Patterico's Pontifications

11/25/2018

Jesse Kelly Banned from Twitter: Is This Tweet Really the Reason?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:49 pm



Twitchy reports that a fella named Jesse Kelly has been permanently banned from Twitter. No explanation has been given.

Instapundit says this is the final straw, and has deactivated his Twitter account in protest.

Although Twitchy doesn’t know what the reason for the ban is, they cite a lot of replies from lefties about a tweet concerning the confederacy. A friend passes along the tweet. Is this tweet why he was banned?

You don’t have to agree with that opinion to believe that it doesn’t justify a permanent ban from Twitter.

It’s almost like there’s actually something to conservatives’ complaints about a bias on the part of the lefties who run the thing.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

209 Responses to “Jesse Kelly Banned from Twitter: Is This Tweet Really the Reason?”

  1. Twitter is not necessary to anything.

    nk (dbc370)

  2. Crazy huh, seeing as left elements control practically all newspapers magazines networks education and so called entertainment and they are swarming like replicators over corporate anericas who needs them right?

    Narciso (d1f714)

  3. *sigh* With every incident like this, I feel more and more vindicated in my refusal to use Twitter.

    Gryph (08c844)

  4. Don’t twittle
    Don’t Facebook time
    Never plan on it.

    mg (ebf6c2)

  5. As our promotion-savvy Captain and all ‘Mad Men’ can tell you, less can be more: short burst copy sells the sizzle, not the steak.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  6. This happened on a Sunday afternoon/evening, apparently, over a long holiday weekend to boot. What do you want to bet this was a decision made by a lone lefty Twitter engineer, or perhaps two or three lefty Twitter employees acting together, and will be reversed tomorrow morning? After all, if one Twitter employee can shut down the account of the President of the United States, it would seem pretty certain that it just takes one obnoxious progressive support staffer to shut down Jesse Kelly.

    JVW (42615e)

  7. The Union armies were not “invading” – they were forces of the legitimate government of the states in question, sent to quell an armed insurrection against the lawful order.

    It was the northerners who were defending rightful ownership of that land, not the rebels.

    Dave (1bb933)

  8. Yes, his statement is revisionist horsesh!t. The Civil War was all about slavery, just as the post-Civil War South was all about keeping black people down as second class citizens and worse. But that’s not the issue.

    nk (dbc370)

  9. #8. Succession was mostly about slavery, but a few slave states remained in the union so it wasn’t 100% along party lines as it were. The war was about preventing succession, not ending slavery. As I recall Lincoln was willing to free all, none, or some.

    Puggle (28fa49)

  10. A class-action lawsuit alleging breach of contract would be interesting.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  11. sent to quell an armed insurrection against the lawful order.

    By the understanding that we have now, but not by the understanding of the time. They said “These United States”, never “The United States.” As Lee put it, Virginia was his country. The degree of sovereignty a state had, and whether or not it was bound forever into the Union was not settled in a court.

    As for the law of the land, at the time it was “every state is a slave state”, a ruling that Lincoln overturned by force of arms. For the better, yes, but not by legal means.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  12. The Twitter statement is partly correct: most Southerners did not own slaves, nor were they particularly well off. They fought because their state (their country) was being told what to do by distant foreigners and they didn’t like it. Also, they didn’t have a lot of choice. The invasion came later.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  13. As Lee put it, Virginia was his country.

    Lee was badly mistaken.

    As for the law of the land, at the time it was “every state is a slave state”, a ruling that Lincoln overturned by force of arms. For the better, yes, but not by legal means.

    Untrue. Lincoln did nothing against slavery in states that weren’t in armed rebellion.

    And much like Obama’s DACA, or Spanky’s various mad decrees, the Emancipation Proclamation did not carry the force of law outside the executive branch and the army, or anywhere civil authority was functioning at the time of its promulgation.

    Dave (1bb933)

  14. Also, they didn’t have a lot of choice.

    Nonsense on stilts.

    Dave (1bb933)

  15. People probably don’t like the tweet because by stating that most Confederate soldiers didn’t own slaves it suggests that the Civil War “wasn’t about slavery,” which is something revisionists like to say. The average soldier didn’t own slaves but the Southern economy was dependent on and built on slavery. But the tweet isn’t incorrect. The average soldier was defending his land from an invading army, at least from his POV.

    The twitter ban is troubling.

    JRH (f51cae)

  16. “As Lee put it, Virginia was his country.”

    Yes, he was mistaken. He was educated in the United States military academy at West Point, he was commissioned as an officer in the United States Army, and took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. His country was the United States and he owed his loyalty to the United States.

    Bored Lawyer (8ea02a)

  17. Whether the confederacy was repelling an invading army depends on if you believe in their right to secede or not. Our founding fathers clearly believed in the right to secede, as it was basically baked into our founding documents (cf. The Declaration of Independence). And yes, before you lawyer types chime in, I know the Declaration doesn’t have the force of law. Secession was also discussed at length in the Federalist Papers, and was one of the few things that Federalists and anti-Federalists actually agreed on.

    So why would a country that was born of secession, and fought a violent war for that right, deny that right to its own states? Good guys vs. bad guys are for Saturday Morning Cartoons. It’s a poor way to teach American history.

    Gryph (08c844)

  18. Twitter: occasional nuggets in a Sea of Turds.

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  19. little man should have more class than to be on twitter in the first place

    happyfeet (d13f58)

  20. 17.

    Whether the confederacy was repelling an invading army depends on if you believe in their right to secede or not.

    That’s a simple statement hoping to describe a complex situation. I expect the folks here in Georgia viewed Sherman’s army as an invading force. And the Prime Ministers of Germany, and the King of France (who might provide aid and arms to a real country) regarded the situation as a rebellion. In any event, the 99.99% viewpoint is that the right side won.

    So why would a country that was born of secession, and fought a violent war for that right, deny that right to its own states?

    Slavery. Both sides viewed the other viewpoint as an abomination.

    From a legalistic sense, you may have a point — certainly the Southern politicians of the day pushed this viewpoint. But, in the 19th century, can you think of a secession movement that was not settled by War?
    .
    In any event, I think the Civil War settled if there was a practical right to secession. But I can see California testing that right in the next 50 years, if current trends continue.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  21. Note – I wrote Germany in my #20, when I was thinking UK. There wasn’t a Germany until 1870. The beatings may now commence.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  22. With regard to Cindy Hyde-Smith, I find the MSM’s castigation of her having been enrolled in a “segregation” school far more troubling, than this twit and his Twitter. That would knock out a wide swath of candidates, but more troubling to me is that anyone who is enrolled, by the decision of their parents, mind you, in a private, parochial, or upper income community public school could be deemed a pupil in a segregation school. Crazy Eyes A. O-C went to segregation school as well, if we want to get inside a parent’s mind.

    urbanleftbehind (64686a)

  23. Yes, that is the other issue. The degenerate Democrat pot-puffing pedophile perverts have created #FakeNews narratives about Hyde-Smith and they don’t want even the slightest breeze that will blow away their smoke.

    nk (dbc370)

  24. 20. Nothing “legalistic” about it. If the states don’t have the right to secede, then one of the foundational principles of American government itself is utterly moot. And we have Abraham Lincoln and his nascent Republican party to thank for that.

    Gryph (08c844)

  25. And as for the slavery question, yes, the civil war was fought over slaver among other issues. To say that the civil war was about slavery is also a simple statement hoping to describe a complex situation.

    Gryph (08c844)

  26. If you look at how the North was screwing over the South with their control of tax structures and shipping and imports from Europe, it’s easy to understand how the Civil War wasn’t just about slavery.

    Slavery was just the biggest expression of the abusive policies of the North towards the South and it makes for a powerful emotional touchstone.

    Ingot9455 (fb3b09)

  27. If there ever was a justification for a war, it would be to subjugate and even exterminate an evil people who consider calls for the abolition of hereditary, race-based slavery “abuse”.

    nk (dbc370)

  28. As for the argument that few Confederate soldiers owned slaves, that is striking in its disingenuousness. They believed in it, they supported it, they enabled it, and they were willing to kill other people over it (as they were doing on the Kansas-Missouri border for six years before the official start of the Civil War).

    nk (dbc370)

  29. The matter of holding other human beings as personal property was the central issue, Gryph.

    Paul Montagu (8afb2a)

  30. If you look at how the North was screwing over the South with their control of tax structures and shipping and imports from Europe, it’s easy to understand how the Civil War wasn’t just about slavery.

    It was southerners who wrote tariff law (link), and northern states also had states rights, one of them being the right to not accept slaves in transit.

    Paul Montagu (8afb2a)

  31. nk bringing it this morning! Sincere Norman Lear 70s sitcom “very special episode” applause from this corner!!

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  32. With regard to Cindy Hyde-Smith, I find the MSM’s castigation of her having been enrolled in a “segregation” school far more troubling, than this twit and his Twitter.

    It was “public hanging” comment, followed by her pathetic non-apology apology, that caused castigation, justifiably so. That her parents enrolled her in a white-segregated private school means that her racism was long-ingrained.

    Paul Montagu (8afb2a)

  33. Sure the UK and France considered it a rebellion, but they were in the business of supporting the Confederacy pre-Emancipation Proclamation mainly to assure themselves access to Southern goods. Louis Napoleon in the later days of the war had his eyes on LaSallian (East) Texas and Louisiana as the exclamation point to his adventures in the land of bad blocking.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  34. Yes it was a commercial enterprise for them remember the CSS Alabama, luckily Seward was a real anglophile in addition to be an abolitionist, otherwise they might have been more committed.

    Narciso (acd6e1)

  35. #25

    If you spend any time with with Southern writings and southern statements from 1856 to 1861 — well, they are spending their time on slavery, and not very much time whining about tariffs.

    See, in particular, this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  36. 35. On the other hand, Abe Lincoln quite famously said that his first, last, and only priority was “preserving the union.” And that he would be willing to free any number of slaves if necessary in order to do so — including none.

    That sounds okay until you realize that he denied the southern states the right to secede, which right our founding fathers clearly recognized.

    Gryph (08c844)

  37. If that’s the reason, then that ought to be the final straw for anyone.

    SarahW (08f5d7)

  38. Gryph (#24):

    If it any comfort, Lincoln probably would agree with you about Marbury v. Madison. From the first inaugural address:

    I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/02/lincoln-on-judicial-despotism

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  39. yes yes turdlord Jack Dorsey believes political speech should be filtered suppressed and censored

    if you support these values then you should have a twitter account and do many tweets (acceptable expression of acceptable opinion)

    happyfeet (d13f58)

  40. 38. Small comfort. But anyhow, thanks for the back-and-forth. Good discussion. :)

    Gryph (08c844)

  41. I wonder how many of those millennials at Twitter are aware that Confederates hated Republicans near as much as they do.

    Munroe (6c1d4e)

  42. Bored Lawyer, read the whole thing. However natural it is to elide the struggle between conflictng loyalites, you ought to know how it developed. https://www.americanheritage.com/content/robert-e-lee%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cseverest-struggle%E2%80%9D

    SarahW (08f5d7)

  43. If it any comfort, Lincoln probably would agree with you about Marbury v. Madison.

    Well, Taney’s opinion in the Dred Scott case should have been a wake-up call for any sentient person. And I believe that the enabling clauses of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments also reflect that view. That Congress, not the courts, had the authority to enforce them through appropriate legislation. But lazy and irresponsible Congresses let the black-robed junta hijack them from early on.

    nk (dbc370)

  44. Really? Five out of nine old foggies can amend the Constitution at their whim and if we want to overrule them, we need to line up three-fourths of the States? That’s what the Founders intended?

    nk (dbc370)

  45. I was struck how taney didn’t rely on statute, whereas as McLean and curtis did.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  46. “The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured … by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”

    — Abe Lincoln in First Inaugural, 1861.

    I’d add to that the full name of Articles of confederation is “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union,” which states that “the Union shall be perpetual”.

    That tells us what the founders wanted.

    JRH (f51cae)

  47. “I wonder how many of those millennials at Twitter are aware that Confederates hated Republicans near as much as they do.”

    That’s funny, because I’m pretty sure all of the Confederate apologists in this thread are Republican.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  48. “If that’s the reason, then that ought to be the final straw for anyone.”

    Yes, but never underestimate the power of narcissism.

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  49. i don’t even have a twitter account and i feel like i’m banned already

    it’s just so unwelcoming and even if Kellogg’s has a special twitter account where you can find out more information about their nasty unhealthy breakfast cereal my feeling is that place is no good (unamerican social media platform)

    happyfeet (d13f58)

  50. “That’s funny, because I’m pretty sure all of the Confederate apologists in this thread are Republican.”

    Davethulhu (fab944) — 11/26/2018 @ 9:11 am

    While appreciating the historical significance and the suffering endured by both sides of that conflict, wise Americans also acknowledge the role that Democrats played in continuing their evil efforts to subjugate their black brothers in the South through the remaining decades of the 19th century on into the 20th century. Substantive change had to be forced on them, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way before submitting to the Rule of Law.

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  51. In other words, Cthulhu, it seems you have no shame and you don’t embarrass easy.

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  52. Yes nyarthelop was more reasonable or even your typical shoggoth

    Narciso (d1f714)

  53. OT, at least he aced the eye exams and I figure the “average” would work out to be Kat Dennings.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  54. Narciso, you’ve noticed how the media is pushing this while the Iranian leadership is calling for Muslims worldwide to unite and destroy the USA?

