Candace Owens Gets Suspended From Twitter

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/08/the-assault-on-free-speech-continued.php

Candace Owens was suspended for 12 hours for unspecified reasons. The guess is she reversed colors from white to black on prior tweets by the new New York Times writer, Sarah Jeong. Candace Owens has 663,000 followers that were denied her tweets. If it was for political reasons and allowing only one side privileges that the other side doesn’t have will hurt our democracy.

Freedom of expression and fairness of rules are close to my heart. I have noticed that people think things are unfair when you reverse their words. The examples are too numerous to go into.

Openness and truth would cure things. If clear reasons were given for judgments. If so, the biases would be seen and then be corrected. Usually people in power go silent when the answer aren’t palatable.

12+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

37 thoughts on “Candace Owens Gets Suspended From Twitter”

  1. From this message we don’t know what rule caused the suspension. We don’t know who made the decision. It sounds like a “Heckler Veto”. People complained so they suspended her account.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  2. It’s not surprising that this happened but in a very real way, Twitter has done a great service by exposing their hypocrisy. Likewise, Sarah Jeong and the NYT are doing a similar service. In the past such attitudes and behaviors were concealed by a veneer of political correctness. No more; it’s all out in the open.

    Candace Owens makes the same point in this tweet/video:

    https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1026161263812927488

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  3. civil westman:
    My life is unhindered by the absence of Twitter or Facebook. Maybe if half the country followed suit…

    I am not on either platform but I understand that they are the new “newspapers” for many people. They are an avenue to bring out things the MSM would not publish.

    0

  4. civil westman:
    My life is unhindered by the absence of Twitter or Facebook. Maybe if half the country followed suit…

    I’m with you, to a point. I only read tweets, never write them. There are two positive things I can say about social media:

    1. Some people are essentially non-political, hence their Twitter feeds are not filled with the hate one finds elsewhere. Instead, they are places to learn. Examples are @naval and @nntaleb. I also follow people like Candace Owens and Scott Adams but never read responses to their tweets.
    2. Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook are ways of circumventing the legacy media, which heretofore have enjoyed a monopoly on the transmission of ideas and information. People like Candace Owens would never have become prominent without these alternatives. Flawed as they are, these alternatives have broken the MSM’s stranglehold on the channels of communication.

    I am grateful for these alternatives because they enrich my life without being exposed to the vitriol of today’s political discourse. There’s plenty of useful, interesting stuff out there; nobody is forced to descend into the muck of Twitter-hate.

    Edit: I notice that both Taleb and Adams follow Candace Owens. Likewise, Adams and Taleb both follow Naval Ravikant. GMTA, I guess.

    6+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  5. drlorentz:
    Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook are ways of circumventing the legacy media, which heretofore have enjoyed a monopoly on the transmission of ideas and information. People like Candace Owens would never have become prominent without these alternatives. Flawed as they are, these alternatives have broken the MSM’s stranglehold on the channels of communication.

    Yes, and this is making conservatives vulnerable to the manipulations of Twitter, Youtube and Facebook.   One of these days things will get really tense and suddenly conservatives will be unable to communicate with each other.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  6. 10 Cents:

    ctlaw:
    @dime, Did you see the Elizabeth Heng video later in the PowerLine article?

    I just looked at it. It was taken down from FaceBook, right? Did Facebook watch the video?

    That’s a great campaign commercial.  I can see why Facebook, a leisure service of the Democratic National Committee, had to censor it.  It’s positive, forward-looking, and the best part about it is Ms. Heng does not attack her Democrat opponent except to say: Nothing has changed for the better in his 14 years in office, and during that same time, look what I have accomplished!

    The DNC Facebook rationale for censoring: “We don’t allow ads that contain shocking, disrespectful or sensational content, including ads that depict violence or threats of violence.”  This has to refer to the opening section, which discussed and showed the crimes of the socialist Khmer Rouge.

    Let me attempt to translate the Facebook objection: “Facebook don’t allow ads that contain shocking, disrespectful or sensational content regarding Socialism, including ads that depict violence or threats of violence perpetrated by Socialists.  And, by the way, we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.  Get with the program!  Sincerely yours, Chief Censor Sarah Jeong.”

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  7. MJBubba:

    drlorentz:
    Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook are ways of circumventing the legacy media, which heretofore have enjoyed a monopoly on the transmission of ideas and information. People like Candace Owens would never have become prominent without these alternatives. Flawed as they are, these alternatives have broken the MSM’s stranglehold on the channels of communication.

    Yes, and this is making conservatives vulnerable to the manipulations of Twitter, Youtube and Facebook.   One of these days things will get really tense and suddenly conservatives will be unable to communicate with each other.

    Say what you like about social media but the alternative was no medium of communication for conservatives to communicate with each other. Because that was the status quo ante. So your worst-case scenario is back to where we were 10 or 15 years ago. I don’t understand the line of reasoning that asserts something that you didn’t have before is bad to have now because someone might take it away later.

    A more optimistic scenario is that Twitter, et al. are called to account (as they were in this instance), even as they reveal themselves as the bigots they are. I submit that the present case is evidence for this view. In the meantime, YouTube and FaceBook are vehicles for things like the WalkAway movement – something that probably could never have come about during the previous decade. This is not an argument for complacency; it is an argument for exploiting the tools at our disposal while recognizing that any tool can break. Don’t be angry about the tool while it still works.

    0

  8. Had Marie Antoinette offered half a loaf, then, instead of “let them eat cakes,” France might still be a monarchy? Half a loaf on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube=Google (the latter is also biased in its search results and I no longer use it either) IMO is, at minimum, worth continuous outrage if not abandonment by half the population. Surely there is a market for un-politically-censored alternatives and clever enough conservative entrepreneurs to make it happen.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  9. civil westman:
    Had Marie Antoinette offered half a loaf, then, instead of “let them eat cakes,” France might still be a monarchy? Half a loaf on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube=Google (the latter is also biased in its search results and I no longer use it either) IMO is, at minimum, worth continuous outrage if not abandonment by half the population. Surely there is a market for un-politically-censored alternatives and clever enough conservative entrepreneurs to make it happen.

    I agree but conservatives are notorious for not changing easily. How often do these alternatives succeed?

    0

  10. civil westman:
    Had Marie Antoinette offered half a loaf, then, instead of “let them eat cakes,” France might still be a monarchy? Half a loaf on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube=Google (the latter is also biased in its search results and I no longer use it either) IMO is, at minimum, worth continuous outrage if not abandonment by half the population. Surely there is a market for un-politically-censored alternatives and clever enough conservative entrepreneurs to make it happen.

    Alternatives? Spend some time over at gab.ai and then get back to us. Twitter has been around for well over a decade, which is about a century in internet years, and gab is all there is. I guess we could just keep waiting for our ship to come in…

    0

  11. The details of my post are a bit off topic, but the hypocrisy is the same.

    Owens’ story reminded me of the infamous Rachel Dolezal who posed as black as the head of the NAACP. She was discovered to be white and quickly de-throned. “But, I identify as black” she pleaded to no avail. NAACP officials simply responded “But you’re not.”

    Hmm… Sound like another issue we’ve been reading so much about lately that may include restrooms, locker rooms, etc.?

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  12. P.S. Owens’ little prank reminds me of something you-know-who in the WH would be sorry he didn’t think of first. 🙂

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  13. Of course Candace Owens was suspended from twitter. She is effective in challenging the left and harming their interests. Soon she will be banned permanently because of that.

    Anyway, the problem for potential conservative entrepreneurs is that outfits like twitter and youtube aren’t really money making ventures, certainly not at this point. I’m not sure if twitter has ever made any sort of operating profit- or ever will- and I’ve read that youtube still loses two billion dollars a year. When your potential competitors can continue to exist under those circumstances it’s tough to compete, no matter how awful they are.

