Twitter says it’s rubbing out terrorism 140 characters at a time.
In a report published Tuesday, the social network said that in the last six months of 2016 it suspended 376,890 accounts for promoting terrorism. Nearly three quarters of those suspensions were caught by the company’s own tools, Twitter said.
Since Aug. 1, 2015, the company has suspended a total of 636,248 accounts.
Twitter, where pithy posts serve as the online equivalent of bumper stickers, has long been used by extremists and terrorist organizations to promote nationalism, separatism and racism. The company has worked with groups, including People Against Violent Extremism and the Lumen project, to curb use of the platform for talking up terrorism.
The social network has strict rules against the promotion of violence on its service. Its rules specifically read, “You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.”
Twitter said it will continue sharing updates about its efforts to combat extremism, in its transparency report.
The very same people who cry about safe spaces if a speaker they disagree with even shows up on a campus see no problem with actually physically threatening students with a different political opinion. Mao’s Red Guards at it again…
Via Daily Caller:
Conservative students at St. Olaf College, a Lutheran liberal arts school in Minnesota, live in terror of their liberal colleagues and are afraid to discuss politics on campus, The College Fix reports.
Not only are they outnumbered, as 80 percent of the college voted Democratic in the last presidential election, many have been violently threatened by college neighbors.
According to the Manitou Messenger: “Of the 12 students interviewed…several have been violently threatened because of their political beliefs, and almost all of them feel as though they can’t speak up about politics on campus – in class, online or with their friends. …On the night of the election, a student in the Pause threatened to beat up [College Republicans President Emily] Schaller, calling her a ‘f***ing moron.’”
During the hearing today in the Senate Judiciary Committee over Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, pro-abortion Democrat Dianne Feinstein slammed the potential High Court pick.
Feinstein drew on the issue of abortion for her criticism — saying that she probably will oppose Gorsuch because he believes “the intentional taking of a human life by private persons is always wrong.”
“President Trump repeatedly promised that his judicial nominees would be pro-life, and automatically overturn Roe v. Wade,” she said. “Judge Gorsuch has not had occasion to rule directly on a case involving Roe. However, his writings do raise questions. Specifically, he wrote that he believes there are no exceptions to the principle that ‘the intentional taking of a human life by private persons is always wrong.’ This language has been interpreted by both pro-life and pro-choice organizations to mean he would overturn Roe.”
“President Trump repeatedly promised to appoint someone in the mold of Justice Scalia and said that the nomination of Judge Gorsuch illustrates he’s a man of his word,” said Feinstein. “The Supreme Court has the final say on whether a woman will continue to have control over her own body or whether decisions about her healthcare will be determined by politicians and the government.”
Feinstein then described a 21-week abortion as the kind of abortion at stake if Gorsuch’s nomination is confirmed.
He favored Trump, not because of collusion but because he hated Hillary for allegedly interfering in his election.
Via Daily Caller:
FBI Director James Comey repeatedly referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s personal animus to Hillary Clinton as one of the major motivations in Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election during congressional testimony Tuesday.
Comey described how Putin “hated Hillary Clinton so much” he developed a preference for President Donald Trump. Comey deployed a sports metaphor, saying, “I hate the New England Patriots, and no matter who they play, I’d like them to lose.”
His statements echo the main findings of the Jan. 6 U.S. intelligence community’s report on Russian attempts to undermine the 2016 election. “Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency,” the report’s key judgement found.
Most of my Italian relatives made their own “Red Wine” a tradition among Sicilians that goes back to the very early 1800’s……..They drank wine with every meal, but hardly ever between meals…….( Unless they were alone or with somebody )….Ha-Ha-Ha!!
Some of you guys after reading 6/9 may think about giving up all that beer for a couple glasses of “Red” wine EVERY DAY!……I’m sure the women, because statics show they drink more wine than men, probably know all about 6/9………….Mike
Gallup has consistently found a wide gender difference in preferred alcoholic beverage, going back to the initial asking of the question in 1992. Currently, 53% of men name beer as their favorite drink, while 22% say liquor and 20% wine. Among women, 52% say they drink wine most often, while 24% say liquor and 20% beer………
A few days ago, a Hawaii federal judge blocked key portions of the Trump administration’s revised travel ban.
President Donald Trump called it “unprecedented judicial overreach” by the Ninth Circuit.
Parts of Trump’s temporary travel ban, targeting six majority-Muslim countries, were also blocked by a Maryland federal judge
On “Fox & Friends” today, Judge Jeanine Pirro blasted the decisions against the temporary travel ban, calling them “absurd” and noting that Hawaii hasn’t even taken in refugees from the six Muslim-majority nations.
“I think all the refugees should go to Hawaii. … Right now I don’t think [the state] has standing [to challenge the order],” said Pirro.
She argued that if President Obama issued the same executive order, he would have been applauded for keeping Americans safe.
“It’s the Ninth circus. It’s a joke,” said Pirro, adding there is “hypocrisy” in the courts, where judges are ruling against what the Constitution states.