Kanye West has been suspended from Twitter and accused of "inciting violence" over offensive tweets - just two months after his last ban.

The US rapper, who now goes by the name Ye, posted a series of erratic tweets - one of which appeared to show a symbol combining a swastika and a Jewish star.

Twitter's new boss Elon Musk was asked by one user to "fix Kanye".

West had "violated our rule against incitement to violence", Musk tweeted.

"Account will be suspended," Musk wrote in a Twitter post.

Also on Thursday, during an interview with US conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and with his face covered in a mask, West praised Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and ranted about sin, pornography and the devil.

The head of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust described West's comments as "repulsive and sickening".

"These comments mixed with his high profile and huge following have dangerous consequences," chief executive Karen Pollock said.

In recent months West has caused controversy with a series of antisemitic and racist remarks - leading to clothing giant Adidas cutting ties with the rapper.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63826675

thats insane :joker:

literally no words

That's the kind of speech I think we all agree should be restricted :joker:

I find the Kanye West stuff really quite sad - he is clearly unwell, but rich enough and with enough influence to be surrounded by people who will not say no to him or go against his wishes. He needs help but he doesn't want it and he has enough power to stop anyone being able to force the issue... so he's just allowed to be out there making things progressively worse for himself. I do think platforms (both social and the printed media) have a responsibility to limit this as much as possible and remind people that this isn't entertainment, it's someone who is sliding off the rails.

That has to be a joke surely?

I never thought that there would be three people in a room, one of them being Alex Jones.

And the most sane ****er in the room was... Alex Jones!:shocked:

When you say, "there was a team monitoring child abuse" Could that mean that they were monitoring so that the child abusers could run free on there and have those monitors as protectors?

I got the claim a bit wrong, but here's what I was on about.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twit...%20last%20week.

Layoffs Have Gutted Twitter’s Child Safety Team
Just one person remains to enforce the company’s ban on child sexual abuse content across Japan and the Asia Pacific region.


Removing child exploitation is “priority #1”, Twitter’s new owner and CEO Elon Musk declared last week.

I use twitter a lot as it's pure comedy. Not once have I ever come across dodgy content. Probably had 3 porn clips show up on my timeline in about the last 5 years, from randoms being followed by people I follow, but that's it.

I wonder who people must by following or what they're searching for to find it.

Funnily enough I rarely see political content on my twitter :joker: my VPN keeps other sites separate from it, and I don't really look at political stuff on it when not incog, so all my account gets shown is comic book related stuff. You evidently don't look at or for dodgy content, so Twitter has no reason to show you it :)

I just get weather and football content on Twitter

never get any weird stuff

I use the Raven app for Twitter

To be fair on this one, Twitter has been historically absolutely rife with child porn and exploitation and "the team" weren't doing much to solve the problem. I'm sure guttin gthe team hasn't made it better but it can't be much worse, remains to be seen if they can build a better system to tackle it. The one they had wasn't working.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjDfpAjW...jpg&name=small

:laugh2:

Yes makes Good Sense.

People just need to start to think for themselves rather than being spoon fed by social media. Social media has been empowered by those that read the crap, not by what twitter publishes

Elon getting booed mercilessly at a Chapelle gig, what a way to end the ear

i have no problem with allowing free speech, but they fail to mention that Trump incited insurrection, which is a totally different ball game

When and how?

if you don't know, look into the details

I have, and none of his tweets are close enough to incitement to warrant the label.

You could argue against incitement; I doubt you could form a decent good-faith argument against him having encouraged insurrection. Where a line is drawn between the two is a little hazy, so I suppose it only matters if the distinction matters.

Is encouraging insurrection enough to warrant his suspension? I personally would say yes his suspension in the aftermath of the 2020 election was absolutely necessary for the safety of his own followers as much as anything else.

But then the question becomes, does it also warrant permanent ban?

On the whole though, I would say that the expectation of good social media conduct should be higher (and thus the ban threshold lower) for politicians of any kind. The level of influence is massive, a "one size fits all" approach is nonsensical.