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  55. Yep, and Reuters soft pedaling the thing,

    Narciso (d1f714)

  56. …and they’re also trying to remake this boob into the 2nd coming of Paul Finebaum.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  57. “In other words, Cthulhu, it seems you have no shame and you don’t embarrass easy.”

    This sounds like a personal attack, and your previous comment doesn’t explain the Republican Confederate apologism.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  58. He’s bored, what can I tell you. He could get a gig at espn

    Narciso (d1f714)

  59. I assign him 50 demerits for associating with Dunham and waive half that for kiwi Taylor swift (Wellington is affluent suburb)

    Narciso (d1f714)

  60. It sounds like:

    1. Twitter never tells anyone why they ban someone, or explains its rules, (probably on the grounds that then people would “game” the system.

    2. People mainly get banned from Twitter when there are complaints.

    3. These complaints are not always spontaneous.

    4. There were complaints here because of an upcoming election. One trope in that election is that things the incumbent appointed Senator says are very racist. Defending her statements, therefore, amounts to defending racism. They must be interpreted in the worst possible way.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  61. the enabling clauses of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments also reflect that view. That Congress, not the courts, had the authority to enforce them through appropriate legislation. But lazy and irresponsible Congresses let the black-robed junta hijack them from early on.

    And again, shortly thereafter when the first section of the 14th Amendment was erased by the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases decision. Followed shortly by the truly execrable Cruikshank case which legalized lynching and set the legal foundations for Jim Crow.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  62. Confederate apologists

    So, discussing history is now the same thing as supporting slavery. I would just as fairly call you a censorship apologist.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  63. you’ve noticed how the media is pushing this while the Iranian leadership is calling for Muslims worldwide to unite and destroy the USA?

    D’oh. It is almost as if the MSM has decided to give aid and comfort to ANYONE who opposes Trump.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  64. This sounds like a personal attack, and your previous comment doesn’t explain the Republican Confederate apologism.

    You call people who take issue with misstatements of history “Confederate apologists”, which implies several unsavory things, and then complain that the pushback is a “personal attack.”

    You really need to be more self-aware.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  65. Appalled (d07ae6) — 11/26/2018 @ 6:06 am

    But, in the 19th century, can you think of a secession movement that was not settled by War?

    I think failed secession movements, like that of Biafra from Nigeria, were mostly decided by war. As for successful ones, I think that could be agreed to without war, as was the case with the secession of Singapore from Malaysia in 1965.

    In the 19th century: I don’t know. Maybe a few in Latin America? This doesn’t say:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Central_America

    Unfortunately, due to many strong political disagreements within the different states, the UPCA eventually disbanded and the regions became separate nations with devastating political and economic civil wars that are still felt today.

    … In addition, lacking a central authority proved to be unproductive and created more disputes and distrust within the different nations. In fact, foreigners who were looking to make economic and/or political negations were told that they had to go to each individual region for consultations and found it inconvenient.[6] The desire for power and their inability to overcome bad relations among each other led to the fall of the UPCA. Nicaragua, Honduras, and Costa Rica seceded from the union in 1838. In 1839 Guatemala seceded, and in 1840 El Salvador did the same.

    Earlier, the secession of Guatemala from Mexico after it became a republic in 1823 sounds like it was peaceful, although it had earlier been annexed by force by the First Mexican Empire of Agustín de Iturbide on January 5, 1822 by an army led by General Vicente Filisola. (the First Empire, I guess, because Maximilian in the 1860s was the second)

    Secessions that didn’t fail maybe usually involved some sort of war. The secession of both Texas from Mexico in 1836 involved war. The Peru–Bolivian Confederation also came to an end through war.

    The whole history of governments in Latin America after 1800 is probably very interesting, but obscure, as is much of the history of Africa after about 1970. (the first ten years of independence after 1960 are better known. There have been terrible tyrants and we non super specialists know virtually nothing, although it is not secret.)

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  66. The Democratic and Republican parties switched sides. Afrrican Americans started viting for Democrats in the north, where they could, about 30 years before they switched sides.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  67. Secessions a little bit later than the 19th century:

    Norway separated from Sweden peacefully in 1905.

    In addition, the secession of Panama from Columbia in 1903 was somewhat peaceful, owing maybe to the U.S.A

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Panama_from_Colombia

    After rejoining Colombia following a 13-month independence, it remained a province which saw frequent rebellious flare-ups, notably the Panama crisis of 1885, which saw the intervention of the United States Navy. … When the United States sought to take over the canal project, the government of Colombia proved difficult to work with, and with the cooperation of French financier Philippe-Jean Bunau-Varilla, Panama simultaneously declared independence from Colombia and negotiated a treaty granting the U.S. the right to construct the canal.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  68. “You call people who take issue with misstatements of history “Confederate apologists”, which implies several unsavory things”

    I’m sorry your feelings were hurt.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  69. You know who was a Confederate apologist? Nancy Pelosi’s daddy. He sent her to a segregation school too. And he put up a statue of Robert E. Lee in Baltimore because he liked men in uniform.

    nk (dbc370)

  70. 65. The Cruikshank case didn’t legalize lynching – it said that the Federal government had no power to outlaw it (yet that can’t be completely right, because there were numerous anti-lynching bills introduced in the 20th century but prevented from becoming law by southern Democrats.)

    Here’s a 1928 Law review article about this:

    https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5073&context=law_lawreview

    It gives some statustics:

    Since 1885, there have been 3221 negroes lynched and only 1045 white victims of
    mob violence. In 1927 all of those killed at the hands of lynchers were negroes. ….In 1926, when thirty persons were lynched, twenty-one were taken from officers and jails, and in 1927 twelve of the sixteen persons lynched were taken from the hands of the law.

    Someboddoy was trying to stop it.

    In fact these efforts to limit the disgrace (disgrace is maybe how it was perceived) during the mmid-1920s was quite widespread and in fact one result was the creation of Mount Rushmore.

    There was going to be built a monument to Confederate leaders at Stone Mountain, Georgia, but the architect, Gutzon Borglum, was taken off the project by being hired to build Mount Rushmore. Well, first he was hired to work on the monument to trail drivers commissioned by the Trail Drivers Association in Texas.

    His work in Georgia was completely destroyed and serious work was not resumed on Stone Mountain for some 40 years. Of course, the times and the politics in the deep south being what they were, the sabotage of the project in the 1920s was all done behind the scenes and it was not officially abandoned.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  71. Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 11/26/2018 @ 11:02 am

    Perhaps a safe wager could be made that the advent of African-Americans voting for Dems commenced with the promises, and then the delivery, of goodies.

    felipe (5b25e2)

  72. 13. Dave (1bb933) — 11/26/2018 @ 1:54 am

    Lincoln did nothing against slavery in states that weren’t in armed rebellion.

