Scenes from the ongoing Twitter debacle that is #JeSuisMilo

Ben Cohen | January 11, 2016 at 6:06 pm
Jody,
Posting neo-Nazi propaganda under his name, so that whenever people google him that comes up?

Considering Milo’s already a well-documented racist, a self-hating homophobe, and an outright sexist, I don’t think adding “neo-nazi propaganda” to the pile of garbage he already posts is going to do much.

And considering he’s condoning the bullshit that’s going on in the OP, I don’t think adding “neo nazi” to the list is going to do jack chicken shit.

Besides, as others have pointed out, you can’t fake usernames on twitter. What your “@______” name is cannot be changed, and no two users can have the same thing.

So, if someone were to post neo-nazi propaganda under his name on twitter, anyone who knows how twitter works can look at the username and go “Oh, this was posted by @[insert spoof name here], not @Nero, which is Milo’s username, so this wasn’t posted by him!”

Fair enough. Twitter can revoke the privilege of verification for users who violate TOS, with the obvious consequence that it will encourage impersonators….Doesn’t that strike you as a very bad precedent?

Again, you can’t fake usernames. Also, as it was pointed out before, it’s really easy to spot fake accounts, considering most of them don’t have the long tweet history, the same follower count, or even have the same content.

And, again, 98% of twitter users go without verification, so does that mean someone could impersonate me on twitter, and no one would be able to tell us apart? : O The horror!

Also, the only people who are impersonating Milo are people who are supporting him. None of the Milo impersonators are people who hate him.

As an aside, I would be extremely unhappy if I found out that neo-Nazis were using my name and face to post propaganda.

Well, Milo can rest easy, considering the only people “impersonating” him are people who are doing it to support him, and thus would (attempt to) not post anything that could damage his…reputation.

First of all why am I a troll (and an odious one)?

I don’t know, maybe it’s because you’re going on a website that doesn’t take kindly to individuals like Yiannopoulous? Then demanding for others to defer to your judgement and act as a agreeable audience? Only to have a massive hissy fit when you don’t get your way?

It doesn’t help you also say things like this…

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll, labeling everyone who disagrees with you a troll is the calling card of a small-minded, anti-intellectual, bigot.

Apparently someone calling you a troll is wrong – but you calling them a “small-minded, anti-intellectual, bigot” for not just agreeing with you is totally fine!

It’s hilarious you are making claims of anti-intellectualism when you are doing exactly that, using these disingenuous appeals to emotion over an issue and blowing things out of proportion while expecting validation for it.

Everyone else here has actually backed up why Yiannopoulos’ losing his verification status isn’t that big a deal and why his fanbase are only making things worse, based on what Twitter’s rules clearly state. Your argument can basically be summarized as “it’s so unfair ’cause reasons!”

If it was unfair, Twitter would’ve taken away such a status without reason. Except they did have a reason. Furthermore, as already stated, Twitter is not obligated to give everyone verification status nor is any one person entitled to it. Especially when, like Yiannopoulos, they break the rules that site has set up.

Gotta love it when pillocks like Milo screech that “feminism means never holding women accountable for their actions!” then throw a temper tantrum meltdown when Twitter goes: “You broke the terms and conditions we set for a certain privilege (shattered them, even), so you don’t get that privilege any more.”

It’s very selective distribution of responsibility in relation to power.

When it comes to anyone of a marginalized group – whether it is based on gender, ethnicity, or social class – the onus of responsibility falls disproportionately on them when it comes to their oppression. ‘Cause reasons.

When it comes to anyone who is from the dominant group in society – in having to deal with the negative effects of their actions – they will act as if they are immune from taking responsibility for anything.

It’s why rich individuals cry foul and expect support, which (unfortunately) they get, when they make monumentally stupid financial decisions. Yet, if one is of the middle class or lower, apparently any single mistake with their money must have it hover over them like a dark and rainy cloud forever.

@Ben Cohen

You’re comparing it to removing police protection as a punishment and also comparing it to a lynching?

You aren’t serious.

You can’t make that comparison.

I don’t want to believe that there is anyone who would genuinely believe that.

Hag85 doesn’t want to be called out for her

I’m not sure Dhag85 is even a woman? I don’t believe I’ve heard about new pronouns or gender from him. Dhag, how have you been dealing with that? I hope I’m not misgendering you or assuming anything because I haven’t been in every thread.