    Bluntly, market forces aren’t going to solve this problem, at least not soon enough to matter. We need to use the tools at hand to solve the problem- that is, the Republican control of the government- to force the left to stop discriminating against us. The government is apparently too restrained for their tastes to enable them to impose tyranny by means of the law, so they have decided to use their control of the economy.

    I see no reason why we should allow them to do this. I will repeat- we need to use the armed might of the state to force- I emphasize force– the left to stop discriminating against us, even though they don’t want to, and even though they will squeal even louder when they are made to.

    We can do it now, when it would simply be a matter of the GOP representing the people who voted for them, or we can try to do it later, when the left will have not only long since banned Candace Owens, but will be refusing to allow any Republican at all to run any ad anywhere.

    I say we do it now. But since I’m implicitly expecting the gop to stop being the stupid party, civil war it is.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  14. Xennady:
    I’m not sure if twitter has ever made any sort of operating profit- or ever will- and I’ve read that youtube still loses two billion dollars a year.

    You are right about twitter. I always put aside cash for “in and out” investments and bought twitter in the high 20s; sold it in the mid 40s. It’s going nowhere right now but thank you very much for my new dining room furniture. 🙂

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  15. Xennady:
    Anyway, the problem for potential conservative entrepreneurs is that outfits like twitter and youtube aren’t really money making ventures, certainly not at this point. I’m not sure if twitter has ever made any sort of operating profit- or ever will- and I’ve read that youtube still loses two billion dollars a year. When your potential competitors can continue to exist under those circumstances it’s tough to compete, no matter how awful they are.

    YouTube is part of Alphabet (GOOG); they’ve make money every quarter for some time. Likewise, Twitter (TWTR) has had earnings since 2014. I’ve spent enough time around Sand Hill Road to know that those guys are in it for the money. They may also have their political interests but making money is job one. Twitter is over ten years old and went public almost five years ago. Financial markets aren’t going to carry anyone that long without something to show for it. Which is precisely why…

    Xennady:
    Bluntly, market forces aren’t going to solve this problem, at least not soon enough to matter.

    Now we’re getting a little closer to reality. Market forces are on Twitter’s side, so no, market forces aren’t going to overthrow Twitter anytime soon. The social media companies enjoy near-monopoly market power, which is why there’s a case to be made for government intervention. Whether the Republicans in Congress and the administration have the stones to do that is unclear.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  16. Twitter financials are not good as SNAP’s were not. They were fun to fool around with for a day (SNAP) and a couple of months (Twitter) but I am still placing my bets on FB.

    Read the financials and one particular article:

    How Facebook Became The Strongest Buy Of The YearMichael D. Harris

    Michael D. Harris

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  17. YouTube is part of Alphabet (GOOG); they’ve make money every quarter for some time.

    I know, and I almost mentioned this, but the point is that their youtube subsidiary is losing boatloads of money.  This is an obvious challenge for any potential conservative challenger,

    They may also have their political interests but making money is job one.

    I flat out disagree. Time and again when leftist-dominated corporations face the choice of making money or endorsing leftist insanity they choose crazy, again and again. I note the recent troubles of the NFL, the fate of NASCAR, and even Twitter. I bet Twitter’s stock price would be quite a bit higher if the SJWs running it weren’t so intent on driving away a vast part of their potential market.

    But it so far isn’t a choice between making money or not discriminating against conservatives. It’s a choice between making somewhat less money and sticking it to your political enemies. They’re quite happy to take half a loaf, and deplatform the people they despise.

    Now we’re getting a little closer to reality.

    Alas, no. This really isn’t about the stock market, or market forces. It’s about something more fundamental: Do conservatives have rights? Or are we to be treated as subhuman vermin who are to be shunned at every turn?

    The social media companies enjoy near-monopoly market power, which is why there’s a case to be made for government intervention.

    Uhm, no. I say there is a case for government intervention because they are discriminating against conservatives, and I don’t like it. If the government doesn’t care if I am discriminated against because of my beliefs, then the government can burn- and it’s time to open cartridge box, to end the present regime.

    But I will again note that we control the government, including the body that writes law. That body- Congress- should write law ending the discrimination against conservatives that leftists love to impose.

    The alternative is vastly worse. I wonder what Twitters stock price will be if the United States has been reduced to an abattoir.

    Not much, I’d guess.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  18. Xennady:
    >>YouTube is part of Alphabet (GOOG); they’ve make money every quarter for some time.

    I know, and I almost mentioned this, but the point is that their youtube subsidiary is losing boatloads of money.

    Nope, the point is that Twitter isn’t losing money and that’s the topic of this post, not YouTube. Furthermore, the assertion about YouTube is unsourced. Link?

    Xennady:
    >>They may also have their political interests but making money is job one.

    I flat out disagree. Time and again when leftist-dominated corporations face the choice of making money or endorsing leftist insanity they choose crazy, again and again. I note the recent troubles of the NFL, the fate of NASCAR, and even Twitter. I bet Twitter’s stock price would be quite a bit higher if the SJWs running it weren’t so intent on driving away a vast part of their potential market. [emphasis added]

    Interesting speculation with no supporting evidence. Twitter is doing just fine without our advice about how to run the business. As I noted above, the market isn’t useful in providing an alternative, not because Twitter loses money (it doesn’t) but because the alternative (gab.ai) is run like a nonprofit. The market has not been kind to it. If Twitter were, indeed, “driving away a vast part of their potential market” then Gab or some other platform would have taken off like gangbusters. Perhaps there’s a business opportunity for you.

    Xennady:
    >>Now we’re getting a little closer to reality.

    Alas, no. This really isn’t about the stock market, or market forces.

    Well, I was agreeing with you on that. Some folks just can’t take yes for an answer. The point is that Twitter is extremely successful in the market so looking for markets to correct the problem is futile.

    Xennady:
    Uhm, no. I say there is a case for government intervention because they are discriminating against conservatives, and I don’t like it.

    I favor freedom of association. If a private firm wants to discriminate against conservatives, liberals, tall people, or whatever, have at it. The problem arises when there is no alternative. If Twitter is going to operate as a state-sanctioned monopoly, it needs regulation. If it’s to be broken up, as Ma Bell was, then no further intervention is required. Whinging about unfairness is more of a prog thing, especially if the reasoning is because “I don’t like it.” Next thing you know, Christian bakers will be forced to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  19. drlorentz:
    I favor freedom of association. If a private firm wants to discriminate against conservatives, liberals, tall people, or whatever, have at it. The problem arises when there is no alternative. If Twitter is going to operate as a state-sanctioned monopoly, it needs regulation.

    Exactly. I would argue that Twitter operates as a free-for-all that may favor in terms of percentages, liberals, simply because the majority of people in the U.S. are liberals.

    So what? We respond with Sean and Laura and Rush and candidates like Trump who successfully get out a vote that has been quiet for far too long.

    But the BEST thing about all these tech companies that folks on this site seem to despise is that Fi-Cons are the most qualified intellectually to analyze the financials and make serious donuts off their stock.

    Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey would be appalled if they knew right wing Fi-Cons such as myself have earned a prosperous living from all their hard work.

    I win.

    0

  20. On Twitter

    For now, Twitter’s business is going strong. Twitter posted sales of $665 million for the first three months of 2018, a 21% increase from the same period a year earlier. By comparison, Twitter’s ad sales business was shrinking this time last year.
    Much of the revenue growth came from Twitter’s international markets, which are now on the cusp of overtaking Twitter’s U.S. ad revenue. The company is also seeing more traction from videos, which now make up more than half of its total ad revenue.
    Twitter has 336 million monthly active users globally, adding six million users from the prior quarter and up from 327 million a year earlier. Nearly all of that growth is coming from overseas: Twitter had 69 million users in the US, unchanged from a year earlier.

    Without the added growth from the international market Twitter would be might have been unprofitable since the US market has not changed from the prior money losing year.

    0

Leave a Reply