Twitter celebrities Ed and Brian Krassenstein had culminated more than 1.5 million followers collectively. Usually their tweets could be spotted on your timeline even if you didn’t follow them. The political pundits had managed to maximize Twitter’s ecosystem for maximum exposure… or at least that’s what they thought before they were perma-banned.
According to The Daily Beast the brothers were permanently banned from Twitter for having multiple fake accounts and allegedly purchasing interactions. A spokesperson from Twitter stated…
“The Twitter Rules apply to everyone. Operating multiple fake accounts and purchasing account interactions are strictly prohibited. Engaging in these behaviors will result in permanent suspension from the service.”
Of course, the brothers Krassenstein were brittle and choked up over the loss of all that social media clout and the ability to virtue signal the daily Trump Derangement Syndrome that had garnered them fame and presumably some measure of fortune (one would hope, otherwise it was all just for “Likes”). They also managed to land a spot on HBO’s Vice special.
They told the Daily Beast that it wasn’t true that they were manipulating Twitter’s services for gain. They did admit they had multiple accounts but it was just to measure for “death threats”, saying…
“Twitter claims that we manipulated our interactions through the purchase of fake accounts and fake interactions. We have never once acquired anything for the purpose of increasing our Twitter presence.”
“[…] “None of those accounts were ever used for manipulative purposes as Twitter claims,”
They go into more depth about the use of these multiple accounts over on their website, HillReporter.com.
In a post published on May 24th, 2019 the duo attempted to justify the use of multiple accounts, stating that it was to protect their family and monitor the feeds of people they suspected of posing a threat to them or their loved ones.
In a lengthy paragraph they write…
“Over the past 2 1/2 years as our tweets became more and more political in nature, people began posting our phone numbers, our wives phone numbers, our home addresses, and photos of our homes, neighborhoods, and children. These users had blocked us and the only way to see Tweet-replies that they were making to others was to use another account. We were in constant communication with a contact at the FBI who we would send the threats that we had receive to. We had sent the FBI multiple death threats we had received in the mail, from people whom we believe got our address from others on Twitter. This is the primary reason we used these two additional accounts. On a few other occasions we used them as anonymous contacts for stories we were working on for this very publication regarding social media issues. Again we never used them to manipulate or mislead anyone.”
They claim that Twitter got the suspension wrong and that after they reached out to their contact at Twitter they were only given the basic information and the typical runaround.
I’m sure many anti-SJWs will crack a thorough smile at one segment of the brothers’ post where they have to begrudgingly admit that Twitter is a private corporation and can ban whoever they please for whatever reason they please, writing…
“We have long defended Twitter’s actions of banning and suspending users, and our stance still remains the same. Twitter, as a private company, has every right to ban whoever they choose, including us. We would, however, appreciate that Twitter reviews our suspension and issues a correction in regards to their comments about us buying or selling Twitter accounts or interactions. This is 100% false, and if Twitter believes they have evidence to prove otherwise, we ask and encourage them to release these details to the media.”
One has to wonder if the brothers were as sedulous about defending Conservatives being banned from Twitter as they are about their own accounts? Well, if you take a brief browse through their censorship coverage on the Hill reporter, they showed no love-loss for Alex Jones getting banned from social media, and even seemed to help advocate the social media movement that was organized to permanently ban Jones from Twitter in a piece published on August 14th, 2018. They also attempted to justify Laura Loomer’s ban from Facebook by saying that she “targeted” Congresswoman Ilhan Omar in a piece published on May 6th, 2019, writing….
“Perhaps it is the fact that Loomer targeted a United States Congresswoman, Ilhan Omar (D-MN), that got her banned. After all, public platforms have to take it seriously when it even appears that a public official might be in danger due to extreme political beliefs being propagated on their platforms.”
Yet Loomer’s ban from Facebook had nothing to do with Omar and everything to do with having “dangerous” ideas, according to Facebook. When she did tweet at Omar — and was promptly banned for it — it was about Sharia law. In fact, The Washington Examiner quoted Loomer’s tweet that resulted in her being banned from Twitter, which stated…
“Ilhan is pro Sharia Ilhan is pro- FGM Under Sharia homosexuals are oppressed & killed. Women are abused & forced to wear the hijab. Ilhan is anti Jewish,”
It’s interesting because the Krassensteins had no qualms about constantly badgering Trump with targeted tweets of impeachment and what some could construe as harassment, as evident in the Vice piece above. But they weren’t banned for that, but they justify Loomer’s ban because she criticized Omar and Sharia law.
As it was mentioned in the Arthur articles, it’s all fun and games promoting censorship just until the pendulum comes back around and smacks you in square in your arse. The Krassensteins had to learn the hard way that maybe censorship isn’t a good thing and that when you justify using censorship to silence or suppress your opponents that it makes it hard to rally support when the censorship finally comes for you.
(Thanks for the news tip Durka Durka)
Loading comments…