Antisemitism On Twitter Has More Than Doubled Since Elon Musk Took Over

from the shocked,-shocked...-not-that-shocked dept

In the days after Elon Musk took over Twitter in October 2022, the social media platform saw a “surge in hateful conduct,” which its then safety chief put down to a “focused, short-term trolling campaign.” New research suggests that when it comes to antisemitism, it was anything but.

Rather, antisemitic tweets have more than doubled over the months since Musk took charge, according to research that I and colleagues at tech firm CASM Technology and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue think tank conducted. Between June and Oct. 26, 2022, the day before Twitter’s acquisition by Musk, there was a weekly average of 6,204 tweets deemed “plausibly antisemitic” – that is, where at least one reasonable interpretation of the tweet falls within the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of the term as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.”

But from Oct. 27 until Feb 9, 2023, the average was 12,762 – an increase of 105%. In all, a total of 325,739 tweets from 146,516 accounts were labeled as “plausibly antisemitic” over the course of our study, stretching from June 1, 2022 to Feb. 9, 2023.

Finding antisemitism with AI

To identify plausibly antisemitic tweets, my co-authors and I combined 22 published hate speech-identifying algorithms into a single mechanism and used even more machine learning to see which combinations of decisions led to the correct result. We then passed through all tweets – over a million in total – that contained any one of 119 words, phrases, slurs and epithets related to antisemitism.

No such process is perfect. We estimate our model to make a correct decision about 75% of the time. We also no doubt missed some antisemitic tweets not containing any of those 119 key words, as well as those taken down before early December when we collected the data.

We then used an algorithm to draw out 10 different themes of antisemitism seen in the tweets. Some centered around the use of specific antisemitic derogatory epithets. Others alluded to conspiracy theories concerning hidden Jewish influence and control.

Antisemitic tweets directed at Jewish investor and philanthropist George Soros warranted its own category. He was mentioned more than any other person in our data, over 19,000 times, with tweets claiming he was a member of a hidden globalist, Jewish or “Nazi” world order.

Another theme were tweets defending the rapper Ye, formerly Kanye West, who had made a number of antisemitic remarks after he had his account briefly reinstated by Musk.

Our research, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, also found around 4,000 of the antisemitic tweets were focused on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. These variously claimed that the conflict was caused by Jews, or that Jews secretly caused the U.S. to support Ukraine. They also contained direct antisemitism directed against the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is Jewish.

Musk rolls back content moderation

Musk’s acquisition of Twitter came on the back of what I have observed as a decadelong trend among tech giants to take more responsibility for hate speech, harassment, incitement, disinformation and other harms lurking in the information flowing through their platforms. Over that period, companies such as Facebook and Twitter gradually enacted policies to respond to extremism, hate speech and harassment, or increase “civility,” as Twitter itself described it in 2018, and built out the teams and tools to enforce them.

Musk, a self-professed “free speech absolutist,” pointed the platform in a different direction after taking control. In short order, Twitter’s independent Trust and Safety Council was dissolved, previously banned accounts were reinstated and over half of Twitter’s staff was laid off or simply left – including many of those responsible for enforcing the company’s hate speech policies.

As someone who has tracked hate speech on places like Twitter for around 10 years, I believe the changes to Twitter’s moderation practices are only partly to blame for the jump in antisemitism on the platform.

The media spectacle surrounding Musk’s takeover, along with his very vocal views on free speech, likely also encouraged exactly those people to join or rejoin the platform who had fallen foul of its previous attempts to confront hate. Our research gives some backing to this theory. Some 3,855 accounts we identified as posting at least one plausibly antisemitic tweet joined Twitter in the 10 days after Musk took over. This is, however, only a small proportion of the 146,516 accounts that sent at least one antisemitic tweet over the course of the entire study.

Little effect on curbing hate speech

A surge in hate speech on Twitter was flagged by researchers in the weeks after Musk took over, concerns the billionaire dismissed as “utterly false,” having earlier vowed to “max deboosted & demonetized” hateful tweets.

If Twitter has been de-amplifying antisemitism, our research shows almost no evidence of it. Before Oct. 27, antisemitic tweets received an average of 6.4 “favorites” and 1.2 retweets. Since then, they have averaged 6 “favorites” and 1 retweet. Although such engagement isn’t a perfect measure for visibility, tweets made much less visible to users would generally receive less engagement.

We also attempted to measure takedowns of antisemitic tweets. On Feb. 15, 45 days after we initially collected the data, we tried to re-collect all the tweets we identified as antisemitic. Tweets can be unavailable for lots of reasons, and Twitter’s enforcement is only one of them. Imperfect though this is, it does give us a tentative glimpse of what might be happening in regard to the removal of antisemitic posts. And across those dates, 17,589 antisemitic tweets were taken down – 8.5% of the total.

Rising tide of antisemitism

Our findings come at a time when many fear growing threats to Jewish communities. In 2021, the Anti-Defamation League tracked the highest number of antisemitic incidents – including harassment, vandalism and assaults – in the U.S. since they started tracking numbers in 1979. And this is not just a U.S. phenomenon; in the U.K., the Community Security Trust has recorded a similar spike in anti-Jewish activity, while in Germany, anti-Jewish crimes surged by 29% over the pandemic.

Studying social media has shown me again and again just how powerfully it helps to form the cultures and ideas that underlie its users’ behavior. Ultimately, the proliferation of tweets that hold Jews responsible for all the world’s ills, that circulate dark conspiracies of control and cover-up, or that fire derogatory attacks directed toward Jews, can only support antisemitism online – and in the real world.

Carl Miller is a research fellow at King’s College London.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Antisemitism On Twitter Has More Than Doubled Since Elon Musk Took Over”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
222 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

I’ll bite. What do you believe is an acceptable increase in antisemitism?

Any? Seriously, what part of “free speech means people will say things you don’t like” isn’t clear to you? That HAS to include whatever you think is “Hate speech”.

So the answer to “how much” is “all of it”. Anything less and you hate free speech.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

There is a big difference in “speech I do not like” and “speech meant to make me fear for my life”.

Mike writing about 1A takes I do not agree with falls in the former. Tim Cushing using more “fucks” than I am personally comfortable with falls in the former. Karl Bode writing about how the EFF is wrong about something could fall into the former. I am okay with them expressing opinions I do not agree with. Getting flagged for bad takes is the former.

Liberally quoting “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is the latter. Denying the Holocaust is the latter. Making me listen to antiSemitic bullshit is the latter.

Why? Because once the Jews are gone, I’m fucking next on the chopping block.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I mean, right now there’s a couple of groups on the chopping block which preceded the jews in nazi germany too, so we probably ought to stop it from even getting that far.

You understand it’s your side that’s going to start the violence, right?

There are actual elected officials out there saying it’s not ok to be white. Others are wanting to hand out money by the color of your skin. Leftists have become horribly racist lately.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

There are actual elected officials out there saying it’s not ok to be white.

This is not true at all. You are completely warping what actually happened and leaving out the necessary context. The issue was that a bunch of white nationalists started using that slogan as part of a racist campaign. No is saying that it’s not okay to be white. They’re pointing out that the use of that slogan to push white supremacy and hatred is a problem.

That kind of context is kind of important. That you either do not understand that or deliberately misrepresent it says a lot about what kind of person you are.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:5

either do not understand that

Well, I understand you’re lying. You are warping “what happened”.

Firstly, I wasn’t actually referring to the slogan, I was referring to elected officials saying racist shit about white people. But I also want to say this very clearly: It’s OK to be White.

The issue was that a bunch of white nationalists started using that slogan as part of a racist campaign.

Well, THAT’S not true at all. The slogan was pointed out by people like me ironically pointing out how racist the Left has become. It worked. Now you want to claim that was started by white supremacists? Get fucked.

Guess what: No, the “OK” hand symbol is not a white supremacist symbol either. That’s completely made up, by retards like you.

They’re pointing out that the use of that slogan to push white supremacy

So no, the slogan is just fine and not even vaguely racist, which is the whole fucking point. But also not what I was talking about and, lol, no:

https://nypost.com/2023/03/18/progressive-ny-politicians-race-bait-against-white-people/

Get fucked you racist.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Just like Jan 6… amirite?

Actually, yes. I assume you’ve seen all that extra released video showing everyone peacefully wandering around? Everything you saw until a week or so ago was very carefully cherry picked. BLM riots were at least a 1000 times more violent. (40 something people died due to BLM riots, and hundreds of whole city blocks burned. The only person to die due to violence on Jan 6th was an unarmed woman shot by a cop)

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Actually, yes. I assume you’ve seen all that extra released video showing everyone peacefully wandering around? Everything you saw until a week or so ago was very carefully cherry picked.

Do you mean the cherry-picked video from Tucker Carlson? The one that even some Republicans and other Faux newscasters criticized as being cherry-picked? That one?

Anyways, Jan 6 has never been about the quantity of violence for me. The anger I felt (still feel) is due to the undeniable fact that those people attempted to thwart the most sacred foundation of our country – the peaceful transfer of power. Cherry-picked videos from either side will never change this one irrefutable fact for me.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Do you mean the cherry-picked video from Tucker Carlson?

it’s actually the reverse, the stuff you were shown before was “cherry-picked” this is the remainder.

Anyways, Jan 6 has never been about the quantity of violence for me. The anger I felt (still feel)

Oh, good, you’re liberal trying to hold onto outrage to discount your political opponents? Good, good, never saw that coming.

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

The evil of the Capitol riot was not in the rioters themselves, who were just a mob who should have been shot the moment they began trespassing and would not obey orders to leave. The evil was in the Republican representatives who would not vote to certify the election mere hours after.

No matter how much I go on about woke ideology here, always remember that woke ideology is more stupid than evil, while Republicans are literally evil. I would sooner vote for a transwoman weightlifter in drag giving a show to kindergarteners about the medals he’s won as a woman than for even the best Republican.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

I assume you’ve seen all that extra released video showing everyone peacefully wandering around?

Plenty of that footage had already been viewed as part of the main enquiry and also by defence counsels in court cases. It didn’t absolve anything of anyone. If you were on tape inside the Capitol you had already committed a crime. Those that just “peacefully wandered around” weren’t charged with violent crimes.

BLM riots were at least a 1000 times more violent.(40 something people died due to BLM riots, and hundreds of whole city blocks burned…

I think you’ve been watching too many Hollywood action movies and confusing them with reality. I know you love to attempt to gaslight us but “hundreds of whole city blocks burned” is quite a wild claim.

The only person to die due to violence on Jan 6th was an unarmed woman shot by a cop)

An woman in a group attempting to violently enter a restricted space where armed officers were the only thing between them and members of congress. I don’t think anyone believes this mob just wanted to politely ask questions. Whatever happened to “back the blue” and “just comply”?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Plenty of that footage had already been viewed as part of the main enquiry

Oh, no. The partisan show trial only showed VERY cherry-picked videos.

also by defence counsels in court cases

Maybe a little

If you were on tape inside the Capitol you had already committed a crime.

Misdemeanor trespass, to be precise. Found innocent in all the cases that went to trial, too, that I know of.

Those that just “peacefully wandered around” weren’t charged with violent crimes.

That’s not true, they put the buffalo hat guy away for 4 years, and he definitely didn’t hurt anyone.

“hundreds of whole city blocks burned” is quite a wild claim.

I would think the 40 dead would be the more important thing but it was $2 Billion in damages just through mid September of 2020, and they went on for many months after that.

Who’s gaslighting now?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12698554/george-floyd-protests-2billion-damage/

An woman in a group attempting to violently enter a restricted space where armed officers were the only thing between them and members of congress. I don’t think anyone believes this mob just wanted to politely ask questions.

See that’s funny cuz when let in the mostly just politely asked questions and took selfies. Also the congress people were already safe.

Just admit if it was a black woman during a BLM riot you would be crying murder, you biased fuck.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

I would think the 40 dead would be the more important thing…

Wikipedia says 19 deaths and I trust them a shitload more than you. It also says 17,000+ arrests so tell me about how Jan 6 rioters are treated so badly. And all of this was over a period of weeks and in multiple locations, not one afternoon in one building. The protests (not the riots) were against police brutality, not feeling butthurt about losing an election and attempting an insurrection. Fuck off with your false equivalencies.

Who’s gaslighting now?

Nothing you get shown will change your tune but even a few minutes of Googling mostly finds a bunch of different articles debunking your numbers. But I do wanna see photos of these “hundreds of whole city blocks burned” that you’re claiming. Or just admit to hyperbolic exaggeration.

And The Sun? Seriously?

See that’s funny cuz when let in the mostly just politely asked questions and took selfies. Also the congress people were already safe.

Just read what actually happened and stop trying to make BS excuses for her.

Just admit if it was a black woman during a BLM riot you would be crying murder, you biased fuck.

If a black woman tried to break through a door at a BLM riot to proceed towards police who were protecting other people and yelling at her to stop, and got shot for it, it wouldn’t change my opinion in the slightest. She fucked around and found out.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:9

It also says 17,000+ arrests so tell me about how Jan 6 rioters are treated so badly

Arrests are not convictions? People are arrested en masse during riots but most are released without charges. How are you this dumb?

Wikipedia is fan edited. Activists edit.

But I do wanna see photos of these “hundreds of whole city blocks burned”

$2 Billion dollars over just a small section of the protests, dude.

Just read what actually happened and stop trying to make BS excuses for her.

I did? He shot an unarmed woman. Michael Brown was beating the shit out of the cop, none of you cared.

Just admit you’re racist already.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

Wikipedia is fan edited. Activists edit.

Tell us you don’t know how Wikipedia works without…

$2 Billion dollars over just a small section of the protests, dude.

No Matty, PHOTOS. What you’re claiming would be extensively documented and easy to show. “Hundreds of whole city blocks burned”.

He shot an unarmed woman.

I’m sure that context-less statement sounds effective in your head but it’s just not the defense you think it is.

Just admit you’re racist already.

Racist against who exactly? I’m pretty confused by this weird claim.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Still makes Taibbi the bigger fool for believing it.

I literally just told you how it works.

No Matty, PHOTOS. What you’re claiming would be extensively documented and easy to show.

You can’t show hundreds of square blocks in one photo, dumbass. If you don’t understand that $2 Billion is representative of that, I really don’t fucking care.

I’m sure that context-less statement sounds effective in your head but it’s just not the defense you think it is.

It’s not? It is literally every time you talk about a black kid, no matter how violent whatever they were doing was. Hell, sometimes they’re armed and it’s STILL wrong and racist for some reason.

Racist against who exactly?

I’m cosplaying as a liberal. I don’t need a reason or justification.

You sure do hate white people tho, don’t you?

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

I literally just told you how it works.

Right, it’s just fans and activists, not “statistically smarter” people like you.

You can’t show hundreds of square blocks in one photo, dumbass.

Apparently you can’t even manage to show one measly block burnt to the ground. And if you can’t figure out the technological means we have available that can show larger areas, or how prevalent such photos would be if what you claim is true, then it’s not me who’s the dumbass.

You sure do hate white people tho, don’t you?

Why would I hate… Oh, I see the hilarious fuck up you’ve made. I’ll give you a clue smart guy. I’m pretty fly…

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

There is a big difference in “speech I do not like” and “speech meant to make me fear for my life”.

No, there isn’t actually. Is there a clear and credible threat? That’s basically the only exemption to free speech.

Liberally quoting “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is the latter. Denying the Holocaust is the latter.

I have no idea what the former is but assuming neither involve a direct threat to you both are still free speech. Is it “Hate Speech”? Maybe, probably even but that’s a matter of opinion. “Holocaust Denial” can mean anything from questioning the exact numbers (some argue 6 mil is a high estimate, especially because any pushback is seen as racist) to denying it happened at all. At what point is that “hate speech” to you?

Making me listen to antiSemitic bullshit is the latter.

No one is making you listen to shit. You’re mad it exists, to which the only proper answer is “too bad”.

I’m fucking next on the chopping block.

It’s really not about you.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I have to agree with Matt on this one when it comes to free speech. Unless there is a clear and credible threat, all speech is free speech whether you agree with it or not. As the quote goes: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

Do I personally think antisemitic speech is ok? Of course not. Do I want antisemitic speech on my social media feeds? No. Do I think Twitter should do everything they can to limit such speech? Absolutely.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

While he’s free to say whatever he wants, he’s also not free to say it on my lawn.

Or others’. But he does want to force us to not criticize him or his leaders, since he’s been harassing the site since the beginning of his harassment campaign.

Free speech does not mean free reach, and the way he put forth his… rebuttal was not in what one would consider a friendly manner.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:5

While he’s free to say whatever he wants, he’s also not free to say it on my lawn.

You’re conflating issues. Yes, it’s legal for Twitter to ban free speech. (I don’t think it’s good)

But if you’re trying to ban “hate speech”, you are not allowing free speech, by definition. It’s not “all speech except that which I dislike” speech.

Musk professes to, and seems to be (Masnick’s hit pieces aside), an advocate for free speech. If you have free speech, you will have more “hate speech”, whatever the fuck you think that is.

All of this is true separate from the unconstitutional meddling of the fed gov in such decisions.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
weevie833 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Matthew – There is a kernel of merit to your argument in the most general sense of it: words are just words in a microblogging app.

But an earnest study of the historical record shows how hate speech has been used as a strategy for manufacturing consent for other acts – and it’s not just the Nazis. It’s one thing to call someone an a**hole for whatever reason. It doesn’t threaten you as a class of people.

However, the first milestone in justifying violence against a group of people is to make the case that they deserve it: scapegoating, stereotyping, conspiracy theories, etc. Establishing these ideas through hate speech justifies discrimination which ALWAYS leads to violence. This is not hearsay, it’s not “liberal ideology.” This is LITERALLY how violence against Jews is manufactured (and towards anyone else, for that matter – the “Leftists” are next!)

The worst thing for humanity is to take bad ideas and put them into a global network where they can accelerate, amplify, and proliferate. Just because we can doesn’t mean we should. As the great George Costanza once said, “We live in a SOCIETY!!” The issue isn’t as simplistic as you make it out to be.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:4

It’s one thing to call someone an a**hole for whatever reason. It doesn’t threaten you as a class of people.

Aww, thanks for recognizing.

hate speech has been used as a strategy for manufacturing consent for other acts

First of all, I agree and recognize that, but it doesn’t change the principal for some very important reasons.

  1. an even more reliable indicator for societal violence is suppression of speech. Usually against whatever the government message is….such as “take your vaccine or else, it leads to more immunity than natural infection and stops transmission” (neither was true, and the former was obviously true from the outset). You can have total faith in the CDC and this particular vaccine and agree it is bad to suppress debate and demand people accept the government message without question. That is the first step to letting the government do whatever it wants, confiscate all the guns, and lining the disfavored against walls.
  2. an even more reliable indicator for societal violence is suppression of speech. And this time I simply mean that one party can (and has) attempt to move the overton window such that anything disagreeing with them is “hate speech”. Don’t want to debate biological men in women’s sports? Say “transwomen are real women”, call anyone claiming otherwise a bigot. “Misinformation” works too. Don’t want to debate election law? Call anyone disagreeing with you an “election denier”, say all their claims have been “debunked” which works even if what they’re talking about is completely different than whatever is “debunked”.
  3. These things are never applied equally. It really has become OK to be bigoted towards white straight men, or almost anyone of those characteristics solo. You see it here in this comment section even. There have been LOTS of experiments run where something references “Blacks” will get flagged as Hate Speech, but the exact same thing referencing “Whites” will not.

So yeah, I’m going to keep the free speech, thanks. Call out and ostracize racists, by all means, but I still want “racists” (real and imagined) to have free speech.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

No, there isn’t actually. Is there a clear and credible threat? That’s basically the only exemption to free speech.

The only thing I’ll concede is that under 1A, the… less violent forms of antiSemitism is considered free speech. And I certainly don’t want that shit anywhere near me even if it is allowed.

And while I will defend your right to the death to say foul things to the Jews, it says more about you than it does me. You HAVE proven that plenty.

“Holocaust Denial” can mean anything from questioning the exact numbers (some argue 6 mil is a high estimate, especially because any pushback is seen as racist) to denying it happened at all. At what point is that “hate speech” to you?

… that is the definition of Holocaust denial, Matthew. The numbers were NEVER in doubt. And I’ll just add this, I’m very much aware that a bit of revisionism is always fine, because that’s how history is.

Perhaps I’m rather sympathethic to the Jews, but, ahem, there were actual survivors.

You’re free to traffic in that crap. I’ll be here to use the facts to counter you.

No one is making you listen to shit. You’re mad it exists, to which the only proper answer is “too bad”.

True, but there’s also “I don’t want that shit near me”, which is something YOUR ilk don’t seem to want to listen.

It’s really not about you.

Once the Jews are gone, other minorities will be the next scapegoat. Once the Blacks are enslaved, the Chinese minority will be next, unless they’re under the “care” of Xi Jinping.

Then again, you have shown a remarkable lack of concern to the plight of others.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:4

less violent forms of antiSemitism is considered free speech. And I certainly don’t want that shit anywhere near me even if it is allowed.

Right, so you don’t want free speech.

… that is the definition of Holocaust denial, Matthew. The numbers were NEVER in doubt

See, you’re actually showing ignorance here in preference for an ideological position. There’s inherent fuzziness here both in what counts and how you estimate such very large numbers of people. It’s just hard to deal with numbers that large, ask a census taker. I’m not here to argue the numbers with you, the important thing to me is “it happened” and “it was a fucking lot of people”, but to say “the numbers were NEVER in doubt” just shows you don’t know how any of that works. I’ll even agree that most people trying to quibble about the estimates of numbers are anti-semites, but that doesn’t mean any discussion of numbers is ant-Semitic.

Just going to lump these together:

Perhaps I’m rather sympathethic to the Jews, but, ahem, there were actual survivors.
You’re free to traffic in that crap. I’ll be here to use the facts to counter you.
Then again, you have shown a remarkable lack of concern to the plight of others.

Survivors existing is not a discussion of numbers, and you haven’t actually used any “facts”, but the key takeaway here is that you’re eager to push a position and call anyone disagreeing with a bigot of some kind, and not to discuss anything which is exactly my point. People like YOU are WHY it is so important we prioritize free speech despite partisans whining about “hate speech”.

True, but there’s also “I don’t want that shit near me”,

Right, which is just another way of saying you want to ban the speech, and to which the appropriate answer is “fuck you, no.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Right, so you don’t want free speech.

I certainly don’t want free speech on my property. That’s what you want. There’s a big difference.

Just as I do not want /pol/’s white supremacists to start infecting the other boards with their treasonous crap.

But it seems like you do.

but to say “the numbers were NEVER in doubt” just shows you don’t know how any of that works.

I do follow the academic discussion on these issues, Matthew. The Nazis kept a damn nice record of their war crimes.

And to add, those that also deny the Holocaust are also pretty… anti-Jewish as well. And I’ll be the one to admit that modern Israel has done a shitty job maintaining their soverignity. I can hold those opinions in my head, you know. I suppose that you also want to side with Iran then? (Knowing who you root for, it’s only a matter of time.)

Survivors existing is not a discussion of numbers,

Step one in proving the Holocaust: Actually showing firsthand eyewitness accounts of the ones who actually suffered. Those paint a human face to the reams of documents.

the key takeaway here is that you’re eager to push a position and call anyone disagreeing with a bigot of some kind

I will repeat myself.

I’m very much aware that a bit of revisionism is always fine, because that’s how history is. I am aware of the academic process.

Perhaps you might want to actually learn how academics do their work. It’s very interesting.

People like YOU are WHY it is so important we prioritize free speech despite partisans whining about “hate speech”.

Like how you “protected America” on Jan 6. Well then, I suspect that America is officially not safe dor anyone who isn’t White and wanting certain things to return. Like the Confederate States. And Slavery.

Right, which is just another way of saying you want to ban the speech, and to which the appropriate answer is “fuck you, no.”

You are free to scream how much you hate the Jews on the public sidewalk. You are free to harass minorities on public land. (Please don’t, but I suspect you won’t care enough to take this advice.)

You are NOT free to do it on my property. If you want to prove otherwise, start quoting case law. No, the public accomodation ones do not count.

The right to be a bigot does not mean the right to be a bigot in someone else’s house. The right to deny the Holocaust does not mean you get to say that in my presence. Once you cross that line, it’s called “harassment”.

If you can’t take the hint, then, well, there’s castle doctrine laws in certain states I could quote to bolster my case for when I forcibly toss you out.

Or, too put it simply, my property, my rules. Don’t like it? Scream elsewhere. Just not here. I’m not going to stop you from being an abusive jerk outside of my house, but May God Help You If You Do It In My House. (This is not a physical threat, btw.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Yes, this is Mike’s “house”, and he’s the one who sets the rules.

Which similarly applies to Twitter as well. You wanna speak on Twitter, obey Twitter’s rules. (At least when it was old Twitter, with new Twitter, it’s literally “stay out of Elon’s crosshairs and hope he does not try to call in a controlled demolitions team for a simple fix…”)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:7

More like a public forum, one actually advertised as such, and government was telling the privately hired bouncers who to remove.

But even without government, if you are going to allow free speech, that means certain things, including some people are going to say some rude shit.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

ut even without government, if you are going to allow free speech, that means certain things, including some people are going to say some rude shit.

Yes, and? Even on 4chan, that lawless place, there were a few fuckin’ rules to follow. Don’t be a dick, try to stay in topic, don’t fuckin’ believe everything anyone said, don’t raid other boards…

Suffice to say, anyone who didn’t follow the rules were hated. And eventually kicked off the board, or site if they were repeat offenders.

I can handle rudeness. That happens when you’re passionate about something. Hell, that’s how you know you’re tight with someone.

But here, though, you have gone far and beyond what even I consider “rude”.

Then again, no reasonable person would continue to visit a place they hate, unless they have ulterior motives. Even the most base 4channer knows that.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Quit confusing I don’t want to listen to you with you can’t say that anywhere. The first is moderation of speech, the second is censorship.

I think you’re confused.

“I don’t want to listen to you” != “can’t say that here” which is what you want, and “can’t say that here” is definitely censorship. Most moderation is censorship.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

There’s other exceptions to free speech rights, even with somewhere like U.S., that are often disregarded because they’re hallowed by time and tradition and people simply don’t think about them much. And of course, you, specifically, rarely think at all.

Banning hate speech can be viewed as, variously, not impinging on free speech rights at all (e.g., if done by a private actor); impinging but justifiable (e.g., a S. 1 v. S. 2. test, for the government imposing such); or flat-out impinging (a U.S. government action as subject to a U.S. 1st Amendment argument).

Honestly, doctrinaire 1st Amendment arguments kind of make me scratch my head. A truly strict textual reading of the 1st would not allow any exceptions at all. No restrictions of fraud, of threats, of defamation; no copyright, no regulation of commercial speech, etc.

But all of these exist, and are both legal and widely accepted even amongst staunch advocates for free speech.

Yet somehow, for some reason, the exact justification that applies to those exceptions — that they’re for some greater good — is considered an unacceptable one for any other proposed ones.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Yet somehow, for some reason, the exact justification that applies to those exceptions — that they’re for some greater good — is considered an unacceptable one for any other proposed ones.

Not really, it’s just that nobody has made a sufficiently compelling case to add anything else to the list of exceptions.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

I suppose you want to be cheated out of your money every day, have your entire life fucked beyond repair from someone maliciously lying about what you do or who you are, and be beaten up for simply having the wrong opinion?

After all, if you want free speech, you also should be able to supernaturally spot scams, bully others into not slandering you, and uh, yeah, be able to defend yourself against people who want to see you dead and have the means to make it so.

Just because hate speech reduces you to hurling invective and unfounded threats against people you don’t like doesn’t mean fraud, defamation and “fighting words” threats do not do actual material and social harm to others.

Yes, you are free to use speech to make an area hostile to others so that they may leave. This is legal, but holy shit you are fucked up if you want to do that. You are NOT free to scam others of their cash, ruin their good reputation without actual facts to back it up, or threaten to assault, hurt and murder people.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

“I suppose you want to be cheated out of your money every day, have your entire life fucked beyond repair from someone maliciously lying about what you do or who you are, and be beaten up for simply having the wrong opinion?”

Not particularly, no. But so what? Speech being harmful is already said to be an insufficient reason to justify an exception. If someone means that, then all of the above bar the actual physical violence should be covered under the 1st, which doesn’t say anywhere ‘unless it’s really bad‘.

Like I said: if you apply the same standards people do to hate speech as an exception I do not believe the current exemptions would pass muster, either.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:10

all of the above bar the actual physical violence should be covered under the 1st, which doesn’t say anywhere ‘unless it’s really bad‘.

It’s intrepreted by what was meant at the time. Which no doesn’t include threats of real violence. You’re trying to make it sound inconsistent and it’s not.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

So, when it says “make no law”, it means “unless that law lines up with all the stuff we’re already doing”?

Because, like, if that was the case, there wouldn’t’ve been a need for an amendment in the first place, would there? Governments tossing critics in prison is one of the most hallowed traditions of rule.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15

Mostly to annoy you by overheating your one brain cell when it attempts to think, but more to the point, dude, threats are actually specifically not violent. Acting on threats can be violent. A threat, however put and however scary and however serious, is still not violent of itself.

So it’s not a distinguishing factor in whether or not restricting such is a restriction of free speech.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:9

I suppose you want to be cheated out of your money every day, have your entire life fucked beyond repair from someone maliciously lying about what you do or who you are, and be beaten up for simply having the wrong opinion?

That’s civil law and has nothing to do with free speech or the 1A. You are free to say those things, you just might be responsible for damages.

There are LOTS of things in life that are legal but you can be responsible for damages. It’s just a completely different set of laws and precedents.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:4

There’s other exceptions to free speech rights,

Incorrect. Like totally, there are no other exceptions.

Banning hate speech can be viewed as, variously, not impinging on free speech rights at all

Incorrect, both free speech and censorship have no relation to whether it’s government doing it.

Honestly, doctrinaire 1st Amendment arguments kind of make me scratch my head

It does not surprise me that the constitution confuses you, but again, this is all quite separate from the 1a.

no restrictions of fraud, of threats, of defamation; no copyright, no regulation of commercial speech, etc.

You seem intent on conflating different things, in this case criminal vs civil law. But I’m not really in favor of government regulation of commercial speech either, now that you mention, beyond setting up a framework for civil suits. The ban on smoking ads on TV? Wildly unconstitutional in my view.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

“You seem intent on conflating different things, in this case criminal vs civil law.”

Criminal and civil law are, equally, creations of governments. There is no distinction between them in terms of the wording of the U.S.’s 1st Amendment, and less than you might imagine in terms of it as-applied either. They are all classic exceptions to the broad grant of free speech created by the 1st Amendment.

That you’re an idiot who probably worries about flag fringes is not my lookout.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Well, yeah… He bought it after much arguing because he said he wanted to allow “free speech” (read: bigots not being penalised). He’s since replatformed numerous explicitly bigoted accounts and blocked others that fight such things.

The only people surprised by such things are likely the ones also surprised that trying to charge tens of thousands per year for an API used primarily by hobbyists and chasing away advertisers doesn’t increase profits.

At least this confirms Popper’s Paradox Of Intolerance – these people won’t go away on their own, it’s our duty to ensure they don’t regain power, as awkward as not accepting their ideas might be to the idea of tolerance.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Thad (profile) says:

Re:

Well, yeah… He bought it after much arguing because he said he wanted to allow “free speech” (read: bigots not being penalised). He’s since replatformed numerous explicitly bigoted accounts and blocked others that fight such things.

Not to mention his own antisemitic dogwhistles. Everything from ranting about how he’s the victim of a conspiracy by a shadowy cabal of “activists” to referring to Jewish critics as “puppetmasters”.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

Oh, you said “Kushner”, therefore you’re Anti-Semitic.

Seriously, do you want to be bigoted cuz you support the Saudis, who hate teh gays, or bigoted cuz you don’t support the Saudis and therefore are Islamophobic? That’s the game you’re playing, it’s dumb.

Back in the real world, Saudis, whatever their cultural flaws have money to invest, and are allowed to invest it, and your trying to assign some moral accusation to that is super fucking dumb.

