Twitter permanently suspends Milo Yiannopoulos over row with 'Ghostbusters' actress

Arcade_Tryer

holly44 wrote: »

Never mind who said it, it a good quote, that no one can dispute!

I dispute it.

And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

holly44

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

I dispute it.

And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Irony.
you and the pope in the thanks below the post in denial, if it was real world you would be trying to shout me down, sums up the quote perfectly.

RDM_83 again

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Poor choice of idol.

There are quite a few people on boards who would somewhat support that statement I'd imagine.

And there is quiet a few on boards who would smear the people they are arguing with, with hateful generalisations because it's easier than rebutting what they are actually saying

dr.bollocko

How utterly sad it is that a bunch of people rush to thank a mod post banning somebody from a thread because of opinions they don't like.

In this thread. Where every poster who thanked the post has expressed outrage at their precious Milo getting banned from Twitter.

How utterly transparently hypocritical.

Outlaw Pete

Don't ever recall you complaining about your bans ever getting thanked.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

In this thread. Where every poster who thanked the post has expressed outrage at their precious Milo getting banned from Twitter.

How utterly transparently hypocritical.

Twitter banning Milo was inconsistent with what they generally ban users for, that's the point.

There was nothing inconsistent about El_Dangeroso's thread ban and therefore there is no hypocrisy with users condemning one and endorsing the other.

dr.bollocko

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Don't ever recall you complaining about your bans ever getting thanked.



Twitter banning Milo was inconsistent with what they generally ban users for, that's the point.

There was nothing inconsistent about El_Dangeroso's thread ban and therefore there is no hypocrisy with users condemning one and endorsing the other.

You thanked the post. Ergo you clearly don't see an issue with it.


It's clear that your agenda ref Milo is not out any sense of justice. Because you delighted in somebodys voice being censored. In this thread. About this topic. Consistency my arse.

I'm gonna jog on now and leave ye to your safe space. But just remember the reality of how happy you were to see somebody getting thread banned. Really realise how actually you don't care about it at all when they disagree with you. Roll around in the double think.

And then you posted the above crap about consistency. And I bet you believe it too. Astonishing.

Outlaw Pete

dr.bollocko wrote: »

You thanked the post. Ergo you clearly don't see an issue with it.

But just remember the reality of how happy you were to see somebody getting thread banned.

Eh, I did not thank the post banning her from the thread, so get your facts straight.

I thanked a post telling her to get back on topic.

dr.bollocko

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Eh, I did not thank the post banning her from the thread, so get your facts straight.

I thanked a post telling her to get back on topic.

Right. But you believe there's no hypocrisy inherent in agreeing with one but not the other?

That's an interesting moral compass isn't it?

Little CuChulainn

dr.bollocko wrote: »

How utterly sad it is that a bunch of people rush to thank a mod post banning somebody from a thread because of opinions they don't like.

In this thread. Where every poster who thanked the post has expressed outrage at their precious Milo getting banned from Twitter.

How utterly transparently hypocritical.

That poster wasn't giving opinions. At best they were sarcastic retorts.

Wibbs

dr.bollocko wrote: »

You thanked the post. Ergo you clearly don't see an issue with it.

Just in case your reality distortion field is stuck on full, I'm another who didn't thank the post. I'd have been happy to debate her points. Oh wait, she didn't have any. Not beyond schoolyard stuff anyway. And here you are tag teamed in.

It's clear that your agenda ref Milo is not out any sense of justice. Because you delighted in somebodys voice being censored. In this thread. About this topic. Consistency my arse.

I'm gonna jog on now and leave ye to your safe space. But just remember the reality of how happy you were to see somebody getting thread banned. Really realise how actually you don't care about it at all when they disagree with you. Roll around in the double think.

And then you posted the above crap about consistency. And I bet you believe it too. Astonishing.

Triply astonishing for me is how you also seem to share a self awareness and irony bypass considering your record about impositions of "safe spaces". Never mind the main underlying reason why you're throwing your toys out of the pram in a whinge over this particular user. And you're pointing the hypocritical finger at others? That's beyond bloody rich.

dr.bollocko

I don't actually care about the thread ban at all. I have no interest in debating the wrongs and rights of it. And if I did, here would not be the place.

So again. To avoid any further deflection.

My only interest and point is that thinking a thread ban is good for a poster who has expressed a counter to the milo should not have been banned narrative is hypocritical.

And that's a solid and good point. And it's on topic and all.

No toys thrown out. No foaming at the mouth. Simply pointing out that holding both positions is being inconsistent. Ye get terrible riled up in here.

Outlaw Pete

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Right. But you believe there's no hypocrisy inherent in agreeing with one but not the other?

Of course I don't, because there is none. Twitter usually requires a hell of a lot more than anything Milo has done to suspend an account. Azealia Banks suggested Sarah Palin should be gang raped and they deemed it not enough to warrant a ban. Text book inconsistency. There is none here.

That's an interesting moral compass isn't it?

Not in the way you suggest, no, but I'll tell you what is indicative of an 'interesting moral compass' shall I: condemning certain cmod & admin actions via PM but yet staying schtum about them in FB.

dr.bollocko

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That poster wasn't giving opinions. At best they were sarcastic retorts.

And how would you describe many of Milo's interactions?

Would we all agree that they are frequently designed to provoke?

Wibbs

holly44 wrote: »

"Very few of the so-called liberals are open-minded.... They shout you down and won't let you speak if you disagree with them."
-John Wayne
Duke sums it up perfectly.

In fairness Wayne was a thundering gobshíte and windbag at the best of times, who like many actors confused his heroic roles with his own reality. Sadly without scriptwriters…

Arcade_Tryer wrote:

There are quite a few people on boards who would somewhat support that statement I'd imagine.

Racism card eh? Bring out the big guns I suppose.

RDM_83 again wrote:

And there is quiet a few on boards who would smear the people they are arguing with, with hateful generalisations because it's easier than rebutting what they are actually saying

To be fair that's hardly a monopoly of any of these imported "sides". They're usually like toddlers with hysterical rants of "ist/phobe" with the opposing returning with "cuck" and "SJW". It's getting beyond daft at this stage. Reasoned debate has usually gone out the window after a few exchanges. As we've seen in this very thread. Lines drawn, heels dug, feelz hurt, whinge, rinse and repeat. I wish there were a way to saw through the cable that connects the US and the rest of the interwebs. The world would be the happier for it IMH.

mzungu

dr.bollocko wrote: »

My only interest and point is that thinking a thread ban is good for a poster who has expressed a counter to the milo should not have been banned narrative is hypocritical.

The poster was banned for expressing an opposing point of view?

I don't believe that is what happened at all.

Little CuChulainn

dr.bollocko wrote: »

And how would you describe many of Milo's interactions?

Would we all agree that they are frequently designed to provoke?

Indeed. But he wasn't posting on Boards

dr.bollocko

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Not in the way you suggest, no, but I'll tell you what is indicative of an 'interesting moral compass' shall I: condemning certain cmod & admin actions via PM but yet staying schtum about them in FB.

Yeah. On topic. Relevant. Clap.

dr.bollocko

mzungu wrote: »

The poster was banned for expressing an opposing point of view?

I don't believe that is what happened at all.

That ain't what I said broseph. What I said was the poster who was banned was expressing a counter point to the milo should not be banned side.

I made no claims about the rightness or wrongness of the ban. My point is that agreeing with one ban but not another shows a hypocritical mindset. Because it does.

Outlaw Pete

dr.bollocko wrote: »

My only interest and point is that thinking a thread ban is good for a poster who has expressed a counter to the milo should not have been banned narrative is hypocritical.

And that's a solid and good point. And it's on topic and all.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Personal abuse, being off topic, derailment etc etc etc, are not against the rules on Twitter, they are here.

There is nothing remotely inconsistent or hypocritical about supporting the moderator action here, but yet simultaneously disagreeing with the decision which Jack Dorsey made with regards to Twitter and the permanent suspension of Milo Yiannopoulos.

Annasopra

B0jangles wrote: »

Yiannopoulos doesn't 'tackle' anything, he says whatever gets him the most attention, positive or negative.

That's pretty much it.

Trolling

dr.bollocko

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Personal abuse, being off topic, derailment etc etc etc, are not against the rules on Twitter, they are here.

There is nothing remotely inconsistent or hypocritical about supporting the moderator action here, but yet simultaneously disagreeing with the decision which Jack Dorsey made with regards to Twitter.

Hmm. Interesting that you can't see anything a tiny bit inconsistent about it. Not even a teeny tiny biteen? Not even make you think for a second? Considering the manner of Milo's usual Twitter banter is frequently at the playground level? And the only reason why it's not inconsistent is because it's on a different privately owned discussion site who can do whatever the feck they want with their users?

I find that a little odd.

Outlaw Pete

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Hmm. Interesting that you can't see anything a tiny bit inconsistent about it. Not even a teeny tiny biteen? Not even make you think for a second? Considering the manner of Milo's usual Twitter banter is frequently at the playground level? And the only reason why it's not inconsistent is because it's on a different privately owned discussion site who can do whatever the feck they want with their users?

I find that a little odd.

There was nothing odd nor hypocritical about it. Simply put:

Milo was doing 90 in a 150 zone.
El Dangeroso was doing 70 in 40 zone.

steddyeddy

holly44 wrote: »

Irony.
you and the pope in the thanks below the post in denial, if it was real world you would be trying to shout me down, sums up the quote perfectly.

I seem to remember a poster referring to those who disagreed with her style of debating as "manbabbies".

dr.bollocko

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There was nothing odd nor hypocritical about it. Simply put:

Milo was doing 90 in a 150 zone.
El Dangeroso was doing 70 in 40 zone.

Nah. You said they were apples and oranges. They're both apples. Just different orchards.

Samaris

Mod: Okay, I have to admit having read the last few pages that I don't even know who started what or entirely who is involved. It appears to have turned into some sort of ouroborous tail-eating thing which isn't really related to the topic of the thread but is generating reports at boards-powering rates. If anyone has an issue with a mod action in here, report it or PM asking why X was done for an explanation. Don't derail a thread for several pages rowing over it please, it all gets a bit out of hand.

So, back on topic now?

Samaris

On a totally personal note - I really can't bring myself to give a flying about Milo Yiannopoulos. He sounds like a raving arse. Assuming Twitter is a personally owned website, no-one has a God-given (or even US Constitution-given) right to be allowed to post on a website. They can boot him out because they don't like the colour of his avatar if they really want.

Basically, if you're enough of an arse that the website runners are fed up dealing with your crap, you can moan all you like when you get booted, but it's pretty much entirely your own fault. Or the fault of the website in some cases, but one shrugs and moves on rather than standing outside the door of the establishment either a) crying loudly or b) trying to break in. Unless they've actually attacked you based on something that's generally considered illegal to refuse service for, like the colour of your skin or something stupid like that. You can absolutely get kicked off Twitter for the colour of your opinions, as Twitter has just proved. If they're arsehole-coloured, eventually people will get bored/sick of you.

dr.bollocko

Wibbs wrote: »

Triply astonishing for me is how you also seem to share a self awareness and irony bypass considering your record about impositions of "safe spaces". Never mind the main underlying reason why you're throwing your toys out of the pram in a whinge.

Your POV of my record has nothing to do with this discussion. My use of the term safe space was done deliberately because of the alt-rights love of mocking them.
Also you are quite wide of the mark with your theories on my motivation for posting. Furthermore providing a counterpoint is not whinging.

Pointing out a hypocritical mindset has nothing to do with throwing toys out of prams. It's relevant to the discussion. Somebody getting banned for posting in a provocative manner on a thread discussing somebody getting banned for posting in a provocative manner. Those defending Milo then agreeing with the ban. There's a cognitive dissonance there and I'd reckon you'd be able to see that.

FYI I put no words in your mouth about whether or not you agreed with the ban or not. I figured you probably didn't agree with it but again, it wasn't relevant. Others who expressed outrage at Milos ban did agree with it. And if they did, then that is a hypocritical mindset which indicates that the defence of Milo by those people is not out of a sense of fairness.

dr.bollocko

Samaris wrote: »

Mod: Okay, I have to admit having read the last few pages that I don't even know who started what or entirely who is involved. It appears to have turned into some sort of ouroborous tail-eating thing which isn't really related to the topic of the thread but is generating reports at boards-powering rates. If anyone has an issue with a mod action in here, report it or PM asking why X was done for an explanation. Don't derail a thread for several pages rowing over it please, it all gets a bit out of hand.

