UPDATE: 4/3/15 1PM PST WUWT gets results, Tom is out of “twitmo”
Not being able to win arguments on merits, a complaint was apparently made to ban/suspend Tom Nelson from Twitter for using the very same description of a graph that climate scientist Gavin Schmidt made.
Tom Nelson alerts me via email of this, last week it was Steven Goddard, whose account has been reinstated after massive complaints to Twitter. This week, we have the same tactic against Tom Nelson. He writes:
On March 22, After I posted this graph,
@ClimateOfGavin called it “crap”.
I then posted @KHayhoe’s “mother of all hockey sticks” below, and asked if it was “crap”.
Today, April 1, Twitter informed me that my account was “locked” until I deleted this tweet:
Twitter then unlocked my account. After I posted the “Delete tweet” screen shot above, I was suspended.
If calling a graph “crap” is grounds for suspension, why isn’t @ClimateofGavin suspended?
Updates: Mark Steyn asks a good question here:
Iowahawk nailed it here, in reference to warmists trying to shut down Steve Goddard:
The big issue in this debate is that there is no “consequences” for acting unethically if you are a global warming advocate. There are only “rewards” for doing so. We need to start having some consequences for these people.
Is this a case where there needs to be some consequences?
The warmists have resorted to censorship, because their “science” is anything but. They can’t defend it from objective scrutiny. I have been banned from the blogs at Weather Underground (a fitting name), because I’ve repeated made them look like fools with their pseudoscience.
Anthony Watts tackles the big science issues….
This site censors for much lesser offenses.
[REPLY: Oh, please Your whining gets you nowhere, you’ve appeared here under several sockpuppet aliases, and changed emails to try to get around the fact that you’ve violated site policy http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/ And yes, you are banned for that behavior, and will continue to be. Tom Nelson uses his own name, you taunt from the shadows and used several fake names. I’m not obligated to consider your opinion when you constantly abuse the rules. Feel free to be as upset as you wish, but all future comments from you or your various persona will go straight to the bit bucket -Anthony]
One of our freedoms is to have access to social media but, as with all of our freedoms, most people do not understand how to use them and that mis-use is hurting other people. Hence I am not on social media except Linked-in. People on Linked-in are generally polite and reserved in expressing their opinions.
Anonymity is a curse and a blessing on the internet.
It is a blessing because never before in history have so many people been able to share ideas, views and thought so freely and openly without retribution. Gavin can spout and spit his opinions and vitriol at skeptics and be paid handsomely, others can and do get fired from their jobs for expressing their opinions.
It is a curse because it frees people from accountability and therefore common decency. Comment threads can be loathsome places where people who take a break from beating their girlfriends or kicking the dog go to express opinions or where decent folks find an outlet for suppressed rage.
There is a lot of anger out there, and it can be hurtful, but I say let the experiment continue.
I’ll have to look up that social media freedom thing. That’s a new one on me. I know that you aren’t always aloud to talk to anyone you meet on the street; they may be offended by you talking to them.
Somebody/thing/whatever sent me an e-mail saying: Look at all the people you may know on linktin; whatever that is. I told them that US Customs told me just the other day, that I am NOT a person of interest to them. So if US Customs isn’t looking for me; I don’t care who else may be; or may not be for that matter.
I’m sure their are lots of identity thieves who simply love all of the stuff that people give them on social media.
There’s that old French joke about the guillotine engineer victim, who elected to get treated face up.
After two failures, he said; “I think I can see what is jamming the blade up there !”
so enjoy your right to social media.
g
Gavin Schmidt has a low intellectual discourse threshold. It is so low that he cannot debate his questionable thought processes found in his professional work corpus.
We have the answer to the lyrical question ‘Where Are The Clowns?’.
John
I can’t even get my head around why these so called expert climate scientists like Schmidt and Mann waste their precious time Tweeting in the the first place. It appears so demeaning to me.
Twits on Twitter: – Perhaps the title for a new TV reality show where teams of contestants compete to out Twit each other:
twit (twĭt) n. 1. Informal A foolishly annoying person. 2. A reproach, gibe, or taunt. tr.v. twit·ted, twit·ting, twits. To taunt, ridicule, or tease, especially for embarrassing mistakes or faults:
Future historians of science will wonder how a few no-rate scientists managed to co-opt so much of science so successfully, to the point where questioning their CO2-driven AGW dogma is both funding and career death, even in unrelated fields, while their own field of climate science, so-called, has gone from an obscure backwater to receiving multi-billions per year in funding.
Lsyenko was a rank amateur compared to Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Trenberth, and their ilk.
Brandon Gates: Some of this is indirectly relevant to the topic of the head post; namely that Twitter has community participation standards just as you do.
Well, that’s part of the topic. The rest is that their standards are not evenly applied. Some are more equal than others.
Juan Slayton,
The head post doesn’t specify what community standard Twitter invoked to justify the account suspension. It’s more than a bit hasty to talk about unevenly applied standards without that information in hand, don’t you think?
So if Twitter doesn’t explicitly specify their reasons for suspension, their even-handedness can not be questioned? How convenient….
Juan Slayton,
Read what I actually wrote: The head post doesn’t specify what community standard Twitter invoked to justify the account suspension.
Twitter does explicitly specify their terms of use: https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules#
Read the head post again.
Do we know which of those terms Twitter used to justify suspending Tom Nelson’s account?
Does “suspended” mean the same thing as “banned”?
Brandon,
It’s bizarre to me that you, an obvious subscriber to the AGW orthodoxy, wind up writing comment after comment on an incredibly trivial thread that doesn’t come close to being an opportunity to convert ambivalent skeptics.
We know that this isn’t your only port of call and that your demeanour elsewhere belies your querulous tone here.
You’re calling people to task for casting aspersions on the good faith of twitter!
What do you do on the week-end for fun?
mebbe,
I don’t see much ambivalence on this blog. As for this thread, I don’t think the issues being discussed are at trivial.
I take it for granted that what I write in public on the Internet is avaialable for everyone to read. What of it?
lol, no. I don’t particularly like twitter. Not twitter itself, but the concept … and not just that really, but how it’s so often used. I think reducing conversations down to 160 characters is a poor way to communicate issues of any great import or complexity … such as the state of climate and climate science. Science in general. Politics. Unholy hybrids of science and politics. Etc., ad infinitum, ad naseum.
I (hope I) don’t have such a strong case of premature grouch syndrome that I’d go so far as to say that twitter is ruining critical thinking and conversational skills … but have you seen some of the stuff kids these days are saying?
Geez you’re persistent. I fly remote control airplanes on Sunday with a bunch of other geeks like me. Is there anything ELSE you want to know about my private life which you think is relevant? For Pete’s sake, I may be a pugnacious big-mouthed arrogant know-it-all son-of-a-horses-rear-end at times, but I really do make an effort to keep my nose out of others’ personal business.
BG says,
“Juan Slayton,
The head post doesn’t specify what community standard Twitter invoked to justify the account suspension. It’s more than a bit hasty to talk about unevenly applied standards without that information in hand, don’t you think?”
=====================================
The head post clearly states that until a specific comment is deleted, the ban would have effect.
You saw the post, what reason do you think twit demanded it be deleted?
Brandon,
I’ve shown your response to Dr. Watson and he’s opined that you are clearly a politician since you evaded all the actual questions and chose, instead, to reply to the rhetorical question at the end about how you entertain yourself.
He also was struck by the irony of your exclamation that I am persistent, in light of your dogged tenacity on insignificant threads, your protestation notwithstanding.
I actually am interested in why you would commit so much energy to visits behind enemy lines but I don’t really expect you to tell me.
Of course, you have probably absorbed the entirety of the Lewandowsky manifesto and so know exactly where I am coming from; I see kemtrayls emanating from model aircraft as they buzz me at the tennis courts.
I don’t like twitter, either, but we all said the same about video games, tv, and Victorian mothers despaired at their daughters wasting their lives in novels when they could have been doing needle-work.
mebbe,
Well maybe the problem is that my shrink only has a masters degree. However, he, like me, knows that I’m not a politician. You certainly like making things up as you go. I don’t need Lewandowsky to figure that one out … besides, Bob Altemyer has a far more comprehensive treatment and a great sense of humour about the topic:
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
Much more readable than Dr. Lew. YMMV.
You should have also queried Mr. Holmes, he may have been able to correctly ferret out the intentional irony. Speaking of, I don’t have to consult with anyone but myself to note the supreme irony that none of this conversation has anything to do with my comment you first replied to in this subthread.
I could counter with an answer for spite, but I’m pretty sure that’s what you’re playing for. “Perverse psychology” I call it. Oh hell with it. Has it occurred to you that I don’t like spending too much time in echo chambers which tend to confirm my own preconceived biases?
Ah. Well, when the full-scale white — not black — helicopters show up, you know you’ve had it.
Ayup, generation gap. I was destined to be a curmudgeon … may as well accept the inevitable.
Have discovered a pattern. Obama decides to push Federal global warming executive orders, shutting down fracking and the like (because it’s the only healthy aspect of the ecnomy left unmolested).
Congressman Witch Hunt (Dem – State of Confusion, Gerrymander county) attacks a Desmaug blog list of sceptical scientists.
Twitter feed blocks Steve Goddard and then Tom Nelson over dubious non infractions or misdemeanor thought crime.
Same day they try to attack the actual climate, rebuking Antarctica for being a counter revolutionary ice cube bigger than North America.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22Antarctica%E2%80%99s+hottest+day%22
President Stompyfoot is acting up again.
Thomas Crapper is rolling over in his grave.
twitter wars… so inside baseball…
If you play the twitter facebook MSM game…. you get burned.
WUWT.. the web site, is immune.
When in doubt, spritz questionable tweets with Poopourri. Problem solved.
Speaking of problems, somebody should invent a toilet bowl that muffles sounds instead of amplifying them.
Carbon fiber stealth bowl. Muffles farts and radar.
A Despot By Any Other Name..
The actions of Twitter are the digital equivalent of the old Communist regime tactic of “Disappearing” someone they found threatening or wouldn’t tow the party line. Tom Nelson was disappeared off Twitter, both to intimidate him personally, but also to warn others of the cost for political dissent.
Companies like Twitter and others, simply violate the 1st amendment rights of Tom and other users. A fact that has grave impact, not only on the Climate Change debate, but is already altering the course of societies globally and should be challenged by the full weight of federal legislators in all countries that value liberty and freedom of speech.
Technology Evolving Faster Than Legislation
The issue that seems to escape even the most diligent advocates of liberty and freedom of speech is the vast number of battles that established societal norms were fought in an analogue age before technology was a dominant factor. When communication were once separate from the manner in which one chose to engage within society. The Pen and Paper was one of the most effective and open communication platforms ever invented.
Increasingly, with software automation and the world of downloadable Apps, it has never been easier to control the public because communications and engagement are being intertwined, across virtually every level of interaction in society: Governmental, Commercial and Social. The power of which creates the temptation for ethically bereft politicians, companies and activists to violate the rights of the public by using these technologies to rescind the protections of the constitution to the outdated societal norms of the analogue past.
For generations, free willed people had become familiar with the manner in which this basic right was exercised within public discourse and defined interactions with key public entities. Any violation of these rights to express one’s personal viewpoint was reflexively challenged with great confidence and vigour, fuelled not only by the sense of justice provided by the 1st amendment, but even individuals that were not educated in the law were bolstered by the social norms set from the precedent of past battles against attempts to censor ideas.
Consider the time of the last great revolution in communications, the Telephone industry was established around the world, largely by the hand of governments that had evolved a well defined understanding of their obligations to Privacy and Freedom of Speech, codified in legislation, informed by principles reflected in the U.S. 1st Amendment.
The trouble with the advent of Internet and Mobile technologies, many of these best understood precedents became much harder to identify how those rights applied to the new behavioural scenarios in which people interact and exchange ideas on those platforms.
Remember: If You Don’t Pay For It, YOU ARE The Product
For example, in the past, nobody would accept a telephone service in which because calls were free: all calls were monitored by the carrier for the purpose of ensuring that every word of your conversations were deemed by them, to conform to an arbitrary set of restrictions defined at the whim of said carrier. This scenario was avoided by the foresight of early legislators by establishing a technological and legislative framework to govern carriers with due consideration for privacy and 1st Amendment principles. Let alone the bizarre notion that by using the phone would mean you have agreed that the carrier owns everything that you shared while on the phone, to be used by that company for any purpose it sees fit, in perpetuity.
All such information will be stored permanently, aggregated, mined and remined into the future by a military grade international Intelligence Service that studies you in terms of, at minimum: your demographic, psychographic traits, for your stage of life characteristics, the places you go, your friends and associates, the people and entities with which you make contact, your health and medication details. Then they sell the output of that analysis to the highest bidder to subject you to sophisticated psychological manipulation, sometimes in the form of advertising, often in the guise of a modified experience of the platform over which they control and for which you will not be informed. (Such as Twitter censoring the locations into which a tweet is published.) Simply explained in the common vernacular as: Targeted Advertising and Personalisation services.
Sadly, the fact this situation was allowed to develop for Internet and Mobile technologies is an indictment of the current generation of legislators and needs to be addressed.
What Has Changed?
The paradigm shift for the 21st century is that the vast majority of societal engagement is based on technologies and the vast majority of those are privately owned. The communications revolutions facilitated by Internet technologies embodies in major platforms like Twitter were established by private entities that unlike governments, carried no obligation to police 1st Amendment rights. To the contrary, as private entities, legislation under company law specifically inverted the obligations of directors from that of government from guarding the rights of the public, to protecting the interests of shareholders for the utilisation of company products, over and above their customers.
Outsourcing Political Censorship
Ever wondered why the mostly left leaning Main Stream Media (MSM) have so enthusiastically endorsed the use of Twitter? Because the political affiliations of these companies can be understood by their policy documents and their philanthropic investments. In that manner, Twitter has demonstrated consistent adherence to the Left Wing Narrative, but even more critically, the interactions Twitter provides between users (Use Cases) provides extraordinary levels of control over the discourse, with very little transparency to the manipulation by applied by Twitter or the politically protected accounts.
In short: It’s the ideal platform to “Disappear” political dissenters.
It follows that supportive individuals and organisations in the activist community and MSM can rely on Twitter to protect their campaigns, the logical conclusion is that politicians would also validate Twitter as a platform of influence. Hence, you see the absurd situation of a national press office, or broadcaster quoting and individual tweet, or a Hashtag that is trending because of a few hundred or thousands of tweets, while ignoring a site like WUWT with excess of 225 million visitors.
Societies today benefit from communications platforms like Twitter and Facebook that are so cheap it’s completely unmetered. Everyday people rely on companies like Google to provide information to queries. Many have come to think of Google results as a de facto standard for the very existence of information relating to some concepts. But the results are highly contrived and susceptible to manipulation, as they have already been found guilty.
But if people forget the fact that freedoms won are not permanent and must be defended against the next generation will to exploit a bewildered and overwhelmed public. The cost for the individual will be the progressive dismantling of their constitutional rights.
