It’s not just the usual suspects wanting Milo Yiannopoulos back on Twitter.
The alt-right conservative firebrand was “permanently” booted off the microblogging social network earlier this week after Twitter concluded he had led a harassment campaign against the embattled Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones.
Yet Twitter’s decision, and that of its CEO Jack Dorsey, to ban Milo has outraged these liberal columnists who make it clear that while Milo may not be their favorite person, the development is wrong on so many levels:
Banning Milo Contravenes Twitter’s Terms Of Service
Yahoo Finance: Rob Pegoraro
“Yiannopoulos’s initial tweet was not racist, just insulting… the polite way to describe Yiannopoulos is “provocateur,” but “professional jerk” might be a more accurate label. He has a long history of insulting the character of opponents while complaining that the real problem is the politically-correct oppression of men… Yiannopoulos’s Twitter presence did not depart from that pattern of trolling, as I saw in my occasional checks of his profile. But being a jerk doesn’t break Twitter’s terms of service.”
Banning Milo Further Limits Freedom Of Expression
Irish Times: Laura Kennedy
“Yiannopoulos is not being punished for writing abusive tweets. At no point in Twitter’s terms of service does it clearly define what the term abuse means, or provide any evidence that the tweets in question were in fact abusive. Yiannopoulos has been banned for inciting his followers to attack Leslie Jones in a targeted way, which he simply didn’t do.”
Banning Milo Is Pointless And Will Make Him A Martyr
PCMag: Sascha Segan
“Twitter stepped neatly into Lord of the Shitlords Milo Yiannopolous’s trap banning… Milo is like burning a witch and then saying you’ve done something about the plague. It makes him a scapegoat and a high-profile martyr while doing absolutely zero about the broader problem he represents, which is widespread, anonymous, sexist, racist, and anti-Semitic abuse. Like a Mafia don in a friendly, minimum-security prison, Milo will have no problem ordering his legions from exile. In fact, his street cred has now improved.”
Banning Milo Shields Provocateurs More Offensive Than He Is
The Independent: Will Gore
“The problem on this occasion is that Twitter appears to have played the man rather than the ball. Yiannopoulos might well be a disagreeable prat, but banning him from social media will do more to whip up those whose postings really do go beyond the pale than his continued presence ever could. His voice and his ability to be heard extend beyond the confines of the Twittersphere – hard though that may be for Jack Dorsey to believe.”
Banning Milo Fuels Alt-Right Supremacy
“Twitter dealing with Yiannopoulos instead of treating the bigger problem of widespread harassment allows the alt-right to claim, as it has, that its views aren’t morally wrong or hateful, but threatening to an establishment.
“Attempting to wipe alt-right leadership from public spaces bolsters the narrative that this group is not a hate mob — it’s a persecuted school of thought curtailed by authoritarian thought police that fear its power. Through this, the alt-right generates further mistrust in the establishment — making anti-establishment candidates like Trump all the more appealing.
“Banning Yiannopoulos, and agitators like him, isn’t just fuel for the alt-right’s fire — it’s water for its roots.”
I’m liberal as fuck and it’s still blatantly clear milo yiannopoulos did not deserve to be banned on twitter #FirstAmendment #FreeMilo
— olivia (@yungolivia) July 21, 2016