Vox Day notes: SJWs never stop harassing.
From Blogger’s content policy: “Hate Speech: Our products are platforms for free expression. But we don’t support content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity, or whose primary purpose is inciting hatred on the basis of these core characteristics. This can be a delicate balancing act, but if the primary purpose is to attack a protected group, the content crosses the line.”
What is a protected group?
* Roger Kimball writes: An hour or two ago, I posted through Twitter a link to “The Mulish Stupidity of Clinton-Obama Counterterrorism,” Andrew McCarthy’s incisive essay on the subject named in his title. A reader sent me a notice that when she clicked on the link, up popped a notice that the essay, by one of America’s most distinguished journalists in one of America’s most distinguished (indeed venerable) journals of opinion, was blocked as being “potentially harmful or associated with a violation of Twitter’s Terms of Service.” The possible torts listed mention sites that could steal your passwords or other personal information, install malicious software on your computer, or — bland generality — violate those “terms of service.” I had a look at those terms but could find nothing that covered what I suspect is the relevant interdiction, namely expressing a heterodox political opinion in forthright and robust terms. Perhaps there is something else which I do not immediately understand that’s at play here, but prima facie it looks to me like blatant political suppression of free expression. Am I wrong?
* If a party knowingly creates in writing a false claim of material fact which could be damaging to its target’s reputation, that’s libel.
* National Review really does have some evil advertising crap that tries to lock up your browser and tells the victim to call some (specified) phone number to have their Internet service or computer unlocked.
* I got the same message when my still ongoing shadowban started. It might be Twitter and not an attempted hack.
One theory about how the new class of shadowban works is that Twitter falsely applies one or more filters that limit the reach of a user’s tweets. The result is that other accounts treat the shadowbanned account as if they’d blocked it.
One such filter is used on potentially hacked accounts to prevent spamming. I don’t discount the possibility of Twitter admins faking hacks to apply the spam filter and censor problem accounts while maintaining plausible deniability.
* Vox, No, it’s Twitter. And they require your mail/phone/rectal exam to unlock your account again
They did it to me several times until I deleted the account.