“””””…..Consider the time of the last great revolution in communications, the Telephone industry was established around the world, largely by the hand of governments that had evolved a well defined understanding of their obligations to Privacy and Freedom of Speech, codified in legislation, informed by principles reflected in the U.S. 1st Amendment…….””””””
You must be dreaming. The Telephone Industry was established by Ma Bell, without aid and comfort of any government. And it worked like a charm, with AT&T shipping products that actually worked, and manufactured by their Western Electric subsidiary. And they built the Bell Telephone Laboratories; a National research treasure that consulted widely with its patent licencees, to transfer technology to them long before it would ever be blessed to go into the Bell Telephone System.
Then the government meddlers jumped in; jackboots and all, and they destroyed what private enterprise had built, and along with it, one of the world’s great research resources.
I can hardly believe the open kimono handholding that I got at one of my technology transfer sessions with top Bell Labs researchers free to tell me anything I wanted to know about what was of interest to me. (at that time it was LED technology that was of interest; and we got it into the public hands years before AT&T deemed it stable enough for “The Bell System.”)
Nah ! Government just got in the way, and turned a reliable Telephone System, into a tower of babble.
g
Thanks for the reply George,
I’m sorry, I don’t see how your comment relates to the quote you provided from me.
Additionally, perhaps I’d ask we focus the core point and cutting some slack on the peripherals considering the fact WUWT is a global community, so few observations will ever be specifically applicable in every city country in which it is read if applied locally. Your example was specific to the US and certainly isn’t true for various other counties in the world. Even so, I didn’t suggest Bell was established by government aide, but that legislators rose to the challenge of creating an effective legal framework that protected the publics constitutional rights. For example, it’s easy to understand why phone tapping was made illegal. But the privacy violation represented by “cookies” and various meta data tracking, added to personal legal records is ubiquitous today and a far greater privacy violation. (I accept many people do not understand the practice, hence are ambivalent to the risk.) Suffice to say, Big Data is in it’s infancy. Whatever you believe the threat is today, billions are currently being spent to expand the reach of tracking, data capture, sharing and scenario based interventions.
The rest of your comments related to the public versus private management (though I share your view), that was not the topic of my post. The issue that was core to my post was the lack of legislative protection for constitutional rights. Where govts around the world were aware of their obligations and provided an effective legislative framework that facilitated the growth of the telephony industry, without totally abandoning the public’s constitutional rights. As I stated, this is clearly not the case for Internet and Mobile technologies.
It is easy for some to say, they don’t use Twitter and conclude that social media is irrelevant. But that would both short sighted and incorrect. Facebook claims users of 1.23 billion users. Twitter claims 288 million users and along with Facebook is heavily leveraged by the media, activists and political class as a tool for influencing opinion and organising campaigns. Google claims to serve 3.5 billion searches per day from a dominant share of the search market. Companies such as these control the Mega Scale platforms that represent the fundamental infrastructure for communications and engagement within society globally. It would be ludicrous to ignore the impact to constitutional rights, let alone the debate on Climate Change from organisations with that degree of influence.
I hope that clarifies the issues I attempted to address.
Liberals apparently have no spine. What a bunch of wusses… It’s no wonder they zealously crave a big-mommy government to control and take care of them.
Evidently, in Australia; well Victoria, the Conservatives call themselves (and their party), the Liberal Party. Go figure.
Seems like selective enforcement of Twitter policy, if it is indeed a policy. When I do a google search for “crap” on the twitter.com site, I get over 8,330,000 hits. The first several have “crap” in their “handle” (I think it is called; since I am not a Twit, nor cool to boot, I may not have the jargon right.). Here are the first few:
Crap Taxidermy (@CrapTaxidermy) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/craptaxidermy
The latest Tweets from Crap Taxidermy (@CrapTaxidermy). We’ve got a book! Its called; ‘Much ado about Stuffing’ and is available from http://t.co/ozCfPAv7OL.
CRAP Eyewear (@crapeyewear) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/crapeyewear
1907 tweets • 210 photos/videos • 2368 followers. “Enter to WIN the new #TheTuffPatrol shades from our friends @WhoWhatWear: https://t.co/rQbB5WWnn0 …
Tweets about #crap hashtag on Twitter
https://twitter.com/hashtag/crap
On Mar 27 @NajeeDeTiege tweeted: “I dont want to be up But i have to 😒 #..” – read what others are saying and join the conversation.
Who Gives A Crap (@WhoGivesACrapTP) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/whogivesacraptp
1430 tweets • 74 photos/videos • 2704 followers. “Action shot by Kirsty P 👌 https://t.co/azDDrrD1cd”
Crap Dates (@FirstDateHell) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/firstdatehell
The latest Tweets from Crap Dates (@FirstDateHell). If you’ve had a bad first date, send us a tweet summing it up. The best (or, rather, the worst) will appear here …
Capp Street Crap (@cappstreetcrap) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/cappstreetcrap
The latest Tweets from Capp Street Crap (@cappstreetcrap). Chronicling the weird stuff that ends up in my driveway and other nearby randomness.
Teenage Pinoy Crap (@FilipinoNigga) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/filipinonigga
The latest Tweets from Teenage Pinoy Crap (@FilipinoNigga). Do I really seem like a guy who cares about our generation?
Crap Film Club (@crapfilmclub) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/crapfilmclub
The latest Tweets from Crap Film Club (@crapfilmclub). Collectively celebrating crap film – if it’s really that bad, it just has to be good. London.
Le Crap Dublin (@LeCrapDublin) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/lecrapdublin
The latest Tweets from Le Crap Dublin (@LeCrapDublin). Your not so free, ultimate online guide and blog to things happening in #Dublin. // Creativity …
Crap Comedy (@crapcomedy) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/crapcomedy
The latest Tweets from Crap Comedy (@crapcomedy). Norway’s alternative comedy festival. Next festival: January 2015. @parkteatret Festival managers: @raalf …
wint on Twitter: “are you having a crap of me mate?? Are …
https://twitter.com/dril/status/539099548548079617
Nov 30, 2014 – Are you, having a crap of me mate. 850 retweets 1,573 favorites … @dril yeah mate, im having a crap of Your Holyness. 0 retweets 1 favorite.
Crapalicious! (@crap) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/crap
The latest Tweets from Crapalicious! (@crap). “Sure, there’s some crap out there. But there has always been crap.” – John Legend. Flush…
World Of Crap (@theworldofcrap) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/theworldofcrap
The latest Tweets from World Of Crap (@theworldofcrap). Nostalgia, humour and shite. Birmingham, UK.
Excellent evidence. Nice job!
https://twitter.com/NCTina/status/559775083863236608
Look what I found. under the #crap hashtag on Twitter.
Time magazine- ten questions about the blizzard. http://time.com/3682375/blizzard-10-questions/
It starts out with ,
“ No. Again: no. Absolutely, positively no. This is weather, not climate. Just like a collie isn’t a species, a crouton isn’t a salad and the aglet on your shoelace ain’t the whole shoe, so too is a single meteorological event in your town (or state or region) not the same as climate. All the same, you’ll hear a lot of self-satisfied huffing from climate change deniers this week. Please feel free to laugh at them.”.
Then it goes downhill from that.
what is the evidence it was dr schmidt who reported nelson?
i don’t see it….
Pursuant to my earlier comment, clearly Twitter — and especially its excuse — is full of crap.
Once upon a time if you had an (highly passionate) opinion on something you simply hurled that opinion at the television or newspaper. The only persons who heard it were yourself and sometimes your long suffering family. These opinions generally were of a temporary nature and contributed little to the sum of human knowledge. If you were really passionate you may have sent a letter to the editor of the paper in question with the hope that it was worthy of publication. If you were to offer these opinions in public, you were usually granted greater use of the footpath or your own seat on the bus.
