Saturday, July 27, 2019

It’s the 2020 Campaign; Twitter’s New Dirty Tricks

By Nicholas Stix

Shortly after 9 a.m. yesterday, Twitter blocked my account.

When I tried to post, it told me I had to choose a new password. But when I tried to choose one, it told me “Your password has already been changed.” However, when I hit the link to return to Twitter, it told me I had to choose a new password.

I’ve given up counting how many times I’ve gone through this.

However, if you check out my twitter page (@NicholasStix), you’ll see that everything looks normal.

Message I sent to Twitter, at its Help page:

You have made it impossible for me to log in, but without officially doing so. You block me from logging in, and tell me I must change my password, but then send me emails asserting that my password has already been changed. But every time I hit the accompanying link, it tells me I must change my password. But you know all this.

“You must pass a Google reCAPTCHA challenge to proceed. When you tap Continue, Google may collect and use information about you, your device, and browser.

“Your request has been submitted to Twitter. We are usually able to respond within a few days, but some issues may take longer.

“Please check your email inbox for an email from Twitter Support. If you don't see one, try checking your email's spam and trash folders.”

I have been on Twitter’s Enemies List for a number of years, and at one time was blocked for over one year (February or April 2017-2018).

Since I have returned to Twitter, my Twitter-Minder’s tactics have included cheating me out of thousands of followers (in spite of my getting dozens of new followers per day, my numbers will stagnate or decrease), and periodically blocking me, claiming that she/he/it--s/h/it, for short--detected “unusual activity” on my account, and forcing me to get a new password.

The business of getting a new password would typically take a minute or less, and so Twitter has upped the ante. I am sure I am not alone, and surmise that this is part of Twitter’s campaign to win the 2020 election for the Communist, er, Democrat Party.

I sent the following email yesterday to Twit’s VP for Global Communications.

Nicholas Stix
Crime & Courts Reporter, VDARE
(---) --------

Brandon Borrman

Vice President Global Communications
1355 Market Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94103

Dear Mr. Borrman,

I became acquainted first-hand with your new strategy for the 2020 election for blocking Twitter users on your political Enemies List this morning.

How many levels of censorship and harassment have you planned to follow today’s stage, in the run-up to the election? Once you have exhausted those levels, do you plan make up more tactics free-style, or will you have secondary and tertiary sets of tactics developed in the meantime?

Yours truly,

Nicholas Stix


Anonymous said...

Twitter,Facebook and Google need to be put out of business.I've never signed up for the first two--Google I was forced into.I hear there's a social media platform like Twitter or Facebook--without censorship.Not sure about the details--not sure if I'd even sign up for that platform either.In my book,the less exposure,the better.

Anonymous said...

Citing free speech, judge dismisses Covington Catholic student's lawsuit against The Washington Post
11:07 a.m.
GRA:Remember when this lawsuit was filed?Hannity,Carlson and Ingraham all had guests on that predicted a "slam dunk ruling" against the WAPO.
"They're going to pay through the nose,"said one famous lawyer.
Well it won't be money,will it?
I'm slightly confused.Free speech,when exercised by a conglomerate--even if slanderous--is protected,but MY free speech is NOT protected--if I use that company's blog site.In fact,conglomerate media companies like Twitter or a WAPO comment section(and the others)can BAN individuals like me,for not conforming to THEIR idea of "free speech".Incredible--no checks and balances for the media.
The Washington Post can breathe a bit more easily.

A federal judge in Kentucky on Friday dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed against the Post by Nicholas Sandmann, a student at Covington Catholic High School in Park Hills, Kentucky. Sandmann and his family sought $250 million in damages over the newspaper's reporting about Sandmann's confrontation with a Native American activist on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., in January during an anti-abortion rally in the capital. The report, Politico writes, caused Sandmann, who is white and appeared to be wearing a Make America Great Again hat at the time, to be "castigated" for "apparently intimidating a person of color."

The lawsuit alleged that the Post smeared Sandmann as part of its "war" against President Trump. The paper did later acknowledge it made several errors in its coverage of the incident.

The judge, William O. Bertelsman, ruled that the Post's reporting was projected as free speech and that the paper did not factually report Sandmann had behaved in a violent or menacing way, relying instead on a recounting from Nathan Phillips, the activist, who said the teenager blocked his path. The ruling elaborated that although the reporting may have been inaccurate it was not defamatory.

Bertelsman added that, "while unfortunate," the treatment Sandmann faced on social media was not relevant to the lawsuit. Read more at Politico and The Washington Examiner. Tim O'Donnell