So, back on topic now?

Just in case I'm being misrepresented - I am making no statements about the rights of wrongs of moderatorial actions on AH. To do so on thread is contra-indicated and I am aware of that. My point was that there were similarities between what occurred here and on Twitter and if one wanted to defend Milo out of a sense of fairness or free speech then thanking a post where somebody was then silenced on this thread smacks of doublethink. And I do believe that is on topic and relevant to the discussion. For some reason this then devolved into some digs about my history and motivation for posting and created some sort of poopstorm which was also not my intention.

Arcade_Tryer

Wibbs wrote: »

Racism card eh? Bring out the big guns I suppose.

My intention wasn't to use it as a card. It was simply an observation based on reading boards recently. Also, playing a racism card doesn't necessarily imply that one is trying to shut down conversation. I fully support people's right to espouse racist views. Boards, Twitter and wider society often does not. That's the problem.

Wibbs

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

I fully support people's right to espouse racist views. Boards, Twitter and wider society often does not. That's the problem.

Agreed. I personally prefer to know what people really think, not their nice little facade for the neighbours.

Arcade_Tryer

Wibbs wrote: »

Agreed. I personally prefer to know what people really think, not their nice little facade for the neighbours.

But you're kind of right. Though I didn't intend to play it as a card, it was a cheap shot nonetheless.

Little CuChulainn

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Just in case I'm being misrepresented - I am making no statements about the rights of wrongs of moderatorial actions on AH. To do so on thread is contra-indicated and I am aware of that. My point was that there were similarities between what occurred here and on Twitter and if one wanted to defend Milo out of a sense of fairness or free speech then thanking a post where somebody was then silenced on this thread smacks of doublethink. And I do believe that is on topic and relevant to the discussion. For some reason this then devolved into some digs about my history and motivation for posting and created some sort of poopstorm which was also not my intention.

Boards is a discussion site, Twitter is not. Different things are relevant in each site. That posters retorts would have been ok on Twitter but added nothing to the discussion here. A person can apply different standards depending on the existing circumstances without being a hypocrite. If two people started punching the head of each other in front of me I'd consider them to be out of line, if they were in a boxing ring I wouldn't think twice about it.

If Milo wrote what he did on Boards he would probably be banned. I doubt many would try and defend him. Boards has a well established rule set for that kind of thing. But what he said on Twitter is pretty standard for the Twittersphere. It makes no sense that he was banned for it on a platform that is used by everyone from Isis to Pornhub.

Arcade_Tryer

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Boards is a discussion site, Twitter is not. Different things are relevant in each site. That posters retorts would have been ok on Twitter but added nothing to the discussion here. A person can apply different standards depending on the existing circumstances without being a hypocrite. If two people started punching the head of each other in front of me I'd consider them to be out of line, if they were in a boxing ring I wouldn't think twice about it.

If Milo wrote what he did on Boards he would probably be banned. I doubt many would try and defend him. Boards has a well established rule set for that kind of thing. But what he said on Twitter is pretty standard for the Twittersphere. It makes no sense that he was banned for it on a platform that is used by everyone from Isis to Pornhub.

Not necessarily true. Twitter is a business. And it may well have made business sense to ban him.

dr.bollocko

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Boards is a discussion site, Twitter is not. Different things are relevant in each site. That posters retorts would have been ok on Twitter but added nothing to the discussion here. A person can apply different standards depending on the existing circumstances without being a hypocrite. If two people started punching the head of each other in front of me I'd consider them to be out of line, if they were in a boxing ring I wouldn't think twice about it.

If Milo wrote what he did on Boards he would probably be banned. I doubt many would try and defend him. Boards has a well established rule set for that kind of thing. But what he said on Twitter is pretty standard for the Twittersphere. It makes no sense that he was banned for it on a platform that is used by everyone from Isis to Pornhub.

The details of the rules on each site are not necessarily relevant. Revelling in one silenced voice while protesting another is.

Wibbs

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

But you're kind of right. Though I didn't intend to play it as a card, it was a cheap shot nonetheless.

