Twitter Nanny Says No! No!

twitter-nanny-460

For the other side of this story, enjoy Milo Yiannopoulos’s Twitter ban, explained by Aja Romano, where Aja is supportive of Twitter and its self-anointed role as arbiter of social values.

From my point of view, the facts are fairly simple:

Milo Yiannopoulos (formerly @Nero) has been banned from Twitter on the basis of his speech and the speech of others who agree with him.

What more needs to be said?

I have not followed, read, reposted or retweeted any tweets by Milo Yiannopoulos (formerly @Nero). And would not even if someone sent them to me.

I choose to not read that sort of material and so can anyone else. Including the people who complain in Aja’s post.

The Twitter Nanny becomes censor in insisting that no one be able to read tweets from Milo Yiannopoulos (formerly @Nero).

I’ve heard the argument that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to Twitter, which is true, but irrelevant. Only one country in the world has the First Amendment as stated in the US Constitution but that doesn’t stop critics from decrying censorship by other governments.

Or is it only censorship if you agree with the speech being suppressed?

Censorship of speech that I find disturbing, sexist, racist, misogynistic, dehumanizing, transphobic, homophobic, supporting terrorism, is still censorship.

And it is still wrong.

We only have ourselves to blame for empowering Twitter to act as a social media censor. Central point of failure and all that jazz.

Suggestions on a free speech alternative to Twitter?

Comments are closed.