Today twitter et al (including WUWT) allows anyone to voice their opinion. This does mean that they are any more valid or really contribute anything to a conversation. Whoever runs a blog has the right to sent your comment to /dev/null, as long as they are consistent in their application of the rules.
One other problem with twitter is that politicians now appear to think that it represents the opinions of the majority of the population and that they should be acted upon.
The beginning of a poem???
Gavin Schmidt — I Got The Data In Me
(Most sorry Kiki Dee)
Don’t have no troubles at NASA
I’m a rocket nothing can stop
Survival’s always the first law
And I’m in with those at the top
I heat up
I cool down
Data gets in my way I discard it
The high and the mighty can frown
So say what they want — they reward it
I got the data in me
I got the data in me
I got the data in me
i got the data in me
Hopefully to be continued
Eugene WR Gallun
Gavin Schmidt — I Got The Data In Me
(Most sorry Kiki Dee)
Don’t have no troubles at NASA
I’m a rocket nothing can stop
Survival’s always the first law
And I’m in with those at the top
I heat up
I cool down
A site I don’t like — I discard it
The high and the mighty can frown
So say what they want — they reward it
I got the data in me
I got the data in me
I got the data in me
I got the data in me
Hopefully to be continued
Eugene WR Gallun
Gavin Schmidt — I Got The Data In Me
(Most sorry Kiki Dee)
Some middle verses not written yet — but this is a tentative ending verse. Don’t know. This is a poem about corruption so why not end it with an old image? Maybe, maybe not.
In a garden an apple hung
On the lowest branch of a tree
Why reach for anything higher?
It filled my every desire
I got the data —
I got the data —
I got the data —
IN ME!
Eugene WR Gallun
In a garden an apple hangs
On the lowest branch of a tree
Why reach for anything higher?
It fills my every desire
I got the data —
I got the data —
I got the data —
IN ME!
Eugene WR Gallun
I tend to digress, the more this goes on the more the owners of twitter will actually turn to the skeptic view. This happened with Wikipedia and Conolley remember? Let them keep doing this, eventually the truth will out..It always does. AGW is crumbling… they know it.
The fact that Gavin will jump into the arena with Tom is evidence enough that his opinion should be heard. Gavin is neither stupid, nor evil, although he is probably wrong.
This is crap.
Futurama did a good parody of twitter — called twitcher:
Those Twits, although they are nothing but “waistcoat pocket Hitlers”, think they can ban the truth from reality. I hope they carry on rendering such abominably bad service to themselves. That will bring them out of business.
It’s not only Twitter, it’s almost all social media systems such as Facebook (FB). I have had many FB friends, these are people I actually know, unfriend me because of my opinions on climate change (CC) and my non-alarmist position on CC. I have now been locked out from FB with FB demanding a “photo ID”, such as a passport or drivers licsense, a request from “Rufus” at FB, to prove who I am. Not going to happen FB!
In some parts of the world(e.g. Germany) such a request is a misdemeanour.
Is that so? I wonder where FB is “hosted”? I know so many people who put so much personal information on social media sites like FB, and then have their accounts hacked! Or they use “smartphones” for twitter and FB as well as banking etc, and then lose their phones. Matters not. These “people” at social media sites don’t get the fact one can create a new e-mail address and sign up again. No issue!
You can always ask Twitter why they did it at @support and @twitter that seemed to get Steve Goddard unlocked very quickly – he actually ended up with 1000’s of extra followers because of it……me I’m just a novice but have been blocked from Michael Mann as a badge of honour and I only asked him a polite question.
Twitter (in particular, but not alone) is absolutely *rife* with fake / spoof / astroturf accounts. One or a few people can, sometimes with the aid of automation software, report a post hundreds or thousands of times.
And as far as I can tell, the administrators either can’t tell or don’t care, and there is a lumbering hulk of (mainly anecdotal) evidence that this process trends a certain way, politically.
And entirely predictably.