Thanks to farmgirl in last night's open thread for pointing to this video.
Peterson experienced a suspension and must infer it had to do with his "deadnaming" the actor Elliot Page. He seems to have violated a very specific rule about which Twitter has been clear. But he's making much more general arguments about censorship on Twitter. Notably, there's the idea that in using Twitter, we accept the company's representation that we, using the platform in good faith, will be able to keep what we have earnestly built up through hours and years of work, a community of followers.
***
"Your demented and presumptuous minions have their eagle eye on my account."
Posts
38 comments:
Twitter is a left-wing slum, and a pure censorship platform. You know that when you sign up. Go yell at a cloud.
He's right. And there is NO WAY the one way censorship on Twitter is not coordinated with the US Federal Government.
And if you read the liberal attack comments they are much like the talking points that the Democrats send out to the MSM that are just regurgitated from MSNBC, CNN, NYTs etc...
Musk has to be right about the bots being will over 5%.
But he's making much general arguments about censorship on Twitter. Notably, there's the idea that in using Twitter, we accept the company's representation that we, using the platform in good faith, will be able to keep what we have earnestly built up through hours and years of work, a community of followers.
A crap argument- ignore ToS for the weak but now classic 'stakeholder' argument. I'll remember to wheel that one out when Ann decides to stop running this internet backwater. Hey! Ann- you've approved almost two decades of my good faith comments- my community of...follower won't stand for your destruction of what I've earnestly built up over the years!!!
Who exactly is Elliot Page, except an alias for Ellen Page.
The purpose of Twitter is to:
a) identify who the influencers are. Defined as people who other people "follow."
Not everybody who is famous or even infamous is an influencer. You prove that you are an influencer by having "followers." The United States is a nation of weak-willed followers.
b) once identified, those very few people identified as true influencers can be controlled.
How do you control what influencers say? Easy. Just threaten to delete their followers.
Influencers are by definition narcissists. They REQUIRE followers. This has been studied extensively. So all you have to do is threaten to take their followers away and you can control the influencer. There are other ways (threaten their income, their jobs, intimidate them IRL, etc.) But the best way is to take their followers away from them.
You can tell if you are an influencer by how much effort is put into making you say the "right" things. If you're allowed to say the "wrong" things ... then no ... sadly, you are not an influencer.
This is how we know that Althouse is not an influencer. She lets people in her comments say the "wrong" thing. So, the government has not identified her as an influencer.
Twitter is thus incompatible within the borders of a free country that guarantees free speech to its inhabitants. The existence of Twitter is how you know that America is dead.
The idea that "dead naming" is considered to be so horrible is just the weirdest thought-control thing.
I used to have a different last name, before I got married. It is no longer my name, although that's how some long-ago acquaintances best know me, so if I run into them, I will first use that name to introduce myself.
That we have to buy into the the idea that there was never an Ellen Page, only an Elliot Page waiting to be seen by the world, is just an untenable way to try to dominate the narrative. Ellen Page was famous! People can believe that transgendered adults have every right to express themselves the way they want to. But why insist on all the bells and whistles and rules about things like "dead naming"?
"A crap argument- ignore ToS for the weak but now classic 'stakeholder' argument. I'll remember to wheel that one out when Ann decides to stop running this internet backwater. Hey! Ann- you've approved almost two decades of my good faith comments- my community of...follower won't stand for your destruction of what I've earnestly built up over the years!!!"
Look up "common carrier."
If Twitter is encouraging people to use Twitter for business- as they are with their verifications and promoted tweets and now super followers- then they *do* need to be held to account if they take someone's business opportunity away upon their own whim. Imagine if State Street decided that they could put boards in front of your business if you decided that you wouldn't put a BLM sign in your window, and called that discrimination.
rehajam- the similarity you speak of isn't with Althouse. She's the Jordan Petersen in your example. You would be someone who comments on Petersen's tweets.
If Google kicked Althouse off blogger and said she'd violated a terms of service and she had no access to her work, do you think she would be upset? Especially if they continued to allow competitors to have blogs?
Twitter is a platform for speech and it holds itself out as a free-speech forum. An individual blogger is an individual user on a larger platform, for me, Blogger.
Of course the terms of service claim the platform owner's right to do all sorts of things. They need to protect themselves from being sued and from contributing to crimes.
That doesn't mean their terms are enforceable. Note that Libs of TikTok is threatening to sue Twitter using California state law, which recognizes free speech claims against privately owned forums.
And even if no lawsuit is possible, you can still argue publicly that what Twitter is doing is wrong, and that's what Peterson is doing. It can be effective. Twitter is susceptible to arguments that it should do some things it doesn't have to do. That's why there's a rule against deadnaming! Powerful voices demanded this rule and got it. So it's important to keep up the power of the voices against censorship, such as Peterson's.
That's why hawkeyedjb idea, the first comment in the thread, is so terribly bad. He's saying give up. You're a hopeless victim.
If you believe in the value of free speech and the rightness of your cause, you should believe that free speech can work to persuade Twitter not to censor.
Also, Elon Musk may take over and then the problem will be solved, unless he buckles too. Keep up the pressure to help insure that Elon does what he said he'd do (if and when he takes over).
Althouse: "Keep up the pressure to help insure that Elon does what he said he'd do (if and when he takes over)."
That's an interesting one-sided approach.
Perhaps pressure should be maintained on both parties to that deal to ensure that all requirements/responsibilities are met, as opposed to allowing one side to purposefully misrepresent themselves while insisting the other party live up to every detail of the deal.
"Dementor" would be a good generic job title for employees of social media companies. As depicted in the Harry Potter novels, a Dementor is a Prison Guard of a hellish penitentiary whose job is to torment the souls of those found guilty of arbitrary crimes.
I suspect that at Twitter, Dementors are divided into teams. Each team is lead by a Deranger, whose job is to supervise the Dementors as they Derange the culture.
Once a month, all the Derangers and Dementors meet at a special gathering called a "Pandemonium", where they drink free-range soy latte and eat Ethical Avocado toast as they plan new punishments for their prisoners, as designated by the DNC/FBI/CIA.
My advice to Peterson: Leave the prison, good doctor.
The Fascists support free speech while we are in control because that accords with our principles.
The Fascists do not support free speech when they are in control because that accords with their principles.
Society can only maintain order when the elements of that society that are incompatible are suppressed.
You cannot have a free high trust society unless elements inside it respect the principles that lead to a free high trust society.
Twitter is tearing down the principles that lead to trust and cooperation between individuals in our country. If everyone in the society acted like Twitter we would not have a free high trust society. You can have some elements that don't cooperate and are grumpy. But this is active destruction and antagonism.
At some point twitter will need to choose to become a functioning part of our free high trust society or they need to be suppressed.
They should all be moved to a society that accords with their actions. They would fit in well in China or Russia.
If Elliot Page has a career slump, and may that only ever be hypothetical with all my wishes of eternal success to Elliot Page (are you here, Twitter?), will that career slump be blamed on Hollywood's long history of using and abusing only young female actresses, discarding them like Leo C when they reach a certain age, or on Hollywood's long history of transphobia - real or imagined, or on the undying hatred of US white males for all that is non-cis&het?
I kid, I kid. It is fault of the white males. Always.
It's always been amusing to see that the people most vociferous about damning the "dead-namers" are also frequently among the most derisive towards evangelicals' ideas of being "born again".
It's always been amusing to see that the people most vociferous about condemning "dead-namers" are also frequently among the most derisive towards evangelicals' ideas of being "born again".
So can I make a Twitter account, tell the world my name is now Myra Breckenridge, and then have people banned for calling me 'Joe'?
I have never joined Twitter and my life is better for it.
Buckwheathikes at 8:34
This is a very interesting analysis that I haven't seen...
'Keep up the pressure to help insure that Elon does what he said he'd do (if and when he takes over).'
Like Elon really cares what I think.
He won't even take my calls anymore and even stiffed me on a golf bet, saying he didn't have any cash on him...
Ann Althouse said...
Also, Elon Musk may take over and then the problem will be solved, unless he buckles too. Keep up the pressure to help insure that Elon does what he said he'd do (if and when he takes over).
Bullshit.
It is on me, you, and everyone else in our society to maintain our freedom.
There are some things that you can view with "cruel neutrality."
There are other things that are fundamental. Free expression is one of those things.
Twitter, the Washington Post, NYT's and the bureaucrats in the Regime that they are working with to suppress free speech are directly attacking the foundations of our society.
It is up to all of us to remove these elements.
THere are no RULES on Twitter. They ban and censor Conservatives. They also ban and censor any one who talks about certain subjects they don't want discussed or talks about them in the "Wrong way".
What is bannable is unclear and changes constantly. Because its based on the politics of the TWitter execs. If they were acting in good faith, they would make it clear and obvious what is allowed and what is not, AND publicize it so EVERYONE could go look and see what is permitted.
They refuse to do that, because they want to censor and ban anyone they wish, anytime they wish.
"Twitter is susceptible to arguments that it should do some things it doesn't have to do."
No they are not. the whole concept of deadname is absurd. but it is another example of the left expecting everyone to ignore reality and accept that 2+2= 5. Twitter has never supported free speech, they have fought to support approved speech.
They clearly support a narrative that purposely excludes at least half of America.
What Musk is really up to, is a mystery to me.
But free speech is worth fighting for-it is essential to this country.
They banned the POTUS. They banned the NY Post from tweeting about Hunter Biden's laptop in 2020. They banned legitimate CV-19 discussion. The only way this will change is if they are sued, and someone FORCES Them to change.
I don't see why if Discrimination based on Religion is illegal. And discrimination based on sexual preferences is illegal, why we can't pass a law saying discrimination based on politics in illegal.
Ann Althouse said...
"Twitter is a platform for speech" Certain kinds of speech, yes.
"...it holds itself out as a free-speech forum" It may "identify as" a free-speech forum, but there is no evidence to support that claim.
"That's why hawkeyedjb idea, the first comment in the thread, is so terribly bad. He's saying give up. You're a hopeless victim." You're only a victim of a rigged game if you choose to play. Twitter has made it abundantly clear, over many years, that it is not a speech forum where one can expect to be treated fairly. Perhaps someone will sue Twitter to force them to be what they are not. I think it's a waste of time and energy, akin to suing the sun to force it to come up in the west.
Had to stop halfway. I was coming dangerously close to overdosing on adjectives. I may go back to it when I have time.
Twitter banned me, a nobody, for suggesting Glenn Kessler and Taylor Lorenz wear face masks to hide their clown noses.
27:15?? A sitcom table-read?
Drago said...
Althouse: "Keep up the pressure to help insure that Elon does what he said he'd do (if and when he takes over)."
That's an interesting one-sided approach.
>>>>>>Since when is promoting free speech a one-sided approach?
Perhaps pressure should be maintained on both parties to that deal to ensure that all requirements/responsibilities are met, as opposed to allowing one side to purposefully misrepresent themselves while insisting the other party live up to every detail of the deal.
>>>>>>Please identify the "both parties" you refer to. Twitter is one. Who or what is the other?
He's just following Trump's playbook to make money. Yeah that same playbook on the other thread that Ann thinks you need to be a genius to figure out.
His popularity is based on keeping you people agitated. So he purposely does something against the rules which are fairly enforced. This gets Peter Jordanson's ticket punched allowing him to play the victim card which sends his viewer numbers into hyperspace and on the Althouse Blogcast.
There are some things that you can view with "cruel neutrality."
There are other things that are fundamental. Free expression is one of those things.
=========
IOW >>>
is it per se INSURRECTIONARY to maintain "cruel neutrality."
or
is "cruel neutrality." = cringeworthy obeisance to totalitarian overlords
If a TV or cable network runs a really ancient movie (from, say, 2010) in which this Elliot person can be seen looking for all the world like a woman, and some person identified as Ellen Page appears in the credits, is that network guilty of "dead-naming" or worse?
Is the world supposed to pretend that the things that we know happened never actually happened?
Whereas the monster speaks the truth, the Twitter tweets for a simulation of divergence.
I wonder if Elliot registered for the draft as required.
Same sex. Can't change that. Transgender through simulation backed by political congruence ("=").
"I'm your huckleberry."
Look up "common carrier."
Thanks, Ann. Didn’t really have to but did anyways. Color me unimpressed…in a stare decisis sort of way…
Look up "common carrier."
Look up “1st Amendment”
Post a Comment