Re:Pro-Trump social network becomes safe haven for ISIS
by rvz on Monday August 02, 2021 @07:53AM
(#28035432)
(Yawn.)
> ...Though the site has had notoriously spotty luck in moderating users on the platform — in its early days, it was flooded with a wide spectrum of pornography
So you are telling us that Facebook and Twitter had NO signs of terrorists or a wide spectrum of pornography, let alone child pornography and illegal content in its early days and still even recently? [0] [1]
I can assure you that there is tons of evidence that those two were a carnival spot for terrorist accounts during the rise of the ISIS caliphate and removed them extremely late because of “the tweets must flow” and so-called 'Free speech'.
From the Atlantic in 2012 [2]
> "Twitter reportedly rebuffed his call on grounds that the Taliban is not officially designated as Foreign Terrorist Organisation by the State Department. The firm has previously signalled its commitment to free speech by arguing that “the tweets must flow” and only shutting down accounts following a violation of its terms of service, such as impersonating someone else or harrassing other users."
Even worse than GETTR then at the time, since it took a long time for Twitter and Facebook to remove them during the rise of ISIS. How can GETTR be a 'safe haven' for them if they were banned almost immediately then? Riddle me that Politico?
> ...Though the site has had notoriously spotty luck in moderating users on the platform — in its early days, it was flooded with a wide spectrum of pornography
So you are telling us that Facebook and Twitter had NO signs of terrorists or a wide spectrum of pornography, let alone child pornography and illegal content in its early days and still even recently? [0] [1]
I can assure you that there is tons of evidence that those two were a carnival spot for terrorist accounts during the rise of the ISIS caliphate and removed them extremely late because of “the tweets must flow” and so-called 'Free speech'.
From the Atlantic in 2012 [2]
> "Twitter reportedly rebuffed his call on grounds that the Taliban is not officially designated as Foreign Terrorist Organisation by the State Department. The firm has previously signalled its commitment to free speech by arguing that “the tweets must flow” and only shutting down accounts following a violation of its terms of service, such as impersonating someone else or harrassing other users."
Even worse than GETTR then at the time, since it took a long time for Twitter and Facebook to remove them during the rise of ISIS. How can GETTR be a 'safe haven' for them if they were banned almost immediately then? Riddle me that Politico?
[0] https://twitter.com/mike_salter/status/1352342668370579456?l...
[1] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/islamic-state-terrorism-face...
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/mo...