34 thoughts on “Lost Threads”

  3. Peter

    A conspiracy theorist got banned from Twitter? Excellent. Good work.

    No surprise he/she has found that Broadsheet is willing to promote his/her whining.

    1. Nick Kelly

      That’s the spirit, Peter: no free speech, please. What do want? Censorship! When do we want it? Now!

      3. Peter

        Twitter is a private owned platform, and are free to kick anyone out as they see fit. That flat-earth conspiracy theorist is free to shout nonsense from a street corner or their own digital platform if they choose.

        1. Chris

          There wasn’t an iota of conspiracy in their threads – just linking various individuals to NGOs. That is all.

        2. K. Cavan

          Peter, if Twitter decided Rape, Slavery or Child Porn was OK by them should they be allowed to promote it on the basis that they’re a “private owned platform” (sic)? Should Free Speech, a cornerstone of Democracy, only be observed by the Government & Civil Service, with Private Enterprise free to decide to shatter social convention or democratic norms wh enever & however they like?
          Do you actually think even someone promoting a flat earth theory needs to be banned for some reason? Or, as it appears, are you someone who is deluded enough to think you can be a “supporter of Democracy” who promotes & supports the norms of dictatorship & fascism?
          I think anyone reading your post knows the answer to the latter question, anyway.

          1. Nigel

            ‘Peter, if Twitter decided Rape, Slavery or Child Porn was OK by them should they be allowed to promote it on the basis that they’re a “private owned platform” (sic)?’

            How’d it work out for 4chan, 8chan, and – was it 8kun? Incidientally the sites that also gave us Pizzagate and Qanon. Wonder if they’re contributing to the current disinfo pandemic, or have they been rendered redundant by Facebook?

  4. Gavin

    It’s just amazing how censorship has just become the norm and is accepted and celebrated. I suppose it’s a private company they can do what they want, its those that cheer it on are that are more worrying really.

    1. Lilly

      If he or she’d had their own website from the outset, posted there and used Twitter just to redirect people to those posts, this wouldn’t be an issue.

    2. Peter

      It’s not censorship. If you are promoting unproven conspiracy theory nonsense, then the private company whose website you are using has every right to boot you out.

      She is perfectly free to stand on O’Connell street with a loudhailer and spread lies and rubbish there.

      1. John Smith

        @Peter
        ‘It’s not censorship’

        Of course it is censorship:
        1. the action of preventing part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons:
        2. a system in which an authority limits the ideas that people are allowed to express and prevents books, films, works of art, documents, or other kinds of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because they include or support certain ideas:
        (Cambridge Dictionary)

        The question is not whether it is censorship or not; it’s whether it is correct behaviour. These days on Twitter, it depends which narrative you follow as to whether you are allowed to express it. If you follow the ‘approved’ narrative, you can continue to express that narrative and to decry and insult those who don’t and you don’t need to provide any supporting evidence for your claims. If you follow a different narrative, no matter how polite you are or how much evidence you put forward in support of your viewpoint, you are likely to be banned. That is clearly censorship and I believe it to be incorrect behaviour and, indeed, very dangerous behaviour. The stiffling of discussion is something that we should all fight. Offering O’Connell Street as an appropriate alternative is a cynical insult – more insulting, in fact, than the suggestion that the individual is ‘promoting unproven conspiracy theory nonsense’ and ‘spreading lies and rubbish’, which is only your subjective viewpoint, even if it is shared by some other people.

        1. just millie

          Twitter has censored this individual, correct. One private (admittedly very powerful) company has censored them.

          That doesn’t mean they are censored across all media platforms, however.

          If the day comes when this individual is censored across all media forms, punished or has their freedom curtailed for what they say or attempt to disseminate publicly because it goes against the grain of establishment rhetoric or narrative, then yes that is censorship, as per the Cambridge definition you’ve noted above.

          1. Micko

            That is true.