K`Tetch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

they have been hanging around each other digitally. People like KDC feed his persecution complex, and amplify it with their own. I mean ‘KDC got a SWAT raid, and then his wife left him and was partying with the PM’s son, and took his company from him’ – how could elon reject such a story?
I mean the fact that KDC put the company in Mona’s name for tax and lawsuit reasons is beyond musk, or that guys like KDC and musk can’t keep relationships because they’re fundamentally unlikeable people never crosses their mind…

Anonymous Poster says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I mean ‘KDC got a SWAT raid, and then his wife left him and was partying with the PM’s son, and took his company from him’

Where the FUCK have you been regarding the whole MegaUpload saga?

Far as many can tell certain ‘copyrights holders’ in RIAA and MPAA did not like that independent artists, game makers, and such (often called ‘content maker’) could actually yearn a bit of cash through downloads of their works on MegaUpload. Earning and releasing their work without lot of the gatekeepers (that often become the ‘copyright holders’ via contract unfaviourable to the actual makers) involvement.

So through corrupt connections to decision makers in Department of Justice they caused MU as a business to fail, unjustly if I may add.

I mean the fact that KDC put the company in Mona’s name for tax and lawsuit reasons

Or it could also be that MegaUpload was founded in New Zealand and because KDC was only a resident and not a citizen he was limted in how that MegaUpload company could be formed. His wife was not so limited. At least that is what I recall from a discussion and news about MegaUpload way back then, I think it was even on this very site. (TechDirt)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Pure coincidence I'm sure

Funny how often it turns out that the ‘free speech’ that certain individuals and groups complain is being ‘censored’ ends up being blatant bigotry of one flavor or another, as demonstrated by what sort of speech sees a surge as soon as they get to make the rules regarding the sort of speech and behavour is welcome.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

K`Tetch (profile) says:

Re: Re:

no-one said there was.
Literally the comment you replied to just said that it’s becoming a bit of a shithole place, and you chose that to whine about frozen Prunus persica

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Sounds like you’re REALLY afraid it’ll go back to how it was, and you won’t be able to continue hurling shite at people without anyone caring. It really does seem to be a core part of your identity that you’re afraid to let go of.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

So you are ok with death threats and doxxing?

“Deaththreats” it entirely depends upon if it’s a credible threat or not, and if it is, it should be handled through the police where possible.

Doxxing, no, that’s an enabler of violence. It’s much scarier than a deaththreat, actually.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:3

There’s straight up a Supreme Court case on this precise point, which is why particularly odious sorts of hate speech are, in fact, outright illegal.

Yes. There is. Lee v. Tam, The Slants. They ruled the opposite of what you’re claiming you fucking moron, that “Hate Speech” was still protected speech.

Jesus fuck.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Free speech, literally means people will say things you don’t like. No, there isn’t a special exemption for “hate speech”, whatever you think that is, sorry.

On a privately-owned social media platform that is entirely up to the owners. If a site wants to ban hate speech, however they choose to define that, they can. Most people using these services don’t want to see hate speech so most platforms limit or ban it. This may be for personal reasons (i.e. they’re not assholes) or simply as a sensible business decision to make the most users happy and hence make the most money. Twitter 2.0 is objectively moving in the opposite direction.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

If a site wants to ban hate speech, however they choose to define that, they can

Sure, and? Musk wants free speech tho, and that would not be free speech.

Twitter 2.0 is objectively moving in the opposite direction.

That is explicitly the intention I really am not sure what part you missed.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Musk wants free speech tho, and that would not be free speech.

Most people want most speech to be free. Only a small group of people genuinely want completely unfettered speech, and they are usually the types that have spent their lives sheltered from the societal harms that can cause. So it’s no surprise that’s what Musk claims to want, despite not actually wanting to see/hear certain types of speech he personally doesn’t like. He’s just a privileged hypocrite, not a bastion of liberty.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

Yes or no: non sequitur

Yeah, so, you do this a lot, and no, you can’t force someone to accept your precepts by going “Yes or no”.

Now, whether free speech is actually a good business decision is an interesting question. We’ll probably never find out as long as Big Tech can kill off Parler in a weekend.

But that Free Speech involves people saying a whole lot of stuff you don’t like, including “hate speech” is incontrovertible.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Allow me to explain why Stephen’s question isn’t unrelated to your statements.

Here’s the timeline:
-A subset of users begins posting bigoted statements all over the website.
-The website does nothing about this, as they believe that anyone should be allowed to say whatever they want.
-People outside the subset of users posting bigotry begin to leave the website.
-Advertisers see that fewer people are using the website and pull their ads.
-Website has no more money coming in and is forced to shut down.

Yes or no: Is this a good outcome for the website?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Embedded in your premise is your wish that things turn out that way. But we have existence proofs to the contrary. Fox News is the highest-rated cable news show. Newsmax was dropped by DirectTV because of failed negotiations over carriage fees, not because of content. Rush Limbaugh was hugely successful.

That you would like sites to fail when they host speech you don’t like doesn’t mean that they will, no matter how you fantasize about it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Nice distraction, I give it a 7/10.

I’m not talking about cable news. On cable news, the employees of the corporation are the ones who say things. On social media, it’s the consumers who do the posting. And I’m exclusively talking about social media when it comes to moderation decisions that alienate large numbers of users, advertisers, and eventually bring down the website.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

And I’m saying that this notion that more free speech on all sides of an issue will result in the things you say is wishful thinking in your part. This is what you would like to have happen when platforms allow views you hate. Perhaps Twitter is evidence for your point, perhaps it is just temporary risk aversion during a period of turmoil. We’ll see.

Oh, and apparently I’m behind the times; Newsmax is back on DirecTV.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

As a general reply to everybody who’s been discussing this post, I want to clarify that this is mostly in service of a broader point that I should have put in the original post: Corporations do not do anything except for one reason, and that one reason is because they believe it will make them the most money.

If a corporation pollutes a river, that’s because they think the fines, if any are levied, will be less than the value gained.
If a corporation fires a valuable worker, that’s because they think that the value granted by that worker is less than what they’re paying them in salary.
And if a corporation “goes woke”, that’s because they think that doing so will attract a larger consumer base than not.

To the ‘get woke, go broke’ crowd: Large corporations have lots of people to work out what the most likely action is to make the most money. Maybe, instead of immediately saying that they’re wrong, and being proven wrong yourself when they don’t go broke, consider that they know something that you don’t.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:3

To the ‘get woke, go broke’ crowd: Large corporations have lots of people to work out what the most likely action is to make the most money. Maybe, instead of immediately saying that they’re wrong, and being proven wrong yourself when they don’t go broke, consider that they know something that you don’t.

Except for all the times they’ve very obviously gone woke, and gone broke? Velma is probably the starkest example, but also there’s also several Disney movies of late.