    Initially.

    Later, he got behind the 13th amendment, which was sent to the states in January, 1865. There was a movie about it.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  73. 73. nk (dbc370) — 11/26/2018 @ 11:13 am

    Nancy Pelosi’s daddy. He sent her to a segregation school too. And he put up a statue of Robert E. Lee in Baltimore because he liked men in uniform.

    We’re not supposed to know that.

    Was it just because he liked men in uniform? Well, Maryland was a border state – he couldn’t be pro-South, nor did he have any reason to be.

    Believe it or not, there was a statue to Robert E. lee (and Stonewall Jackson too!) which Governor Andrew Cuomo took down.

    It was at the neglected Hall of Fame for Great Americans, on what was formerly the Bronx campus of New York University but which had passed into the hands of the City University system in the 1980s (correction actually 1973) when that section of the Bronx started to get bad, although also because of money. But if it hadn’t had ahigher crime rate or proximity to it, that wouldn’t have happened.

    https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/12708

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  74. Dont let it be said that the UAE is not trying to get on the President’s good side:
    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/guns-n-roses-show-cut-short-after-axl-rose-falls-severely-ill

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  75. 74… they called them Dixiecrats to provide cover for the Democrats, which Dixiecrats were.

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  76. Lincoln did nothing against slavery in states that weren’t in armed rebellion.

    Lincoln never had the chance, but his party’s goals were clear — they intended to overturn Dredd Scott. Succession intervened before Lincoln took office.

    Then, while Taney was still in office they expanded the Court to add more Republicans (and later, when Andrew Johnson was President, they contracted it to disallow Johnson an appointment).

    Despite all the maneuvering with the Court and a pile of Republcian appointees, it still managed to savage Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment. Both were dead for all intents by 1880.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  77. Other doubleunplusgood

    thefederalist.com/2018/11/26/washington-post-claims-theres-surge-right-wing-violence-isnt/#.W_xRKkTTnXs.twitter

    narciso (d1f714)

  78. The Cruikshank case didn’t legalize lynching – it said that the Federal government had no power to outlaw it (yet that can’t be completely right, because there were numerous anti-lynching bills introduced in the 20th century but prevented from becoming law by southern Democrats.)

    Are you making this up?

    Cruikshank left the protection of the freedmen in the hands of the post-reconstruction governments, which owed the end of Reconstruction to the Klan and northern exhaustion in fighting same (the parallels to Iraq circa 2006 many).

    The Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 were largely wiped out by Cruikshank. The Democrats opposed similar laws in the 20th century because they knew that Cruikshank would not be affirmed if directly challenged by Congress, much as Plessy fell.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  79. 74… they called them Dixiecrats to provide cover for the Democrats, which Dixiecrats were.

    JFK voted with the Dixiecrats in 1957

    Kevin M (a57144)

  80. so like jack dorsey’s twitter, airbnb is also openly anti-semitic now

    it’s a trend

    happyfeet (d13f58)

  81. 75. felipe (5b25e2) — 11/26/2018 @ 11:23 am

    Perhaps a safe wager could be made that the advent of African-Americans voting for Dems commenced with the promises, and then the delivery, of goodies.

    It was delivery first. They voted for Herbert Hoover in 1932, and for FDR in 1936.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  82. 84. Whatever Cruikshank did, and it did remove the possibility of prosecuting mobs for murder under one law, it was not believed later (definitely by the 1920s) to be the last word about the possibility of the federal government outlawing and prosecuting lynching. So I think it is more complicated.

    Of course for a long time nobody wanted to take cases to the Supreme Court.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  83. 85… “JFK voted with the Dixiecrats in 1957”

    I had forgotten that sad fact… thanks.

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  84. Amd those included bill Clinton s mentor fulbright, Al gore sr sr, (Robert byrd joined later)

    narciso (d1f714)

  85. Yep.

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  86. Twitter delenda est.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  87. Censorship delenda est

    Kevin M (a57144)

  88. It’s worth noticing that Justice Stevens used Cruikshank in his dissent to Heller, stating that the states did not have to obey the 2nd Amendment.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  89. I have no idea who Jesse Kelly is. Nor am I particularly interested in his opinion on the causes of the Civil War or the reason it was fought; I’ve spent a lot of time reading and studying that subject. I’m confident I’ve got the big picture, and I’m not particularly interested in debating those details with him or with most people.

    I note that our host’s post is actually about Twitter and its content-based discrimination.

    Twitter is a medium designed for failed stand-up comics and successful hecklers whose defining characteristic is that it truncates discussion after an arbitrary number of characters. I have always been mystified why anyone, ever, who doesn’t aspire to be a failed stand-up comic or a successful heckler would use it.

    So: Twitter delenda est. If it disappeared tomorrow, no one would really miss it, no important communications that need to be made would be prevented from being made, and Donald Trump would have to find other ways to demand public attention.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  90. @ Kevin M: When one gives a private company, by contract, the explicit contractual right to limit his or her speech on its social media platform based on its content, then one no standing to complain of “censorship”; one should recognize instead that it’s a bad idea to rely on a social media platform owned and controlled by people who can and do want to limit speech thereupon based on its content.

    The government isn’t and shouldn’t be involved in the death of Twitter, except insofar as an Article III district court, and its subunit, a federal bankruptcy court, presides over its eventual Chapter 7 liquidation. I don’t want to ban Twitter, I want people to make smarter, more self-interested and enlightened choices in the marketplace.

    Or to paraphrase John Roberts: The way to persuade people to stop misusing Twitter is to persuade them to stop using Twitter.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  91. Bah: Editing error. That ought to have read, in #97: “then one has no standing to complain of ‘censorship.'”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  92. I guess Trump would miss Twitter.

    All the more reason to withdraw one’s commercial support therefrom, IMHO. Starve it of mouseclicks; sentence it to the death of being ignored.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  93. For those who want to look up the history of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, a GOP bill to guarantee the right to vote, the crucial Senate vote was to refer the bill to the Judicial Committee — controlled by Dixiecrats — where it was gutted to only provide for a commission to study the problem.

    The GOP was largely opposed to the referral, the Democrats, including all the Northern liberals. While the resulting bill passed overwhelmingly despite a filibuster, the final bill was toothless and did nothing to change Jim Crow.