            Although, I could be argued that when that definition of censorship was written, those steps listed above were the steps required to censor someone.

            Today it is more subtle.

            Let’s say you are trying to reach people with a message.

            If the tech businesses decide they don’t like your speech, they can remove you from search results on Google and remove your content from YouTube.

            Facebook, Instagram and Twitter can ban you, Amazon / Audible can refuse to stock your book. AWS could pull your website, Google can lock you out of your email and documents, and all of them can stop your ads running on their platforms.

            Obviously this is a bit extreme. But given these could all happen (and some have), it’s easy to see why people would call this censorship, albeit a modern day version.

            Actually, using a loudhailer on O’Connell St is starting to look pretty good right now.

            Well, until the Guards arrest you. ;-)

          3. John Smith

            The definition does not indicate that the censorship has to be across all media, etc. Neither does it say that it has to be by a Government (for example) nor that the person censored is punished. The ‘or’, which appears several times, is important, as is the ‘other communication’. The definition works for modern-day as it did before.

            Stopping a single post because of its content is censorship, under the Cambrige definition, and banning someone from posting anything because their viewpoint is not ‘acceptable’ is clearly censorship. Total censorship, such as you describe, millie, is merely the extreme example and extremes usually start with minor examples, which are then exacerbated.

          4. Daisy Chainsaw

            I’m sure they’ve still got their Telegram account and, like most conspiraloons, will have a back up twitter log in running before the end of the day to post their rameis.

        2. just millie

          @John

          Has this individual been denied a platform by which he can share his views? Yes, one.
          There are many other platforms by which he can air his opinions, since twitter have made the decision to censor him, and as I mentioned, it is a private company, so they are at liberty to censor whom they choose unfortunately.

      2. Cui Bono?

        @Peter
        His threads were brilliant and were fully proven and verifiable. You could have verified what he shared yourself if you bothered to.

        It’s a very dark day for the world when true facts are being deleted to try and stop the masses waking up.

  7. John Smith

    @Cian
    ‘I reported them for abusive language.’

    Two serious questions: I’ve lost track here, who or what is/are the ‘them’ you reported (the Twitter posts, the poster, Twitter moderators, people cheering on the censorship, etc?) and is this a serious or satirical comment?

      1. John Smith

        @Tom

        I wasn’t asking how to get something on Twitter banned – I don’t use Twitter. I was asking Cian to clarify his statement because I couldn’t tell what it was adding to the discussion without having more information..

    2. Cian

      I reported them (@threadsIrish) for abusive language (on Twitter).

      @threadsIrish responded to a tweet of mine in an abusive manner (I forget what they said and can’t find their tweet because they are removed from Twitter). I’m fairly thick skinned and don’t make a habit of reporting people. My threshold is someone saying something that if they said in real life would most likely get them a punch in the mouth (I’ve reported perhaps two other people).

      I only realised it is them becasue when i went onto twitter there was an notification telling me.

      1. Cian

        FWIW, the reason I added this anecdote is to point out that @threadsIrish may have been censored for speaking truth… or they may have been suspended for being a jerk.

  8. Boe_Jiden

    conspiratard rightfully sent to the sin bin, if he doesn’t like it there’s always that shitty offbrand twitter that drumpf uses

  9. SOQ

    I followed ‘Threads Irish’ and he or she went to great lengths to verify all claims made- there was zero conspiracy stuff, at least that I seen.

    But that doesn’t matter in this post truth world where any criticism of the CC (Covid Church) is regarded as heresy, and the offender is ostracised with a belt of the Pharma crozier.

    But Twitter is ultimately doing themselves damage because this sort of political energy will find an outlet and at the moment, Telegram appears to be it.

    Being banned of Twitter now means you have something interesting to say and is a rather good career move, rather than its original self important intent.

    1. Clampers Outside

      Did the owner archive the stuff for, say, a blog somewhere? Surely… I’d like to have a look :)

Comments are closed.

Broadsheet.ie