In fairness, cheap shots can still hit their intended target.

Outlaw Pete

dr.bollocko wrote: »

The details of the rules on each site are not necessarily relevant.

lol. Of course they are relevant. This is insane :P

If you get done for speeding on a rural section of the Autobahn, I and most people, will have sympathy for you, but if you get done doing 200 on the M50, we won't. There is NO hypocrisy in that.

Revelling in one silenced voice while protesting another is.

Who's reveling in it? Or delighting in it, as you said earlier? Come on man.

dr.bollocko

There seems little point in further pointing out what is plain as day to me but to you is completely invisible as it will devolve into "yes it is" and "no it isn't".

Some people are only interested in defending the silenced voices they agree with. and that smells of hypocrisy.

Outlaw Pete

You're an intelligent guy doc and I don't for one nano second buy that you can't see the difference between endorsing something in one arena and condemning it in another. Keep saying it's hypocrisy as much as you like, but that won't make it so.

One of your final acts as mod of this forum was to waffle on about how sexism was a major issue, how it had to be stamped out and how you were no longer gonna close your eyes to it all. Yet here you are taking issue with a handful of users who thanked a post thread banning someone who implied the men she was disagreeing with, who she was laughing at, were manbabies. You wanna talk hypocrisy? Well there's a slice of it for you.

Also, exaggerating someone's position by suggesting that they feel removing Milo from Twitter was akin to Rosa Parks being told to sit at the back of the bus, does not qualify as a counterargument. Or at least it shouldn't.

mzungu

dr.bollocko wrote: »

That ain't what I said broseph. What I said was the poster who was banned was expressing a counter point to the milo should not be banned side.

Fair enough. I read that incorrectly.

mzungu

Samaris wrote: »

On a totally personal note - I really can't bring myself to give a flying about Milo Yiannopoulos. He sounds like a raving arse. Assuming Twitter is a personally owned website, no-one has a God-given (or even US Constitution-given) right to be allowed to post on a website. They can boot him out because they don't like the colour of his avatar if they really want.

Basically, if you're enough of an arse that the website runners are fed up dealing with your crap, you can moan all you like when you get booted, but it's pretty much entirely your own fault. Or the fault of the website in some cases, but one shrugs and moves on rather than standing outside the door of the establishment either a) crying loudly or b) trying to break in. Unless they've actually attacked you based on something that's generally considered illegal to refuse service for, like the colour of your skin or something stupid like that. You can absolutely get kicked off Twitter for the colour of your opinions, as Twitter has just proved. If they're arsehole-coloured, eventually people will get bored/sick of you.

I can't even recall what the ban was about in the first place! Was it for directing a mob on Twitter?

dr.bollocko

mzungu wrote: »

I can't even recall what the ban was about in the first place! Was it for directing a mob on Twitter?

I think that was the final straw, yes. And the trouble with that type of dog whistling is that Milo can stand back and let his army of followers then harass somebody and say "was them, not me". But his followers are directed by him.

I think he's been suspended before however so there were indications he was on his way out.

My main issue is not what he said but how he had the ability to direct his followers simply by re tweeting them. That provokes harassment.

Samaris

mzungu wrote: »

I can't even recall what the ban was about in the first place! Was it for directing a mob on Twitter?

I don't know all of it, but as I've gathered, Milo made some snarky comment at the woman who played the lead in the new Ghostbuster's movie. She responded, and he directed, whether blatently or just irresponsibly, his army of minions to attack her, which they gleefully did. All got a bit out of hand and Twitter decided he was more trouble than he was worth and banned him.

Outlaw Pete

mzungu wrote: »

I can't even recall what the ban was about in the first place! Was it for directing a mob on Twitter?

Essentially, yes (also claiming that there were repeated instances of it) but ironically, on that occasion at least, it was Leslie that engaged in that kind of nonsense.


https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352

Samaris

Twitter doesn't tend to ban people much, do they? That's what most of the controversy is about - he said this and this, Milo only did this, why is he getting banned and not the everyone else? (The shadings of feminist conspiracy are probably also provoking some of the publicity of it). Maybe they did just take a stand on this one and it's a sign there will be a clampdown on trolls and furthermore, people who use it for criminal acts (yeah, the order of priority is a bit skewed!) after testing how much backlash they'd get banning/"censoring" people compared to the lax attitude before.

Be interesting to see if Twitter do start getting more aggressive to their more dubious userbase.

Grayson

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

My intention wasn't to use it as a card. It was simply an observation based on reading boards recently. Also, playing a racism card doesn't necessarily imply that one is trying to shut down conversation. I fully support people's right to espouse racist views. Boards, Twitter and wider society often does not. That's the problem.

I don't know if you've ever been a mod on a board but to keep things civil and keep the discussion from descending into nastiness those rules are needed. I used to mod a college bulletin board and you need to have rules in place to stop it getting too nasty. I guarantee that even if you went to the forums at storm front you'd find they have rules too (although probably not for racism).

A general rule of thumb is attack the post, not the poster and post evidence not opinion. So it's ok to say "that argument is stupid because x, y, z" but not "You are stupid". Likewise you can say "That argument is racist because x, y, z" but not "You are a racist".

So a trump supporter couldn't say "Mexicans are criminals" but they could say "A study has shown a marked increase in crime by undocumented hispanic immigrants" My reply would be "This study showed that there is no more crime amongst that group than any other" and not "YOU'RE A RACIST"

Grayson

Samaris wrote: »

Twitter doesn't tend to ban people much, do they? That's what most of the controversy is about - he said this and this, Milo only did this, why is he getting banned and not the everyone else? (The shadings of feminist conspiracy are probably also provoking some of the publicity of it). Maybe they did just take a stand on this one and it's a sign there will be a clampdown on trolls and furthermore, people who use it for criminal acts (yeah, the order of priority is a bit skewed!) after testing how much backlash they'd get banning/"censoring" people compared to the lax attitude before.

Be interesting to see if Twitter do start getting more aggressive to their more dubious userbase.

Twitter has probably deleted millions of accounts. Most would have been spam accounts or fraudulent in some way. There's probably quite a few that have been banned for abuse too. It's just that this one is famous and the Milo supporters either feel he didn't cross a line or that there's little transparency.

Outlaw Pete

Samaris wrote: »

Twitter doesn't tend to ban people much, do they?

Well, not for Milo's kinda sins they don't tend to but they do close a lot of accounts.

Twitter closes 360,000 accounts for ‘promoting terrorism’

Twitter has shut down 360,000 accounts for threatening or promoting terrorist acts since the middle of 2015, the company said on Thursday. The social media platform has previously come under fire from Washington and third-party groups for not doing enough to stop accounts linked to Islamic State militants.

However, since February, it has suspended an additional 235,000 accounts, after halting 125,000 accounts since the middle of 2015, most of which were related to Islamic State. Twitter said its daily suspensions of terrorism-linked accounts have jumped 80 per cent since last year and that it has reduced its response time.

RDM_83 again

Samaris wrote: »

Twitter doesn't tend to ban people much, do they? That's what most of the controversy is about - he said this and this, Milo only did this, why is he getting banned and not the everyone else? (The shadings of feminist conspiracy are probably also provoking some of the publicity of it). Maybe they did just take a stand on this one and it's a sign there will be a clampdown on trolls and furthermore, people who use it for criminal acts (yeah, the order of priority is a bit skewed!) after testing how much backlash they'd get banning/"censoring" people compared to the lax attitude before.

Be interesting to see if Twitter do start getting more aggressive to their more dubious userbase.

I'd be curious about what twitters long term direction is in general, it's loved by the media but isn't it unprofitable (I know many sites aren't though) with a flatlined user base and falling share prices which combine for worrying times.

Samaris

Ah okay, I got the impression from the conversation that it didn't tend to ban accounts. Although I suppose banning a famous account is always going to get more publicity than some random bloke.

Wibbs

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'd be curious about what twitters long term direction is in general, it's loved by the media but isn't it unprofitable (I know many sites aren't though) with a flatlined user base and falling share prices which combine for worrying times.

The usual route of being bought out and taken over by some larger crowd and ether seen as a loss leader, or they attempt to monetise it and kill it stone dead. Hopefully it doesn't go this way, but I can certainly imagine a situation where in the future the majority of online chat traffic is owned by one or two companies. It's not too far off that nowadays.