[adekok]

No smoking gun.

But, he holds opinions which are anathema to the people who implement Twitters censorship policy.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/twitters-new-safety-cou...

FTA:

> They think their right never to see something that upsets them outweighs the historic, hard-fought-for freedom of people to say and write what lies in their hearts and minds.

To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, who do you trust to censor the media you read? My answer is "No one, I'm an adult."

Some people believe that we can only achieve safe political discourse via censorship. They are either unaware that censorship affects political discourse, or they plan on using their control of censorship to control the political discourse.

[jonathankoren]

I know it may come as a surprise, but it's not about you. It's about harassment. You may think think that doxing and constant harassment both online and off is "political discourse," but it's not. It's actions that make all discourse impossible.

You can cry about your freedom all you want, but you're in someone else's sandbox. You play by their rules, unless you're trying to say that society should compel speech on private actors.

[adekok]

> I know it may come as a surprise, but it's not about you. It's about harassment.

Well.. proof would be nice. i.e. proof that Milo instigated and/or coordinated a campaign of harassment against her.

The only evidence being offered is for Milo calling her names. Which is not evidence of harassment.

> You may think think that doxing and constant harassment both online and off is "political discourse," but it's not.

You're projecting. It's a tell.

You'll note that I didn't make any such claim. So why are you attacking me for a claim I didn't make? Could it be that you think anyone who disagrees with you must support doxxing and harassment?

It's easier to label people as "evil", than to think rationally about your own position. Or to treat someone else in a discussion as a human being who deserves respect.

> You can cry about your freedom all you want, but you're in someone else's sandbox.

Yeah, label me a crybaby. It's the 5 year-old attitude towards online discussion. You don't use facts, evidence, logic, or common decency. Just "You're a big poopy head".

Please go look at Twitters code of conduct. And then look at the high profile people they've banned. How many have violated the code of conduct?

As a hint: People that the censors don't like seem to get banned a lot... even when they don't engage in ban-worthy behavior.

The censors absolutely abuse their power to further their own political agenda. They ignore the rules that they created. And you support them.

It's not just that it's Twitters sandbox. It's that they don't follow the rules they created. It's entirely reasonable to point out their hypocrisy, and to call it censoring of political discourse.

Any reasonable person would agree. i.e. A person whose first argument is not to label someone else as a shitlord who supports doxxing and harassment.

[jonathankoren]

> You're projecting. It's a tell.

At least the irony of this statement isn't lost on one of us.

[jonathankoren]

> The censors absolutely abuse their power to further their own political agenda. They ignore the rules that they created. And you support them.

Wha? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12004792

[adekok]

If you read the conversation you linked to, you'll see that I advocate for banning people who violate the rules.

There is no reason for you to be surprised at this.

You don't seem to understand my position. I'll explain using simple words.

I'm not upset that Milo got banned.

I am upset that there is no evidence that Milo violated the Twitter rules.

I do advocate banning people who violate rules of conduct.

When I have proof that people have violated rules of conduct, I ban them.

If you advocate for Milo being banned, please show evidence as to which tweet violated the Twitter rules. If there are none, then Milo should not have been banned.

If you still support Milo being banned, despite a total lack of evicence, then yes... you support censors who ignore the rules that they created. People who abuse their power to further their own political agenda.