Article 8-22-19: Spectator US | Meghan Murphy: Why is Jessica Yaniv still on Twitter and not in jail? - The unwaxed ‘trans woman’ is using a sockpuppet account to harass people.

  • There is a bug with the post editor. Images pasted from other websites from your clipboard will automatically use the [img] tag instead of uploading a copy as an attachment. Please manually save the image, upload it to the site, and then insert it as a thumbnail instead if you experience this.

    Ongoing DDoS attack. kiwifarms.ru may work better for now.

2nd_time_user

Equitably diffident
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 10, 2018
lol it's a twitter ban not the civil rights struggle of our times. Twitter is not the public square, it's a private website full of obnoxious people screeching pointlessly, and the courts forcing them to let Murphy back is like forcing somebody to bake a gay marriage cake or determine what pronouns you're to use under penalty of law.

First, Twitter is part of a SM oligarchy--a small group of mega-companies that buys out/snuffs out competition so that they are the only choice, or a controlled choice. It's not that different from the Carnegies/Rockefellers/Hearsts. It doesn't matter if you hate the platform, it's the most efficient and plausible way to communicate with users as Null did during the 8/5-8/6 outage. It's even more not an elective for journos/commentators like Murphy. Keep in mind that in the prior suit (Taylor v. Twitter), Twitter asserted that it, Twitter, could ban women or blacks off its platform as part of its 1A rights as its 1A rights were the only ones that mattered--as if its millions of users were just unpaid stringers at will. And that this SJW tightening mechanism started in earnest after mainstream blamed SM for getting Trump elected when they were all functioning without the restrictions now present. Twitter's not bold enough to ban the POTUS itself but those with POTUS-adjacent viewpoints, including from respected sites like the Federalist, have been banned because God forbid enough people vote for him again!

Second, this issue scales vertically. Domain registrars/ISPs/Cloudflare have all pulled sites under the same pressure Null faced during Christchurch and, with Deluxe, over this fucking JY legal letter. Like he said on Rekieta, where exactly do you go even if you are the .001 percent smart enough to build your own datacenter if no one connects to it? If the private model is all that, the backbone companies like L3 are mostly private, what's stopping them from enforcing any social code they want?
 
H

HG 400

Guest
kiwifarms.net
First, Twitter is part of a SM oligarchy--a small group of mega-companies that buys out/snuffs out competition so that they are the only choice, or a controlled choice. It's not that different from the Carnegies/Rockefellers/Hearsts. It doesn't matter if you hate the platform, it's the most efficient and plausible way to communicate with users as Null did during the 8/5-8/6 outage. It's even more not an elective for journos/commentators like Murphy. Keep in mind that in the prior suit (Taylor v. Twitter), Twitter asserted that it, Twitter, could ban women or blacks off its platform as part of its 1A rights as its 1A rights were the only ones that mattered--as if its millions of users were just unpaid stringers at will. And that this SJW tightening mechanism started in earnest after mainstream blamed SM for getting Trump elected when they were all functioning without the restrictions now present. Twitter's not bold enough to ban the POTUS itself but those with POTUS-adjacent viewpoints, including from respected sites like the Federalist, have been banned because God forbid enough people vote for him again!

Second, this issue scales vertically. Domain registrars/ISPs/Cloudflare have all pulled sites under the same pressure Null faced during Christchurch and, with Deluxe, over this fucking JY legal letter. Like he said on Rekieta, where exactly do you go even if you are the .001 percent smart enough to build your own datacenter if no one connects to it? If the private model is all that, the backbone companies like L3 are mostly private, what's stopping them from enforcing any social code they want?

Being able to shit out 140 characters of hot takes on the latest Avengers and post pictures of the salmon steaks you cooked last night isn't a basic necessity that needs government safeguarding. Putting first amendment protections on basic internet infrastructures is one thing, but extending it to twitter when there are dozens of functionally identical competitors isn't gonna fly.

If they're snuffing out competition, we have antitrust laws for that.
 

2nd_time_user

Equitably diffident
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 10, 2018
Being able to shit out 140 characters of hot takes on the latest Avengers and post pictures of the salmon steaks you cooked last night isn't a basic necessity that needs government safeguarding. Putting first amendment protections on basic internet infrastructures is one thing, but extending it to twitter when there are dozens of functionally identical competitors isn't gonna fly.

If they're snuffing out competition, we have antitrust laws for that.

Name one. Not Gab. Not functional and not identical.
 

SourDiesel

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
lol it's a twitter ban not the civil rights struggle of our times. Twitter is not the public square, it's a private website full of obnoxious people screeching pointlessly, and the courts forcing them to let Murphy back is like forcing somebody to bake a gay marriage cake or determine what pronouns you're to use under penalty of law.
Name one. Not Gab. Not functional and not identical.
There are tons of social media sites though, Gab is one of them. Gab just isn't as popular as twitter. The problem is that twitter is very popular so everyone wants to be there. Twitter doesn't have to do anything to hold the market share of people's ideas, people fight for twitter themselves. Like right now, Meghan could simply decide she's now on Facebook, follow me on Facebook, but she's put a massive weight on being on twitter specifically. And a lot of people in this thread too are arguing that twitter is the end all and acting like it's a human rights violation to not be able to use twitter.

Twitter doesn't have to do anything to ensure it has no competition. Social media users, even those that hate twitter, are the ones ensuring twitter has no competition. If people started using another platform, then another platform would become popular. And frankly, if twitter's rules are so arbitrary and awful, maybe they should.

There have been many "most popular social media sites" out there that we never use anymore such as Myspace. There's nothing stopping twitter from becoming the MySpace of 140 character shitposts the second people stop placing so much value on a twitter account and use something else.
 

2nd_time_user

Equitably diffident
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 10, 2018
There are tons of social media sites though, Gab is one of them. Gab just isn't as popular as twitter. The problem is that twitter is very popular so everyone wants to be there. Twitter doesn't have to do anything to hold the market share of people's ideas, people fight for twitter themselves. Like right now, Meghan could simply decide she's now on Facebook, follow me on Facebook, but she's put a massive weight on being on twitter specifically. And a lot of people in this thread too are arguing that twitter is the end all and acting like it's a human rights violation to not be able to use twitter.

Twitter doesn't have to do anything to ensure it has no competition. Social media users, even those that hate twitter, are the ones ensuring twitter has no competition. If people started using another platform, then another platform would become popular. And frankly, if twitter's rules are so arbitrary and awful, maybe they should.

There have been many "most popular social media sites" out there that we never use anymore such as Myspace. There's nothing stopping twitter from becoming the MySpace of 140 character shitposts the second people stop placing so much value on a twitter account and use something else.

Murphy has a facebook: https://www.facebook.com/meghanmurphywriter/

But FB isn't functionally equivalent in many ways. You have to subscribe and be approved to even respond to a public group, whereas with Twitter you're free to tell the POTUS, Kamala Harris, or Morgane Oger what you think and have everyone else see, and if they block you, you can then reply to a subcomment. That's how it got so popular, and that's how people got so interdependent on it.

It's not like 2007 where you had all these startups functionally competing on an equal basis and you could pick one. It's not like 2019 where you can still pick your search engine (and that is largely due to the Netscape/IE battle people forgot about). It's about an emerging oligarchy that's making those other sites less likely to see the light of day and die due to lack of VC funding unless they capitulate to the same SJWism that Null said even the INTERNET BACKBONE was doing on his recent Rekieta stream. And that's the point. The SM SJWism code is absolutely setting the precedent for this to go upstream to the highest levels that control the Internet where 99.9 percent of people go.
 

SourDiesel

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Murphy has a facebook: https://www.facebook.com/meghanmurphywriter/

But FB isn't functionally equivalent in many ways. You have to subscribe and be approved to even respond to a public group, whereas with Twitter you're free to tell the POTUS, Kamala Harris, or Morgane Oger what you think and have everyone else see, and if they block you, you can then reply to a subcomment. That's how it got so popular, and that's how people got so interdependent on it.

It's not like 2007 where you had all these startups functionally competing on an equal basis and you could pick one. It's not like 2019 where you can still pick your search engine (and that is largely due to the Netscape/IE battle people forgot about). It's about an emerging oligarchy that's making those other sites less likely to see the light of day and die due to lack of VC funding unless they capitulate to the same SJWism that Null said even the INTERNET BACKBONE was doing on his recent Rekieta stream. And that's the point. The SM SJWism code is absolutely setting the precedent for this to go upstream to the highest levels that control the Internet where 99.9 percent of people go.
It's the internet though. Literally anyone can build a twitter. And some do. There are totally functionally identical sites out there. spinster.xyz is one. People are dependent on twitter because they allow themselves to be. It's not a necessity of life. It really isn't. People just like it a lot.

We're never going to agree on this it seems and that's fine. But a lot of people in this thread I think have a Nintendo fanboy attitude towards Meghan Murphy specifically and it's clouding judgement. Not directed at you specifically, just an observation. Not long ago I explained why I don't identify as a radical feminist even though I believe in radical feminism and I said when you do that, it's a bit like joining a cult. You are not really allowed to disagree with whatever all the cool girls think is hip today. This thread is a good example of why I feel that way.

I don't think Meghan Murphy is helping further women's rights by going on and on about her twitter ban. I feel it's not helpful, possibly even harmful but because I believe that, I've had to listen to people chastise me about how awful trans people are, for instance, and I do not need to be told that. I'm not an enemy of feminism because I don't agree about this one specific woman's tactics or believe losing a twitter account is a civil rights issue. Meghan has a popular blog that she owns and operates and as you said, she has a Facebook account. If she wants her messages to reach an audience she has a much better reach than most even without a twitter account.
 

Velvet Glove Iron Fist

Ask not for whom the clown honks-he honks for thee
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
What this boils down to, or so it seems to me, is the question of whether Twitter, Facebook, Google and other tech giants are private companies or public utilities. That's a question few people seem to want to ask, let alone answer.
 

2nd_time_user

Equitably diffident
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 10, 2018
It's the internet though. Literally anyone can build a twitter. And some do. There are totally functionally identical sites out there. spinster.xyz is one. People are dependent on twitter because they allow themselves to be. It's not a necessity of life. It really isn't. People just like it a lot.

We're never going to agree on this it seems and that's fine. But a lot of people in this thread I think have a Nintendo fanboy attitude towards Meghan Murphy specifically and it's clouding judgement. Not directed at you specifically, just an observation. Not long ago I explained why I don't identify as a radical feminist even though I believe in radical feminism and I said when you do that, it's a bit like joining a cult. You are not really allowed to disagree with whatever all the cool girls think is hip today. This thread is a good example of why I feel that way.

I don't think Meghan Murphy is helping further women's rights by going on and on about her twitter ban. I feel it's not helpful, possibly even harmful but because I believe that, I've had to listen to people chastise me about how awful trans people are, for instance, and I do not need to be told that. I'm not an enemy of feminism because I don't agree about this one specific woman's tactics or believe losing a twitter account is a civil rights issue. Meghan has a popular blog that she owns and operates and as you said, she has a Facebook account. If she wants her messages to reach an audience she has a much better reach than most even without a twitter account.

You and I are basically on the same page regarding radfem as a cult mindset. I know there are a lot of r/gcers here, no offense, but the "Rule 8ism" is so much juvenile bullshit. Ninety percent of their news sources on Yaniv in particular and TIMs in general are conservative and their archiving not for evidence but uwu so their 30K subreddits won't give those big bad Twumpsters a link. Fucking get out of here.

My concern though isn't really with Murphy's ideology any more than with the ideology or for that matter layout of 8-ch. I don't like pro-life or pro-surrogacy sites either with a passion, but I'm not going to argue that they be banned from the clearnet. I just think SM is setting the stage for this to go upstrream (which has already happened) so they can ban from the clearnet whatever they like due to their own oligarchical social code.
 

SourDiesel

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
You and I are basically on the same page regarding radfem as a cult mindset. I know there are a lot of r/gcers here, no offense, but the "Rule 8ism" is so much juvenile bullshit. Ninety percent of their news sources on Yaniv in particular and TIMs in general are conservative and their archiving not for evidence but uwu so their 30K subreddits won't give those big bad Twumpsters a link. Fucking get out of here.

My concern though isn't really with Murphy's ideology any more than with the ideology or for that matter layout of 8-ch. I don't like pro-life or pro-surrogacy sites either with a passion, but I'm not going to argue that they be banned from the clearnet. I just think SM is setting the stage for this to go upstrream (which has already happened) so they can ban from the clearnet whatever they like due to their own oligarchical social code.
I never mind debating with you even though we frequently disagree because you're always very reasonable so it's pretty clear I'm not going get into some cult argument. We do agree on an awful lot though, it's just little specific differences.

And I agree with you about these social media sites. It's part of why I think our obsession with them in this way is a bit unhealthy. Twitter being all powerful can only lead to trouble. Twitter though, like any website at all really, only has as much power as its users place value in it. It has power because it's popular and that power can be taken away if it stops being popular. It's hard to be the "early adopters" so to speak, that just say "fuck twitter it has shitty rules and I don't want to use it" because everyone is there. I get that, but if everyone acts like twitter is uber powerful, it is. When they stop, twitter loses its power. Social media is powerful because "social" not because "media".
 
H

HG 400

Guest
kiwifarms.net
What this boils down to, or so it seems to me, is the question of whether Twitter, Facebook, Google and other tech giants are private companies or public utilities. That's a question few people seem to want to ask, let alone answer.

I think the big difference is that public utilities rely on infrastructure that can't really be duplicated by competitors. We can't allow twelve separate plumbing networks delivering water from twelve companies under the same city. We also can't allow a single corporation to monopolise the water supply because they can't be trusted not to turn off all the valves the second the city catches fire and demand millions of dollars to turn them back on.

Social Media is just a collection of dumb places for people to shitpost garbage, and there's nothing stopping people from making new alternatives.
 

The Littlest Shitlord

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Network effects make social media companies natural monopolies, just like public utilities, but for different reasons. Any social site is only as good as the collection of people who are active there. No one wants to leave for another site because everyone they talk to or want to talk to is already on the old site, and none of them are leaving either for the same reason. If Twitter went apeshit with the bans, they'd Myspace themselves, but unfortunately they are too cunning for that. They like to ban right-wing voices who are actually intelligent and effective, leaving the vast herds of right-wing morons right where they are. By preferentially showing the worst of the right, they discredit it.

As natural monopolies, any social media site with a majority share of its particular market should be subject to strict regulation for political neutrality.
 

Gustav Schuchardt

Forum Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 26, 2018
In a world full of false equivalencies, this one is king, queen, and an entire pantheon.

I'm not sure it is. The civil rights movement was based on the idea that if enough people violated the rules, eventually the rules would be changed. And it worked.

And you can see in Terves vs Twitter that it's working too. Initially Meghan Murphy got banned, then Lindsay Shepherd. Now Lindsay is unbanned and Yaniv's twitter is full of people misgendering him and Twitter seems to have stopped banning them.

Yaniv can buy an electric trimmer and do it all himself.

This sucker should do the job.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Greenworks-22-Inch-4-Amp-Dual-Action-Corded-Hedge-Trimmer-22122/19582344

And to people saying 'Why do you care about Twitter? It's just a bunch of idiots sharing memes' I think that is short sighted. I don't use Twitter myself but it's become a sort of public square.

And this was 'just a meme'


Imagine if the British government had had a way to zap memes like this out of the public discourse in the way that all those terrible Silicon Valley social media companies now do.

We've had Jen Gennai at Google saying that breaking up Google was a bad idea because it would stop them from preventing 'another 2016', i.e. a Republican Presidency.

People have tried to set up alternatives to Silicon Valley tech companies and they've been destroyed by attacking their payment processors, posting CP, or attacking their hosting.

Stone Toss put it succinctly here

1566590036863.png

It's clear Twitter, Facebook, Google etc have put themselves in a situation where, perhaps for the first time in history, a small cabal of companies has the ability to zap memes they dislike out of the public discourse and inject memes they like. In fact the meme that transgender people are oppressed and that society needs to change to accommodate them is one of those injected memes. It's not like most people even knew what transgender meant even a few years ago. Now if you talk to normies about case like Yaniv's a large number of them will default to assuming it's case of cis people oppressing trans people. That's an injected meme - it not an idea that developed organically inside society. And it's clear the trans rights things has got to absurd levels. I can't see how anyone, particularly in this thread can deny that.

