Twitter suspends journalists who have been covering Elon Musk and the company

[candide]

29 minutes ago, James105 said:

Well, technically she isn't in the media but this is allowed apparently, as long as it is for the right cause of course.   Just imagine if Trump had actually used this phrase instead of just saying he wasn't going to bother going to the inauguration.   I'm sure you would have been equally placid about that ... right?  

 

 

 

So not about media and not about BLM. Change of target now!

 

Well, as Placeholder already replied, this expression may be used in a figurative way and not necessarily calling for violence. Was it an isolated event, or a consistent pattern, i.e. did she repeatedly sent tweets calling for violence and spreading lies?

[James105]

31 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Don't know where you come from but you might try to get a little better acquainted with the English language. Remember: context is everything

call to arms

noun phrase

 

1

: a summons to engage in active hostilities

2

: a summons, invitation, or appeal to undertake a particular course of action

a political call to arms

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/call to arms

Did you not even read what you pasted in:  "a summons to engage in active hostilities" seems fairly clear to me and there was no additional context other than to clarify that it would be a fight to victory from the Chicago mayor.   

 

Just imagine if Trump had said the same.   Would you be equally placid?  

 

Here is an example of the mental gymnastics the activists working at Twitter went through to justify banning Trump based on this tweet:

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

"The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending."  

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension

[Bkk Brian]

Last year twitter was amplifying right wing politicians and news media such as Fox. Why is Musk not releasing a set of files on this? Oh thats right because he sets his own version of free speech rules.

 

Twitter admits bias in algorithm for rightwing politicians and news outlets. Twitter has admitted it amplifies more tweets from rightwing politicians and news outlets than content from leftwing sources.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-admits-bias-in-algorithm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets

 

[Isaan sailor]

24 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Let me get this right. You support Musk's ban on so called doxxers but applaud him doxxing others?

Whatever’s fair.  Dox the doxers.

[Bkk Brian]

26 minutes ago, James105 said:

Did you not even read what you pasted in:  "a summons to engage in active hostilities" seems fairly clear to me and there was no additional context other than to clarify that it would be a fight to victory from the Chicago mayor.   

 

Just imagine if Trump had said the same.   Would you be equally placid?  

 

Here is an example of the mental gymnastics the activists working at Twitter went through to justify banning Trump based on this tweet:

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

"The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending."  

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension

It was not Trump who said it along with his numerous other tweets. A call to arms:

 

a call to arms

A strong command or inducement for action, especially among a particular group of people.The actress used the event as a call to arms for women in the film industry to demand equal pay and representation.For activists, this crime has been a call to arms to try to get the unfair law overturned.My dog seems to know where his puppy friends live because he always stops and barks outside their house, as if making a call to arms.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/calls+to+arms

Edited December 18, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[Phoenix Rising]

 

Elon Musk Suspends Washington Post’s Taylor Lorenz From Twitter After She Asked Him for Comment on a Story

 

"Washington Post tech columnist Taylor Lorenz said her Twitter account was suspended Saturday after she tweeted a request for comment at Elon Musk, the tech mogul who is the social network’s new owner, on a story she was working on.

“Super crazy, Elon seems to banning anyone who disagrees with him,” Lorenz said in a TikTok video she shared Saturday evening. Musk has not publicly commented on Twitter’s suspension of Lorenz and there was no response to a request for comment Variety emailed to Twitter’s PR mailbox."

 

Either Muskie is having a bit of a meltdown or his definition of free speech is more aligned with Putin, Xi and Kim. Or maybe a bit of both as the financial ramifications of this rotten deal properly sink in. As we now can see delusions of grandeur can be costly, especially if you're super rich.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Phoenix Rising

[candide]

38 minutes ago, James105 said:

Did you not even read what you pasted in:  "a summons to engage in active hostilities" seems fairly clear to me and there was no additional context other than to clarify that it would be a fight to victory from the Chicago mayor.   

 

Just imagine if Trump had said the same.   Would you be equally placid?  

 

Here is an example of the mental gymnastics the activists working at Twitter went through to justify banning Trump based on this tweet:

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

"The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending."  

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension

 

Have you read the text from the link you posted?

"We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021."

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension

 

It's a lame false equivalence. Is there any glorification of violence in Lightfoot's tweet?

[Bkk Brian]

12 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

 

Elon Musk Suspends Washington Post’s Taylor Lorenz From Twitter After She Asked Him for Comment on a Story

 

"Washington Post tech columnist Taylor Lorenz said her Twitter account was suspended Saturday after she tweeted a request for comment at Elon Musk, the tech mogul who is the social network’s new owner, on a story she was working on.

“Super crazy, Elon seems to banning anyone who disagrees with him,” Lorenz said in a TikTok video she shared Saturday evening. Musk has not publicly commented on Twitter’s suspension of Lorenz and there was no response to a request for comment Variety emailed to Twitter’s PR mailbox."

 

Either Muskie is having a bit of a meltdown or his definition of free speech is more aligned with Putin, Xi and Kim. Or maybe a bit of both as the financial ramifications of this rotten deal properly sink in. As we now can see delusions of grandeur can be costly, especially if you're super rich.

The tweet in refrence which got her suspended

 

[stevenl]

14 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The tweet in refrence which got her suspended

 

I hope they do their story anyway.

[James105]

20 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The tweet in refrence which got her suspended

 

She is a serial doxxer.  Should have been banned long ago.  

 

https://nypost.com/2022/04/19/taylor-lorenz-blasted-for-doxxing-libs-of-tiktok-creator/

[Bkk Brian]

14 minutes ago, James105 said:

She is a serial doxxer.  Should have been banned long ago.  

 

https://nypost.com/2022/04/19/taylor-lorenz-blasted-for-doxxing-libs-of-tiktok-creator/

Twitters rules

However, we recognise that there are instances where users may share images or videos of private individuals, who are not public figures, as part of a newsworthy event or to further public discourse on issues or events of public interest. In such cases, we may allow the media to remain on the platform. 

 

Regardless she was asking Musk a question not doxing. Try again

[James105]

12 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Regardless she was asking Musk a question not doxing. Try again

You have no idea why she was banned.   It could (and should) have been a long overdue ban for doxxing an account that literally just showed videos of stupid things that stupid people (leftists) publicly posted on TikTok.   The owner of that account did not create her own content, nor voiced her opinion on the videos, they were presented as they were originally published on TikTok by people seeking attention (since they were posted on TikTok).  If anything the doxxed account owner was giving the original publishers more of what they craved - attention.   Since you are a fan of definitions here is the one for 'doxxing'

 

"to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge"

 

Since the account itself was not newsworthy, nor part of a news event or public interest the definition fits perfectly as there was no reason at all to publish the private information of that account owner other than so that she could be targeted for harassment and violence against her by the "be kind" brigade.     Perhaps Twitter were just catching up on banning her for doxxing.   Correlation does not imply causation.   

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, James105 said:

You have no idea why she was banned.   It could (and should) have been a long overdue ban for doxxing an account that literally just showed videos of stupid things that stupid people (leftists) publicly posted on TikTok.   The owner of that account did not create her own content, nor voiced her opinion on the videos, they were presented as they were originally published on TikTok by people seeking attention (since they were posted on TikTok).  If anything the doxxed account owner was giving the original publishers more of what they craved - attention.   Since you are a fan of definitions here is the one for 'doxxing'

 

"to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge"

 

Since the account itself was not newsworthy, nor part of a news event or public interest the definition fits perfectly as there was no reason at all to publish the private information of that account owner other than so that she could be targeted for harassment and violence against her by the "be kind" brigade.     Perhaps Twitter were just catching up on banning her for doxxing.   Correlation does not imply causation.   

So you're claiming Twitter banned her for her posts in TikTok.

[Bkk Brian]

31 minutes ago, James105 said:

You have no idea why she was banned.   It could (and should) have been a long overdue ban for doxxing an account that literally just showed videos of stupid things that stupid people (leftists) publicly posted on TikTok.   The owner of that account did not create her own content, nor voiced her opinion on the videos, they were presented as they were originally published on TikTok by people seeking attention (since they were posted on TikTok).  If anything the doxxed account owner was giving the original publishers more of what they craved - attention.   Since you are a fan of definitions here is the one for 'doxxing'

 

"to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge"

 

Since the account itself was not newsworthy, nor part of a news event or public interest the definition fits perfectly as there was no reason at all to publish the private information of that account owner other than so that she could be targeted for harassment and violence against her by the "be kind" brigade.     Perhaps Twitter were just catching up on banning her for doxxing.   Correlation does not imply causation.   

Are you really trying to tell me she may have been banned for a story over 6 months ago.....get a grip. In addition her article was in the Washington Post not twitter

 

 

Under her first handle @shaya69830552, she minimized covid, cast doubt on the election results and promoted a dubious story about a child sex trafficking ring. On Nov. 23, 2020, Raichik changed handles, this time going by @shaya_ray and identifying herself publicly as a real estate investor in Brooklyn. She began doubling down on election fraud conspiracies using QAnon-related language. Early that December, she joked about launching a clothing line titled “voter fraud is real.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/19/libs-of-tiktok-right-wing-media/

Edited December 18, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, James105 said:

Did you not even read what you pasted in:  "a summons to engage in active hostilities" seems fairly clear to me and there was no additional context other than to clarify that it would be a fight to victory from the Chicago mayor.   

 

Just imagine if Trump had said the same.   Would you be equally placid?  

