat of initiating persecution or imprisonment, only a dumb fuck wouldn't question the validity of the narrative.

    Many have questioned it and uncovered facts than few of the brainwashed could imagine, some have written books, all are persecuted, some are in prison.

    If you ever grow a pair, and read a book or two, you will recognize that the facts that contradict the holocaust narrative have never been refuted. They won't be as long as they are considered hate speech and sharing them is censored.

    Censorship is exactly what this article is about.

    Anti libertarians advocating censorship.

  • Rob Misek||

    Here is the link to the book you requested. Why not grow a pair and read it. The author, Nicholas Kollerstrom, has far more credibility than any online anonymous coward ever will. All you have to lose is a little of your ignorance. Don't worry you have plenty more.

    You'll have no trouble coaxing the truth from me.

  • Rob Misek||

    Once again, clicking on the "reply to this" link takes you directly to the link I posted in my text. Go figure.

  • Rob Misek||

    The book is called "Breaking the Spell" and the butterflies in your stomach and your confusion is your bodies involuntary reaction to brainwashing.

    You are suffering from propaganda DT's.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    He who knows only his own side of a case knows little of that.

  • Roger Knights||

    "What do they know of England, who only England know?"
    —Kipling

  • Just Say'n||

    It seems like just yesterday libertarians were complaining about a voluntarily approved warning label on offensive records and Walmart refusing to stock albums with those warnings.

    Now we get apologias for Orwellian thought police on Twitter.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Yet while one might think an organization that says certain types of speech are actually dangerous would be pro-censorship, that's not really what the group is about."

    So we know now that some will immediately fold when confronted with the kinder gentler "right" kind of censorship.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Now we get apologias for Orwellian thought police on Twitter.

    From who? Shackford? Please be specific and point out a single place where he is apologizing for Twitter's updated policy in this article.

  • Just Say'n||

    There is a pretty broad defense offered for the Dangerous Speech Project, which is cited as the impetus for the rules.

    "While The Dangerous Speech Project does say that "inhibiting" dangerous, dehumanizing speech is one way to prevent the spread of messages meant to encourage violence and hatred toward targeted groups, that's not what the group is actually encouraging. It says outright that efforts to fight "dangerous" speech "must not infringe upon freedom of speech since that is a fundamental right." It adds that "when people are prevented from expressing their grievances, they are less likely to resolve them peacefully and more likely to resort to violence."

    The Dangerous Speech Project calls instead for engaging and countering bad speech with good speech. In fact, last year Benesch co-wrote an article specifically warning against online Twitter mobs that attempt to shame or retaliate against people in real life for the things that they've said, even when those things are full-on racist. When naming-and-shaming is used as a social tactic to suppress speech, she notes, it often ends up with the majority oppressing minorities."

  • Just Say'n||

    There isn't really a big leap necessary to move from "speech is violence" to "speech should be legislated, like violence".

    If that doesn't make sense, then maybe there isn't a problem with organizations established to prove that marijuana is dangerous to people if they promise that they totally don't support prohibition.

    And if that's the case, then we should also consider how much the Brooklyn bridge costs.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Schackford is basically telling Twitter that even the DSP isn't calling for banning speech. I don't see this as a defense of DSP.

    Sometimes I feel like you read every article trying to find something to catch "Reason" on for being un-libertarian. I even went back and re-read the article, and this one is pretty tame.

  • John||

    Shackford doesn't seem to be saying anything. He says on the one hand that Twitter has a right to do this and on the other hand Twitter is really a nasty place but it appears that maybe banning speech isn't the way to clean it up or the one group doesn't think so. The whole article adds up to a null set.

    It is typical Shackford. His pieces are either appalling or completely pointless.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Come on, it's not that bad. He reports pretty well on the facts of what Twitter is doing. What do you want him to do, write a dissertation on the benefits of free exchange of ideas? That's a little bit of preaching to the choir to a libertarian audience.

  • Just Say'n||

    Maybe, I misread it then. I get triggered by anything defensive offered for a group called the Dangerous Speech Project.

  • Just Say'n||

    Especially since there is no such thing as "dangerous speech".

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    On this we can agree.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    If anything, he only brings up the DSP as a way to call out Twitter on their hypocrisy. IE, they're citing research from a group to shape their policy exactly against the recommendations of the DSP.

    The Dangerous Speech Project calls instead for engaging and countering bad speech with good speech. In fact, last year Benesch co-wrote an article specifically warning against online Twitter mobs that attempt to shame or retaliate against people in real life for the things that they've said, even when those things are full-on racist. When naming-and-shaming is used as a social tactic to suppress speech, she notes, it often ends up with the majority oppressing minorities. And besides, it doesn't really work:
  • Just Say'n||

    Like I said, I can see your interpretation of the article. From my perspective, I highly doubt that a group called the Dangerous Speech Project, which "does say that "inhibiting" dangerous, dehumanizing speech is one way to prevent the spread of messages meant to encourage violence and hatred toward targeted groups" is anything other than a ruse for speech bans. It's name itself raises my concern.

    I'm sure we could find many censorious organizations that don't come out and insist on banning speech (ACLU, for example, at campaign finance laws). But, I suppose he was simply looking for a way to point out the silliness of Twitter's new rules other than just saying "speech bans don't work and are stupid".

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Look, Leo. Unless a Reason writer explicitly states "and this is completely wrong and against libertarian principles, and The Mises Institute does not approve," Just Sayin' is gonna have to come on here and explain to us how Reason are apologists for the leftie SWJ agenda.

  • Just Say'n||

    You wouldn't bluster at a defense offered for a group called the Dangerous Speech Project? What if it was named the Dangerous Marijuana Project?

  • Just Say'n||

    We've gone from "Speech Isn't Violence" to "OK, Maybe It's Violence, But It Shouldn't Be Banned". At this rate, how long before we start reading "Five Years In Jail for Speech Is Excessive, A Fine Is Probably Best"

  • The Last American Hero||

    And don't even go near the "Dangerous Ass Sex Project".

  • Trollificus||

    Wouldn't touch it with a 6-in...errr....9 inch pole.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>warning label on offensive records

    Tipper Gore tried to ruin the 80s.

  • ||

    Tipper Gore tried to ruin the 80s.

    But failed so hard she gave us 2 Live Crew instead.

  • Dillinger||

    hey (Tipper) we want some pussy.

  • ||

    My favorite epithet for her is still Jello's "bouffant-encrusted thought police."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This will be an excuse for Twitter to ban Trump.

  • John||

    He generates too much traffic and revenue.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Someone pointed out earlier that not everything in life is about Trump.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Are you telling me or telling the media?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Just wondering how you got from this article to Trump.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This aint rocket science Leo.

    Twitter did not go on a banning spree until Hillary had lost, Trump was not impeached, media propaganda was not working on most Americans....

    The SJWs in tech companies decided to try and take power in the USA this way. Advocate that their social media platforms are new and allow for the most freedom. Then after taking numerous government contracts and being super crony, try and silence the non-Lefties.

    One of their numerous mistakes in this strategy is that corporations are charter under a public trust and when you violate you charter, you open your corporation to government anti-trust action.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Twitter would never. They would be done.

    Trump moves to Gab. All journalists and pols have to get an account to follow him. All his followers follow. Twitter becomes the boring Lefty echo chamber.

  • Sevo||

    loveconstitution1789|9.25.18 @ 3:37PM|#
    "This will be an excuse for Twitter to ban Trump."

    This'll be fun. Isn't he required by some low-watt judge to read all his incoming/

  • newshutz||

    He doesn't have to read them, he just can't block them.

  • SIV||

    its language echoes the broad anti–hate speech laws of the European Union and United Kingdom

    As every college co-ed returning from her semester abroad will tell you incessantly, "they do things better in Europe"..

  • TuIpa||

    Those squat toilets in Monterosso are definitely not better.

  • KWlib||

    In Japan we called them 'bombsights'. And if you were out in the country it was not unusual to see a woman with her skirt hiked up squatting over a 'benjo ditch', taking care of business.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Well that's because it would be, um, a benjo. Or were you expecting a heated-seat toire?

  • The Last American Hero||

    That's what they used to say. Wait until this new breed of chicks goes to Italy and gets cat called on a daily basis for 3 months.

  • Trollificus||

    "Well that's just, you know, like, cultural, and they aren't even really white are they? They're italics or something."

  • KWlib||

    Yeah, when they first appeared I made an account. It took a very short time to realize that it was almost all noise and very little signal. I really don't care if you had a questionable burrito for lunch and had to run for the shitter an hour later. I just ignored it and never checked back.

    A couple weeks ago I got an email saying someone wanted to reset my password. Obviously some bot or evil Drumpf crony was trying to steal my account. So I went and changed the password myself just to be sure.

