Katie Hopkins Sacked

Mrwong said:
She has just as much right say what she thinks.
Click to expand...

This is true.

However, she does not have the right to say whatever she wants on Twitter's servers.

Just like you don't have the right to swear or mention competitors on here.

She is welcome to start up her own website and spew rubbish if she wants to.
 
Mr Jack said:
She's been given a string of bans in the past, surely at some point it's reasonable to say someone is not capable of behaving properly on a platform and permanently boot them?

She hasn't been banned for her one recent infraction but for the sum total.
Click to expand...

She's been banned because she criticised Marcus Rashford, who has had widespread media and public support for his campaign to give children free school meals out of term time. Her position is very unpopular in saying that parents should provide meals for their children, we're living in the age of Mumsnet. The fact that Marcus is black and presenting himself as a positive black role model at a time when movements like BLM are also very popular made her position on Twitter untenable. She is literally going against a black role model at a time of BLM being popular, as well as the Mumsnet type who are untouchable. She hasn't broken any specific rules, she's been banned for broadly saying unpopular things which people take offense from. She wasn't racist and she didn't threaten violence. I understand why people hate her, she's provocative and deliberately so, but quite a lot of people share at least the sentiment expressed in her views if not the way she says it. All that happens is they feel that their legitimate views are also under attack.
 
Roar87 said:
She's been banned because she criticised Marcus Rashford, who has had widespread media and public support for his campaign to give children free school meals out of term time. Her position is very unpopular in saying that parents should provide meals for their children, we're living in the age of Mumsnet. The fact that Marcus is black and presenting himself as a positive black role model at a time when movements like BLM are also very popular made her position on Twitter untenable. She is literally going against a black role model at a time of BLM being popular, as well as the Mumsnet type who are untouchable. She hasn't broken any specific rules, she's been banned for broadly saying unpopular things which people take offense from. She wasn't racist and she didn't threaten violence. I understand why people hate her, she's provocative and deliberately so, but quite a lot of people share at least the sentiment expressed in her views if not the way she says it. All that happens is they feel that their legitimate views are also under attack.
Click to expand...

No, she's been removed because she has a track record of progressive provocative and hate. You're just highlighting the point at which Twitter said that enough is enough.

Add up everything that she's said and yes, she is racist and yes, she has advocated violence.

Much like some members here.
 
They can feel what they like, it's not true.

She didn't get banned because of Rashford, he was the straw that broke the camel's back.

She's racist, and she's been warned before, now she's been banned. It's that simple.
 
ianh said:
That kind of helps prove a point I made earlier. Laughing at "horrible" people is a far better way of stripping them of any "power" they might hold over others, rather than banning them which only ever increases it.
Click to expand...

I dunno it can be very effective, at least in the short term, look at Milo for example, he was triggering loads of people on Twitter, doing campus tours etc... then they shut him down.

I guess long term it depends how prevalent it becomes and indeed who holds power in the US. If they ban people too often for having unpopular views etc.. then it can undermine the platform and help the rise of other platforms. There are plenty of people who have aired dodgy views on these platforms without being banned. Whether you agree with their political views or not some people in the US are taking notice. FB was banning the lockdown protestor groups etc... but allows BLM and antifa groups despite them not only breaking lockdown but resulting in widescale property damage, vilolence and arson. Most people recognise the far right as being a threat, it’s normal to be critical of them, the far left gets a bit of a pass though in terms of views being allowed, events, groups etc...

I’m not sure that banning Hopkins of censoring Trump is a good idea. For example the recent baby parody clip re: CNN... should really be fair use for the comedy aspect (of course it’s dumb the President of the US posted it, he is dumb) but then it gets flagged as fake news and later censored re: a DMCA compliant and some people bizarrely assume he was trying to pass it off as genuine.

Ultimately in the long run they do run the risk of rivals gaining ground and/or new US regulations restricting their ability to censor or moderate.
 
Roar87 said:
. . . quite a lot of people share at least the sentiment expressed in her views if not the way she says it. All that happens is they feel that their legitimate views are also under attack.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, which of Hopkins' deliberately provocative but wholly non-violent and racially tolerant views do you personally share?
 
wesimmo said:
They can feel what they like, it's not true.

She didn't get banned because of Rashford, he was the straw that broke the camel's back.

She's racist, and she's been warned before, now she's been banned. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

Company thinks a person is a horrible nasty piece of work with objective evidence to back this up. Said person has also repeatedly broken their terms of service. Company dcides it no longer wants to provide the free service it provides to them anymore. Oh well.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
For those of you who think Katie Hopkins shouldn't have been removed from Twitter do you also think that OCUK should never ban members?
Click to expand...

They should have been banning far more of them from here. Moderation is very, very challenging, but it all too often on a single post / thread level rather than the trend by the user.

The mods might not have the right tools, to be fair.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
For those of you who think Katie Hopkins shouldn't have been removed from Twitter do you also think that OCUK should never ban members?
Click to expand...

I think we're ignoring reality if we pretend Twitter isn't a service that facilities public discourse on a large scale. For example there's been government enquiries into Russia setting up bots on Twitter and Facebook to spread fake news.

Do people feel that private companies should have that much power over our Democracy? I'm sensing that much like the EU people tend to have no problem with it as long as it doesn't negatively affect the views they have. The issue of course being is that eventually the power is used against people you support i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
 
Roar87 said:
I think we're ignoring reality if we pretend Twitter isn't a service that facilities public discourse on a large scale. For example there's been government enquiries into Russia setting up bots on Twitter and Facebook to spread fake news.

Do people feel that private companies should have that much power over our Democracy? I'm sensing that much like the EU people tend to have no problem with it as long as it doesn't negatively affect the views they have. The issue of course being is that eventually the power is used against people you support i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Click to expand...

OCUK is a private company, and provides this forum.

Who's using the power, or allowing it to be used. And against who. There are many member accounts on here who are role models for foreign bot accounts.
 
The_Abyss said:
They should have been banning far more of them from here. Moderation is very, very challenging, but it all too often on a single post / thread level rather than the trend by the user.
Click to expand...

The issue you run into is simple - if you want people banned for saying things you don't like and find offensive when you complain, then what is stop OcUK banning you for saying things that other people don't like and find offensive when they complain?

Thats problem the problem when people believe that only their opinion on the subject is the "right" one and anyone who has a different opinion is "wrong" and therefore must be banned. It's seeing things in "black & white" rather than various "shades of grey", which is the more accurate reality of life.

For me, "banning" someone for their different opinion (rather than toxic behaviour like swearing, spam etc) is just another way of telling them "I can't beat your argument and I don't want to read/see it any more so go away and leave me in my safe-space where everyone agrees with me" because banning doesn't change peoples minds or alter their opinions. All it changes is that people now can't see what the banned person is saying any more, and that makes them feel happier with an "out of sight out of mind" attitude, whilst those opinions they don't like still stay unchallenged, which to me means they value their own lazy happiness over fighting what they believe is wrong.

But thats just my opinion :)
 
One thing that I don't like is the hypocrisy of Twitter -

For example there are many people on Twitter who are "pro-paedophile" where they are called a Minor Attracted Person/s or MAPs instead, which removes the more well known 'negative' name, and yet they are still allowed to stay on twitter spreading their opinion on why molesting kids should be legal as it's a "sexual orientation", not a choice. I don't understand why twitter supports these paedophiles myself but they do whilst banning others for far less -



 
Mushy Peas said:
Who is this mainsteam media boogeyman you're on about? As far as I can tell it's a slur used by people moaning about news they disagree with.
Click to expand...

BBC, Sky News, CNN etc etc spend a lot of their time trawling through twitter and facebook for all this junk.

This isn't about disagreeing. It's about uncontrolled press that can whip up outrage from social media endlessly hiding behind free speech that whips up hatred and outrage.

If you don't like it, don't watch/read it. People moan about professional outrage and all that nonsense and the lack of self-awareness beggars belief.

edit: this also ignores your total nonsense deflection that Twitter is somehow a news outlet.
Click to expand...

I love how people like you with your big brushes thinks that I get news from twitter or facebook. What a joke. I wouldn't trust them to tell me today is Monday.

I stopped watching news a long time ago so I don't even get worked up the way you seem to think but I do see the drivel that comes from twitter/facebook posted on these very forums. Which is amusing at times.

garnett said:
Who should take their place? Where do you get your news from?
Click to expand...

Nobody should be taking their place. They should be controlled. We don't really need the press. The press has outlived their usefulness including the mainstream news. They're a cesspit everyone of them.

They're no longer news channels anymore. That is long gone. Opinionated journalism and news is not a good outcome that it has become now.
 
V F said:
Nobody should be taking their place. They should be controlled. We don't really need the press. The press has outlived their usefulness including the mainstream news. They're a cesspit everyone of them.

They're no longer news channels anymore. That is long gone. Opinionated journalism and news is not a good outcome that it has become now.
Click to expand...
You're really determined not to think this through, aren't you?

In what way should "the MSM" be controlled?

... And where do you currently get your better, more objective news instead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom