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: antisemitism, content moderation, elon musk, hate, trust & safety
Companies: twitter
Comments on “Antisemitism On Twitter Has More Than Doubled Since Elon Musk Took Over”
12,762 per week? Out of millions of tweets?
Re:
I’m not seeing a sample size, though I don’t have time right now to read the linked studies to see if they mention that, But, the “increase of 105%” in the same sentence would seem to be of concern even if the sample is small. As does the number of accounts involved in the graph later in the article.
Re: Re:
I think they’re referring to the sample size here:
Re:
I’ll bite. What do you believe is an acceptable increase in antisemitism?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
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.
Re: Re: Re:
…said nobody who supports, or even understands, free speech, ever.
Re: Re: Re:
You’re as clueless about free speech as Musk is.
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.
Re: Re: Re:2
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.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
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.
Re: Re: Re:4
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.
Re: Re: Re:5
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.
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re:4
Just like Jan 6… amirite?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
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)
Re: Re: Re:6
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.
Re: Re: Re:7
it’s actually the reverse, the stuff you were shown before was “cherry-picked” this is the remainder.
Oh, good, you’re liberal trying to hold onto outrage to discount your political opponents? Good, good, never saw that coming.
Re: Re: Re:8
Tu quoque
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.
Re: Re: Re:9
Who are you and what did you do to Hyman Rosen?
Re: Re: Re:6
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.
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re:7
Oh, no. The partisan show trial only showed VERY cherry-picked videos.
Maybe a little
Misdemeanor trespass, to be precise. Found innocent in all the cases that went to trial, too, that I know of.
That’s not true, they put the buffalo hat guy away for 4 years, and he definitely didn’t hurt anyone.
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/
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.
Re: Re: Re:8
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.
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?
Just read what actually happened and stop trying to make BS excuses for her.
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.
Re: Re: Re:9
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.
$2 Billion dollars over just a small section of the protests, dude.
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.
Re: Re: Re:10
Tell us you don’t know how Wikipedia works without…
No Matty, PHOTOS. What you’re claiming would be extensively documented and easy to show. “Hundreds of whole city blocks burned”.
I’m sure that context-less statement sounds effective in your head but it’s just not the defense you think it is.
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.
Re: Re: Re:11
I literally just told you how it works.
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.
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.
I’m cosplaying as a liberal. I don’t need a reason or justification.
You sure do hate white people tho, don’t you?
Re: Re: Re:12
Right, it’s just fans and activists, not “statistically smarter” people like you.
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.
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…
Re: Re: Re:12
That is a poor excuse for not providing any evidence, such as photos of some of those blocks.
Re: Re: Re:6
Maybe she should have complied and followed the cop’s orders.
Re: Re: Re:7
but she was white though?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
The advantage held by private speech platforms is that they do not have to adhere to the 1st Amendment. They can decide to ban literal hate speech (however they define it) while still allowing opinions of all viewpoints to be expressed. And they can be in discussion with their users to decide which speech crosses the line.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
No, there isn’t actually. Is there a clear and credible threat? That’s basically the only exemption to free speech.
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?
No one is making you listen to shit. You’re mad it exists, to which the only proper answer is “too bad”.
It’s really not about you.
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re:5
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re:4
Aww, thanks for recognizing.
First of all, I agree and recognize that, but it doesn’t change the principal for some very important reasons.
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.
Re: Re: Re:3
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.
… 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.
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re:4
Right, so you don’t want free speech.
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:
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”.
Right, which is just another way of saying you want to ban the speech, and to which the appropriate answer is “fuck you, no.”
Re: Re: Re:5
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Re: Re: Re:6
I don’t disagree with what you said in that comment, but it’s really not analogous to the discussion we are having about Twitter. A closer analogy would be that you and Matt are having an argument at someone’s else’s house and they get to set the rules, not you or Matt.
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re:8
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.
Re: Re: Re:9
The sad part is I think you think you had a point in there.
Care to try again?
Re: Re: Re:5
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.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
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.
Re: Re: Re:7
Can’t say that here is how a group or community go about we do not want to listen, or a social media site builds the sort of community that they want.
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.
Re: Re: Re:4
Not really, it’s just that nobody has made a sufficiently compelling case to add anything else to the list of exceptions.
Re: Re: Re:5
I don’t think you could make, under the standards applied, a compelling case for the existing exemptions either.
Re: Re: Re:6
Fraud, defamation, threats? I think the cases are pretty compelling.
Re: Re: Re:7
Yeah? What distinguishes those from hate speech, precisely?
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re:10
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re:12
All I can say is that you’re confused. Threats are best understood as part of violence, not political speech.
Everything else is part of civil law, not criminal.
Re: Re: Re:13
Oh, indeed? What makes a threat violent, precisely?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
There’s an ENORMOUS amount of case law on that. Why are you wasting my time?
