The website appears to be mostly just an insane rant. That said, I don't think it should have been banned either, outside of doing something specifically illegal.
(Edit: also, I've never heard of Andy Ngo, the person the site is accusing of being a "far right troll", but it's pretty clearly a highly editorialized title, even if it accurately reflects the title of the original article)
I looked at the wikipedia article before I made my comment. It appears neutral, even if they don't have anything nice to say about him, they don't participate in name-calling, which is what I'm suggesting for the title
Check the edit history on that page; there's a lot of controversy behind the scenes. Such Wikiwars can produce neutral language masking underlying bias. Fortunately there's no need to trust pseudonymous Wikipedia editors when the entire record is public.
Andy Ngo reports on left-wing violence (primarily "antifacists" in Portland), as you can see from his Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo
He seems to have caused several bannings tonight by reporting various crimes, criminal histories, and calls to violence on Twitter. He discussed CrimethInc with Elon in this thread:
It's quite bizarre to constantly hear Elon Musk talk about free speech and unbanning everyone, and then this ongoing list of left-leaning accounts get nuked. And not just left-leaning. The Oatmeal's Twitter account (https://theoatmeal.com/) was "permanently banned" couple of days ago for no given reason. Activism got it back, but imagine you're not popular. Your account is gone forever just like that. It's pure chaos.
Remember that the hypocrisy goes the other way too. Before Elon bought Twitter, the prevailing opinion was "it's okay for the people who own social networks to ban opposing viewpoints". The people who thought that now all suddenly think it's not okay, just because their side doesn't own the social network anymore.
In what world did you see this? At least here in Europe the main conversation about Social Media has been that it shouldn't be operated by big tech companies. We've always viewed Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Reddit, and so on. Basically the way Americans are now viewing TikTok. Especially in the wake of Snowden.
It's true that more people are now putting actions behind their words, and leaving Twitter for the Fediverse because of the new leadership at Twitter, but this seem to be only partly because of the right-wing turn and much more because of the instability showing just how insane it is for the world to let a social media platform be moderated by the whims of a billionaire.
I frankly think Trump is right to stay on Truth. Because what happens when Elon eventually loses interest in Twitter and sells it to someone else? That is the strength of the Fediverse to be honest. You get to operate your own servers that are part of the larger whole. This would let journalists, politicians and NGOs run, and more importantly moderate, their own "Twitter" that is still part of the larger whole. Here in Denmark it would allow our government agencies to operate a "Twitter" where all our elected officials could have an account and not have to rely on an American tech company to moderate their feeds, or risk being banned for violating American laws. Yes, the consequence will very likely be that ultra right-wing networks will be largely isolated, but that's still free speech.
Crimethinc, the same anarchist collective in the OP who is complaining about getting banned from twitter by Musk, has been banned by social media before.
The idea that there are "two sides" and that one was "in power" before and the other now, is an over-simplification.
I can't find an exact piece to quote now, but I know I saw crimethinc and/or other anarchists urging people not to get so excited about calling for twitter to ban things too, on the grounds of: Don't count on capitalists or the state to rescue us, they will much prefer to use their tools against us, and overall the power twitter has to control discourse is the problem and we've got to get off of it.
They didn't really, that's just a Trumpist conspiracy theory trying to equivocate the racist and violent speech among its base with legitimate and mainstream conservative speech, and the banning thereof with political persecution by a shadowy, all-controlling leftist cabal. But conservative speech always has and still does exist on social media, everywhere, in abundance.
In fact, Twitter (and other social media platform) algorithms have been shown to amplify right-wing content more often than left-wing content, not suppress it. Which is of course why they're trying so hard to control it.
I'm not sure I fully believe the algorithms promoted right-wing content, although I do believe the algorithm promotes controversial content, which is one of the strategies on the right, as more of a cultural underdog trying to get visibility.
It's also self-evident, honestly, that the human moderators, which overviewed the decisions of the algorithm in Twitter 1.0 were predominantly left-leaning, with many LGBTQ+ members working as contractors, moderating from home.
The sad thing for me is the hypocrisy. Here is Elon coming and proclaiming himself a "free speech absolutist" and "comedy is now legal", and then start banning accounts in large swaths on a whim based on whatever right-wing $8 badge buyers tweet at him, including a whole group of apolitical comedy accounts.
This will shrink Twitter and turn it into Parler.
The right see the destruction of Twitter as a win, and it is a win, but quite a short term one. This network will rebuild itself elsewhere, and you won't have $44 billion ready every time for the next hostile takeover.
I see this as a huge missed opportunity to have a truly inclusive platform that welcomes everyone and takes no sides. I have no idea if Elon Musk lied about this intentionally or he was coached and tricked into it by his right-wing supporters, but he shot his investment in the foot.
>I'm not sure I fully believe the algorithms promoted right-wing content, although I do believe the algorithm promotes controversial content, which is one of the strategies on the right, as more of a cultural underdog trying to get visibility.
The right isn't a cultural underdog trying to get visibility. The right has always been the primary political and cultural force in the US, to the point that what counts as "the left" in American politics (the Democratic Party) is still ideologically center-right.
I agree with you about Elon and the eventual fate of Twitter, although I fear you haven't yet seen that the entire "free speech absolutism" debate and the narrative that social media platforms are captured and controlled by a leftist agenda was always about promoting right-wing accelerationism and never about political neutrality or free speech.
There is a reason you've rarely if ever seen these discussions or passionate defenses of absolute free speech take place in defense of left-wing speech, only right-wing speech. And it isn't because left-wing speech is never censored or suppressed - it very often is (particularly LGBTQ speech, which is often categorized as "sexual" or NSFW regardless of its content.)
I think the outrage is due to Musk’s apparent hypocrisy. Also, what we are seeing is that it’s becoming apparent that when a few companies act as the gatekeeper to a large percentage of the people then perhaps government intervention is warranted.
> we are seeing is that it’s becoming apparent that when a few companies act as the gatekeeper to a large percentage of the people then perhaps government intervention is warranted
I think that's basically the GP's point. It's only "become apparent" now that there is a big tech company that doesn't toe the mainstream line. This (gatekeeping / censorship) was always a big problem with big tech, especially twitter, but the "it's a private company, if someone doesn't like it they can build their own" crowd (conveniently libertarian for a microsecond) shot down any notions that platforms needed some common carrier regulations. Then someone actually did the equivalent of getting their own social network by buying the most popular one, and suddenly everyone is up in arms.
These are fundamentally different complaints. The first party is complaining they believe a right is being violated. The second party is complaining that the first party is inconsistently applying their own beliefs.
Musk bought Twitter with the stated purpose of allowing free speech. If Musk bans some accounts while bringing back others, he's being a giant hypocrite by not allowing all to speak freely.
More than being a hypocrite, he's being partisan liar. The "I'm a centrist" kind of person always are, and it's important that people know and can see through their lies.
> It's a private company, if you don't like how they moderate, you can start your own company and moderate it the way you want.
Sure. It's a private company that no longer has the support of half of its advertisers, also private companies. Which means Twitter is going bankrupt entirely through neutral market mechanics. So be it.
The real puzzler here is why did Elon insist shooting himself in both feet.
Sure, and I still say that. It's just that criticism of Musk on hypocrisy grounds is justified, because he bought Twitter to bring back free speech or something like that, which includes crimethinc, and Andy Ngo. Free speech is a uniform criteria, not a collection of special cases.
The latter is hypocrisy.
There's general agreement on what "free speech" means. If Musk wants to claim free speech moral high ground, he has to put up with Chad Loder and crimethinc and Evon Latrail. If Musk bans accounts that he doesn't like that's fine, he owns that particular printing press. But he doesn't get to claim "free speech" and ban accounts, too. That's the very definition of hypocrisy.
Are the conservative voices advocating for violence against LGBTQ+, ethnic minorities, and critics? Then it's not really hypocrisy but completely valid and according to the policy of most of the platforms.
Heya @dang, is this what you were referring to when you said that you moderated without regard to viewpoint? Deleting 100% of posts from all on one side while boosting even pure personal attacks from your side?
Please read those guidelines you keep posting at people and then consider actually following them.
Maybe we can stop pretending "muh free speech" is something more than a right wing talking point, and what these "free speech absolutists" actually want is to prop up right wing talking points and ban left leaning ones. Just stop the lying about.
There's no lying, and that you're suggesting that they're lying reveals your own bias. And it also reveals that you don't support the idea of free speech, since you seem to believe it's only a politically motivated concept.
Not really, but free speech goes hand-in-hand with free association. Musk obviously has the prerogative to ban people.
> do you also support banning anti-vaxx misinformation at the height of a societal health crisis?
Nope, but again it's their perogative.
> do you support calling Musk out on his hypocrisy here?
I don't particularly care.
At the end of the day, free speech is the foundational freedom in the US. It's the 1st amendment for a reason. There's no use in arguing against it, it's an ultimate virtue whether people support it or not.
Clearly a private company do whatever it wants, BUT free speech is an ideal and
Twitter should nevertheless try to uphold it, as the de facto public square on the internet.
After reading the twitter thread and the link, i don't think it should have been banned unless it actually called for violence at a location or against an individual.
Elon's little power trip as his own lord of Twitter Land and the King of the People is really going speeding towards pathetic levels.
Who is he trying to impress? We know this is all an act, and the thin-skinned vulgarian will get all discombobulated at the first sign of being questioned.
But what's truly remarkable is his almost overnight alignment with disinformation peddlers, trolls, and insurrectionists. I mean, wow, way to flame out. Tip of a hat, sire.
Really, question your life choices if you care about what the convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza thinks.
(Edit: also, I've never heard of Andy Ngo, the person the site is accusing of being a "far right troll", but it's pretty clearly a highly editorialized title, even if it accurately reflects the title of the original article)