An account belonging to a woman named Sara Miller, who identified herself as Woods’s girlfriend, first tweeted the news early Friday morning with images of the email Woods received from Twitter. The email stated the July tweet “includes text and imagery that has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election,” and instructed Woods to delete the tweet before he can use his account again, according to Miller’s tweet....This gets the "Era of That's Not Funny" tag.
The meme that Twitter appears to have taken issue with is a photo of three men with exaggerated smiles alongside the text, “We’re making a Woman’s Vote Worth more by staying home.” It also used the hashtags #LetWomenDecide and #NoMenMidterm. In his tweet, Woods wrote, “Pretty scary there is a distinct possibility this could be real,” referencing the meme. “Not likely, but in this day and age of absolute liberal insanity, it is at least possible…”
Twitter murders humor. But Twitter without humor is dead.
Posts
34 comments:
It's easy to compare Twitter to a sewer but that would be wrong. Sewers provide a valuable public health service by taking noxious wastes from our homes and businesses. Twitter, on the other hand, delivers noxious wastes to people. Why would anyone want that?
Whenever something like this happens, people on the left like to point out that the first amendment only stops the government from doing things like this, not private persons or corporations. This is a smart comment for a 13 year old. But they forget that free speech is not just a legal concept but a cultural value. That means everyone in society, while not necessarily liking what people say and certanly not supporting it, should refrain from trying to silence other people. The cure for bad speech is generally more speech after all.
Also the left can't take jokes of itself.
"That's Not Funny" is certainly an apt description of the era. But I would add that Twitter's cultural police squad does tend to nail only those on the Right. Those on the Left get free passes and talk shows on MSNBC.
So tweeting a joke photo and saying, as is often said on Instapundit (and others, I'm sure), "satire...or is it?" gets you banned now?
Of course, it doesn't get you banned, does it? No, the secret key ingredient that makes it a TOS violation is, "tweeted by a conservative."
People who get enjoyment from having a Twitter account, also enjoy setting fire to cats and dogs.
The Vault Dweller: Whenever something like this happens, people on the left like to point out that the first amendment only stops the government from doing things like this, not private persons or corporations. This is a smart comment for a 13 year old.
Plenty of retards on the right in that category, too.
"Conservative actor..." is an odd way to start a sentence unless you also start sentences with "Liberal actor..." or "Liberal musician..." on a regular basis.
Double standards are fun. It's like getting two scoops of ice cream when other people only get one.
I often go weeks without looking at Twitter, but the Kavanaugh hearings are different. I'm using it to follow the back and forth arguments and I've developed a bit of a fascination at what I'm seeing, especially on the left.
Out of nowhere, all the liberals on my feed are talking about "credible accusations." Not just accusations, but credible accusations. Then, a couple days later, "credible accusations" disappears and is replaced with "why the rush?" It's all about the rush. Now the rush has disappeared and credible has made a comeback. Remarkable message discipline.
Meanwhile, the conservatives are all stumbling about with their own thoughts and their own defenses. The liberals, of course, make every conservative responsible for everything said by any conservative, presumably because they cannot imagine the conservative message is not coordinated just like the liberal message is.
I wish conservatives would stop pretending private businesses get to discriminate. We settled that debate way back in the 1930s. The Commerce Clause is expansive. And we settle it again in the 1960s. The Civil Rights Acts are expansive.
I just tweeted that this was a bad idea. I doubt it helps. (I have <200 followers)
Can I just add: Comment #1 on this subject is perfect.
I'm not sure "Twitter murders humor" is the whole story, ma'am.
Seems like there's a partisan aspect to the selection of murder victims and maybe that changes the nature of the problem, no?
The conservatives are waiting to get the witnesses under oath.
Only then can they prosecute the criminal conspiracy. The witness will perjure themselves. It's hard to keep all the lies straight.
Birkel said...
"Conservative actor..." is an odd way to start a sentence unless you also start sentences with "Liberal actor..." or "Liberal musician..." on a regular basis.
Finding an openly conservative actor is such a rarity that it gets mentioned in a "man bites dog" way. It's like when a politician gets charged or convicted. If the politician's political party isn't mentioned in the article, 9 time out of 10 the politician is a Democrat. When a Republican gets charged or convicted, the story follows a template like this:
"Republican Joe Blow was charged with a crime. He's a Republican. The case against this Republican will be tried in open court in a few months. Meanwhile, Republican Blow should resign his office. By the way, did we mention that he's a Republican? Well, he is. REPUBLICAN! REPUBLICAN! REPUBLICAN!"
tim Maguire- it's fascinating, isn't it?
