What Christian / Republican values did people talk about to get banned?
We all know what those "values" were. The idea of hiding behind Jesus is... dare I say it... heretical. Jesus isn't quite the type who likes to hate on others ya know.
---------
My Mom wasn't banned for Tweeting about Jesus or Angels or whatever. Those aren't the "Christian" values people found controversial. We all know what was "banworthy" before 2022 and it wasn't about "Christianness".
Sharing a link to a true story about the then candidate Biden’s son Hunter’s laptop was effectively a bannable offense (account disabled until you removed the tweet with the link). That same laptop was used as evidence in his 2024 trial.
> The committee's witnesses, three former Twitter executives, said in subpoenaed testimony that they mistakenly believed the Post article contained hacked material and reversed their decision to limit its circulation on the social media platform within 24 hours.
You're complaining about a ban that was effectively overturned within 24 hours.
Do you expect White Dudes for Harris to be unbanned by tomorrow?
> You're complaining about a ban that was effectively overturned within 24 hours.
So you agree they were banned for publicizing a true story and that’s totally fine right?
And the ban was not lifted in 24 hours. They refused to lift the ban until people deleted the posts that the (at the time) Twitter cabal considered verboten.
> Do you expect White Dudes for Harris to be unbanned by tomorrow?
If there’s a course of action to resolve the issue and it’s taken, yes I’d expect them to be unbanned. If the violation cannot be fixed, then probably not. Do you not?
Which non-left views exactly? Because I've seen many people continuously able to talk about lowering taxes and reducing regulatory burdens and about when life begins without ever getting banned.
> for violating our rules against evading suspension
This has been the catch-all reason for all social media when banning anybody - it seems ingenuous when it's applied to an account that goes against the politics of the owner, but it's been around for a long time, and seems to be applied politically evenly. I wish there were some way to have some transparency around when this rule is applied - on all social media, regardless of the political leanings of the owner(s).
It seems pretty obvious that Elon Musk doesn't like this group.
Twitter is perfectly allowed to do this. But we, the overall public, do not have to give our eyeballs or give high opinions to Twitter in return.
If Twitter wants to turn itself into a far-right wing social media site, its their money their rules. But its up to the people to exodus and find alternatives. Almost all social media (be it small IRC nodes to larger Digg / Slashdot / etc. etc.) have all had their "Exodus" events over much smaller controversies than this.
> It seems pretty obvious that Elon Musk doesn't like this group
What makes it “obvious” that this was due to someone disliking this group?
> If Twitter wants to turn itself into a far-right wing social media site
Come on - far right? It is more accurate to say that Facebook, TikTok, Reddit, etc are far left in how blatantly they censor opinions on so many current issues whether it is gender identity or lab leak theory whatever. Twitter is closer to the middle now but still not right wing.
> Twitter is perfectly allowed to do this
Maybe they’re technically allowed but they shouldn’t be. All these platforms with hundreds of millions of users are just common carriers. They’re telecom utilities carrying the digital public square, and should be regulated to accept all legal speech.
> What makes it “obvious” that this was due to someone disliking this group?
Same reason for all the other Twitter bans over the last two years.
Elon Musk controls Twitter. Then he bans lawyers and kids (who track airplanes legally). Its not about legally correct anymore, its about what Elon Musk likes or doesn't like.
Its 2024. Elon's been in control of Twitter for nearly 2 years now. You think we haven't figured out the pattern yet? Even a "blessed" pro-Elon simp gets banned because he uses Substack (and Elon suddenly starts to hate Substack Notes for pushing into Twitter's Spaces, if you pardon my pun).
Its Elon's Twitter now. That's fine, he paid $44 Billion for it. Good luck getting advertisers now though.
> Twitter is closer to the middle now but still not right wing.
Dude. Elon just endorsed Donald Trump and is using Twitter to openly attack Kamala right now with AI Deepfakes. The idea that this space is anywhere close to neutral is laughable.
And the idea that Elon Musk is bound by the rules of Twitter or can reasonably be a neutral party when he's in 100% control of the platform is also laughable. There's no pretend neutrality on this platform anymore. He's gone full mask-off now.
-------
Are AI Deepfakes of politicians saying fake things allowed? Of course not. Except if you're Elon. That's the rule. "If Elon Likes it, it stays. If Elon doesn't, it goes".
> You think we haven't figured out the pattern yet?
But where is the evidence for your claimed reason for this particular ban? It doesn’t sound like you have any so this fits the modern definition of conspiracy theory. Also, what you’re calling a pattern is just a small set of anecdotes that have other possible explanations. Or at least that’s how HN would respond to this line of reasoning typically.
Look I understand where you’re coming from, but I am asking you to hold to the same standards that the political left, who controls virtually all other technology platforms (and Twitter in the past), demands of the center and right when they complain about censorship. Otherwise all the labels used to dismiss legitimate speculation, like “conspiracy theory”, should apply here no?
> Good luck getting advertisers now though.
If I follow your reasoning, it sounds like you’re saying that the big advertising firms are controlled by the political left and would respond to this “pattern” by pulling ads for their clients. That might be true. But do we want a society where expression is suppressed in this way? It undermines the principles of free speech even if it is technically legal.
> But where is the evidence for your claimed reason for this particular ban?
Every other ban Elon Musk pushed over the past 2 years.
Lets just take the Substack ban. Did Substack Notes break any rules? Why was discussion of it banned? Why were Substack bloggers banned en-masse on Twitter?
Answer: Because Elon didn't like Substack, likely because Substack Notes was rolling out Twitter-like features and Elon felt threatened. The end. Doesn't need anything else aside from that, and the adults can see that Twitter as a "neutral ground" is now dead.
Plenty of examples of this, political or not. I'm choosing Substack because its a non-political example. But if you want to get political about things, what about AI Deepfakes of Kamala? I thought Twitter said they'd ban that kind of video? Why is that allowed now?
In any case, its clear that Elon has a bias. Its his media company and media companies in the USA are allowed to have a bias. Just don't expect adults in the room to pretend with you that they're being neutral about it, especially when Elon makes it so obvious.
> Are AI Deepfakes of politicians saying fake things allowed? Of course not. Except if you're Elon. That's the rule. "If Elon Likes it, it stays. If Elon doesn't, it goes".
You mean the clearly labeled parody video that anybody with half a brain would know is a parody even if it wasn’t labeled as such?
I think the real fun is going to be when they start sharing all the real 2019 clips of Harris all but bragging about being to the left of Karl Marx. But maybe those are just “cheap fakes” like all the videos of Biden falling or misremembering things.
I seriously doubt any American politician is to the left of Karl Marx. I seriously doubt any American politician ever read Marx, or Smith, or Hobbes with enough intent to understand half of it.
Wasn't Harris's undergrad degree in poli sci? If the trumpists had ever read a book they would make her out to be a black Lavrenti Beria. But nobody would get the joke.
GP poster said "Twitter is closer to the middle now." Just because an owner leans one way or another doesn't mean that their social media platform does. It's easy to find all sorts of views on Twitter, so I don't see how your conclusion follows.
Except evidence and independent audits [1][2] regularly showed that conservative viewpoints were actually moderated away less than left wing views, specifically because of the constant cries of censorship.
At best, recent research shows insufficient evidence of bias in either direction [3].
Why does this have a news story around it? Not that it doesn’t deserve it, but I think it is remarkable that for the past decade, censorship/bans against moderate or conservative content/accounts has been a normal daily practice of big social media and tech platforms, and no one cared. But now they’re complaining when it affects the other side? Hypocrisy.
Twitter was acquired on a promise not to do this sort of thing. That promise was immediately and repeatedly violated (starting with @ElonJet, which Musk had previously publicly stated he'd leave alone - https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456 ); this is another instance of it.
This account that this discussion is about was banned for evasion. You’re making up your own narrative on other reasons without evidence. In other words, you’re believing in a conspiracy theory. Isn’t that the phrase applied to these situations these days?
> This account that this discussion is about was banned for evasion.
That's the claim. @ElonJet got banned for a rule they made up after the ban, so I find "Twitter says so" a little dubious as the sourcing. Who's evading what ban here?
> In other words, you’re believing in a conspiracy theory.
While I have no way of knowing for sure, it's not a conspiracy theory by definition. Musk is known for his capricious behavior and is openly partisan (deriding Harris as an 'extinctionist', for example), plus he's often made A Thing of banning or unbanning accounts to please his fans. So the idea that he might ban an account on a whim is certainly plausible. No conspiracy is required when the alleged action can be credibly attributed to a single individual. It basically comes down to whether you believe in Musks' integrity and objectivity, or not.
What a horrifying organization. It's times like this I thank God for the non-partisan Southern Poverty Law Center.
As we speak, their intrepid investigators are scouring the web for evidence of past wrongthink by any and all members of this group, as is necessary whenever one discovers an expressly white or male organization. Should even a single off-color tweet about women or minorities surface, we'll soon have documented evidence. And as we all know, a single such infraction will taint the entire organization as having "problematic views on women" or "a history of white supremacist rhetoric". Once the organization has been tied to wrongthink--no matter how tenuously--no publication will ever again mention 'White Dudes for Harris' without first reminding the reader! It is also worth recalling that, should any publication describe the organization as "mysoginst", "racist", etc, those characterizations can be freely repeated, ideally without context.
Elon needs to let go of the steering wheel. Aside from the obvious moral issue... personaly intervening on individual issues like this make him look petty, eccentric, partisan and falible. It undermines his CEO image.
What makes you think he cares about being seen as petty, eccentric, or partisan? Seems to me he obviously doesn't care at all, and his legions of sycophants don't mind either.
I know its alluring to immediately yell "Musk was scared and banned them", and much will be written about that, but: X laid off like 80% of their employees. There's no shot they have any kind of sophisticated community moderation team. What they probably have is: if (reportsInLast48Hours > BAN_THRESHOLD) ban(). This group likely received a ton of reports from right-wingers.
55 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 134 ms ] threadDo you think they just forgot, or did the President do a little more than espouse conservative beliefs?
Liberal: I have been censored for my liberal views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting higher taxes?
Con: LOL no...no not those views
Me: So....regulation?
Lib: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Lib: Oh, you know the ones
Oh how the turntables.
I don't. Which ones?
We all know what those "values" were. The idea of hiding behind Jesus is... dare I say it... heretical. Jesus isn't quite the type who likes to hate on others ya know.
---------
My Mom wasn't banned for Tweeting about Jesus or Angels or whatever. Those aren't the "Christian" values people found controversial. We all know what was "banworthy" before 2022 and it wasn't about "Christianness".
You're complaining about a ban that was effectively overturned within 24 hours.
Do you expect White Dudes for Harris to be unbanned by tomorrow?
So you agree they were banned for publicizing a true story and that’s totally fine right?
And the ban was not lifted in 24 hours. They refused to lift the ban until people deleted the posts that the (at the time) Twitter cabal considered verboten.
> Do you expect White Dudes for Harris to be unbanned by tomorrow?
If there’s a course of action to resolve the issue and it’s taken, yes I’d expect them to be unbanned. If the violation cannot be fixed, then probably not. Do you not?
Which non-left views exactly? Because I've seen many people continuously able to talk about lowering taxes and reducing regulatory burdens and about when life begins without ever getting banned.
This has been the catch-all reason for all social media when banning anybody - it seems ingenuous when it's applied to an account that goes against the politics of the owner, but it's been around for a long time, and seems to be applied politically evenly. I wish there were some way to have some transparency around when this rule is applied - on all social media, regardless of the political leanings of the owner(s).
Twitter is perfectly allowed to do this. But we, the overall public, do not have to give our eyeballs or give high opinions to Twitter in return.
If Twitter wants to turn itself into a far-right wing social media site, its their money their rules. But its up to the people to exodus and find alternatives. Almost all social media (be it small IRC nodes to larger Digg / Slashdot / etc. etc.) have all had their "Exodus" events over much smaller controversies than this.
What makes it “obvious” that this was due to someone disliking this group?
> If Twitter wants to turn itself into a far-right wing social media site
Come on - far right? It is more accurate to say that Facebook, TikTok, Reddit, etc are far left in how blatantly they censor opinions on so many current issues whether it is gender identity or lab leak theory whatever. Twitter is closer to the middle now but still not right wing.
> Twitter is perfectly allowed to do this
Maybe they’re technically allowed but they shouldn’t be. All these platforms with hundreds of millions of users are just common carriers. They’re telecom utilities carrying the digital public square, and should be regulated to accept all legal speech.
Same reason for all the other Twitter bans over the last two years.
Elon Musk controls Twitter. Then he bans lawyers and kids (who track airplanes legally). Its not about legally correct anymore, its about what Elon Musk likes or doesn't like.
Its 2024. Elon's been in control of Twitter for nearly 2 years now. You think we haven't figured out the pattern yet? Even a "blessed" pro-Elon simp gets banned because he uses Substack (and Elon suddenly starts to hate Substack Notes for pushing into Twitter's Spaces, if you pardon my pun).