    If they really want to clean up twitter they could start by banning Trump and anyone who has liked or re-tweeted any of his tweets. That would instantly wipe out about half of all the evil.

  • John||

    Yeah, if only anyone who ever says anything you don't agree with or dislike could be banned from doing so, we would all have a merry Christmas. Go fuck yourself you fascist prick.

  • KWlib||

    Actually, the best move would be to give Trump a lobotomy.

    Apparently, that's not PC any more. But then again, he's anti-PC, so maybe we can get it done.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If Trump got a lobotomy, he would be just like Obama, Booosh, and Bill Clinton.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Just as long as we don't lose the courageous voices of farrakhan, sarsour, and all of those precious media blue checks. Everyone else needs to go though.

  • Alcibiades||

    OT, the latest is Ford's a no-show for Thursday.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Surprise Surprise Surprise

  • Alcibiades||

    Not really...this was planned from the start.

  • John||

    I am not surprised. That is it. They just need to vote and confirm him. No one who isn't just a brain dead partisan is buying an accusation from someone who won't make it publicly.

    I think they thought Kavanaugh would just withdraw and she would never have to testify. I can't believe they would have gone public with this if they had known it would play out with him not withdrawing and her refusing to even talk to the Senate.

  • Alcibiades||

    It's still just a rumor, but I'll be surprised if the lying piece of crap makes an appearance = under oath, cross-examined...

  • John||

    If she was going to talk publicly, she would have cashed a six or maybe even seven figure check and given some fawning prime time interview by now.

    This whole thing is unbelievable. It is all based on a letter that Feinstein claims she received from Ford but still has not released a full unredacted copy of to the public. No one, not even Feinstein, has actually spoken to this woman and she has not said a single word publicly. And we are supposed to consider it "credible".

  • Alcibiades||

    Ford has no credibility, none, zip, nada.
    Kavanaugh is gonna show up Thursday, be placed under oath and be corss-examined in minute detail. He'll also be bringing documents to prove he likely wasn't even in MD at the time.

    She shows up, she'll be a fucking national embarrassment.

  • Longtobefree||

    bringing documents to prove he likely wasn't even in MD at the time.

    When? What time? what date? What year?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Letter actually went to a rep and not feinstein. This avoids any perjury risk coincidentally.

  • John||

    That is the rumor. But no one has seen the unredacted copy. So I thought it wasn't for sure that was the case. I thought the reason why Feinstein redacted part of it was to keep that fact from getting out.

    And if it is the case she sent it to a rep, that is devastating to her credibility. She knows the Senate is the one who votes on the confirmation. What possible reason would she have for not sending her letter to a Senator other than to avoid the false statements statute or whatever it is?

    She is not going to show. No way in hell is she going to show up and have to answer questions like that. What a joke.

  • Alcibiades||

    Wow, even Ramirez now doesn't want to have a little "chat" with Congress...

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com
    /news/congress/gop-lawmaker-second-
    kavanaugh-accuser-refusing-to-talk-to-
    congress

    This is going south fast.

  • Echo Chamber||

    They should still run BK through the chipper on Thursday. Just for the show of it. I've already stocked up on popcorn

  • Alcibiades||

    Ford doesn't show up.

    Then:

    Grill him, give him the third-degree, put him through the wringer.

    Then vote.

    After the GOP have bent over backwards to get the women to testify, she ducks out.
    The nation can then draw it's own conclusion.
    Guess who's gonna be looking very bad soon.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Americans will not forget these bullshit accusations come election time.

    Democrats are the party that backed up these lying women and that will be reflected in the election results.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I hope she shows.

    I also hope Kavanaugh is asked about Renate Alumnius, the Devil's Triangle, the 100 Keg Club, and the dozens of other points of information that make his 'I was a choirboy, thinking mostly about church and public service' description of his life a fine target for credibility-destroying questions and admissions.

  • ||

    Godammit we're going to find something he did or said as a teenager that will disqualify him now that he's in his 50s! I'm not a mindless partisan hack! I'm not! I'm not!

  • Mark22||

    I hope she shows.

    Me too. She'd fall apart under any serious questioning.

    I also hope Kavanaugh is asked about Renate Alumnius, the Devil's Triangle, the 100 Keg Club

    Me too. It will expose how depraved the minds of people like you are.

  • Alcibiades||

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They picked the wrong guy to fuck with. Kavanaugh evidently is a fighter.

    I hope he swings more constitutionalist on the SCOTUS once he is confirmed.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Kavanaugh is a liar, a point which will come in handy when Democrats have subpoena power and the ability to arrange numerosity at the Supreme Court.

