The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
The Anatomy of A Twitter Blocking — My Own
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

TWICE HAVE the censors at Twitter kicked me off their anything-but-neutral platform.

When these arbiters of right and wrong periodically block my Twitter account, visitors to the site will be greeted with a stark warning:

“Caution. This account is temporary restricted.” The snowflakes will be forewarned of “some unusual activity on the account. Do you still want to view it?” Naturally, the worded choice offered—to view or not to view—ultimately doesn’t exist. I am told that when you click to avail yourself of the “choice,” my account is nowhere to be seen. Once blocked, you’re invisible.

The visual that assaults the eye is this one:

The screen shot was taken by a friend. For, when sent to the Twitter doghouse, one is typically barred from accessing Twitter at all, except for fleetingly seeing the notice, “Your account has been blocked.”

Thereafter, the only thing visible to this untouchable will be a shakedown notice from Twitter’s shameless shysters.

It’ll be written in millennial syntax, and will read as follows: “Enter a phone number that you would like to associate with your Twitter account.”

The ransom demand looks like this:

When they block you, our Twitter overlords seize the opportunity to extract your most personal information.

Picture Mr. Burns of “The Simpsons” fame, when a plot or a scheme comes together. Mr. Burns minus the charm.


“We will make the political pariah cough up her most private information, or else she’ll remain in exile.”

Only, in the case of Twitter, the enforces are singularly charmless young millennials. The uniformity of the opinion they enforce is scarier than its uninformed nature. Misguided, mediocre and frightfully monolithic minds are monopolizing one of the Internet’s most powerful, intellectual means of production: Twitter.

Twitter technocrats reckon you’re desperate to partake in their consensus-driven enterprise and will thus eagerly part with your most private information. “Confirm your phone number,” comes the next instruction.

The dissident right has its speech rights curtailed on what are ostensibly neutral, government-protected, social-media platforms. Luckily, the free-market still provides us with … burn phones.

It all sounds so cloak-and-dagger, but nobody in their right mind would part with sensitive information on Twitter or on Facebook. Having always been literally off-the-grid when it comes to my mobile phone (a thing I only acquired in 2017); a burn phone provided me “with partial privacy. Even the NSA can’t track them with accuracy. The secret lies within how prepaid carriers, also known as MVNOs, identify their users – they don’t.”

Other than “sensitive content-blocked,” I am also “shadow-banned and follower-throttled.” The first means that my #hashtags go nowhere on Twitter other than to my immediate, Twitter followers, mostly.


As to followers, as someone who’s been “sensitive content-blocked,” my Twitter followers never increase, but only dwindle by the day. As another victim observed—she tracks the refugee scam and dissects the miseries of diversity—“Twitter has been taking away followers again for weeks now. I will get a spurt of hundreds of new followers and then they take them away. They don’t have to shadow-ban you; they can just make sure that your follower number stays stagnant until you ask yourself, ‘Why do I bother?’”

Ditto. The dynamics on my account are identical.

Gab serves as a convenient control group. On Gab, where there is no blocking, shadow-banning and follower-throttling—my number of followers only ever increases. Isn’t that curious? Admittedly, Gab comprises a less conventional cohort than the Twitter ditto-heads.

“Wear their contempt as a badge of honor,” exhorted a loyal reader. “At least you know you’re doing something right.” I’ve never doubted it. Still, while not hugely dispiriting, being powerless and right is not much of a consolation.

Establishment conservatives will get together on Fox News to grate on about how “libtards” are making them sad by calling them Nazis. Conservatism Inc., however, is seldom blocked or deplatformed. And they certainly don’t stand up for those on the dissident right who are.

As for President Donald J. Trump: Anchor Tucker Carlson suggested that POTUS has done precious little to stop the intimidation, firing, hounding, de-platforming, doxing, and marginalizing of those who do not revel in the warm smell of the herd.

Tucker did, nevertheless, try to steer Trump, urging that he “would be remembered as a ‘genuinely great’ president if he fought for free speech.”

Fat chance.

In taming and claiming the political landscape, social-media tyrants fancy themselves exemplars of enlightenment. But those who hoist their pixelated pitchforks to purge ideological disagreement, Soviet-style; they are the enemies of civilization.

In case I am ever permanently removed from the grubby cyber-reality that is Twitter, you can find me on Gab.


AND, many thanks in advance to those who’ve “Liked” and “Shared” my Facebook Author Page, in support of work that is now in its 20th year.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Censorship, Political Correctness, Twitter 
Hide 12 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Rational says:


    Thanks, Madam, you are so right. These thugs want to ban conservatives because they are scared of the truth. Bakers have to bake cakes for homos, even though they are a private company, but the libbarbarians claim that Twitter and Google and Farcebook can ban whosoever they want, because they are a private company.

    Talking about Google, have you heard how they have been rigging the search results, to make conservatives disappear, but libbarbarians prominent?

    Bunder has even rigged the women can and men can suggestion. Typing “men can” in google search engine gives suggestions about Bunder’s Father who apparently is pregnant and still having menses. Check it out.

    Bunder studied biology from his father who taught him that he carried him, breastfed him and was having menses all the time. Maybe that explain why Bunder is deranged.

  2. As for President Donald J. Trump: Anchor Tucker Carlson suggested that POTUS has done precious little to stop the intimidation, firing, hounding, de-platforming, doxing, and marginalizing of those who do not revel in the warm smell of the herd.

    I wonder if that will change now that Jack has announced that POTUS’s Tweets will now be subjected to similar, albeit a bit more friendly treatment. They can screw little people like you with abandon, but they are careful about how they shut down politicos with any power.

  3. Anonynous says:

    Only, in the case of Twitter, the enforces are singularly charmless young millennials. The uniformity of the opinion they enforce is scarier than its uninformed nature. Misguided, mediocre and frightfully monolithic minds are monopolizing one of the Internet’s most powerful, intellectual means of production: Twitter.

    Like all enforcers, they enforce things the ample majority approves of their enforcing/is merrily indifferent to it.
    I know it’s depressing, but what happens on the higher floors is but a reflection of the lower floors.

    How many angry fellows do we see on Twitter shrieking for yet more enforcing?
    How many pushing for less enforcing?
    Besides the numerical difference, which faction seems the most determined?

    Answering all that is easy, tough uneasy.

  4. Dear [email protected]

    Some silly remarks,

    As mentioned before here at AI(and a bad definition at that) will make writing in whatever flavor, to reach the most, and make that a living, a middle class endeavour quite common in your circles, minimum wage except for superstars of convention. Coathangers come to mind.

    Was it expected? Of course, opportunistic thrift, as much as anything else (if the public is known to not grasp anything but recurrent thick singular psychological counts), what is the drama but a career change. It is not too late, God forgives anybody who subscribes to him, even at the last moments of one’s existence. Understand your tools, and become relevant. Give Nomi Prins a glance, she went from middle management in banking to denouncing, to UN address, to Tom Engelhardt, to Yourtube, and running. There is much to learn there.

    Try to grasp the larger picture, if you make an effort to understand the scheme of internet functionality, which you should have, as using a tool you do not understand makes you a consumer, not exactly corresponding to your pretensions. This was coming.

    It is laugheable to assume, as you seem to do, that it is about the content you are dishing. The allowance of what belongs in the trash is opportunistic, at diem.

    You cannot expect to not see the jump made by the technology and alternated mass psychology (of which you had time to take a sampling before and after any changes in the “profession”). You are kneedeep inside the cast. Luther nailing his pamphlets to the churchdoors and no printing press come to mind. Tweeter (and Fecesbook, and Gabby, your next “surprises most probably). There you hang, on the church doors, at Heidelberg, On the internet, only bested by Assange Julian, he being in the dungeons. But that is out of focus for your opportunistic margining.

    “Only, in the case of Twitter, the enforcers are singularly charmless young millennials. The uniformity of the opinion they enforce is scarier than its uninformed nature. Misguided, mediocre and frightfully monolithic minds are monopolizing one of the Internet’s most powerful, intellectual means of production: Twitter.”

    There will always be a follow up to prostrating to cash. These young millennials are ambitious as yourself just better positioned wage slaves, zero added value middle class puppies. (“the Internet’s most powerful, intellectual means”, seems you still aspire being repositioned in the grace of the rebbi).

    Our take on he who can hold… “He who can hold contradictory explanations inside his mind, and not go mad, is guilty”

    There should be a correction coming, you simply are tarballed within the right crowd(the cluster), somehow the ban will be temporary so you can indeed carry on your sleeve the glory of denied, and get away with future access.

    Some other things come to mind, this is just a haphazardous grab out of the bag. At all exhaustive.

  5. Binyamin says:

    Mercer is a hypocrite. She claims to be a libertarian and yet questions the right of a private, non governmental organisation to determine who should be allowed to join. Twitter has every right to expel a member in the same manner of a nightclub throwing out a disruptive customer. All private organisations have the right enshrined by common law on who can join them and they also have the right to expel/eject a person if they have contravened the organisation’s values which brought the organisation into disrepute. The only thing a private organisation cannot legally do is to discriminate on grounds of race, religion etc. The irony is, if a rogue organisation discriminated against someone on grounds of race, Mercer would instantly offer her support in the name of classical liberalism.

    Mercer was temporarily banned from Twitter not because she is a person of importance- she isn’t. It was because She retweeted a comment from Richard Spencer. Spencer is a Nazi hoodlum who is rightly banned from Twitter for advocating a race war and ethnic cleansing of people of colour to create a pure white America. If anyone mentions Richard Spencer on twitter the computerised filtering system will automatically ban them.

    Mercer the so called classical liberal is a fan of Spencer. Now work this out- a Jewish libertarian supporting a Nazi.

    Even Gab the social media platform for white nationalists, has, as far as I am aware, not allowed Spencer to join.

    Dissident right? , hmm. You mean Segregationists, KKK supporters, Nazis, people who have an eternal grudge because the civil rights legislation was passed? I am a Reaganite conservative and I strongly object to the phrase ‘dissident right’ because it gives these morons a measure of respectability. There really is only one form of conservatism. It believes in free market, individual freedom and responsibility, low taxation, law and order and respect for democracy and yes, the integrity of the nation state and collective security. But race does not enter the equation because most nation states are a collection of races- there are exceptions, Japan and Iceland comes to mind- both countries I have visited and after a few weeks you realise they are boring in their monotony.

    • Replies: @Sean McBride
  6. @Binyamin

    If Israel permitted a large influx of non-Jewish Africans, Arabs and Asians to assume residence and citizenship, including many Christians and Muslims, would that make Israel a better society? More diverse? More inclusive? Less boring?

    • Replies: @Binyamin
  7. Binyamin says:
    @Sean McBride

    Sean, I wonder why you mention Israel? Neither Mercer’s article nor my response makes any reference to Israel. I simply pointed out that a private organisation like Twitter has the right to decide who should or should not be allowed to use its platform because like all organisations, it has a code of practice and basic ground rules.
    I do not advocate open borders and as I pointed out in my post, secure borders of a nation state is important.
    Whether or not diversity is good or otherwise is beside the point. America has always been diverse since its inception. Granted that at crucial times in its history such as during the segregation era, (white) American rulers pretended people of colour did not exist. But they have always been part of America – in fact African Americans are one of the oldest group amongst the settler communities.
    You, unlike me, have obviously never been to Israel. It is the most diverse country in the Middle East- 20% of its citizens are Arabs. Mostly Muslim but also Christian and Druze. 60% of Jews in Israel are from the Middle East who have never lived in the West and nearly two hundred thousand Jews are from Ethiopia.
    As the saying goes, once an anti semite, always an anti semite.

    • Replies: @Sean McBride
  8. @Binyamin

    Here is the main point that stimulates my curiosity:

    You support Jewish ethnic nationalism in Israel and Jewish ethnic activism globally.

    Do you support ethnic nationalism for all ethnic groups in their respective territories and ethnic activism for all ethnic groups globally — Arab, black, Chinese, English, German, Hispanic, Japanese, Palestinian, white, etc.?

    If not, which ethnic groups are on your approved and disapproved lists, and why?

    One gets the impression that you might object to the expression of English ethnic nationalism in Britain, French ethnic nationalism in France or German ethnic nationalism in Germany. Correct me if I am wrong.

    Israel is “diverse” in some respects, but it is decidedly a Jewish ethnic nationalist state. It is difficult to imagine circumstances in which it would permit non-Jews to develop into a demographic majority in Israel and to acquire political domination over Jews.

    With regard to the leading social media platforms and free speech: a few of them (especially Google and Facebook) possess near monopolistic power. I think they should be treated as pubic utilities and neutral platforms for the expression of all speech that is not illegal. They should be legally barred from imposing their personal political views on the public square. They are far too powerful to be treated as publishers.

  9. A little story from Aust’. Possibly the best rugby union player in Aust’ is an “Islander” & as is often the case is a devout traditional Christian. He’s also a Lay preacher.
    One of his… sermons was uploaded to you-tube. In it he noted the traditional Christian view that adultery, fornicators, liars, homosexuals & thief’s are bound for hell….
    Well all hell broke loose. You guess it! Homosexuals & the PC rabble went ballistic. Fucking furious. Took only days for his rugby contract to be cancelled (worth $ 4 million). He’d been warned !
    So rugby player naturally decides sue Rugby Aust’. (we have constitutional/legal rights to freedom of religion)
    Rugby player goes to “go fund me” to help pay legal bills. In a few days he gets $ 60,000 odd.
    Then — here’s the fun part! “Go fund me” boots him off the site. (usual mealy mouth, spineless excuse of “inappropriate”, contemporary values etc. )
    So a Christian group steps in, gives him $ 100 K. Few days later guy has over $ 2mill’ in donations….Australians are known for supporting the “under-dog”….

  10. Anonymous [AKA "hypocrikeys"] says:

    Aw, that’s nothing!

    Here’s a really funny thing to note about “diverse” Israel: they suppress free speech (gotta fight “terrorism” don’t ye know?).

    Facebook Is Collaborating With the Israeli Government to Determine What Should Be Censored
    Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
    September 12 2016, 2:57 p.m.

    Have a nice “military censor day”…

  11. Quick advice, not because I give a damn about twitter and writing tweets, but just because I’m a helpful guy: Get a burner flip phone, using cash. Take care of a lot of this kind of business with that phone and then ditch it when you’re done.

  12. Anonymous[388] • Disclaimer says:

    Quick advice, not because I give a damn about twitter and writing tweets, but just because I’m a helpful guy: Get a burner flip phone, using cash. Take care of a lot of this kind of business with that phone and then ditch it when you’re done.

    Sounds like good advice if someone doesn’t have a real job or you’re a mid-level distribution rep for the Sinaloa Cartel. In this modern age it is impossible to stay off the grid. I started surfing the web and emailing 30 years ago while in college. And before that I wrote letters to the editor.

    I wish I could do it all over again. I would minimize my profile, not engage in online forums, and channel my energies into more productive activities. Because in the end it was all a waste of time. I quit Twitter after I closed my 6th account. It is more addictive than crack and a massive time waster. And it is toxic and I believe destructive to one’s mental and physical well-being.

    While I would like sane (and insane) voices out there countering the narrative, it now looks like that is being systematically curtailed on Twitter/social media anyway. So now I just stick with the Unz Review for my fix of sane and insane voices countering the narrative.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS