Q: What do Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer have in common? A: Besides the obvious ideological similarities, they were both nobodies in 2015 and have become household names in 2016. Q: How did 2 people with such unpopular brands become overnight celebrities? A: Twitter ban. Failing CEO Jack Dorsey decided to "silence" them on his free speech platform. Q: Are the regressive left at Silicon Valley completely fucking incompetent or are they actively working to promote the alt-right ideology? You decide.
It's good to know that the alt-right is operating on about the same level as a 14-year-old YouTube comment troll. "I'm well-known for being an idiot, so that means I win!"
Yeah, yeah... It's the Feuilleton age. Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian and Honey Boo Boo have more name recognition than every living US philosopher combined. Why the sudden need to repeat the distinction between popularity and message-validity? That's missing the point entirely. I don't have any love for Richard Spencer either, but I do see the far-reaching consequences of handing him a mass audience on a platter. Jack Dorsey experienced this over the summer when he silenced Milo. CNN, MSNBC and BBC immediately picked up the story and continue to invite him as a regular guest. Are you guys really that obtuse or do you understand the gravity of the situation? Maybe the left is blind to genuine vulnerabilities. Maybe Jack Dorsey isn't intentionally promoting Nazism.
Richard Spencer is shown throwing roman salutes on the website of just about every major news organization. This is truly disturbing.
My mates will chip in: we'll get you laid and then you can retire all the Freudian masturbatory references. Win-win, baby!
It really has had me in a spin... an anti authoritarian right vs an authoritarian left. Did the poles shift 90 degrees?
Why do you assume Milo's twitter ban was about silencing him, rather than improving the experience of other twitter users? They probably don't care if he's a frequent TV guest, he just doesn't get to use their platform to conduct campaigns of harassment.
Free speech isn't considered a "right" on privately owned platforms. It's a courtesy. When allowing free speech becomes inconvenient, they feel free to limit, restrict, or suspend it altogether. That's the danger of relying on privately owned platforms. Free speech is only valued as long as it doesn't interfere with the profit margin. Millennials who think activism is posting something on Facebook are in for a rude awakening.
As distasteful as it is to agree with Flashlight, using Twitter isn't a right. They can bounce whoever they want. Having the expectation that you can say whatever you want on someone else's platform just isn't very realistic.
But people are still right when they say it's an example of censorship and makes them look like a bunch of authoritarian assholes.
they were known as well before the Twitter ban as after. Spencer is just now coming on the radar, Milo has been on it for a while.
My elderly mother had never heard of Richard Spencer before the ban. Same with Milo. This story is the reason why Richard is just now coming on most people's radar.
Agreed. However...... Civilization is still coming to grips with social media. So while Twitter absolutely has the right to ban anyone they want at anytime (barring any contractual obligations) Twitter has become so big and powerful in the social media scene that it can look as if it is silencing people for political reasons. There is a lot of crap on Twitter that could be banned but Twitter outright ignores but then Twitter turns around and bans certain people and it doesn't sit right with a lot of people. Facebook has this same problem as well. These sites have grown to be something more then what they were ever intended to be and to silence people over politics is dirty pool to a lot of people.