  • Sevo||

    Are you really this fucking stupid, or is this an act?

  • John||

    NO. he is actually that stupid.

  • ||

    Agreed - the Rev is dumber than Tony, even.

  • Don't look at me.||

    I'm not sure.
    Is that even possible?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    With which part do you disagree, you disaffected bigot?

  • Don't look at me.||

    I'm not sure it's possible for anyone to be dumber than tony. But you might be.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    Tony is at times likeable.

  • The Last American Hero||

    This sounds a lot like the Russia investigation, where the Russian companies got subpoenaed and some of them said "OK, lets move to discovery and get.it.on." and the Justice Dept. suddenly needed more delays.

    Call their bluff, drag them into the sunlight and laugh in their face is only way this shit ends.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Color me skeptical that she passes up the opportunity to be the next Anita Hill.

  • John||

    No she won't. If she were not a complete fraud she would have spoken publicly by now.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    These people think the overrated tripe that Shonda Rimes spews out is just like real life, so it wouldn't shock me at this point if she made a Dramatic Television Entrance into the session just to live out some goofy wine-mom fantasy.

  • ||

    You may not dehumanize anyone based on membership in an identifiable group … Dehumanization can occur when others are denied of human qualities (animalistic dehumanization) … Examples can include comparing groups to animals and viruses (animalistic)

    That could be problematic for Twitter itself since it's implied in the name of the product that everyone using it is tweeting like a bird. Twitter is dehumanizing each and every user by comparing them to annoying little chirping birds.

  • Dillinger||

    also people don't look at each other anymore to communicate

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Have you actually seen other people?

  • Dillinger||

    only their foreheads and brand of phone

  • The Last American Hero||

    when your eyes are on the side of your head, it's a bit difficult.

  • Sevo||

    "You may not dehumanize anyone based on membership in an identifiable group, as this speech can lead to offline harm."

    So can any speech.

  • Sevo||

    Related:
    "Facebook will open a 'war room' next week to monitor election interference"
    [...]
    "Of course, the effort extends beyond the new conference room. Chakrabarti showed the Times a new internal tool "that helps track information flowing across the social network in real time," helping to identify misinformation as it goes viral or a surge in the creation of new (and likely fake) accounts. It sounds not dissimilar to CrowdTangle, the publisher tool that Facebook acquired in ..."
    https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/20/
    17880810/facebook-election-war-
    room-interference-misinformation

  • Brett Bellmore||

    And they slouch ever closer to just openly banning any political dissent from their own views. As the election gets closer, they'll probably just implement exactly that policy, and lie about it.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Now if only Twitter would implement European sexy-time rules.

  • Dan S.||

    "Denied of" human qualities? Is that English? Is it perhaps a British usage, like "issued with" when we would just say "issued"? It's too bad they couldn't just tell the British and other European authorities that, as an American company, they would honor the spirit of the First Amendment (even though its letter doesn't apply to them) and refuse to ban such language. But if they wanted to retain any offices in Europe, they couldn't. If "denied of" is a Britishism, could it be that they used that phrasing in this announcement as a subtle indication of where this policy really originates?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Wingnuts might use "European-style hate speech ban."

    Others would use "conservative-campus-caliber everyday censorship."

  • ||

    Others would use "conservative-campus-caliber everyday censorship."

    Which suddenly you approve of.

  • Number 2||

    Does the Reverend realize that this post would now get him banned from Twitter?

  • John B. Egan||

    It's their site... If you don't like their restrictions, then go somewhere else.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Does this apply to Kaepernick as well, you worthless shitlib?

  • ImanAzol||

    Well, sure, but you need to stop acting as if liberals are humans.

  • Stephdumas||

    Looks like Gab's popularity will go skyhigh.

  • Uncle Jay||

    But what is "hate speech?"
    Its any point of view that runs contrary to Twitters.
    Simple enough.

  • BYODB||

    But if you're banned how can you post on Trumps twitter!?

  • JMatt||

    "Will it stop toxic behavior or just encourage more demands for censorship?"

    I assume that was rhetorical.

  • ThomasD||

    Worse, it was banal.

    WTF is 'toxic behavior' and just what benefit accrues from stopping it?

    Is 'toxic behavior' like pornography - does Shack know it when he sees it?

    How about 'stopping toxic behavior' is censorship.

    But apparently the sort that 'libertarians' are supposed to support.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Toxic femininity.

  • Satyrical||

    "You may not dehumanize anyone based on membership in an identifiable group, as this speech can lead to offline harm"

    Nazis are an identifiable group. Its #SoBrave of Twitter to officially come out in support of the humanization of Nazis.

  • Mark22||

    So anybody who says "Republicans are dicks" or "conservatives are pigs" will now get banned from Twitter?

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, no. That's different.

  • Rob Misek||

    Hatred is defined by conflict.

    Conflict in speech requires a lie.

    Hatred in speech is lying, pure and simple.

    Try giving any example of hate that is based on truth.

    It can't be done. Lies aren't based on truth.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Far out man.

  • Longtobefree||

    So when do the hate tweets against Kavanaugh stop?

  • Empress Trudy||

    So in short Twitter is the Vatican of the 15th century. Ok then. Fucking brilliant.

  • ThomasD||

    "As a private platform, Twitter can decide that it does not want to make space for speech it finds unacceptable. Newspapers and other media outlets have often declined to run letters to the editor or otherwise provide platforms for speech that uses such "dehumanizing" language. It's their right to do so."

    vs.

    A New Report Details Pro-Trump Censorship of Liberty University's Student Paper

    link


    Principles

    vs.

    Principals

    Reason>

  • Robert Crim||

    I must disagree with this claim that Twitter has some right to limit speech on "its own" site. Twitter is an advertising platform; whatever "free" speech appears on Twitter is provided by others. Twitter has become a vessel for numerous individuals and groups to get information out quickly and gather responses just as fast. These groups and individuals include government entities. We're all aware of how the President uses Twitter. Senators do the same. To say that Twitter can block adherents of the Second Amendment for "threatening" people is, in effect, to allow an advertising platform to determine what issues shall be allowed and what not. The current proposed regimen is only the latest case in point. No libertarian would think it proper to fire homosexuals from their jobs, lock them up in jails, or beat them up in the streets. But, whether such considerations extend to opening marriage (a contract where the rights and obligations of the parties are asymmetric and sex-specific) is a legitimate issue. And, I can see Twitter imposing an ideology here no different than its position on the Second Amendment. Twitter and similar platforms have become more than mere private property, and Twitter's legitimate property lies in its advertising rights -- only. The Government has earned every right to impose some rules on it for the rest.

  • Don't look at me.||

    The Government has earned every right to impose some rules on it for the rest.
    The government hasn't earned the right to any such thing.

  • Elmer Gantry||

    As an interesting aside, the ubiquitous Twitter hashtag #metoo was started by a retired female pornstar who tagged that phrase while tweeting about her various run-ins with scumbags in her previous profession (imagine that). She first posted it to say, "Hey, that happened to me too", but then a friend pointed out that the hashtag used to be called a "pound sign", and she got quite a laugh when she realized that she'd written "pound me too".

    PS: My Twitter account was closed because I replied to a tweet from a female "journalist" who was just head over heels that Ireland had decided to provide government-funded abortions. I replied "Yeah! Woo Hoo! Kill the Irish!" which was meant, quite obviously, as commentary on her enthusiasm for killing, in this case, Irish babies, and they shut ME down for hate speech. Guess their monitoring robots don't appreciate sarcasm.

  • Rob Misek||

    Your comments were absolutely valid and obviously NOT hatred.

    The hypocrisy obviously that the motivation to advocate the killing of helpless innocent human babies is hatred.

    But the truth needs to be censored for corruption to continue, and the corrupt are offended when their lies are exposed and they find themselves in conflict.

    No apologies for telling truth are required.

    CHOOSE TRUTH.

  • Ride 'Em||

    This could be a problem for sports fans. All Seattle Seahawk fans would have been banned for using Marshawn Lynch and beast mode in the same sentence.

  • Widhalm19||

    Twitter is the voice of the mob and the dumbest of the dumb. Here's an idea ... switch off the smartphone and live a life.

  • Number 2||

    So someone can now be banned from Twitter for referring to lawyers as "bloodsucking sharks." Cool!

  • vek||

    This shit is getting preeeetty sketchy. They're really pulling out all the stops to suppress conservative/libertarian speech they don't like. For some reason I'm not surprised they're doing this before the mid terms... I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook doesn't do something similar. The left must win at ANY cost after all!

    I still can't for the life of me figure out why some of the alternatives haven't taken off more. Gab.ai has in fact grown quite a bit, but it seriously can't be THAT much longer before a pro free speech, no censorship alternative to social media/YouTube etc really takes off.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online