And incidentally it's particularly absurd that woke types saying Christian bakers cannot refuse to make a gay wedding cake are also saying 'Tough shit Murphy! Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want'.
 
Last edited:

Pargon

Lost muh ‘nads in th’ Culture War
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
I'm not sure it is. The civil rights movement was based on the idea that if enough people violated the rules, eventually the rules would be changed. And it worked.

And you can see in Terves vs Twitter that it's working too. Initially Meghan Murphy got banned, then Lindsay Shepherd. Now Lindsay is unbanned and Yaniv's twitter is full of people misgendering him and Twitter seems to have stopped banning them.



This sucker should do the job.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Greenworks-22-Inch-4-Amp-Dual-Action-Corded-Hedge-Trimmer-22122/19582344

And to people saying 'Why do you care about Twitter? It's just a bunch of idiots sharing memes' I think that is short sighted. I don't use Twitter myself but it's become a sort of public square.

And this was 'just a meme'


Imagine if the British government had had a way to zap memes like this out of the public discourse in the way that all those terrible Silicon Valley social media companies now do.

We've had Jen Gennai at Google saying that breaking up Google was a bad idea because it would stop them from preventing 'another 2016', i.e. a Republican Presidency.

People have tried to set up alternatives to Silicon Valley tech companies and they've been destroyed by attacking their payment processors, posting CP, or attacking their hosting.

Stone Toss put it succinctly here

View attachment 903984

It's clear Twitter, Facebook, Google etc have put themselves in a situation where, perhaps for the first time in history, a small cabal of companies has the ability to zap memes they dislike out of the public discourse and inject memes they like. In fact the meme that transgender people are oppressed and that society needs to change to accommodate them is one of those injected memes. It's not like most people even knew what transgender meant even a few years ago. Now if you talk to normies about case like Yaniv's a large number of them will default to assuming it's case of cis people oppressing trans people. That's an injected meme - it not an idea that developed organically inside society. And it's clear the trans rights things has got to absurd levels. I can't see how anyone, particularly in this thread can deny that.
I don't disagree with your larger point but Twitter specifically is a laughingstock and no one other than people who'd use it anyway are doing so for serious sociopolitical purposes.

The rest of it, the huge majority, are just people being tards in the internet. They aren't paying attention to any individual's or group's platform. That it could be something better is arguable but ultimately moot because it's shit and for myriad reasons no one cares.
 
H

HG 400

Guest
kiwifarms.net
Imagine if the British government had had a way to zap memes like this out of the public discourse in the way that all those terrible Silicon Valley social media companies now do.

People who choose to get their memes from twitter get the memes they deserve.
 

Gustav Schuchardt

Forum Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 26, 2018
People who choose to get their memes from twitter get the memes they deserve.

I don't use Twitter or FB myself, but enough people do get their memes from there to swing the results of elections. If those companies ban anyone who's not a complete commie, then we're going to see politics swing sharply to the left.

Which is what Jen Gennai was openly saying Google are trying to do.

just make a new twitter

Good luck trying to find hosting, or advertising or a payment processor. And make sure that you have enough mods to delete any CP that people try to post because if you don't the media will run articles about how you need to be shut down to put pressure on your web hosts.

And if you run your own site from scratch, the media will put pressure on the companies that peer with you to try to get you kicked off the Internet.

And if even if you survive all that, the media will just say you're running a forum for Nazis terrorists so that normies won't use it. Which means you won't have the ability to reach people that Twitter, FB etc have. And even if they don't network effects cause lock in.

Gee, it's almost like social media is some sort of natural monopoly or something...

I remember having conversations exactly like this back when Net Neutrality was being astroturfed by Silicon Valley companies eager to save a few pennies on their hosting costs but definitely not eager to give up their power to ban people whose ideas they disagreed with.

1566591402038.png
 
Last edited:
H

HG 400

Guest
kiwifarms.net
I don't use Twitter or FB myself, but enough people do get their memes from there to swing the results of elections. If those companies ban anyone who's not a complete commie, then we're going to see politics swing sharply to the left.

Every nation gets the government it deserves.
 

Similar threads

Yaniv hits on a 17 year old, discusses his new human rights complaint, does his classic Yanimpressions, shows manboobs, and more!
Replies
63
Views
11K