Interesting Twitter Feature

[fr33]

I don't fully understand. Am I wasting everyone's time by asking how many tax dollars are being spent to silence discussion of DOJ corruption threatening the liberty movement?

No it's fine to ask but you're making a leap to a conspiracy theory which can't really be proven unless you can find out why you were suspended.

To add some circumstantial evidence; I say far more radical things on twitter than those you pasted here, and I've never been suspended.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Just site back and relax, IIRC, it took about a week for them to restore my account after being suspended.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Just sit back and relax, IIRC, it took about a week for them to restore my account after being suspended.

Sit back without limit? That is something you can do, but it is not for you to decide how long anyone else sits back. Twitter still has not answered this:

2013-Jul-09

I have no idea why my account was suspended. Why was it suspended?

To add some circumstantial evidence; I say far more radical things on twitter than those you pasted here, and I've never been suspended.

Do you have FBI agents literally, physically, standing behind you watching what you are typing?

No it's fine to ask but you're making a leap to a conspiracy theory which can't really be proven...

I tend to ask questions instead of asserting theories; but if I theorized that the state tends to grow itself when left unchecked, would you say that was a "conspiracy theory" that can't really be proven? Would you call it a "conspiracy theory" if I theorized that at least one time, in one place, at least one person had spent at least one second of tax-dollar time clicking a Twitter "report abuse" button to wrongfully silence someone?

... unless you can find out why you were suspended.

So the burden is on me to obtain an explanation from Twitter; and if the Twitter CEO withholds an explanation, then I am presumably guilty? And if someone is banned from Wikipedia without explanation, we assume he deserved it. And when secret government courts convict accused persons on no evidence seen by the public, we should assume those people deserve it too.

I have been through this discussion enough times with enough people to see that it is a lost cause, even on RPF. Society has forgotten how to ask authority "where's the evidence", so we have regressed to the Star Chamber era.

 

[fr33]

Do you have FBI agents literally, physically, standing behind you watching what you are typing?

I wouldn't know for sure but I doubt it. It would be a colossal waste of their time to follow me around from farm to farm over my postings of how I hate the government.

Surely I'm at least on some of their lists. Knowing what I know, I'd be shocked if I wasn't.

You've had to face the brute force of the Fed Govt. I get it. You're paranoid; for good reasons. But don't become this woman. Paranoia can consume a person.

I tend to ask questions instead of asserting theories; but if I theorized that the state tends to grow itself when left unchecked, would you say that was a "conspiracy theory" that can't really be proven? Would you call it a "conspiracy theory" if I theorized that at least one time, in one place, at least one person had spent at least one second of tax-dollar time clicking a Twitter "report abuse" button to wrongfully silence someone?

No. I said you were being a theorist because you assume that govt agents are out to get you on twitter. You haven't even proved that one govt agent has pressed the "report abuse" button on you. If I must, and I don't want to, I could dig up statistics proving that most Americans support the state enough that many of them are willing to do such a thing without being hired to do it.

So the burden is on me to obtain an explanation from Twitter; and if the Twitter CEO withholds an explanation, then I am presumably guilty? And if someone is banned from Wikipedia without explanation, we assume he deserved it. And when secret government courts convict accused people on no evidence seen by the public, we should assume those people deserve it too.

Twitter's CEO does not know that you or your tweets exist and probably never will. You are showing just how paranoid you are when you think a business works like that.

The burden of proof is on you. You are claiming the govt got you banned. TBH it's laughable. There are many anti-govt people on twitter doing a better job at spreading the message than you are but they aren't getting banned.

I have been through this discussion enough times with enough people to see that it is a lost cause, even on RPF. Society has forgotten how to ask authority "where's the evidence", so we have regressed to the Star Chamber era. Fuck that and everyone who allowed it to happen. If your heart was in the right place but you didn't demand evidence from authority to justify its acts against people, then you're a nice person but a huge failure, and the world would be a better place if blowback took you out. This is my opinion about the accomplices to tyranny.

This "authority" you claim is oppressing you, is a private sector text chat host. They are within their rights to ban anyone that they want.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

It would be a colossal waste of their time to follow me around from farm to farm over my postings of how I hate the government.

There is more to my case than postings of how I hate the government, so I don't get your point about your not having been suspended from Twitter?

you assume that govt agents are out to get you on twitter.... You are claiming the govt got you banned.

You just made two false accusation against me.

Twitter's CEO does not know that you or your tweets exist and probably never will. You are showing just how paranoid you are when you think a business works like that.

You just suggested I believe that the Twitter CEO knows about me or my tweets, but this is just another false accusation against me.

You're paranoid

Or you are assuming I believe certain things which I do not really believe.

I get it.

Obviously you don't. What you get is an image you have constructed in your mind based on false assumptions about my beliefs and about my case. Where you got it from is inside your head, not from the words I have transmitted.

Your misrepresentations of my statements show you are swinging at windmills, like a huge brainwashed failure. What is the point? My words are right here on your screen, if you want to look at what I am actually saying.

This "authority" you claim is oppressing you, is a private sector text chat host....

... under contract with each of its users... but you have been conditioned to deny that.

They are within their rights to ban anyone that they want.

Where does the contract say that? Was that list of rules on Twitter a fraud?

The burden of proof is on...

... you to prove that at no time ever has any person ever spent even one second of tax-dollar time clicking a Twitter "report abuse" button to wrongfully silence someone.

 

[RickyJ]

Wow I've never been suspended but have been thrown in twitmo a few times for tweeting too much.

I didn't know there was even suspensions on twitter, or a twitmo, whatever that is. It seems counterproductive on twitter when all one has to to is to stop following a person or block them to not see their tweets anymore.

 

[RickyJ]

Just site back and relax, IIRC, it took about a week for them to restore my account after being suspended.

Why was your account suspended?

 

[RickyJ]

DOWN BOY!

You did a booboo in twitters mind. You hit too many keywords or key phrases or someone you tweeted got offended and got a bunch of their friends to twitter bomb the complait dept w/ your name and message id. Software did the rest. Your suspended and if you are not a bot you will notice, write us and we will get it straightened out.

That's all that's going on here.

-t

So as long as you prove you are not a bot then all is OK? Is that the main reason accounts are suspended, because they think they are bots, not because they are trying to censor people?

 

[fr33]

There is more to my case than postings of how I hate the government, so I don't get your point about your not having been suspended from Twitter?

Then don't ask me about myself if you don't want me to respond on the subject you initiate.

"Do you have FBI agents literally, physically, standing behind you watching what you are typing?"

You just made two false accusation against me.

No I haven't. You have asserted that since the govt is paying people to post on the internet, they are obviously involved with you. You've said it multiple times on this thread.

You just suggested I believe that the Twitter CEO knows about me or my tweets, but this is just another false accusation against me.

"Is Twitter CEO suspending individuals for merely getting mass-reported?"

"But this functionality is something chosen and maintained deliberately by the Twitter CEO."

Or you are assuming I believe certain things which I do not really believe.

No I've given evidence for all of the above.

... under contract with each of its users... but you have been conditioned to overlook that.

Where does the contract say that? Was that list of rules on Twitter a fraud?

I suggest you read the TOS. It's rather easy to understand.

https://twitter.com/tos

We may suspend or terminate your accounts or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any reason, including, but not limited to, if we reasonably believe: (i) you have violated these Terms or the Twitter Rules, (ii) you create risk or possible legal exposure for us; or (iii) our provision of the Services to you is no longer commercially viable. We will make reasonable efforts to notify you by the email address associated with your account or the next time you attempt to access your account.

... you to prove that at no time ever has any person ever spent even one second of tax-dollar time clicking a Twitter "report abuse" button to wrongfully silence someone; and when you make false assumptions and accusations against persons, and when you argue "Occam's Razor" to invite the further misuse of tax-dollars, you invite blowback, and that burden is not on the ones who already have had everything stolen.