 

Here is an example of the mental gymnastics the activists working at Twitter went through to justify banning Trump based on this tweet:

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

"The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending."  

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension

Clearly you also don't understand the meaning of "context".

[James105]

27 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Are you really trying to tell me she may have been banned for a story over 6 months ago.....get a grip

 

"Lorenz tweeted that the social media user “isn’t just some average woman with a social media account” but is instead a “powerful influencer operating a massively impactful right wing media shaping discourse around LGBTQ+ rights.”

"powerful influencer".  "Shaping discourse"   Don't be so silly.  She posted videos of leftists self-owning themselves on TikTok, nothing more, nothing less.   She shapes the discourse as much as people who post cat videos shape the animal kingdom.   If there was a news story here all it could really be is "why are liberals so dumb and why do they keep making idiots out of themselves on TikTok for the amusement of the right".   

[candide]

36 minutes ago, James105 said:

You have no idea why she was banned.   It could (and should) have been a long overdue ban for doxxing an account that literally just showed videos of stupid things that stupid people (leftists) publicly posted on TikTok.   The owner of that account did not create her own content, nor voiced her opinion on the videos, they were presented as they were originally published on TikTok by people seeking attention (since they were posted on TikTok).  If anything the doxxed account owner was giving the original publishers more of what they craved - attention.   Since you are a fan of definitions here is the one for 'doxxing'

 

"to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge"

 

Since the account itself was not newsworthy, nor part of a news event or public interest the definition fits perfectly as there was no reason at all to publish the private information of that account owner other than so that she could be targeted for harassment and violence against her by the "be kind" brigade.     Perhaps Twitter were just catching up on banning her for doxxing.   Correlation does not imply causation.   

The Libs of TikTok account was originally registered publicly in Chaya Raichik’s name, it was not a secret. There was no 'doxxing'.

 

Actually, it was also quite influencial in the right-wing sphere and far from being "not newsworthy"

"The content has been amplified by TV personalities like Carlson and Laura Ingraham, and has also found fans among conservatives such as Christina Pushaw and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ press secretary, who Lorenz wrote in her story once claimed Libs of TikTok offered inspiration for a new Florida law that limits classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity—which critics have dubbed the Don’t Say Gay law."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/04/19/right-wing-figures-attack-journalist-taylor-lorenz-for-revealing-creator-of-libs-of-tiktok/?sh=37edff9442d9

 

[Bkk Brian]

18 minutes ago, James105 said:

"powerful influencer".  "Shaping discourse"   Don't be so silly.  She posted videos of leftists self-owning themselves on TikTok, nothing more, nothing less.   She shapes the discourse as much as people who post cat videos shape the animal kingdom.   If there was a news story here all it could really be is "why are liberals so dumb and why do they keep making idiots out of themselves on TikTok for the amusement of the right".   

Check my edit and link to Washington Post then get back to that

 

"The account has been promoted by podcast host Joe Rogan, and it’s been featured in the New York Post, the Federalist, the Post Millennial and a slew of other right-wing news sites. Meghan McCain has retweeted it. The online influencer Glenn Greenwald has amplified it to his 1.8 million Twitter followers while calling himself the account’s “Godfather.” Last Thursday, the woman behind the account appeared anonymously on Tucker Carlson’s show to complain about being temporarily suspended for violating Twitter’s community guidelines. "

Edited December 18, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[ozimoron]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Clearly you also don't understand the meaning of "context".

The right wing are fond of selectively picking out part sentences to run a false narrative that the speaker meant something entirely different.

[James105]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

The right wing are fond of selectively picking out part sentences to run a false narrative that the speaker meant something entirely different.

Another straw man.   I literally posted the mayor of Chicago's actual tweet which is still up.   There is no context.   It's a tweet.  She doesn't clarify or provide context and no-one has provided any they just keep saying context and the nodding dogs nod along as though that solves it.  If Twitter can believe that Trump supporters can read Trump's tweet stating he won't be at an inauguration and somehow ascertain that means he wants people to take up arms and storm the capital what exactly are the deranged idiots on the left supposed to think when reading the Chicago mayors tweet that literally says she wants a call to arms and fight the supreme court judges???

[Isaan sailor]

Liberals are free to cancel their Twitter accounts.  Or buy Twitter and bring it back to the way it was.

[candide]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

Another straw man.   I literally posted the mayor of Chicago's actual tweet which is still up.   There is no context.   It's a tweet.  She doesn't clarify or provide context and no-one has provided any they just keep saying context and the nodding dogs nod along as though that solves it.  If Twitter can believe that Trump supporters can read Trump's tweet stating he won't be at an inauguration and somehow ascertain that means he wants people to take up arms and storm the capital what exactly are the deranged idiots on the left supposed to think when reading the Chicago mayors tweet that literally says she wants a call to arms and fight the supreme court judges???

