Possible legal action against Twitter

[BaronMunchausen]

There is talk of legal action against Twitter in the wake of the Forstater judgment last month. So many women have been suspended or banned for posting ‘gender critical’ beliefs, including factual tweets about biology.

On the back of the judgment there is a prima facie case of discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of the protected characteristic of gender critical belief.

One of the names I’ve seen hoping to put together such a case via crowd justice is Heather Finlay...

I really hope that someone does. The obvious bias against women particularly gc women from the twitter moderators is rage inducing

This would be great. Just to get an insight into the nitty gritty of Twitter policies, the enforcement process, high level executive expectations of how policies function, etc.

Would definitely dig for this.

Not surprised at all if in 5 years' time, various tech companies are labelled "institutionally misogynist".

Not only that but the fact they protect MAPs on there and make it extremely drawn out to report CP accounts

I've wondered if suing twitter might be the way JK could go...

The tide is turning against Twitter if you look at whats happening with them in India along with US especially Trumps class action

Personally, I think any attempt to sue Twitter is destined to fail. For a start it would be necessary to file in the Country and state where Twitter are based. Meghan Murphy tried this about her account being permanently banned, and failed

I was slightly put off by Maya Forstater's barrister not being very enthusiastic

twitter.com/anyabike/status/1418474251414380544

As a US based company, I can't see how a ruling in British courts about British law would have any impact on them.

They have so much financial clout they have become undemocratic and no longer accountable. They will only change when new chat spaces spring up and are not bought out by twitter et al to prevent competition.

I have wondered about the influence they have. I'm not sure they have any idea how many will kickback if they feel there is unfairness and sm as it stands is very unfair it it's moderation

@highame

They have so much financial clout they have become undemocratic and no longer accountable. They will only change when new chat spaces spring up and are not bought out by twitter et al to prevent competition.

I have wondered about the influence they have. I'm not sure they have any idea how many will kickback if they feel there is unfairness and sm as it stands is very unfair it it's moderation

They've never been democratic or accountable. They're a private company entitled to set their own terms of service and to decide who uses their platform and how, and that's how they've always been.

I really can't get over the fact that they banned a woman for accurately stating the law (that had just been confirmed in the ONS judicial review), yet let nonces discuss the ideal ages of their victims, and let creeps who are sexually attracted to animals discuss fucking them 🤮

Plus there's all the men who have threatened to rape and kill women that still have their accounts...

[quote AnotherLass]I was slightly put off by Maya Forstater's barrister not being very enthusiastic

twitter.com/anyabike/status/1418474251414380544[/quote]
Her barrister got it wrong on both accounts as was clarified in following tweets. The legal action against Twitter is going ahead and money is being raised on crowdjustice for it.

People sure do love throwing their money away

People sure do love throwing their money away

It’s never throwing money away. GC women have won several cases and even when they lose, the publicity surrounding the case is great.

@BlueberryCheezecake

People sure do love throwing their money away

Rather than their rights?

Yes, I guess they do.

@BlueberryCheezecake

People sure do love throwing their money away

Our money, our choice.

@BlueberryCheezecake

As a US based company, I can't see how a ruling in British courts about British law would have any impact on them.

If they operate in the UK they have to follow UK law.

People who tweet from accounts in Germany are able to use German equality laws.
www.wired.com/story/germany-twitter-social-media-trolling/

Thing is, you're entitled to hold your beliefs, which is what the ruling stated, but there's still a line where it stops being beliefs and strays into incitement if you start posting them online.
Which is what people tend to forget, or ignore.
So would be really interested to know what this is relating to, any sources or anything as just seems to be an OP with nothing it it

I think it's.. how can it work?

Twitter is in USA.
Loads of cash.
As a private company they can more or less do what they want surely?

If eg I went onto an MRA site and said nope you're all horrible and this is why they'd ban me obv.

I don't get it.

Laws are different everywhere though.

If a chat board is hosted in I dunno. Belarus.

And I say I don't think the government is working for the citizens.

They delete.

Legal recourse? I think not.

What does operating in the UK mean in the context of the internet though?

The whole of everything is accessible from a device on the web.

Whether it's a massive famous site or one server somewhere.

Sorry you know I'm not saying their behaviour is not shit.

I just don't think it makes sense.

Gerbil did you read the link above about Germany.

It doesn't mean the hate speech isn't there, it means your country filter filters it out.

Not much of a solution, but if you are having an off say maybe useful.

No I'll have a look