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.
Re: Re: Re:16
There is, you’re just trying really hard not to get it.
Re: Re: Re:12
It means what the Supreme Court says it means.
Re: Re: Re:13
That’s true in a legal sense, to be sure, but then the question becomes why does the U.S. Supreme Court say the things it does?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
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.
Re: Re: Re:4
Incorrect. Like totally, there are no other exceptions.
Incorrect, both free speech and censorship have no relation to whether it’s government doing it.
It does not surprise me that the constitution confuses you, but again, this is all quite separate from the 1a.
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re:
So by agreeing with the banning of elonjet and Taylor Lorenz, you have now admitted that you hate free speech? Please explain to us how that was totally different, and please be as hypocritical as possible.
Re: Re:
Personally, a negative number.
I will also accept zero as well.
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.
Re:
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”.
Re: Re:
While literally owing billions to the Saudis (and being close to Jared Kushner who also owes billions to them), no less. But, I’m sure he’d argue they have no involvement in the platform they’ve heavily censored in their own country yet paid handsomely to invest in…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
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.
Re: Re:
And I thought his head was stuck in 70s South Africa.
I guess he went full Kim DotCom…
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…
Re: Re: Re:2
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.
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)
Re: Re: Re:3
And uh, I sadly took a peek at what ol’ Kimmy was doing after that.
He is so deep into that conspiracy shit it is legitimately saddening.
Re: Re: Re:4
There’s no need to pick sides on this one. A terrible person got treated terribly by the US and NZ governments at the behest of a terrible industry.
Re: Re: Re:5
Agreed.
However, I am merely saying, KDC went full crazy after getting bumfucked by the US and NZ at the behest of the RIAA, MPAA and other such fine organizations.
Re: Re: Re:3
Tell us all you’ve never done any research, without saying you’ve never actually done any research, because if you had, you’d know exactly where I was during the whole saga.
I’m 99.9% sure I know a lot more about the case than you, and from a lot closer.
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.
And? I don’t have a problem with that.
Re:
How unsurprising.
Re:
💩
Re:
I assume that you mean both, but which of the following do you mean by “that”?
Re: Re:
It’s really not worth talking to.
Not just antisemitism, but I feel like there has been a huge increase in racism, sexism, and every other flavor of hateful posts in the past couple of months. Twitter is quickly becoming like 4chan and 8chan.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
And? 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.
Re: Re:
No, there isn’t. Which means we can scream “TERRORIST” at you until you go away for being such a straight white freak.
TERRORIST. TERRORIST. TERRORIST.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
of course you can. It’s dumb and also racist and heterophobic besides, but of course you can.
Re: Re: Re:2
There is no such thing as heterophobia. You straight freaks brought this on yourselves. No one will stand up for you because everyone knows that is a terrible alternative.
Get the fuck out of our gene pool, you fucking sperm donor.
Re: Re: Re:3
“There is no such thing as heterophobia.”
There is!
Straight white men like our house trolls scare the living shit out of me 🙂
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.
Re: Re:
So you are ok with death threats and doxxing?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
“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.
Re: Re: Re:2
Ah, so now we’re just haggling over the price.
Re: Re:
There, in fact, is.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
An exemption for “hate speech”? No, incorrect, sorry.
Re: Re: Re:2
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.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
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.
Re: Re: Re:4
Why should I give a shit about a foreign Supreme Court?
Re: Re:
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.
Re: Re: Re:
Sure, and? Musk wants free speech tho, and that would not be free speech.
That is explicitly the intention I really am not sure what part you missed.
Re: Re: Re:2
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.
Re: Re: Re:3
I get it, you’re racist. I’m moving on now.
Re: Re: Re:4
What exactly in my comment referred to race?
Or has “racist” become your meaningless knee-jerk insult now that “woke” just isn’t hitting the way you hoped.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
you tell me
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
So what?
If anything, this suggests that Twitter is growing as a platform for free speech.
Re:
Yes or no: 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 alike?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
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.
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?
Re: Re: Re:2
You could add another/alternative point to that timeline:
-Advertisers don’t want to be associated with the bigoted speech running rampant on the platform, and pull their ads
Re: Re: Re:3
I phrased it the way I did to avoid passing a value judgment on the advertisers. This is about economics more than values.
Re: Re: Re:4
Not wanting to be associated with bigoted speech is also about economics.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s a precept.
It’s like you don’t know what words mean.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re:3
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.
Re: Re: Re:4
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.
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.
Re: Re: facts not in evidence
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.
Re: Re: Re:
I think the qualification was “reputable platform”. We can quibble on what that actually entails but any platform that willingly host certain types of speech (anti-semitic, racist etc) aren’t generally considered reputable.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I would actually consider a platform MORE reputable for refusing to censor, but it’s 0.00034%. Grow up.