Yesterday, I noticed several conservatives happy that Jake Tapper at least asked Senator Hirono about presumption of innocence:
CNN’s Jake Tapper: “Doesn’t Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?”
Sen. Mazie Hirono: “I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases”
Now, is every Democrat being held accountable for Hirono's horrible statement? NOOOOOOO. In fact, even she isn't really being held accountable.
I think Kelly Anne Conway, Laura Ingraham and Sarah Sanders are the only women in the world who are held responsible for what they say.
Birkel: I wish conservatives would stop pretending private businesses get to discriminate. We settled that debate way back in the 1930s. The Commerce Clause is expansive. And we settle it again in the 1960s. The Civil Rights Acts are expansive.
And expanding. Cuckservatives and libertardians are oblivious to restrictions on "discrimination" in private enterprises as long as the government interference favors a progressive cause. It's only when a somebody on the right is getting a boot in the face from a corporation that they suddenly remember Muh Principled Conservatism/sacred rights of free enterprise.
It was only a matter of time before Woods was silenced. Soon Twitter will be little more than a Jacobin hive mind...and history has ample examples of what happens next.
I'm offended by the MSM using the word "meme" to mean "something on the internet".
Cuckservatives and libertardians are oblivious to restrictions on "discrimination" in private enterprises as long as the government interference favors a progressive cause.
Pure bullshit. You should stick to writing about cat ladies.
There a million laws dictating what private business can do and how it operation. Civil Rights laws, EEO laws, Safety and labor union laws, etc. etc.
So spare us the, "Jack Dorsey gets to do what he wants - its a private business".
Because that's crap.
There's a special law that shields internet companies from being sued for libel that occurs on their websites.
Maybe, we should make a twitter exception.
Fernandistein said...
"Cuckservatives and libertardians are oblivious to restrictions on "discrimination" in private enterprises as long as the government interference favors a progressive cause.
Pure bullshit."
Could you perhaps cite an instance of a cuckservative or libertardian paying close attention to restrictions on "discrimination" in private enterprises?
There was a time when the First Amendment protected the right of all Americans to speak freely and at length on political matters, and to spend as much money as they cared to disseminating their views. Then the "McCain-Feingold Act" was passed. Now only Left Fascists are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money spreading political propaganda.
The comments on WaPo are full of finger wagging about how the First Amendment does not give anyone a right to access a private platform to express their views.
Masterpiece Cakeshop does not appear to have been invited to comment by WaPo.
Adams makes an interesting case on his latest periscope that Twitter arguably did the right thing based on their published standards. I don't agree with those standards, but I can see how you get into a morass trying to distinguish funny fake news pretending to influence an election from real fake news actually trying to influence an election..
Twitter is already worth zero.
Twitter banned the expression illegal alien, even though it's the correct legal expression.
The Russians should be blamed!
The Russians are trying to affect our elections!!
Fortunately, though, Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller is on the case!!!
If newsprint paper companies colluded to not sell newsprint to the NYTimes, wouldn't progressives be up in arms calling it censorship?
People liken Twitter and the other social media companies to newspapers who do have the right to control the content on their printed and online papers, but I think that is the wrong way to look at it- they aren't media outlets in the way the NYTimes or WSJ is- Twitter, Facebook, and others are more like the companies that make the paper and the ink.
The big on-line media platforms are going to find themselves hauled into court under anti-trust provisions- it is literally inevitable at this point since the collusion is pretty fucking obvious.
Fernandistein to me:
"Cuckservatives and libertardians are oblivious to restrictions on "discrimination" in private enterprises as long as the government interference favors a progressive cause."
Pure bullshit.
Took that awfully personally, eh? So which are you - cuck or 'tard?
So the WaPo can't tell the difference between a hoax and satire. Apparently Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" was an pre-Internet hoax meme.
So a joke like that, because it could influence the election, is banned. If it had been done in all seriousness by Democrat men, would it have been allowed? Couldn't that also have influenced the election? Are people not supposed to influence elections on Twitter? If not, why not ban Trump and Hilary? Isn't influenceing elections what they do, and pretty much all they do?
I don't know what Etienne's first perfect comment was, since he deleted it, but I will observe that those young men in the photo have that open-mouth version of a smile that seems to be pretty well associated with problem people, for lack of a better word. People who call that a smile, who pose for a pic like that, are up to no good. "Fake" is the kindest descriptor I can conjure just now. When did that become a thing?
Post a Comment