Twitter should protect notable persons from impostors looking to defame them. Note: they may even be required to do this by law, since the Milo-impostors are using their platform.

Milo is a notable person? He writes for Breitbart.

Anyway, what is it you’re having trouble understanding? In order to have a twitter account, you have to follow their terms of service. In order for a person to have the blue verified checkmark, a special privilege, you have to follow the conditions set out. If he found those terms unsatisfactory, he didn’t have to create an account. He didn’t have to seek the verified status. I really don’t get why this is difficult for you to understand. Are you saying twitter doesn’t have the right to set terms and conditions for people who wish to use their service? Or are you saying Milo Yiannopoulos should get special privilege and not be required to use those terms?

weirdwoodtreehugger,

1. Lynchlaw = mob rule/vigilante justice.

Where is the mob rule or vigilante justice here? Milo broke the terms laid out by twitter. Twitter revoked his privileges. Not a mob of angry torch wielding feminists. Or whoever it is you’re upset at here. I really can’t even tell who you’re mad at. David is just covering the story. He didn’t take away Milo’s precious checkmark. If you object to twitter’s terms, why aren’t you taking it up with them?

Also, come off it. You know damn well what “lynch” implies. You can claim plausible deniability by using a dictionary definition, but you knew by using the term you were slyly trying to compare Milo to a victim of brutal racism, compare feminists to racist lynch mobs, and make it sound like your side of the argument is equivalent to civil rights fighters. It’s offensive as hell. Not getting a special twitter privilege is nothing like being lynched.

2. Hag85 doesn’t want to be called out for her anti-intellectualism then she shouldn’t tell me to leave for disagreeing with her opinions. Calling someone who disagrees with you a troll is textbook close-mindedness.

-Ben

It’s Dhag. Not Hag. Dhag is not a she, he’s a man. You’re being called a troll because you wafted in here with stale ass freeze peach arguments and hinted that Milo is being oppressed by bringing up lynching. There’s nothing anti-intellectual about calling a troll a troll.

I think you’re the one who’s closed minded for assuming that a commenter on a feminist website with a cat avatar must be a woman.

@WWTH

Thank you for the update. I hope Dhag comes in a gives him a piece of his mind soon.

Also, do you think we’ll ever get a troll that doesn’t assume we’re all women…you know, stupid question.

Ben Cohen | January 11, 2016 at 8:56 pm
Katz,

But Ben is arguing that they’re both a safety feature and a privilege that Milo is uniquely entitled to.

Twitter should protect notable persons from impostors looking to defame them. Note: they may even be required to do this by law, since the Milo-impostors are using their platform.

Except all the Milo-imposters are supporting Milo. The whole fucking #JeSuisMilo is people changing their avatar and screen-name to match his in support of him.

Good lord, did you not read the piece you’re whinging about?

And even IF you were correct (protip: you’re not) that people are trying to “defame Milo” using his avatar and username, you’re completely ignoring anyone who has pointed out:

1. Their “@____” name will not be the same as Milo’s, since two users cannot have the same “@_____” username. Anyone who has any passing familiarity with Twitter will know this. (Also, Googling his username, as you were worried about previously, has his actual Twitter pop up, and clearly labels it @Nero.)

2. It’ll be obvious to most people that the “imposter’s” profile isn’t Milo’s, because they won’t have the same number of tweets, followers, or people they follow.

3. 98% of people on Twitter (myself included) go without this without having to worry about having someone steal our identity either. And there are ways to deal with impostor accounts on Twitter as well.

4. Verification isn’t just “This guy’s the real deal!” so much as it’s also Twitter endorsing him and a few other benefits. To keep being verified, Milo had to follow the ToS. He did not. He got his verification revoked. He’s not paying to use Twitter, he’s not being banned from it, he just got bonuses taken away from him.

So, you didn’t even really read the comments either. You’re just repeating yourself and ignoring everyone else. So much for “anti-intellectualism”, huh?

weirdwoodtreehugger,

1. Lynchlaw = mob rule/vigilante justice.

How is Twitter removing verification on someone “vigilante justice” or “mob rule”? Twitter’s a big company, it doesn’t need defending. If they made the choice to take away Milo’s verification, it’s not like Anonymous or someone hacked Twitter and removed it, Twitter fucking did it on their own. There was no “Lynch mob”. There was no “vigilante justice”.

Twitter does, however, need to start enforcing its rules better across the board.

2. Hag85 doesn’t want to be called out for her anti-intellectualism then she shouldn’t tell me to leave for disagreeing with her opinions. Calling someone who disagrees with you a troll is textbook close-mindedness.

-Ben

As other commenters have pointed out: Dhag85 isn’t a she. He has expressed some curiosity about his gender, but as far as we know, he’s still a he until he comes out and says otherwise.

Dhag has also expressed no hints of “anti-intellectualism”, just an unwillingness to put up with your obvious bullshit.

Calling someone who disagrees with you a woman (and mis-quoting their username to be a term commonly used to insult women) is textbook sexism, Ben.

– Paradoxy

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Twitter is subject to libel laws, and they are hosting the spoof accounts so…….

Uh, hate to tell you this, but it would be Twitter being charged with libel, it would be the tweeter. Twitter doesn’t fact check and print every tweet. It’s just a platform. If Twitter could be sued with libel, they’d be gone, like, a year after Twitter became a thing at most.

I like it when they assume that we’re all women until one commenter reveals he’s a man and then the troll switches from condescension to treating him like a reasonable person.

http://i.imgur.com/0RZ3EDt.png

Tessa,

Protection like his username being always visible? Like everybody’s actual username being visible? Well congrats! Twitter does it! Hazzah!

This is why people call you a troll, you have ignored repeated people pointing out that what you are suggesting is IMPOSSIBLE on Twitter.

As I understand it, twitter does not give out the blue-tick to reward someone for being a celebrity, it is to prevent spoof accounts. This seems like a good policy, offhand I don’t know Robert Deniro’s twitter account. If I googled Robert Deniro and the first result was a fake account set up by a neo-nazi that seems like a problem.

weirdwoodtreehugger,

Anyway, what is it you’re having trouble understanding? In order to have a twitter account, you have to follow their terms of service. In order for a person to have the blue verified checkmark, a special privilege, you have to follow the conditions set out. If he found those terms unsatisfactory, he didn’t have to create an account. He didn’t have to seek the verified status. I really don’t get why this is difficult for you to understand.

In other words they removed the blue-tick not because he is no longer notable, but because he violated the TOS? I object to the manner in which twitter punishes violations of the Terms of Service.

If the first thing people see when they google Milo’s name is a Neo-Nazi spoof account on twitter, and twitter removed the protection that would normally be in place for a notable person, I think that’s a problem. You don’t punish someone by removing the identity protection that would normally be in place based on notability.

-Ben

Tessa,

I will agree that people impersonating you on twitter is not as extreme as people editing your artwork to make you look like a neo-Nazi. The Blue-Tick is not an honorific; it allows the public to distinguish between authentic profiles and fake profiles. Even if in this case its not important, taking away someone’s identity protection as punishment is just wrong.

As I said before, If Milo violated the TOS than he should be suspended or banned. If you are going to punish someone you should do it in an appropriate manner.

Also:

Not everyone knows Milo’s real handle, in fact most people probably don’t. Off hand, I have no idea what Charlie Sheen’s twitter handle is. That’s why they put the blue tick by the name.

I was not talking about how “extreme” it was. I was talking about believability and logistics. A fake tweet will have the wrong user name right there in the tweet. A click on the account will show you right away if it’s real. Even without the blue check. At best it’s a matter of convenience. If a tweet from “Charlie Sheen” says something horrible, and when you go to the account, it has 7 followers, it’s probably not Sheen. Also, the real Sheen followers will know the imposter isn’t him. And what about those of us who don’t have check boxes? Do we all deserve to be impersonated?

And please explain how banning is more appropriate than removing a privilege he was given?

Paradoxical Intention,

Whether or not Milo has been adversely affected is not the question, whether twitter should remove identity protection from notable people as a way of punishing T.O.S. violations is.

People here hate Milo so much that it has clouded their judgment.

As I pointed out elsewhere most people don’t automatically know what a celebrities @….. is. A lot of people aren’t tech savvy. The decent thing for twitter to do is to protect the identities of famous people.

Saying that such protection is a privilege not a right, makes about as much sense as saying that secret service protection is a privilege and we should stop protecting George W. Bush because he was a bad president.

-Ben