Re: Re: Re:2 expensive
for $44B, I wouid hope that Twitter was considered reputable. Admittedly there have been some rough spots since the new owner took over.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
OK, I get it, you really want to smear conservatives as bigots. Super surprised.
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.
Re:
If the goal is to drive the Jews away from Twitter, then yes.
Re:
..said nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re:
💩
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
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.
Re:
That was a long-winded way of saying “I don’t understand what the discussion is about”.
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.
Re: Re:
Ironic that you would say I don’t understand what the discussion is.
My telling him his ideas are awful is 100% free speech.
Re: Re: Re:
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.
Re: Re: Re:2
He’s also admitted he wants to harrass Mike until the site shuts down.
Oh, and admitted that “you can’t say that here” is censorship.
I can’t put my finger on why, exactly…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I suspect you’re attempting a parody but you’re stupid enough it’s impossible to tell. Anyway, no, that’s not how any of that works.
Re: Re: Re:3
By your own logic, yes, it is.
But I wouldn’t expect you to be logically consistent.
Re:
They are. They’re allowed to say just about anything they want, including hate speech. They’re just not allowed to dictate what others do with their private property.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
And now the owner of the private party wants actual free speech. Why did you think that was a rebuttal? What part are you not getting?
Re: Re: Re:
Because your implication is that previous to Musk’s takeover of Twitter, people weren’t “allowed to say things”. Which is false.
Re:
This rant absolutely screams “I’m a straight white Christian man who’s never experienced actual hate speech in my life!”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
you were wondering why I called you racist…….
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!!!!
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.
Re:
Nothing demonstrates the contempt and hatred that woke ideologues have for freedom more than the phrase “freeze peach”.
Re: Re:
What is your opinion on the phrase
“Peachtree Dish”?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s how they grow bacterial cultures in Georgia.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
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.
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.
Re: Re:
Yeah, because it was all those liberals who attacked the capital in a feeble attempt to install a totalitarian president who lost his election.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
It was a protest much more mild than any BLM riot.
But yes, antifa will actually beat you up for saying something they don’t like.
Re: Re: Re:2
I have yet to see a BLM riot force their way into a government building in an attempt to overthrow an election.
But whatever lies you need to tell yourself…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
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?
Re: Re: Re:2
I didn’t see BLM trying to get a lost presidential candidate installed as a totalitarian leader.
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.
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s nice. No republican is trying to tell you what kinda stove or straw you can use.
Have fun with that victimhood fantasy tho.
“Jan 6th was worse than 9/11!!!”
Ok, dear.
Re: Re: Re:4
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.
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re:4
Just what kind of medical treatment you can have.
Re: Re: Re:5
Or who you can talk to about it.
Re:
You know, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear the reason these guys are so defensive of antisemitism isn’t that they place such a high value on free speech, they’re just antisemites.
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.
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe we think suppressing competitors (if that even happened) and doxxers (no, I don’t fucking care if you think it’s doxxing or not) is Wildly different than suppressing political speech.
Get fucked, dude.
Re: Re: Re:2
Damn, you liberals are so hateful.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Oh yay, you called someone who disagreed with you racist! That’s never been done before! But if it had, we might view banning supposedly “racist” things as an effective means of quelling dissent, huh?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The data is only as good as the algorithm, especially when it is designed with a preconceived output
If I want to hear real and dangerous antiSimetism, I’ll listen to the democrat party.
Re:
Citation of examples very much needed, else all you are doing is flinging slurs.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Ilhan Omar has said some of the most hilariously anti-Semitic shit ever, and you guys just let it pass by.
Re: Re: Re:
You are aware, I would hope, that Ilhan Omar IS a Semite.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
So points for trying, and that would be “haha funny” but wouldn’t change the statement at all if she were from the Middle East. However she’s Somalian, and while a Muslim, not a Semite.
Re: Re: Re:2
This is a very common antisemitic trope, trying to defang a word that means hatred of Jews by playing with the meaning of “semite”. No one has ever done this with good intentions.
Re: Re: Re:
Never afraid of some wild hyperbole are you. What she said was dumb but light years away from “most anti-Semitic ever”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Apologizing for racists now?
Re: Re: Re:3
Nope, pointing out your inability to make a point without wild exaggeration.
Re:
Which party has been hijacked by people who believe in Jewish space lasers again?
Re:
Which party uses spell checker?
Re:
Please, do tell us about the bias in the algorithm.
Oh, and do provide evidence.
And just WHO was it that broke into the Capitol on Jan 6 again?
Re: Re:
That was ‘anti-Semitic’? How so? Be specific.
Re: Re: Re:
Considering the jerks who broke into Capitol House also happened to espouse white supremacist beliefs AND the sort of Trumpian crap associated with the Republican Party…
Do I really need to start describing their beliefs?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Some of them were, shocker, not white.
Yes actually. Cuz if you’re gonna claim the ole “everyone who disagrees with me is racist”, you gotta put a little effort in.
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.
Re:
What is the nuance you feel is missing?
Re:
What are the good parts about anti-semitism that you believe the story should have included?
Re: Re: the good parts
Well, I for one got a pretty good chuckle out of the ``Jewish Space Laser” theory offered by one of the GOP legislators and seemingly not shouted down by the rest.
Re: Re: Re:
I suppose antisemitism has been an excellent source of comedy over the years. Without Hitler, we never would have had The Producers!
Re: Re: Re:2
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”
Re: Re: Re:3
Chaplin’s The Great Dictator comes to mind.
Re:
No, anti-Semitism is more prevalent on Titter, thus Twitter is worse. It’s ironic of you to accuse the author of over-simplifying things.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
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.
Re: Re: Re:
Because it’s the topic of the post. You miss that bit?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I did not. Questions stands.
Re: Re: Re:3
Falls to it’s knees more like it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Weird, Probably bigoted.
Just remember kids .. after they eliminate a particular group of people, the void will need to be filled.
Like drug addicts, they need to hate. Eventually they will cannibalize.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Right, cuz there totally are not any elected officials openly saying awful shit about white people right now without penalty.
I think you are very not clear on who is itching to start a race war.
Re: Re:
Yes, the pro-CSAM Republican degenerates like Bratty Matty want a race war
Re: Re:
You mentioned race not me
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
You didn’t have to, “group of people” was enough.
Re: Re:
Examples please.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s just NY
https://nypost.com/2023/03/18/progressive-ny-politicians-race-bait-against-white-people/
Re: Re: Re:2
Dem: The sky is blue
NYPost: Why do you hate Smurfs?
So these are the “conservative” views being suppressed (along with the CSAM)
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.
Re:
No fooling? I haven’t been this shocked since I found out what country Captain America was from.
Re: Re:
I am reliably informed it was France.
Re: Re: Re:
I thought he was also a Hydra Agent, or was that retconned?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Again, the Clinton campaign literally colluded with Russian agents to concoct Russiagate from thin air. This has literally been proven in court.
Fucking dumbitch, you continues to amaze.
Re: Re:
Oh, it has? Care to point to the relevant case-text?
Perhaps you confused it with what Nune’s said about the Clinton campaign and the Steele dossier.
Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier
Re: Re: Re:2
Maybe you should learn to read. That’s not even close to what that page says. The paragraph says:
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.
Re: Re: Re:3
SO you read the wrong part? That’s not an argument, kid.
Re: Re: Re:4
And you have failed to quote or link to the ‘right’ part.
Re: Re: Re:2
So you bash Wikipedia as a source when it goes against your argument, but readily links to it when it supposedly supports it.
Matty, I think you may be a hypocrite.
Re: Re: Re:2
You still use that lazy ass “rhetorical” gimmick when you realize how wrong you are?
A person who have even the tiniest shred of integrity would have given the relevant quote to prove their point, but not you. I guess you really like being a looser instead of being wrong.
Re:
No, it’s Chinese yuan now.
Putin is officially Xi’s BITCH.
Re: Re:
Do we have to use such misogynistic terms to disparage people we despise like a common house troll?
“Putin is Xi’s lapdog” works just as well.
In a world where you can choose not to be the house troll, don’t be the house troll.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Actually the Biden family has taken a million or two $ directly from CCP owned companies in recent years. Yes, that’s proven.
So Biden is Xi’s bitch, too.
Re: Re: Re:
I will keep that in mind.
It is hard to describe the incredibly lopsided power dynamic Russia has with China, though. That is a me problem, and I will endeavour to find the most appropriate insult that isn’t misogynistic.
Re: Re: Re:2
Thanks – I for one will greatly appreciate it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
OMg, you are such cute NPCs.
Re: Re: Re:4
For as much time as you spend harassing the commenters here, you must live a sad and pathetic life.
I have learned so much from this thread!
antisemiticspicy are bad peopleviciousspicy. No conclusions should be drawn about those who like a lot. It’s just their personal choicethat 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
that to provide links would be too difficult, much too burdensome. But it’s all true, I swear!
Isn’t this a great blog?
Re:
What, like those Star Wars Despecialized Editions? Those are pretty cool.
Re: Re:
Honestly, calling wikipedia fan-edited is probably the closest Mr. Bennett’s ever been to being right in their life.
Re: BLM Riot Destruction in Minnesota
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_arson_damage_during_the_George_Floyd_protests_in_Minneapolis%E2%80%93Saint_Paul
Pictures and all.
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.