    Vote on motion to refer: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/85-1957/s67

    Wikipedia’s summary:

    The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, as southern Democrats opposed civil rights, and its northern members were more favorable. Southern Democrat senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees because of their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Democrat Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, who drastically altered the bill. Democrat Senator Richard Russell, Jr., of Georgia had denounced the bill as an example of the federal government seeking to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill as well as recognition from the anti-civil rights Democrats for weakening the bill so much as to make it toothless

    Kevin M (a57144)

  94. Damn. Link to wrong vote.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  95. except as we’ve found with gab, they block those roads on the information super highway, now Farrakhan and something called the Israel hourglass are fine to Dorsey or custolo, or prince talal,

    narciso (d1f714)

  96. Apparently the vote on the referral to committee has been memory-holed.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  97. Beldar, we will have to disagree on this.

    First, the common carrier provisions of various acts do give the FCC power to limit content censorship. Is Twitter a common carrier? Facebook? I can see arguments both ways. Certainly they dominate certain forms of expression. Is that like telephone (long distance voice expression)? At least maybe.

    Second, in a technological regime where nearly ALL speech is conducted over privately-held communications channels, the insistence that the 1st Amendment does not hold on these channels makes “freedom of speech” largely a dead letter.

    YEs, I know the argument that all one has to do is crate a competitor, which has been done before (AOL, Netscape, Windows, MySpace) but the world now is different than the worl then. Two companies completely control the internet. Alphabet and Amazon. If either one decides that you cannot play, you are pretty well fracked.

    Want to compete with Alphabet’s YouTube? Well, you need support for about 6 other Alphabet companies, such as Google Search. They might find perfectly reasonable reasons to deny or delay.

    Want to compete with Twitter, to get around acensorship problem? Gab tried, and among its problems was AWS and its hosting provider cutting it off at the knees — for failing to censor.

    There are serious problems in the real world, a place where libertarian thought is weakest.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  98. Would it be OK in 1970 for Ma Bell to deny you phone service because you were a Communist or Klansman?

    If not, why not? If so, was this ever done?

    Kevin M (a57144)

  99. that’s called Gresham’s law, beldar it means more disreputable people who Dorsey tolerates, will continue, and others will be banned,

    narciso (d1f714)

  100. “Would it be OK in 1970 for Ma Bell to deny you phone service because you were a Communist or Klansman?”

    Apples and oranges.

    The phone company makes money by selling you phone service. Nobody but you, the person you’re calling, and the NSA know what you’re talking about, so their profits aren’t threatened by Communists and Klansmen making calls.

    Twitter makes money* by showing you ads and by data mining. You don’t pay for the service. Ad buyers don’t want their ads associated with things like nazis and neo-confederates and hate speech, so Twitter has an incentive to cull users that make them look bad. This applies to all social media, not just Twitter.

    *Up until this year, Twitter didn’t make any money. They’ve been profitable in 2018, so, whatever they’re doing, it’s working.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  101. But Farrakhan, Hezbollah that’s fine with them, maybe not Islamic state, that may be a bridge too far,

    narciso (d1f714)

  102. maybe don’t triple gas prices overnight, and you might not face this problem:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/26/macron-warns-war-scenes-champs-elysees-damaging-frances-reputation/

    narciso (d1f714)

  103. “ Ad buyers don’t want their ads associated with things like nazis and neo-confederates and hate speech, so Twitter has an incentive to cull users that make them look bad. This applies to all social media, not just Twitter.”

    I feel certain they also don’t want them associated with leftwing, quasi-Democrat, Marxist, fever-swampers, but when you’ve turned the arbitration over to SJWs, it doesn’t take a genius to determine why the arbiters are banning conservatives.

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  104. We’ll see how profitable Twitter is after it has been de-platformed by a substantial part of their user base.

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  105. “But Farrakhan, Hezbollah that’s fine with them, maybe not Islamic state, that may be a bridge too far,”

    You are making a category error here: You’re assuming that Twitter (and other social media companies) are acting ideologically. I assert that they’re acting capitalistically, and attempting to maximize profit.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  106. CNN is a figment of someone’s imagination, cironello.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  107. Apples and oranges.

    Hardly. Maybe Macintosh and Granny Smith. Just because you can find a line does not make it a meaningful one. Twitter may not charge you MONEY but it offers a service to the public.

    What you are saying is that if I run a free bus company, making money somehow off of advertising, I can make blacks sit in the back.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  108. I assert that they’re acting capitalistically, and attempting to maximize profit.

    That’s because it isn’t your ox being gored.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  109. “What you are saying is that if I run a free bus company, making money somehow off of advertising, I can make blacks sit in the back.”

    Same category error as narcisso. You’re assuming Twitter is acting ideologically.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  110. hamburgers-are-going-kill-us

    Martha Washington could not be reached for comment.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  111. Dave,

    So, if a hotel knows that 90% of its customers don’t want to share their hotel with black folk, it’s just fine if they keep black folks out.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  112. It’s not racist, it’s just business.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  113. Conservatives aren’t a race. Most conservatives aren’t banned from twitter.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  114. My but you can draw those little lines. I’m done.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  115. Sure hope Papadopoulos can do that 14-day stretch Herr Mueller insisted on.

    People being financially ruined… for what?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  116. That’s a dishonest argument, Cthulhu.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  117. As an abject lesson, do not even consider supporting trump, we will burn you and every one who ever knew you.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  118. Between you and me, I’d rather have Jack Dorsey say who can or cannot have a Twitter account than Ajit Pai or Tom Wheeler. You know who Tom Wheeler is right?

    He was appointed [FCC Chairman] by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in November 2013. Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, whom the FCC is now responsible for regulating, and holding positions including President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).

    Also, happyfeet does not like Jack Dorsey and that’s gotta be the seal of approval for any right-thinking person.

    nk (dbc370)

  119. All these misdemeanors that Mueller is flying all over the world to collate, with these felonies right under his nose.

    It’s a fvcking Joke.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  120. And Twitter is not a bus company and is not putting black people anywhere. It is an internet service which allows people to use its facilities to say sh!t on the internet, under rules it has set and sometimes enforces in ways some people don’t like.

    nk (dbc370)

  121. There is no good argument that FB or any other social media platform is a “common carrier,” because there is nothing to stop a competitor from taking their customers tomorrow except the desire of those customers. If FB is a “common carrier,” that term has no meaning whatsoever. We do disagree, Kevin M, spectacularly and irreconcilably, on this issue.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  122. Come to think of it, Twitter is a lot more like Patterico’s Pontifications than it is like a bus company.

    nk (dbc370)

  123. Wheeler is like a high priest of kailu (flash Gordon reference) that other FCC chief under Obama is now on the board of mastercard

    Narciso (d1f714)

  124. You’re conflating market share with market power.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  125. (If we could define the market in a useful way that would last longer than three years, which we can’t.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  126. “That’s funny, because I’m pretty sure all of the Confederate apologists in this thread are Republican”

    I believe that the Confederacy was wrong, wrong, wrong in most particulars, and can also yet understand the valor of people who choose to fight for their nearest homelands and causes.

    I also believe that certain states that never experienced military defeat, occupation, and reconstruction (California, specifically Nukin’ Eric Swallwell and Nukin’ Eric Swallwell’s district) deserve a heaping helping of the Georgia National Guard going General Sherman on their arrogant and seditious behinds, having their precious real estate divided up and sold off to the most productive fighting patriots, and being made to work their own fields and server farms rather than relying on their even-less-legal slave systems that they get by on through sheer effrontery.

    Essence Thief (20434a)

  127. Radical voices on the Left NEVER get banned on Twitter. If principles matter to you – right or left – give that schiffshow the slip.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  128. Definitely nyartholop is more reasonable.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  129. “Radical voices on the Left NEVER get banned on Twitter. If principles matter to you – right or left – give that schiffshow the slip.”

    https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections

    Davethulhu (519d49)

  130. “there is nothing to stop a competitor from taking their customers tomorrow except the desire of those customers.”

    That or ‘the existence of a competitor in a natural economy of scale’, or what’s very obviously an ‘oligarchy of scale’ given how often the various large platforms collude on banning a Suddenly Unsavory Individual (and ‘disparate impact’ would probably be a good term to use here)

    They’re already well past the ‘economically dependent on slavery but would still rather not be’ stage and into the ‘constantly sending odious lobbies and tributes to Congress, the media, and abroad to head off any resistance to their deplorable practices and aggressively normalize them in far removed judiciaries.’

    Essence Thief (20434a)

  131. Jeff Bezos may or may not have told his employees recently that one day Amazon will fail. (I read it in the news media and you know how accurately they quote people.) But my daughter’s letter to Santa gave me a hint what he might have meant. They were all online orders, but not a single one was from Amazon. They were all directly from the retailers — Urban Outfitters, PacSun, Lululemon, Nike …. Amazon was not indispensable before 1994 and it is not indispensable now. Ditto Twitter, Facebook, Google, and all the other dot.coms.

    nk (dbc370)

  132. “Many of the projects involved were collective media networks – groups of activists and organisers who covered protests and news as citizen journalists. One such group, The Anti-Media project, had its Twitter account suspended on October 11. Earlier that day, its Facebook page, with 2.1m followers, was suspended. Another media collective’s Twitter account, Global Revolution Live, with 55,000 followers, was also suspended at around the same time.

    Patti Beers, who has been involved in Anti-Media since 2011, found her personal Twitter account was suspended on the same day, together with 25 others that she managed through the Twitter-owned service Tweetdeck. ”Just before 4pm that day, every Twitter account that I had access to via Tweetdeck was suspended,” she says. At the time she had 30,000 followers. She adds that other people who were involved in the running of the Anti-Media account, such as editor-in-chief Carey Wedler, also had their accounts suspended, even if they weren’t particularly active on Twitter.”

    So they’re not JUST suspending conservative accounts with a vendetta against the corporate media, they’re also suspending Michael Tracey-style honest old liberal accounts with a vendetta against the corporate media that might make uncomfortably non-woke points about the fact that the Democrat party is in fact pretty much a Wall Street party.

    Essence Thief (20434a)

  133. “Amazon was not indispensable before 1994 and it is not indispensable now. Ditto Twitter, Facebook, Google, and all the other dot.coms.”

    Does all the far-more valuable info collected on their customers and markets conveniently go poof when the company is done selling nonsense space and drone delivery dreams to gullible stock marketeers?

    Essence Thief (20434a)

  134. Maybe it was an eichenwald supporter:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1067214053859184640

    Narciso (d1f714)

  135. 39.1% of Democrats think that it’s wrong to negatively stereotype people based on their place of birth… AND that Southerners are more racist.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  136. 143… so there’s hope is what you’re saying, nk?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  137. Does all the far-more valuable info collected on their customers and markets conveniently go poof when the company is done selling nonsense space and drone delivery dreams to gullible stock marketeers?

    It goes to the same place as the information my father gave GMAC when he financed his 1968 Chevy Caprice.

    nk (dbc370)

  138. This is like the eleventyeighth thread on FaceTweetGramgle banning X person for Y reason. To repeat the same argument again, more succinctly, FaceTweetGramgle doesn’t want X in their house, it’s not city hall, it’s their house, so they kicked X out. X is free to go to the city hall and yell, or to X’s own house and howl at the moon to X’s heart content.

    Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to say whatever you want, anywhere you want. Just like your host here can ban you because he doesn’t like the cut of your jib, so can FaceTweetGramgle. It may be capricious and vindictive, it may flaunt their TOS, but I’m sure on page 3,743 it says they can ban you for any reason or none, your still free to build myspace2, or create your own blog to get your howls heard.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (abc493)

  139. @143. And you can look that up in your Sears & Roebuck catalogue. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  140. They were all online orders, but not a single one was from Amazon.

    I order far more off Amazon Marketplace than Amazon itself. In fact I order more from Amazon’s European entities than I do from AmUS. Amazon prices are usually higher than those offered by its marketplace vendors. And I don’t do Prime and don’t get all the techno stuff Amazon like to puff. But it seems to have few rivals in offering a place for vendors to set up shop.

    Kishnevi (1f5233)

  141. Narciso (d1f714) — 11/26/2018 @ 6:16 pm
    He doesn’t seem to be aware of Scott’s determined courtship of Puerto Ricans since Maria hit the island. Scott probably did more for the island than the Thrower of Paper Towel Rolls did, meaning he got votes that Trump won’t get in 2020.

    Kishnevi (1f5233)

  142. He’s a former liaison for Obama to the community, credit for getting that much right

    Narciso (d1f714)

  143. True, Kish…its why Scott may be needed as “Bidenesque” VP in 2024, or sooner if one’s strawberry consumption increases dramatically (as our resident NASA cheerleader might put it).

    urbanleftbehind (64686a)

  144. Given that voters in Florida have now voted three times for him, he’s a natural fit with Trump: personally corrupt but the voters don’t care…

    Kishnevi (1f5233)

  145. OT – if you can catch the Titans @ Texans, the Texans cheerleaders nailed the pinup look across the branches for Salute to Veterans.

    urbanleftbehind (64686a)

  146. This is like the eleventyeighth thread on FaceTweetGramgle banning X person for Y reason. To repeat the same argument again, more succinctly, FaceTweetGramgle doesn’t want X in their house, it’s not city hall, it’s their house, so they kicked X out.

    All of this is perfectly true. I don’t see anyone disputing this.

    Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to say whatever you want, anywhere you want. Just like your host here can ban you because he doesn’t like the cut of your jib, so can FaceTweetGramgle.

    Also true, also undisputed…

    But it is also quite beside the point, because you have not addressed the best argument your opponents could cite in their own support. When you offer a service and state the philosophy behind it, it is perfectly reasonable for people to measure your actions against that philosophy. When you lay out guidelines and behavior expectations on your platform, it is perfectly reasonable for people to point out any inconsistencies in your interpretation and application of your own stated standards.

    Now of course, you would still have the legal right to be a hypocrite. There is no law against double standards. But just because you have the right to do something doesn’t make it right. And if I may say so, it is also unreasonable of you to carp at people who complain about hypocrisy by pointing out that it’s not a crime.

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  147. Maybe I am showing my age but there was a time when Texas had two teams. The Aggies and the Cowboys. The Oilers were pretenders.

    Kishnevi (1f5233)

  148. Oilers were (Texans are?) like a less successful Mets, a temporary diversion during the dormant years of the big brother dynasty.

    urbanleftbehind (64686a)

  149. Alyssa Milano and assorted Libtards can curse out the President daily on twitter but Jesse Kelly is banned( whether you agree or disagree with his tweet- it’s WRONG to ban him) Kelly fought for our country but has no 1A rights.

    WompWomp (493b9b)

  150. 163… damned straight.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  151. Yes and the weekly standards pose on this, has been curious to say the least.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  152. Twitter is as bound by the First Amendment as the New York Times.

    Kishnevi (1f5233)

  153. Now of course, you would still have the legal right to be a hypocrite. There is no law against double standards. But just because you have the right to do something doesn’t make it right. And if I may say so, it is also unreasonable of you to carp at people who complain about hypocrisy by pointing out that it’s not a crime.

    No, but I don’t like people going on with arguments of “whatabout” TweeterFace censoring people and they are the public square and monopolies; when that is absolutely not what the constitutional freedoms, and limitations therein, mean, and not what a monopoly is. There are a lot folks saying, “break them up”, or “public square” when none of that even remotely applies. They are not common carriers, Congress would have to craft something really unique to pass constitutional muster and regulate all of these transgressors of free speech, whatever “all” or “transgressor” means, or “regulate” for that matter.

    That is not a fundamentally conservative position, anything that limits FaceTweet, could be applied to Fox, or anything else, ask Harry Reid about the “nuclear option” for judges.

    Most businesses are at a minimum somewhat hypocritical, maximizing profit; “don’t be evil”, “connecting the world” all looks nice on whiteboard, but it doesn’t pay the rent (on the G650), so it only was ever a slogan. Google was always an ad company that was going to maximize the value of the product, your data. Same with Facebook, Twitter, etc. Anything you’re getting for “free” just means they’re monetizing you in a different way, although with Twitter that actually isn’t really true, they are slowly circling the drain with their terrible, i.e. no, business model. Amazon at least wants to sell you stuff, leveraging the financial instrument of AMZN to subsidize pricing and distribution to bury all but other category killers.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (eb6b0a)

  154. The gist of it, was a reminder that times haven’t changed.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  155. Beldar,

    Define “common carrier” in a multimedia world. Facebook, is I admit, a weak case. Twitter, being a simple protocol for transferring simple information is less so.

    Also define “barrier to entry” in a world with about 2 gatekeepers, each with market values bumping up against the trillion dollar mark (down a bit of late).

    Does the failure of Gab to operate without the censorship it was established to evade bother you in any way? Was it just that they didn’t spend enough money? How big a barrier is too high?

    Kevin M (a57144)

  156. Between you and me, I’d rather have Jack Dorsey say who can or cannot have a Twitter account than Ajit Pai or Tom Wheeler

    Why should anyone be able to say that? No one is forced to READ tweets. If the Knights of the KKK have a twitter feed, and any of the 99.999% of people who dislike them subscribe to their feeds, whose fault is that?

    #ChangeTheChannel

    Kevin M (a57144)

  157. Again, if corporations are allowed to control all effective speech, or publication, or organizational tools in the digital age, and pick and choose who can speak and on what topics, there is no freedom of speech, press or assembly. Government need not do anything to stifle speech, it just needs to fail to protect it.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  158. I think this is a good discussion, between Kevin M and Beldar. I worry not so much about twitter but about Google. I wonder if there is a such thing as an information monopoly. If so, they are close to having one. I’m sure it’s possible to lead a Google-less life but it seems hard to do and the average American won’t be bothered to do so. They’re so damn convenient. But if you use them, they know *everything* about you down to when’s the last time you changed your skivvies. As we see authoritarian regimes in places like China using the internet to quash freedom it ought to scare us. To some degree all of our means of effective speech will be regulated by some entity or other. I think finding some meaningful regulation is a good idea, like back when they busted up the railroads. not sure what that looks like.

    JRH (f51cae)

  159. Will be interesting to see if Google gives in to China’s censorship demands.

    JRH (f51cae)

  160. #173

    Amazon frightens me a bit more than Alphabet — simply because they have a grip on so much of the underpinnings of the internet. But then, that also means the antitrust folks have an easier way of dealing with them. Separating the marketing/prime part from the underlying technology company.

    With Google — I’m not sure I understand what they do beyond free search/sell data generated by search. What’s their underlying technology edge?

    Twitter, to me, looks like Facebook’s next acquisition.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  161. I’m not a tech guy, but their edge would seem to be ubiquity and vast stores of data. How many internet users have gmail and use Google search? I would guess the number is extremely high. They are monitoring and tracking us 24/7. If we remember to turn location off, maybe a little less than 24/7. I can go online and see a map of every place I’ve been for the last 8 years or so. I can hear my voice searching for … whatever I searched for. As long as Google is transparent and “not evil,” I guess we have nothing to worry about but I think the potential for harm is great, esp if and when they cooperate with a malign govt. Amazon bothers me less, perhaps b/c they are gatheirng less info, but they are troubling also.

    JRH (f51cae)

  162. BIG Data is not necessarily your friend.

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  163. What I like about about monopolies and oligopolies is that they save lives. Come the Revolution, when we collectivize them, all we have to do is send one commissar Special Receiver with one squad of NKVD Homeland Security agents with submachine guns to their executive board room at their corporate headquarters and we take over. That’s all, no fuss, no muss. Think of the millions of kulaks who would not have died if Archer Daniels Midland had been in the Ukraine in 1932 the way it is in America now.

    nk (dbc370)

  164. @ Col. Klink, 167:

    …I don’t like people going on with arguments of “whatabout” TweeterFace censoring people and they are the public square and monopolies; when that is absolutely not what the constitutional freedoms, and limitations therein, mean, and not what a monopoly is. There are a lot folks saying, “break them up”, or “public square” when none of that even remotely applies.

    Ah, I see. I may have misunderstood your objection. If this is what you meant, then I agree with you 100%, and I apologize for my clipped tone.

    Demosthenes (17f107)

  165. The NYT is here to sort this all out… http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=59424

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  166. Here’s a tweet that commenter Time 123 linked on the other thread. Think Twitter will ban Alyssa Milano for her maggoty reply to Tomi Lahren?

    nk (dbc370)

  167. That would be a “no”…

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  168. When you say it’s too restrictive what would a reasonable number to emigrate 2 million, 5 million,

    Narciso (ceb6f7)

  169. With a aging population, a preponderance of young women who don’t know nothin’ ‘bout birthin’ no babies, and low-skilled immigrants constituting the majority of new arrivals, I think we can surmise which direction this country is heading…

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  170. Trump paraphrase: “I don’t believe the report that I didn’t read.” When he says he read “some” of it, the easy assumption is that he read a summary page, saw that it conflicted with the narrative in his head, and went on to something else. This is the bizarro political world that we’re in, where a multi-agency report overseen by his own appointees is dismissed out of hand.

    Paul Montagu (8afb2a)

  171. When you say it’s too restrictive what would a reasonable number to emigrate 2 million, 5 million,

    Not a number. Anyone who can pass a screening to show they are not a criminal or a jihadi and won’t be a public charge. Those who come and can not find a job will, to use a Mittism, self-deport.

    Be it noted this is the same system we had for the first 150 years of our republic (more or less). Although they didn’t screen for criminals.

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  172. Here’s a tweet that commenter Time 123 linked on the other thread. Think Twitter will ban Alyssa Milano for her maggoty reply to Tomi Lahren?

    You have a little wrong way round. Lahren was commenting/replying on Milano’s ladylike response to a tweet by the President.

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  173. Will be interesting to see if Google gives in to China’s censorship demands.

    I thought Google already gave in to them a while back….

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  174. You use the word “ladylike”, kishnevi. Based on your take on Milano’s tweet, I don’t think you know what that means.

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  175. Sorry, Colonel. The sarcasm in using the word seemed so loaded I thought it would be obvious even on the Internet.

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  176. No… all bets are off on the innernetz!

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  177. That’s no lady!

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  178. “Those who come and can not find a job will, to use a Mittism, self-deport.
    Be it noted this is the same system we had for the first 150 years of our republic (more or less).”
    kishnevi (bb03e6) — 11/27/2018 @ 12:33 pm

    We didn’t have food stamps until after the first 150 years. And, a free education for illegals wasn’t guaranteed until recently.

    As long as people can get better benefits and their kids can go to better schools here, free, they aren’t going to self deport. That’s just reality.

    Munroe (b04614)

  179. “Those who come and can not find a job will, to use a Mittism, self-deport.
    Be it noted this is the same system we had for the first 150 years of our republic (more or less).”

    When they came by steerage across the Atlantic using their very last dime, they weren’t going home. It is only in the last 50 years that it has been possible for the poor to travel by aircraft.

    Of course, the southern border is a different matter. Some day we will treat it as such.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  180. With Google — I’m not sure I understand what they do beyond free search/sell data generated by search. What’s their underlying technology edge?

    Android, YouTube, Search, Maps, Mail, Chrome, Google Assistant, Calendar, Earth, and Android TV embedded in many new sets. They may not have a lot of the basic underpinnings, but they have much of the application layer — some of which you MUST interface with even if you try to compete with one of these.

    Alphabet can be broken up as finely as you want. Amazon is basically the Store, AWS, and some software and hardware developers (e.g. Echo, Ring, Kindle). Probably 3 pieces max. BUt even if you set AWS adrift, they have considerable clout.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  181. Will be interesting to see if Google gives in to China’s censorship demands.

    We make it illegal for American firms to give in to bribery demands, even if it costs the US business. We should do the same with Internet censorship, since we have a much stronger position there. Besides, they steal.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  182. But even if you set AWS adrift, they have considerable clout.

    OTOH, server farms are the easiest to compete with so long as the Big Guys can’t gang up on you.

    Kevin M (a57144)

  183. Thievin’ Chinamenz!!!

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  184. Me no unnerstan’ how Tweeter work. So all the other maggoty comments, were they directed at Milano or Tomi (who by the way is a natural blonde, no question about it)?

    nk (dbc370)

  185. This crap Herr Mueller is pulling on Corsi is total horseschiff.

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  186. No contact with Assange, he forgets about forwarding an email in 2016 and he’s given an opportunity to amend his statement, which he does, he’s turned everything over to the FBI, giving them access to all his accounts, everything. They have it all and they know he had no contact, did nothing wrong and yet choose to charge him.

    Colonel Haiku (697687)

  187. nk, Tomi retweeted a tweet by Milano (using it to make her comment on Milano). Milano’s tweet was a similar retwet of a tweet by Trump. If you clicked on Milano’s tweet you would see Trump’s tweet. In a series of nested tweets like this Twitter shows the two most recent “generations” but only shows the link to the preceding “generation”, and does not refer to any “generations” in the series. If those existed, you would need to click through to the earliest tweet you see.
    If a tweet is retweeted, Twitter adds it to the stats of the original tweet but does not show the text. So while anyone reading Tomi’s tweet can read Milano’s tweet, those reading Milano’s tweet as part of Milano’s tweet stream would not know Tomi had retweeted Milano, much less know what she said.
    The comments below the nested tweets are replies to Tomi. To see replies to Milano, you would need to click through to Milano’s tweet.

    Kishnevi (3c63a1)

  188. Thank you, kishnevi.

    nk (dbc370)

  189. And yet the third witch in charmed understood the situation about as well as her scripts, is she in any actual movie play or show that requires her display of category error.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  190. Racist hag wins Mississippi Senate runoff. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski hurt most.

    nk (dbc370)

  191. So they said he was permanently banned and no appeal was allowed. Now they claim it was just a “suspension.”

    Hmm…

    NJRob (4d595c)

  192. I’d say he was historically correct as a few moments of logic would make clear.

    1.No matter what period of history you talk about officers tend to be vastly outnumbered by common soldiers in any functional army.

    2, Common soldiers are seldom wealthy and often quite the opposite.

    3. Therefore the majority of the Confederate army was indeed composed of poor soldiers.

    1.The Confederate army and the Union army were both pretty much volunteer outfits at the start of the Civil War.

    2. Modern volunteer armies (And for the purposes of this discussion any army from the Age of Steam to the present day should be considered modern) do tend to use patriotism and the defense of one’s homeland as their primary recruiting tool.

    3. Therefore, it is legitimate to assume that both the Confederate soldiers and their union counterparts were motivated by their desire to defend their homeland.

    That few of these common soldiers owned slaves is easily proven by the reminder that slavery required more wealth then they were likely to have.

    So quite clearly Mr. Kelly was correct on all counts. Whether these common soldiers were necessarily told everything their officers knew is a seperae matter.

    Towering Barbarian (21f677)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7088 secs.