*Updated to bold blockage response from Twitter.
Yahoo reporter Chris Wilson wrote about the progressive suppression of speech occurring at Twitter. We confirmed with Twitter while dealing with Chris Loesch's individual suspended account that it was indeed due to users abusing the spam/block feature to suspend users with whom they disagree. Wilson, on the other hand, suggests otherwise in his expertise on our situation gleaned from who knows where.
Although calls and tweets from Yahoo News to multiple Twitter spokespeople went unanswered, the company is certainly accounting for factors other than pure numbers of people flagging accounts as spam. If that were the case, prominent voices of any political flavor would regularly vanish and reappear.
Case closed! Wilson surmises it's just pesky over-updating.
More likely, Chris Loesch triggered a red flag at the Twitter headquarters by responding to well-wishers too zealously after rising to his wife's defense. Dana Loesch posted a screenshot of the warning page her husband received for his first suspension, which states that he was cut off for "sending multiple unsolicited mentions to other users." His rapid-fire retweeting of others in the immediate aftermath of his spat with Daniel Barber could well meet that definition.
What sources does Wilson cite? His own eyes. It had to be, because he thinks it is. Actually, this was the RESPONSE Chris received after the first suspension. No mentions of the rapid-fire tweets of those who sought to ban his account, as published on multiple sites and shared with Twitter users. That would have required due diligence in reporting and the Internet makes us lazy.
But it is unlikely that Chris Loesch triggered a conspiracy. He just tweeted too much.
From Twitter, bold my emphasis:
You've been unsuspended, and I've asked the team to monitor the account [...] we are still investigating the best ways to work on this ...
the coordinated blocks may still trip the automated systems, but we will try to stay a step ahead
You may also refer to my note that coordinated blocks could trip the automated spam systems ...
Please note your follower/following counts maybe a little screwy for an hour or so after suspension/reinstatement. Thanks for your patience.
The excuse fabricated by Wilson that Chris "tweeted too much" needs to be corrected. There is nothing supporting that theory except the one he created himself when he didn't get a response from Twitter.
This email came from a long discourse over the course of the evening as the suspensions kept occurring, prior to the above. I am protecting identities because we've seen already how zealous progressive users go after others.
You should have gotten a note from "[REDACTED]" on our support team when the account was reinstated before... Can you reply to it, simply saying you were suspended again? [...] We're also going to adjust something to try to keep it from happening again [...] Understand that these systems are designed to protect users, and 99.99% of the time they work as intended. We do not mediate content and really do want to preserve an open forum for all voices.
It was clearly, as Wilson made up, because of too many updates. It was also not "Twitmo," or a temporary freeze of the account due to too many updates at once. It was suspended and it was a coordinated effort and it seems some of those who are spinning the fastest are the ones guilty of the TOS violation themselves.
This is just one screenshot of many who bragged about the abuse:
This is a screenshot of what Twitmo looks like, via Breitbart.com's Mary Chastain:
This is what a suspension looks like:
Do these look even remotely the same to you? Do they sound like the effect for the same cause? Because that's what people like Charles "Sandwich Board Laptop" Johnson says. In fact, it's what a lot of people on the left who encouraged this abuse are saying. Fascinating.
Chris Wilson claims to have emailed me for comment at around 1:45 (I'm assuming Eastern time as he's based in DC) but so far a search of all three of my email accounts shows nothing from any "Chris Wilson."
I expect a full correction from Chris Wilson, Yahoo, and ABC.com for republishing the story.
*An additional update: I later remembered Chris had been suspended three times -- not once, but thrice. He Tweeted a few times between the first and second suspension and Tweeted NOTHING between the second and third suspension. The duration of time between the second and third suspensions was around a minute. This further illustrates how Chris Wilson's fabricated excuse that he "Tweeted too much" doesn't hold at all.