Live data from Hacker News

Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

bloomberg.com

61–70 of 202 posts

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#61
post #3

I'm more interested in why it took them this long, while they're perfectly fine suspending accounts that are politically opposing to their worldview. How are political dissenters more dangerous than actual terrorists?

The word "terrorism" is a PR word intended to marginalize whatever group it is applied to.

As a tactic, terrorism describes the infliction of civilian casualties meant to create a disproportionate climate of fear. By this definition, drones used in warfare are a form of terrorism.

In today's world we are not fighting wars in the traditional sense of defending ourselves against aggression. Since there is no obvious threat, the people will not support a pragmatic war of aggression meant to help install US hegemony in oil rich (or otherwise geopolitically important) regions of the world.

So our planners are left with the need to create a moralistic crusade and to marginalize and dehumanize the adversary so that Americans will not care when we find out that many of them (and their civilians) were slaughtered or forced to live in poverty/squalor.

It starts with the framing of the adversary as helpless against an illegitimate regime. The people are framed as victims of their own failure to end up with a better regime, and the moralistic idea of nation building and bringing in democracy is introduced.

Then, the regime is asked to give up power. When it refuses, as all regimes would, the US pretends it has a moral justification to use force against people and infrastructure. There is the heavy implication that a greater purpose exists, such as democracy or women's rights, or stopping the torture policies of the regime, etc.

But in fact no plan exists other than to remove the regime from power. Never before has there been a more hollow policy/intellectual movement than the idea of nation building.

Meanwhile, the US has typically funded various militant groups that oppose the regime, and now those groups are no longer needed. Some decide to seek power in the newly existing power vacuum. They will be branded as terrorists arbitrarily to suit the needs of the US PR campaign.

The word terrorism is used to characterize a person or a set of beliefs or an organization as unworthy of respect and unworthy of humane treatment.

Yet in the US we fail to recognize our drone strikes as the same tactic as suicide bombings, while we create untold pain and suffering abroad.

Both of our major political parties strongly support the endless war and the endless killing and destruction of the political adversaries abroad who dare to try to control their own destinies and the destinies of their region.

Twitter clearly supports this too, and feels obligated to help eradicate the first amendment as much as possible in its own small way, even if it can't actually revoke the amendment.

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#63
post #45
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I believe even terrorists should be able to say whatever they want. I'd actually prefer them shitposting on twitter rather than killing people.

So you don't agree with laws about hate speech?

> So you don't agree with laws about hate speech?

In fact, no.

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#65

I understand why Twitter might not want ISIS accounts on their service but from a national security standpoint, it seems better to have the communication happening on a U.S.-based service like Twitter than some darknet or crypto-centric app.

You use twitter to radicalize and indoctrinate - not plan attacks. Attacks are typically planned alone and in solitude after someone has already been radicalized.

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#66

There's no way they audited 300,000 accounts and got conclusive results about all of them. I wonder how many innocent accounts were swept up in this?

The article EXPLICITLY states: > Of those, roughly 95 percent were identified by the company’s spam-fighting automation tools

So yes, your hunch is right, but it's also mentioned in the article.

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#67

> Twitter said about 75 percent of the blocked accounts this year were spotted before a single tweet was sent Fascinating... Just based on the username and the user's self-description?

Probably who they follow/who they are followed by.

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#68

> Twitter said about 75 percent of the blocked accounts this year were spotted before a single tweet was sent Fascinating... Just based on the username and the user's self-description?

Obviously not. You can fingerprint a user/device with a lot of information from your browser.

You can detect obvious things like browser, IP address, OS, but also more unique details like battery level, screen size, etc.

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are increasingly a major conduit for speech. Isolating people from Twitter isolates them from their inherent right to speech. This does two things a) sets precedence for future speech limitations and b) makes it harder for us to track people associated with terrorism. Both are bad since they historically lead to more violence.

"Isolating people from Twitter isolates them from their inherent right to speech." I disagree - are you saying access to a social network like Twitter should be a human right?

Not fully. The problem is the network effect. Look at the Arab Spring. "Everyone should have access to Twitter due to freedom". Now we see the other side of speech and run away.

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#70
post #3

I'm more interested in why it took them this long, while they're perfectly fine suspending accounts that are politically opposing to their worldview. How are political dissenters more dangerous than actual terrorists?

The word "terrorism" is a PR word intended to marginalize whatever group it is applied to. As a tactic, terrorism describes the infliction of civilian casualties meant to create a disproportionate climate of fear. By this definition, drones used in warfare are a form of terrorism. In today's world we are not fighting wars in the traditional sense of defending ourselves against aggression. Since there is no obvious th…

You are missing the biggest differentiating factor of terrorism, the targeting of innocent civilians. Yes, US drone strikes do cause fear in a similar way to terrorism. Yes, civilians are being killed by US drone strikes. Yes, that fact is morally reprehensible. But no drone strike is launched with the sole intent of killing civilians. That is a world of difference.
Post reply on HN