Katie Hopkins Sacked

sityeuropa said:
So if I say '"Good morning all" and Twitter say "HEY buddy, that is quite enough, you are having a straw for that".
Click to expand...

A. Why would they do that?

B. Even if they did, they could do that if they wanted to. Twitter isn't obligated to provide you their services as long as they arent discriminating against you due to your race, gender, sexual orientation etc.
 
StriderX said:
It doesn't need to be legitimate, they can remove anyone for any reason that they wish or no reason at all. Twitter is not a state/government and therefore offers no jurisprudence.

Which returns to the matter of living in a capitalist society, go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Doesn't need to be legitimate, what a stand up guy you are.
 
Surveyor said:
Are you saying you don't know what the latest infraction was but you're confident it didn't warrant the ban?
Click to expand...

Yes your Honour, I believe my learned friend is indeed making the case the the "unknown infraction" was without doubt not serious enough to be warranted as the last straw no matter how vile or racist that unknown infraction might have been.:rolleyes:
 
ianh said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

That's a very fair and valid point. The problem comes when the proponents are not interested in having a discussion nor are they willing to be open-minded and willing to be persuaded to change their point of view, as so many clearly are.

At that point, they're basically just a one person PR machine, peddling their bile and hate trawling for an audience. Nobody wants to facilitate that.
 
sityeuropa said:
Are you OK? You are saying it does not matter of the content of the last straw, the last straw is the last straw.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to wonder whether you are making any attempt to discuss this in good faith.

We are talking about infractions, not just any old thing; the point is that it doesn't matter how severe that infraction is. Whether that particular infraction was worth a ban is not the question: she is not being banned for this infraction, she's being banned for her long track record of awful behaviour.
 
Mr Jack said:
I'm beginning to wonder whether you are making any attempt to discuss this in good faith.

We are talking about infractions, not just any old thing; the point is that it doesn't matter how severe that infraction is. Whether that particular infraction was worth a ban is not the question: she is not being banned for this infraction, she's being banned for her long track record of awful behaviour.
Click to expand...

No there was something said a few days ago that resulted in an additional infraction which resulted in the ban because of that. It really is not hard to comprehend.

Jono8 said:
Can you provide me a link to where twitter have said this?

Every article I have found says twitter have not said which specific tweet got her banned.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/20/who-katie-hopkins-why-banned-twitter-12878563/

"Twitter did not specify which posts had led to the ban."
Click to expand...

image.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
VincentHanna said:
Oh a cropped image, how useful.

Those can't be easily edited, right?
Click to expand...

Its on her Instagram page. You can go down that route if you want, but had she had said something worse it would be all over the Metro, BBC and all.

But isn't it funny, the offending tweet is so hard to come by, maybe they don't want you to know why she was actually booted off, people might think "hey, I hate her but that's a bit harsh".

Easier to cause confusion like the few pages back with people frothing at the mouth saying "That's the last time she says hateful ****", not knowing what she was actually banned for and makes it more accepting that she was.
 
sityeuropa said:
Doesn't need to be legitimate, what a stand up guy you are.
Click to expand...

I could look at their probably legally irrelevant T&C's to check.

We may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason, including, but not limited to, if we reasonably believe:
(i) you have violated these Terms or the Twitter Rules and Policies or Periscope Community Guidelines,
(ii) you create risk or possible legal exposure for us;
(iii) your account should be removed due to unlawful conduct,
(iv) your account should be removed due to prolonged inactivity; or
(v) 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, depending on the circumstances. In all such cases, the Terms shall terminate, including, without limitation, your license to use the Services, except that the following sections shall continue to apply: II, III, V, and VI.
Click to expand...

The internet isn't fair, and never has been.
 
StriderX said:
It doesn't need to be legitimate, they can remove anyone for any reason that they wish or no reason at all. Twitter is not a state/government and therefore offers no jurisprudence.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I mean, from a legal standpoint, this is - of course - correct, but most criticism of the behaviour of companies is not from a legal standpoint it is from a moral or ethical one. It's entirely fair to discuss whether Twitter has behaved in a legitimate manner from an ethical point of view rather than from a legal one.
 
sityeuropa said:
image.png
Click to expand...

Is there a source beyond Katie Hopkin's herself?

If not, let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say it was true (it might well be). Presumably, it is the reference to a baboon in relation to Marcus Rashford. It is still pretty stupid of someone who is already on extremely thin ice with twitter to respond with that phrase when talking about a black person. Now you see, if someone used that phrase who had no history of tweeting inflammatory and racist ****, then it would probably be seen as fairly innocent. For someone like her to use it likely means she was either being intentionally racist, or more likely, just trying to stir the pot knowing that using that phrase would get people's back up. Neither of which is good.

I can therefore see exactly why this was the last straw from Twitter.

But even after all this pontificating about why Twitter banned her, it doesn't really matter. Twitter's own terms state they can ban you for a multitude of reasons (as outlined in StriderX's post above).

Do you think Twitter should be legally enforced to provide the free service they provide to everyone in the world?
 
ianh said:
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 :)
Click to expand...


I can't say i agree with this. It brings me back to this analogy about the free exchange of ideas:

feo.jpg


Obviously in this case, Katie Hopkins is the one serving up the dog **** and Twitter don't want her serving it at their potluck....because it is dog ****.
 
Jono8 said:
Is there a source beyond Katie Hopkin's herself?

If not, let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say it was true (it might well be). Presumably, it is the reference to a baboon in relation to Marcus Rashford. It is still pretty stupid of someone who is already on extremely thin ice with twitter to respond with that phrase when talking about a black person. Now you see, if someone used that phrase who had no history of tweeting inflammatory and racist ****, then it would probably be seen as fairly innocent. For someone like her to use it likely means she was either being intentionally racist, or more likely, just trying to stir the pot knowing that using that phrase would get people's back up. Neither of which is good.

I can therefore see exactly why this was the last straw from Twitter.

But even after all this pontificating about why Twitter banned her, it doesn't really matter. Twitter's own terms state they can ban you for a multitude of reasons (as outlined in StriderX's post above).

Do you think Twitter should be legally enforced to provide the free service they provide to everyone in the world?
Click to expand...

Wow, who is the racist here.
 
sityeuropa said:
No there was something said a few days ago that resulted in an additional infraction which resulted in the ban because of that. It really is not hard to comprehend.
Click to expand...

She was not banned for whichever post was her most recent infraction. She was banned for her pattern of behaviour. This is the straw that broke the camel's back. Twitter says "In this case, the account has been permanently suspended for violations of our Hateful Conduct policy" not that she was banned for this infraction. She wasn't banned for calling for a "final solution" for Muslims in the UK, she was just suspended for it, this isn't about a single infraction.
 
Jono8 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think this is a good overall summary.
 
Mr Jack said:
She was not banned for whichever post was her most recent infraction. She was banned for her pattern of behaviour. This is the straw that broke the camel's back. Twitter says "In this case, the account has been permanently suspended for violations of our Hateful Conduct policy" not that she was banned for this infraction. She wasn't banned for calling for a "final solution" for Muslims in the UK, she was just suspended for it, this isn't about a single infraction.
Click to expand...

The latest infraction and the ban were simultaneous. That kind of makes it related a bit.

Like 3 strikes and your out which I believe Twitter do have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom