Connect with us

Tech

Twitter Gives New Nonsensical Reason for Banning AOC Parody Account

Twitter attempted to explain one of the conservative parody accounts being banned and walked themselves further into a corner.

Published

on

AOC Parody Twitter Ban

After coming under fire for banning the very popular @AOCpress parody account that mocked Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Twitter sent the user a second explanation for their ban that makes no sense to those outside of the big tech oligarch’s halls, and does little to help other users avoid committing the same violations.

Earlier this week, Twitter banned the famous @AOCpress account, even though it clearly identified itself as a parody both in the account’s name and in its bio. Multiple conservative outlets, including Big League Politics, reported on this move to censor conservative comedy. This apparently prompted Twitter to send additional information to the user, clarifying that it was not banned for being a parody.

Instead, Twitter now claims it was banned because the account posted “duplicative or substantially similar content, replies, or mentions over multiple accounts or multiple duplicate updates on one account,” or created “duplicate or substantially similar accounts.”

Trending: President Donald Trump to Hold “Tremendous” MAGA Rally in Georgia for GOP Senators

The account may also have been considered a “fake or misleading account.”

Of course, Twitter provided no evidence to back its claims, nor does it explain what its verbose accusations mean in layman’s terms. From the communication, it seems as if Twitter is accusing the account of spamming, and again, of passing of the clearly identified parody account as the real Ocasio-Cortez.

There is a new parody account mocking Ocasio-Cortez, but it was made in May of 2019, likely after the previous account was terminated. Another parody was created in January, and was not banned. It is not known if the same Twitter user is running this account, but it seems unlikely.

Twitter has repeatedly ignored requests for comment from Big League Politics throughout this latest censorship purge that has seen Carpe Donktum, David Horowitz, the @MAGAphobia account that chronicled violence against supporters of President Donald J. Trump, and the @porn_lawyer account parodying Michael Avenatti impacted.

Free Speech

YOUR NEW MASTER: Twitter’s Head of Conversational Safety, a “Young, Queer Asian-American Businesswoman,” is “Rethinking” the Concept of User Safety

Do you trust someone like her to make Twitter “a safer place”?

Published

on

The media company Protocol, a sister site of Politico, recently published an article about Twitter’s new “head of product for conversational safety,” Christine Su. It claims that Su, a “young, queer Asian-American businesswoman,” is revolutionizing what “user safety” on social media means.

Twitter hired Su around six months ago to be in charge of “what might be the most difficult task on Twitter,” despite having no apparent experience in politics, programming, and media relations. But Twitter seems to like her for her “creative” and “somewhat radical new ideas” about user safety.

“As a queer woman of color who is an Asian American in tech in rural America, that experience is a very intersectional one. I’ve had plenty of experiences moving through spaces where I wanted more safety,” Su said.

Protocol writes that Su’s vision incorporates “transformative and procedural justice.” Transformative justice ostensibly refers to a non-retributive form of repairing harm done to someone and preventing it from happening again; procedural justice to enacting a set of rules that “make harm rarer in the first place.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This all sounds nice and dandy—but beware. So-called transformative and procedural justice will not benefit you, but will crush you. Anything that’s perceived as “harmful” against “women and people from marginalized groups” can and will be used to censor you. Christine Su may reassuringly claim that “the point is not to make the entire world a safe space,” but she’s open about the fact that she will help give the Coalition of the Fringes more control over what people are allowed to do and say on Twitter.

Examples from the article:

  • Creating an audio hangout feature called “Spaces,” which will allow users to determine who is allowed to participate, as well as who can speak and when. (Note that it’s being tested on “women and marginalized groups of people” first.)
  • Potentially doubling down on functions that “encourage people to read content before reposting it.” (Which is exclusively done to censor or limit the reach of conservative and other right-wing content.)
  • Building tools that “create private pathways for apologies, forgiveness and deescalation.” (The finer details are still a work in progress according to Su.)
  • Defining what a “meaningful conversation” is. (Would people like Su think that anything right-wingers say or believe belongs in a “meaningful conversation”? Let’s just say I wouldn’t bet money on it…)

You know full well that a company like Facebook would shortly follow suit. After all, it’s not just Twitter that Su is “revolutionizing,” but the concept of social media itself. Figure out where all this is heading.

Now is as good a time as ever to plug our Parler:

Follow Big League Politics on Parler: @BigLeaguePol

Follow Evan James on Parler: @CatholicEJames

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending