While this is an important distinction, corporate censorship is a real social problem when the corporations control the platforms most people use to speak.
A circumstance where a single entity controls the conversations of billions is unparalleled, and our practices need to be re-evaluated.
There have been many right-wing accounts banned that were much better behaved than Milo. Twitter definitely censors based on progressive American sensitivities:
Is that article some kind of joke? Using flowery academic language to defend what basically amounts to children posting trolling memes that make fun of fat people.
Also, it did not cite a single source backing up your claims. Can you try to be a bit more specific?
There are countless "liberals" who have called for the murder of straight white men on Twitter (as a very simple example see the #KillAllMen hashtag). They weren't banned, despite being against the fabled "terms of service". But if someone criticises a feminist or other "liberal" group, they are likely to get banned.
To pretend there isn't a clear bias by Twitter is just being disingenuous. I say this as someone who very left on most issues, its quite depressing seeing everything descend into authoritarianism.
No, I've never been on Twitter. I make up all of my opinions on the spot. It's not like Twitter's "Trust and Safety Council" is made up predominantly of "liberals"[1], and their entire purpose is to decide what accounts should be banned and how the process of "keeping people safe" should be done (thus introducing massive bias, especially since many of the members have shown that even disagreements are considered some level of harassment).
I honestly don't care all that much about Twitter. If Twitter wants to run their website into the ground by pandering to a vocal minority, that's their business (I've never liked Twitter anyway and preferred GNU Social et al). It's just a bit frustrating when people go full Orwell and suddenly redefine "harassment" to mean "disagreement" and various other definition changes.
> If you want a platform of alt-right trolls go on the_donald or 4chan.
Ah yes, I don't like a certain group of liberals because they act in an authoritarian way and therefore I'm part of the "alt-right". That makes perfect sense.
> It's just a bit frustrating when people go full Orwell and suddenly redefine "harassment" to mean "disagreement" and various other definition changes.
It's tough. So, at the end of the day, Twitter doesn't want certain content on their platform. Milo was determined to be that content. Twitter didn't say he was harassing people, they were extremely vague about it.
> Ah yes, I don't like a certain group of liberals because they act in an authoritarian way and therefore I'm part of the "alt-right". That makes perfect sense.
I didn't say you were part of the alt-right: just that if you want the kind of stuff that Milo was spewing those are the places for it, not Twitter (by their own decision.)
> GNU Social
It's not like if it has "GNU" in the title it's instantly a completely-free platform.
There is this weird effect in American politics where each wing considers the other to be the authoritarian one.
The American right loves its military industrial complex, its police crackdowns, its bank bailouts, its manifest destiny, and so on. These are not left wing institutions in creed or membership. You could ask the same question: do you not see rightism (ingroup loyalty, moral purity, respect for authority) as naturally decaying into authoritarianism?
> There is this weird effect in American politics where each wing considers the other to be the authoritarian one.
It is weird, in a way, yes. I think, though, that when you think from each side's point of view, it makes sense that that's the case.
> The American right loves its military industrial complex, its police crackdowns, its bank bailouts, its manifest destiny, and so on. These are not left wing institutions in creed or membership.
I think you are painting with too broad a brush. There is far more nuance in what is considered "the American right" than you imply. Five minutes on the Internet and you can find people who are obviously considered "on the right" who don't agree with any of those things.
> You could ask the same question: do you not see rightism (ingroup loyalty, moral purity, respect for authority) as naturally decaying into authoritarianism?
I would ask you to more clearly define rightism, because those three things are just as prevalent on the left, if not moreso.
> You could ask the same question: do you not see rightism (ingroup loyalty, moral purity, respect for authority) as naturally decaying into authoritarianism?
Respect for authority is _by definition_ authoritarian and is completely separate from the left-right axis. As for loyalty and moral purity those seem more like talking points than actual political views.
Twitter's only statement is that some of Milo's followers behaved badly. If they followed this rule consistently they'd ban a lot of popular left leaning accounts to.
Instead, left-leaning accounts that directly violate the Terms of Service by doxxing others (Shanley publishing Milo's cell phone number) and advocate for violence (various self-styled 'antifa' accounts) remain up.
Yes, legally you have no right to free speech on a non-government platform. But as a Twitter user - and a left leaning person - I'd rather not have my platform dictate who I can and can't listen to.
The story of Milo and the terms he broke has been widely publicized. He broke those terms, and that is not in question. Other people's behavior has absolutely nothing to do with Milo being banned for his behavior.
You'e new here. Generally on HN, someone asking for a reference is responded to with a reference. If it's not in question - it is BTW - you'll be able to find one.
> Other people's behavior has absolutely nothing to do with Milo being banned for his behavior.
Indeed, it simply calls into question why Twitter seems to ignore the Terms of Service for some users while apply it to other users for the actions of their followers.
A circumstance where a single entity controls the conversations of billions is unparalleled, and our practices need to be re-evaluated.