71–80 of 202 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes? Are you afraid they can defeat you with tweets? The risk of normalizing suppressing speech is greater than the risk of terrorism.
'The pen is mightier than the sword'. The tweets are valuable propaganda to ISIS. They are consumed by billions of young impressionable minds all over the world, inducing them to 'take up the cause'. ISIS does not have the right to 'free speech'. Stopping ISIS from spreading their selfie vids of how they burned people alive and 'You can too!' - is not controversial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, you'll see the American ideal of free speech quickly purged from the Internet as American companies shed their nationalism for profit. The EU does not hold speech as dear as the US. As the EU gains more power, they'll pressure American firms to conform to their laws. Since the firms have EU headquarters, they will. If the American firms wore that mantle with pride (and paid the taxes that go with it),…
Meh, as an EU citizen I think their balance of free speech is OK. Not as extreme as in the US, but that doesn't make it worse. The UK draws a sensible line without having it enshrined in any constitution. The right to forget is a great example. Sure, its "against the free speech of Google" but it's decidedly for the people being spoken about IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're speaking out for the terrorists? I'm struggling to see the point of that quote.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's also worth noting that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terror under most definitions.
This is a good definition, which IIRC was compiled from a lot of other academic sources:
Alex Schmid and Albert Jongman: “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-)clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal, or political reasons, whereby—in contrast to assassination—the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators.”
https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/511...
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…
It's hard to read the rest of your post with that opener.
You may believe that drones are used poorly, and you may believe they naturally result in higher civilian casualties, but there is absolutely nothing that implies that "by definition". Drones are simply another weapon that happens to have human operators located elsewhere.
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.
two-factor solitude.
"roughly 95 percent were identified by the company’s spam-fighting automation tools" I wonder how high the false positive rate is.
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…
Now I finally know how my dog feels when he looks at me with his head tilted to one side, his eyes betraying his lack of understanding.
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.
Agreed, and this should be the retort to any curtailing of free speech in the name of safety. Its the same argument as allowing “the_donald” to exist on Reddit. You will not stop an ideology by denying them a platform. Better to debate them in an open forum, even if they are evil. The only way to counter bad ideas is with good ones.
this implies they actually want to have a discussion and not just spew bile everywhere, dox innocent people, and vote brigade racist bullshit.