Katie Hopkins Sacked

[Dirk Diggler]

We live in an Internet age where instead of visiting public gatherings to hear someone speak we now only have to click Follow on a social media site. So if I am interested in what someone has to say why should it be made 10x harder to find where someone is speaking. It is not right in this day in age and it is a form of speech restriction.

There's no right or wrong about it. If a commercial entity decides that an individual is bringing their platform into disrepute then they can remove that person. It's no different from being barred from the pub for constantly starting fights.

Social media is not provided by the government, therefore the whole censorship argument is bogus; these are commercial decisions, pure and simple.

 

[Roar87]

There's no right or wrong about it. If a commercial entity decides that an individual is bringing their platform into disrepute then they can remove that person. It's no different from being barred from the pub for constantly starting fights.

Social media is not provided by the government, therefore the whole censorship argument is bogus; these are commercial decisions, pure and simple.

I think at some point you have to realise that when this private entity is used by most world governments, every company and multinational organisation, etc uses it to give out public statements and it's used for large amounts of public discourse that it becomes simply not fair and proper to ban people for their views. You can't keep comparing Twitter to the local pub while people simultaneously say they want elections and referendums cancelled/rerun because Russia manipulated people with fake news on it. Which is it, is social media important or not important?

Private companies of course have the right to ban users breaking their terms, that isn't the dispute, the argument is at what point does Twitter become essentially the new public forum? We aren't going to become a species that reverts back to newspapers and radio, the internet is the new town square, it's where we talk. There's obviously a lot of power to decide which views get aired and perhaps that power shouldn't be in a small group of individual hands.

 

[garnett]

We live in an Internet age where instead of visiting public gatherings to hear someone speak we now only have to click Follow on a social media site. So if I am interested in what someone has to say why should it be made 10x harder to find where someone is speaking. It is not right in this day in age and it is a form of speech restriction.

Do you have a list of which people around the world should be forced to help you connect with Katie Hopkins, or is it just the entire globe?

You really haven't thought this through.

 

[sityeuropa]

Do you have a list of which people around the world should be forced to help you connect with Katie Hopkins, or is it just the entire globe?

You really haven't thought this through.

@Roar87 expressed this a lot better than me.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

I think at some point you have to realise that when this private entity is used by most world governments, every company and multinational organisation, etc uses it to give out public statements and it's used for large amounts of public discourse that it becomes simply not fair and proper to ban people for their views. You can't keep comparing Twitter to the local pub while people simultaneously say they want elections and referendums cancelled/rerun because Russia manipulated people with fake news on it. Which is it, is social media important or not important?

Private companies of course have the right to ban users breaking their terms, that isn't the dispute, the argument is at what point does Twitter become essentially the new public forum? We aren't going to become a species that reverts back to newspapers and radio, the internet is the new town square, it's where we talk. There's obviously a lot of power to decide which views get aired and perhaps that power shouldn't be in a small group of individual hands.

You've made a few counters to points that I didn't actually make, so I'll politely ignore them and address the analogy that's relevant to what I was actually saying.

Yes, Twitter is the new public forum. It replaced the newspaper, radio etc. Well guess what, the newspaper employed the columnist that it considered acceptable and commercially advantageous. It printed the reader's letters that it considered worthy of print. It wasn't everyone who got their favourite photo printed in Reader's Wifes. The radio talk show didn't take everyone's call. World governments, every company and multinational organisation, etc use the telephone but if they continue breathing heavily and asking what colour underwear you're wearing, then they'll have the service removed.

To summarise, you just made my point for me.

 

[Newbie007]

but if they continue breathing heavily and asking what colour underwear you're wearing, then they'll have the service removed.

Your analogy is incorrect - what you've described is harassment and is also 'bannable' under twitter/facebooks etc t&c's. I don't know the full ins and outs of why she was banned, nor do I care, but I don't believe simply stating something is harassment. The issue with twitter is that a lot of its policies are ideologically driven and those ideologies are not embraced by everyone.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Your analogy is incorrect - what you've described is harassment and is also 'bannable' under twitter/facebooks etc t&c's. I don't know the full ins and outs of why she was banned, nor do I care, but I don't believe simply stating something is harassment. The issue with twitter is that a lot of its policies are ideologically driven and those ideologies are not embraced by everyone.

The point I'm making is clear to anyone reading this, and as much as I respect an alternative point of view, I'm simply not going to agree with it in this instance.

Happy to agree to disagree.

 

[stockhausen]

. . . You can't keep comparing Twitter to the local pub . . .

You do know that Pub Landladies and Landlords often "bar" persistent troublemakers who harm their commercial interests don't you?

. . . the argument is at what point does Twitter become essentially the new public forum? We aren't going to become a species that reverts back to newspapers and radio . . .

Twitter is a commercial private enterprise, not a state controlled public sector information service; I would have thought that you of all people would be all in favour of its safeguarding its commercial interests?

. . . the internet is the new town square, it's where we talk . . .

the Internet is a medium, like paper and ink; who chooses to make money from it has nothing to do with the medium.

Why don't you start your "town square", independent of filthy Capitalist commercial considerations?

 

[McstylisT]

The point I'm making is clear to anyone reading this, and as much as I respect an alternative point of view, I'm simply not going to agree with it in this instance.

Happy to agree to disagree.

So you are effectively choosing that this particular case, or this particular person, does not deserve any fair treatment and everything she does or says is wrong, wrong, wrong...

Sounds very “culty” to me.

The point of free speech is you may despise what is said. But you agree it is the right of society to have it heard. You are against this, thus against free speech.

 

[stockhausen]

. . .
The point of free speech is you may despise what is said. But you agree it is the right of society to have it heard. You are against this, thus against free speech.

This has got nothing to do with "Society" (there is no such thing anyhow according to many Tories); it is that "Commercial interests" do not want to be associated with despised bigots who harm their money making concerns.

 

[MikeTheNative]

The government interfering with private companies decisions.... sounds like communism to me

 

[Arsonist]

So you are effectively choosing that this particular case, or this particular person, does not deserve any fair treatment and everything she does or says is wrong, wrong, wrong...

Sounds very “culty” to me.

The point of free speech is you may despise what is said. But you agree it is the right of society to have it heard. You are against this, thus against free speech.

Unfortunately you have it totally wrong here. Individuals have the right to free speech, providing that speech does not constitute anything illegal (inciting riots etc). However it's quite the opposite that society has to hear it. Twitter aren't sensoring what she has to say. She can still spout her views to society as loudly as she wants. Just not on Twitter's platform, which they pay for, and which she is damaging. No different to me going into a museum and start shouting about how great British imperialism, and that I'm glad we've taken all these fine artefacts from the primitives. Wouldn't be long until they kicked me out...

 

[Roar87]

You've made a few counters to points that I didn't actually make, so I'll politely ignore them and address the analogy that's relevant to what I was actually saying.

Yes, Twitter is the new public forum. It replaced the newspaper, radio etc. Well guess what, the newspaper employed the columnist that it considered acceptable and commercially advantageous. It printed the reader's letters that it considered worthy of print. It wasn't everyone who got their favourite photo printed in Reader's Wifes. The radio talk show didn't take everyone's call. World governments, every company and multinational organisation, etc use the telephone but if they continue breathing heavily and asking what colour underwear you're wearing, then they'll have the service removed.

To summarise, you just made my point for me.

Yes let's completely avoid the meat of my argument and pretend Twitter is the same as a newspaper. Twitter isn't a newspaper, we moved on from newspapers to news websites. Twitter is neither of those things. It's a public forum used for large public discourse. It isn't a pub, or a shop, or a museum. You can't analogise Twitter because it's unique, there has been nothing like it. We are dealing with a new medium where large amounts of public discourse takes place and the narrative can be controlled by a few select inviduals, you're proudly telling us that you're happy that a few private individuals are allowed to control vast amounts of public discourse, you're then comparing it to a pub in a lazy and intellectually disingenous manner because you're CURRENTLY happy about who Twitter is targetting; without the presence of mind or forethought to imagine that in the future it might affect people who you support. This is basically the left summed up; lacking forethought and the ability to understand nuance.

No different to me going into a museum and start shouting about how great British imperialism, and that I'm glad we've taken all these fine artefacts from the primitives. Wouldn't be long until they kicked me out...

It actually is different. On Twitter you need to follow someone, so she wasn't shouting, she was having a private conversation. A more accurate analogy would you stood in a museum having a conversation with people who chose to stand around and listen to you about British Imperialism, then the museum kicking you out because they didn't agree with your views. I would suspect most museums wouldn't have a problem with that.

 

[stockhausen]

@Roar87 - you seem consistently to ignore the fact that Twitter is a commercial organisation.

It is EXACTLY the same as a Newspaper in that it relies for its income on advertisng - it is not some impartial philanthropic service to facilitate what you describe as "private conversations" targeted at anyone other than the potential purchasers of whatever is being advertised on it.

It is a free market enterprise, not some state funded Public Service Broadcaster.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Yes let's completely avoid the meat of my argument

Amen to that, consider it avoided.

 

[Yas786]

I just cannot fathom how certain members in here are failing so hard at grasping the concept of Twitter being a private company. So therefore have every right to ban or censor a person from using their platform to spout racist/xenophobic nonsense.

What make it’s even more amusing is that no one is stopping her from spouting her nonsense. She just cannot do it through twitters platform, doesn’t mean she can’t use another platform to spout her nonsense.

 

[stockhausen]

. . .
What make it’s even more amusing is that no one is stopping her from spouting her nonsense. She just cannot do it through twitters platform, doesn’t mean she can’t use another platform to spout her nonsense.

I believe that Hopkins has (or rather had) a large following on Twitter; they are devastated that they will no longer be treated to the spectacle of her pitiful suffering. They will just have to go look for where next she pops up.

 

[Jono8]

The point of free speech is you may despise what is said. But you agree it is the right of society to have it heard. You are against this, thus against free speech.

This has nothing to do with "free speech". Free speech is to do with government censoring.

Twitter deciding she isn't welcome to type whatever she wants into their own servers isn't a "free speech" issue. It is a commercial interest issue.

Do you get **** off every time you come on here and realise you can't mention competitors, or swear, or call someone a ****?

 

[chroniclard]

I signed up to GAB for a look and some lols.

Commented on something about the rights voter fraud conspiracy theory.

First reply.

 

[Dis86]

Seems like a nice chap. Are you planning on joining him for dinner sometime soon?