You have fallen into the logical fallacy that I must prove a negative. No. It isn't so. The burden of proof is on those that claim something exists.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

It seems counterproductive on twitter when all one has to to is to stop following a person or block them to not see their tweets anymore.

Agreed.

So as long as you prove you are not a bot then all is OK?

No. I have noticed other people plagued by continual account suspension, despite their compliance with the rules. They are eventually un-suspended, but I don't think that makes it okay. If you had someone standing next to you continually covering your mouth, and then uncovering it, my point would be graphically clear.

This vulnerability can be exploited by any group that wants to censor. Groups of communists funded by the government via the coercive redistribution of wealth. Individuals utilizing multiple accounts to pose as groups. The government is dumb, but not too dumb to notice this Twitter feature, and not too ethical to exploit it.

Is that the main reasons accounts are suspended, because they think they are bots, not because they are trying to censor people?

There are cases where non-bots have been banned for long periods, even after proving to Twitter that they are human.

And then, there is the potential that there are cases I do not even know about, because Twitter suspends accounts without publishing justification. Alexa.com ranks Twitter #10 and Wikipedia #6, and I think it is a huge problem that society has been conditioned to apologize for unjustified bannings on sites with such political influence.

 

[RP Supporter]

If I had to guess, tweeting at the green footballs guy might have caused it. He is unethical and libs like him get their friends to mass report tweets which can cause an account to be suspended.

Yeah, IRRC he's actually bragged about getting people who annoy him on twitter banned. Guy's a real piece of work. First a neocon republican, now an Obama lover. In both cases he's hated Ron Paul and Libertarians. The more things change, and all that.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

We may suspend or terminate your accounts or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any reason

I had not seen that, so okay. Twitter is not oppressing me, unless it is receiving one or more tax-dollars; in any case, to hell with a society that doesn't create market demand for a less tyrannical online social networking and microblogging service that enables users to send and read "tweets", which are text messages limited to 140 characters.

Then don't ask me about myself if you don't want me to respond on the subject you initiate.

No I don't care if you respond, so you don't respond if you don't want to. Your whole point about your not having been suspended from Twitter was out in left field.

You have asserted that since the govt is paying people to post on the internet, they are obviously involved with you. You've said it multiple times on this thread.

Now you're just lying, which accounts for your failure to quote me saying any such thing.

"Is Twitter CEO suspending individuals for merely getting mass-reported?"

"But this functionality is something chosen and maintained deliberately by the Twitter CEO."

And now you're just being deceitful by conflating (1) Twitter's CEO awareness of Twitter functionality (I do believe it) with (2) his awareness of me (I don't believe it).

You have fallen into the logical fallacy that I must prove a negative. No. It isn't so. The burden of proof is on those that claim something exists.

So you say, and so we might as well revert to the Star Chamber, secret trials and convictions based on no public evidence. And if you get falsely convicted, the government can say, "the burden is on you to prove the conviction was wrongful, because logical-fallacy-proving-a-negative."

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Yeah, IRRC he's actually bragged about getting people who annoy him on twitter banned. Guy's a real piece of work. First a neocon republican, now an Obama lover. In both cases he's hated Ron Paul and Libertarians. The more things change, and all that.

https://twitter.com/Green_Footballs

I was responding to something he said about Barrett Brown, I don't have an exact record, but it might have been this:

My response was:

.@LibertyLynx @Stranahan @Green_Footballs And here's FBI agent Hector Monsegur soliciting hacks: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...on-To-Gag-Barrett-Brown&p=5226697#post5226697 @Gus_802 @catfitz

I don't know how many tax-dollars Johnson is being paid, and I can't because that info is classified.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

stop wasting our time with this crap in general politics

You seriously don't see the relevance to general politics? Why do you make such a point to read and reply to my posts? If you can't be more articulate than you've been with me in the past, I'll never be able to make sense of your grunting.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/20/55-percent-of-obamas-twitter-followers-are-fake/

According to the Twitter analytics application... 55 percent of President Obama’s... Twitter followers... are fake.

 

[CPUd]

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Says the autistic government cheerleader.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]