Its Elon's Twitter now. That's fine, he paid $44 Billion for it. Good luck getting advertisers now though.
> Twitter is closer to the middle now but still not right wing.
Dude. Elon just endorsed Donald Trump and is using Twitter to openly attack Kamala right now with AI Deepfakes. The idea that this space is anywhere close to neutral is laughable.
And the idea that Elon Musk is bound by the rules of Twitter or can reasonably be a neutral party when he's in 100% control of the platform is also laughable. There's no pretend neutrality on this platform anymore. He's gone full mask-off now.
-------
Are AI Deepfakes of politicians saying fake things allowed? Of course not. Except if you're Elon. That's the rule. "If Elon Likes it, it stays. If Elon doesn't, it goes".
But where is the evidence for your claimed reason for this particular ban? It doesn’t sound like you have any so this fits the modern definition of conspiracy theory. Also, what you’re calling a pattern is just a small set of anecdotes that have other possible explanations. Or at least that’s how HN would respond to this line of reasoning typically.
Look I understand where you’re coming from, but I am asking you to hold to the same standards that the political left, who controls virtually all other technology platforms (and Twitter in the past), demands of the center and right when they complain about censorship. Otherwise all the labels used to dismiss legitimate speculation, like “conspiracy theory”, should apply here no?
> Good luck getting advertisers now though.
If I follow your reasoning, it sounds like you’re saying that the big advertising firms are controlled by the political left and would respond to this “pattern” by pulling ads for their clients. That might be true. But do we want a society where expression is suppressed in this way? It undermines the principles of free speech even if it is technically legal.
Every other ban Elon Musk pushed over the past 2 years.
Lets just take the Substack ban. Did Substack Notes break any rules? Why was discussion of it banned? Why were Substack bloggers banned en-masse on Twitter?
Answer: Because Elon didn't like Substack, likely because Substack Notes was rolling out Twitter-like features and Elon felt threatened. The end. Doesn't need anything else aside from that, and the adults can see that Twitter as a "neutral ground" is now dead.
Plenty of examples of this, political or not. I'm choosing Substack because its a non-political example. But if you want to get political about things, what about AI Deepfakes of Kamala? I thought Twitter said they'd ban that kind of video? Why is that allowed now?
In any case, its clear that Elon has a bias. Its his media company and media companies in the USA are allowed to have a bias. Just don't expect adults in the room to pretend with you that they're being neutral about it, especially when Elon makes it so obvious.
Right... shouldn't this have been a problem for Twitter before the Musk buyout when it was the same way, but in the opposite direction?
You mean the clearly labeled parody video that anybody with half a brain would know is a parody even if it wasn’t labeled as such?
I think the real fun is going to be when they start sharing all the real 2019 clips of Harris all but bragging about being to the left of Karl Marx. But maybe those are just “cheap fakes” like all the videos of Biden falling or misremembering things.
Twitter was biased against Conservatives and the Right screamed and cried foul.
X is biased against Liberals and the Left screams and cries foul.
(Shrug)
At best, recent research shows insufficient evidence of bias in either direction [3].
[1] https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/platform-bias.php
[2] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/26/censorship-conserva...
[3] https://itif.org/publications/2023/10/26/the-facts-behind-al...
I have a hard time defining "no one cared" in a way that includes "they held Congressional hearings about it". https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/us/politics/twitter-congr...
That's the claim. @ElonJet got banned for a rule they made up after the ban, so I find "Twitter says so" a little dubious as the sourcing. Who's evading what ban here?
> In other words, you’re believing in a conspiracy theory.
No conspiracy; just Musk being Musk.
Who exactly was censored/banned? What exactly were the reasons given? What exactly did they do/say?
As we speak, their intrepid investigators are scouring the web for evidence of past wrongthink by any and all members of this group, as is necessary whenever one discovers an expressly white or male organization. Should even a single off-color tweet about women or minorities surface, we'll soon have documented evidence. And as we all know, a single such infraction will taint the entire organization as having "problematic views on women" or "a history of white supremacist rhetoric". Once the organization has been tied to wrongthink--no matter how tenuously--no publication will ever again mention 'White Dudes for Harris' without first reminding the reader! It is also worth recalling that, should any publication describe the organization as "mysoginst", "racist", etc, those characterizations can be freely repeated, ideally without context.
The SPLC article should drop any moment now.
Let's all hold our breaths in anticipation.
I'm thinking the most likely reason is that the name resembled hateful content combined with political opponents reporting them in bad faith.