The problem is probably that execs are letting their politics overtake their business sense.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

?The problem is probably that execs are letting their politics overtake their business sense.

Showing empathy and compassion for the underprivileged and marginalized communities should not be considered a political statement, it should instead be a testament to human kindness.

That you lack empathy, compassion and human kindness is a you problem.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

“Corporations do not do anything except for one reason, and that one reason is because they believe it will make them the most money.”

Corporations are run by people and have a very long track record of doing utterly boneheaded things, not because they think it will make them the most money, but because they’re somebody’s personal obsession.

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Re: facts not in evidence

Do you think any reputable platform would want to be associated with anti-semitism, such that said association would prevent the platform from attracting users and advertisers

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.

There are platforms whose purpose includes anti-semitism as we know it. Daily stormer comes to mind, though I think we could all name others that are slightly less overt.

With the Musk take-over of Twitter, it appears that anti-semite users are attracted to the platform. It appears, then, that the fact [anti-semitism negatively attracts users] is not true. From the numbers posted in the original article, I gather than Musk’s business model includes drawing more such users, perhaps luring them back from Trump Social or 8chan.

The question is also compound. We have discussed users, who in many cases are drawn to right-wing cesspits. But the question also asks about advertisers.

Some advertisers seek such association. Mr. Trump has reportedly drawn crypto promoters, for instance. According to the NY TImes (11-Feb-2023) Twitter is drawing more adverts for cheaply made games, and for gold buggery, inappropriate T-shirts, fraudulent discount drone offers, crude gaming apps, and promotions for rants about puppet masters and slave minds.

There does appear to be some reduction in advertising spend amongst what might be called ``reputable” advertisers. I could understand Coke, or McDonalds, or GM, not wanting their promotions next to some vile Musk-approved rant, or even in the same ad stream as the dodgy investment promotions.

But still, a fair answer to your unfair question appears to be not quite what the wording leads me to believe you were expecting.

Disclosure: I do not have an account on Twitter and so do not have first-hand knowledge of the users or the advertisers.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

OK, I get it, you really want to smear conservatives as bigots. Super surprised.

From the numbers posted in the original article,

Per the linked research Weekly “anti-semitic” (however that’s defined) tweets went up from 6,000 to 12,000 tweets a week. That is absolutely fucking miniscule compared to the 3.5 BILLION tweets in a week.

That’s 3,500,000,000. 12k tweets are 0.00034% of that.

Any change would be way more than explained by even very mild changes in enforcement.

Cool, thanks for playing, tho.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

So? So what?

Mr. Miller, I give no fucks what you think is or is not “anti-Semitic”, but people should be allowed to say things, including something that someone defines as “Hate speech”, because someone, somewhere will define anything as “hate speech”, maybe out of warped sensibilities, but mostly because it can be weaponized.

I have literally been called anti-Semitic for criticizing George Soros. Funnily enough, I was not aware he was Jewish at the time.

Did your algo count anyone complaining about Soro’s effect on American bail bond system anti-Semitic? Don’t answer, I don’t care, it’s a slightly (only slightly) hyperbolic allegory.

If you allow the banning of anything but the most blatant and direct hate speech (ban the N-word, whatever) then you have enabled a mechanism to shut down the speech of those you disagree with.

Don’t want anyone arguing with you about biological men in women’s sports? Declare “misgendering” as “hate speech”. Done.

Listen, you leftist nitwits in the comments: Free Speech means you will have “hate speech”. Period. Deal with it. A little bit cuz your idea of what “hate speech” is often NUTS (“ableist”, heh) but mostly cuz yes, freedom means that people you don’t like can do and say things you don’t like. If you want to tell others what to do and say all the time, you literally hate freedom. Ironically that is not even a little bit a hyperbolic statement and none of you will get it.

@Carl Miller, you shouldn’t have a job. Your orgs are part of the web of gov and academic (also mostly gov) funded orgs pressuring Twitter to conform to government propaganda, and also leftist attempts to move the overton window. You are an enemy of free thinking people. If your org was solely privately funded it would only be misguided (really kinda evil) if it is US gov funded it’s illegal.

“Hate speech” just means “things I don’t want to hear”. Well, people’s right to say things is about 1000x more important than your right not to hear it. (by which I mean for it to exist, no one is making you read it, this comment included)

So yeah, an actually free system will have hate speech in it. That’s a feature not a bug. I’m pretty sure some of you dumbasses will see that as admission of some kind, but that just means you haven’t thought about it hard enough.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re:

That was a long-winded way of saying “I don’t understand what the discussion is about”.

If you want to tell others what to do and say all the time, you literally hate freedom.

I guess you hate freedom, then, given how many times you’ve tried telling Masnick what and what not to write about.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

My telling him his ideas are awful is 100% free speech.

True, but irrelevant to the point.

By your own words, telling others what to do and what to say means you hate freedom.

You have told Masnick what to do and what to say(technically write).

Ergo, you hate freedom.

Is it free speech? Abso-fucking-lutely.
It is hypocritical bullshit? Abso-fucking-lutely.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anathema Device (profile) says:

Techdirt sane regulars: Gee, antisemitism is increasing on Twitter. That’s a bad thing.

Techdirt house troll: FREEZEPEACH!! NO RESTRICTIONS ON FREEZEPEACH!! FREEZEPEACH!! FREEZEPEACH!! FREEZEPEACH!!

Techdirt sane regulars: Gee, the posts on Techdirt about [copyright twitter moderation weasel testicles] are interesting, and here are my thoughts

Techdirt house troll: DOUBLEPLUSBADSPEAK! MIKE MUST SHUT UP NO MORE POLITICS MY BRAIN IS HURTING FROM TOO MUCH MUSK I DON’T LIKE THIS BADSPEECH SHUT UP MIKE FOREVER!!!!

K`Tetch (profile) says:

Re:

they really are the most frightfully fragile little goobers aren’t they. And the sad thing is, it’s such a core part of their identity, that they absolutely can’t bare the thought of not being able to spew vitriol online with little/no consequences, I guess because they’re just too afraid of an ass-whupping (by any half-disabled grandmother or better) if they tried it offline.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re:

Gee, antisemitism is increasing on Twitter. That’s a bad thing.

It’s not independent of all other factors, such as people actually having free speech, you dumbitch. I would prefer that people not wish to say those things, but it is good that they can.

FREEZEPEACH!

So you hate free speech. That is ACTUALLY all that means. I never heard anyone say “FREEZEPEACH” without it becoming clear they’re a totalitarian leftist just waiting to line the bourgeoisie against the wall.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:3

see a BLM riot force their way into a government building

Well that definitely happened, just wasn’t over an election. (there were riots over the election 2016, or did you forget?)