Do you sometimes read replies to your previous posts?

From the link you posted, Trump was banned for glorifying violence, it was not an isolated event and there was a context. It's well explained in the text you linked and it was not just because he did not want to attend the inauguration.

 

There is no glorifying of violence in her post. It's a false equivalence.

[Bkk Brian]

11 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

Liberals are free to cancel their Twitter accounts.  Or buy Twitter and bring it back to the way it was.

Pay $8 a month then get suspended for asking Musk a question? Is that really the way it was?

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

A gross representation of liberals doxxing Musk that led to a loon trying to attack Musk's child. Musk doesn't like crazed liberals trying to assassinate his child? hardly surprising is it? The left will just have to learn to play by the rules. About time too. Seeing the likes of Taylor Lorenz and her paper doxxing conservatives for years, not any more. Love it!

Now from people who championed conservatives being banned for speaking inconvenient truths this is quite the hilarious situation.

This is a falsehood. As a member of Bellingcat, the same group that has exposed Russian involvement in assassinations,  the car incident took place nowhere near Musk's plane. They used geolocation info in the video to prove that. Once again, Musk is lying. And once again, you fall for his lies.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, James105 said:

Another straw man.   I literally posted the mayor of Chicago's actual tweet which is still up.   There is no context.   It's a tweet.  She doesn't clarify or provide context and no-one has provided any they just keep saying context and the nodding dogs nod along as though that solves it.  If Twitter can believe that Trump supporters can read Trump's tweet stating he won't be at an inauguration and somehow ascertain that means he wants people to take up arms and storm the capital what exactly are the deranged idiots on the left supposed to think when reading the Chicago mayors tweet that literally says she wants a call to arms and fight the supreme court judges???

Now it turns out you don't know the meaning of the world "literally".. Lightfoot did not write a "tweet  that literally says she wants a call to arms and fight the supreme court judges". Nowhere in that tweet does the word "fight".  It's true that she literally wrote "call to arms". But as has been pointed out to you, apparently to no avail, "call to arms" has 2 meanings. One literal and one figurative. The second meaning, the figurative one, even gives as an example a "political call to arms.." So nowhere does she call for violence and she is addressing a political issue. Context.  Your comment is clueless. Here, once again, are how Merriam Webster describes the 2 usages of "call to arms".

noun phrase:

: a summons to engage in active hostilities

2

: a summons, invitation, or appeal to undertake a particular course of action

a political call to arms

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/call to arms

 

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by placeholder

[Bkk Brian]

This is doxxing, brought to you by a Libs of TikTok tweet. 

 

"a since-deleted Libs of TikTok tweet where she posts a woman's full contact info (address, place of work, phone #, email) LoTT also boasts about personally having people call her employer "she just posts videos of what people say" "doxxing is bad" hmm...(info blurred by me) "

 

https://twitter.com/MattBinder/status/1517212808005529606

 

[Woof999]

1 hour ago, Isaan sailor said:

Liberals are free to cancel their Twitter accounts.  Or buy Twitter and bring it back to the way it was.

Or they could set up their own, which would leave them free to peddle utter trash like this:

 

 

on it. 

[heybruce]

16 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

A gross representation of liberals doxxing Musk that led to a loon trying to attack Musk's child. Musk doesn't like crazed liberals trying to assassinate his child? hardly surprising is it? The left will just have to learn to play by the rules. About time too. Seeing the likes of Taylor Lorenz and her paper doxxing conservatives for years, not any more. Love it!

Now from people who championed conservatives being banned for speaking inconvenient truths this is quite the hilarious situation.

The claims of doxxing of Musk and any relation between his private jet's movement and the alleged stalking of his child have been shown to be false.

 

Trump was removed in keeping with Twitter's policies:

 

"The section of the Files on the banning of Mr Trump’s account, while titillating, tells a story that is almost identical to the account that Twitter published itself on January 8th 2021, shortly after the decision was taken. Mr Trump was banned for violating Twitter’s policy against Glorification of Violence because of links between his social-media emissions and the actions of the January 6th rioters. "  https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/12/14/what-to-make-of-the-twitter-files

[heybruce]

16 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

A gross representation of liberals doxxing Musk that led to a loon trying to attack Musk's child. Musk doesn't like crazed liberals trying to assassinate his child? hardly surprising is it? The left will just have to learn to play by the rules. About time too. Seeing the likes of Taylor Lorenz and her paper doxxing conservatives for years, not any more. Love it!

Now from people who championed conservatives being banned for speaking inconvenient truths this is quite the hilarious situation.

Once again; the claims of doxxing of Musk and any relation between his private jet's movement and the alleged stalking of his child have been shown to be false.

[wombat]

What makes journalists, or anyone for that matter, think Twitter is a democracy?