40 people died tho, and many billions of dollars in damages. How is that not worse?

Fuck, I forgot who I was talking to. How are you this dumb?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

It was a protest much more mild than any BLM riot.

I didn’t see BLM trying to get a lost presidential candidate installed as a totalitarian leader.

But yes, antifa will actually beat you up for saying something they don’t like.

I didn’t see antifa trying to get a lost presidential candidate installed as a totalitarian leader.

You are the one who called somebody a totalitarian leftist but I all I am saying is that it was you RWNJs who were trying to install a totalitarian leader, but I can’t find a single example of a leftist group attempting to do the same.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

That’s nice. No republican is trying to tell you what kinda stove or straw you can use.

Way to change the subject as I am sure that installing Trump as a dictator is as unimportant as not using plastic straws.

How are your values so fucked up that you think being forced to use a non-plastic straw is as bad as a bunch of fucking idiots attacking the capital in hopes to install a totalitarian leader.

Have fun with that victimhood fantasy tho.

Again, projection. Being a conservative / Republican means constantly claiming the be a victim. I mean just read your last sentence. You are claiming to be a victim because you are being forced to use a non-plastic straw.

“Jan 6th was worse than 9/11!!!”

WTF does that statement have anything to do with what is being discussed? Why bring in 9/11 unless you know you have lost and have nothing better to say as you just got your shit handed to you…. as per usual.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re:

But nah, I’m sure that’s not the case. After all, they’ve roundly condemned Musk for banning Chad Loder, and the elonjet account, and all those members of the press who reported on his ban of the elonjet account, and that time he banned all mentions of Mastodon, right? After all, these are people with principles, who believe all legal speech should be allowed on Twitter, not just speech they personally support.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

especially when it is designed with a preconceived output

Please, do tell us about the bias in the algorithm.
Oh, and do provide evidence.

If I want to hear real and dangerous antiSimetism, I’ll listen to the democrat party.

And just WHO was it that broke into the Capitol on Jan 6 again?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Hero says:

I’m not a fan of these types of stories. They oversimplify something and try to cast it in a good vs. evil context: Anti-sematism is bad, thus Twitter is bad.

I also don’t understand the methodology at all. Is there a paper that explains it better? I didn’t see a link to one in the article but I may have missed it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Without Hitler, we never would have had The Producers!

Interesting thought experiment.

How much entertainment has been produced that relies solely on Hitler and the Nazi regime, or uses Hilter / Nazis as a plot point, however large or small.

I’ll start…

I just finished watching “The Man in the High Castle” while at the same time playing Sniper Elite 4.

I also think one of Tarantino’s best films was “Inglourious Basterds”

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

No, anti-Semitism is more prevalent on Titter, thus Twitter is worse.

No no, racism (no idea why we’re being so specific) is bad, but that doesn’t mean Twitter is worse because there could be countervailing benefits. Such as people actually being able to have an open dialog about contentious issues.

So Twitter is a thousand times better, in fact.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anathema Device (profile) says:

Breaking news!!

House troll reveals his secret antisemitism in one stunning explosion of excreta!

Completes full set of hate figures after previously collecting transphobia, homophobia, misogyny, racism – Wins Techdirt Booby Prize!*

*Opportunity to win a free dinner with Donald Trump, one scoop of icecream included, for voluntary donation of $5000. (Rubles accepted)**

**Losers can compete for opportunity to share a bathroom sink with Donald Trump, Jr. Voluntary donation of five $100 bills required.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

K`Tetch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Maybe you should learn to read. That’s not even close to what that page says. The paragraph says:

In January 2022, Page lost an effort to revive the defamation case over Isikoff’s article. Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. said “the article at the crux of the case—by Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff—was either completely truthful or, ‘at a minimum,’ conveyed a true ‘gist,’ even if it included some ‘minor’ or ‘irrelevant’ incorrect statements.” Bloomberg Law reported that “The court dismissed as far-fetched Page’s theories about a conspiracy among interconnected media and political figures to tarnish Trump by concocting the Russia investigation from thin air.”[517]

I kept the reference number to make it easy to find, although it’s not hard as it has the only ‘concoct’ on the page.

The judge said it’s true, and factual, it was Carter Page trying to say it was made up.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anathema Device (profile) says:

I have learned so much from this thread!

  1. 6 million Jews killed == the Holocaust. But 5,999,999 Jews killed == a slightly regrettable mishap
  2. There is an acceptable level of antisemitism in our discourse. The exact level cannot be stated, unlike, say, one poisoned M&M is too many, or one turd in a punchbowl. It’s more a case that antisemitism is like chilli – some people like less of it, but that doesn’t mean that those who really like it super antisemitic spicy are bad people
  3. The same is true for violence during an insurrection. Some people want none, some like a little, and some like it extra vicious spicy. No conclusions should be drawn about those who like a lot. It’s just their personal choice
  4. If there are videos of people not breaking stuff and assaulting police, that means that there was no one else breaking stuff and assaulting police at all
  5. Wikipedia is fan-edited.
  6. Free speech is an absolute right unless it’s someone else’s blog
  7. Repercussions from free speech is not allowed under any circumstances unless it’s someone else’s blog
  8. The ‘OK’ hand symbol is not a white supremacist symbol and has never been used that way by white supremacists
  9. Being an unarmed woman at the head of an angry, violent mob breaking into a secure government facility means you are a literal saint on earth, and no threat to anyone
  10. Saying ‘Kushner’ makes you an antiSemite. [Oops, I wrote it instead. Does that count?]
  11. Democrats made the Nazis start killing Jews
  12. There is so much astonishing, overwhelming amount of proof 
that
  • BLM riots were at least a 1000 times more violent than Jan.6

  • Whole cities were burned to the ground by BLM protesters
  • $2 Billion dollars worth of damage was caused in just one small section of the protests


that it is impossible to show any photos of it all. There is just so, so much, and too impossible. You’ll have to take our word for it
13. Similarly, there is so much proof, so many investigations, and a simply incredible number court cases proving that


  • Elected officials are openly saying awful shit about white people right now without penalty

  • the Clinton campaign literally colluded with Russian agents to concoct Russiagate from thin air

  • The Biden family has taken a million or two $ directly from CCP owned companies in recent years and that makes [Joe] Biden a bitch

that to provide links would be too difficult, much too burdensome. But it’s all true, I swear!

Isn’t this a great blog?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

And where does that say that all the damage was a direct result of the BLM protesters and not right wing domestic terrorist groups using the protest as cover?

Please point me to the FBI’s list of people that have been arrested for the BLM protests and what they are charged with and how they aligned politically.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...