Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 202 posts

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

#101

Post by MrZongle2 »

matt4077 wrote: post #83
MrZongle2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not be the best comparison, but OP was on-target with their last sentence: "Who defines what is considered terrorism and what isn't? Once censorship infrastructure is in place, it will get abused." Today, it's ISIS. Well, that's OK -- they're clearly terrorists. Tomorrow, it's the KKK and White Supremacy groups. Well, that's OK too -- they're racists. Next month, it's climate change deniers -- that's probabl…

If the slope were that slippery, you couldn't do anything: "Now you want me to do the dishes. But if I agree to that, you will soon ask me to build a spaceship!"

History has repeatedly shown that the slope is that slippery.

Just within the last 17 years, we've seen plenty of examples of events and behavior that at one time would have been considered unacceptable or shocking become normalized and "par for the course".

That we have shiny beeping toys and a broader vocabulary to describe aspects of human behavior today doesn't change the fact that human behavior itself hasn't changed in a long, long time.

That which can be abused, will be abused.

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

#102

Post by supergreg »

module0000 wrote: post #91
make3 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I would be very surprised if any real planning happened on twitter DMs. That would be unbelievably stupid, with the NSA stuff now being so well known

It's a great way to plant false plans. You don't have to carry them out unless the threat was never mitigated(if it wasn't taken seriously, then you can carry it out for 2x damage: part being the attack itself, the second part being that "they knew and did nothing!").

How would you know if they did know and chose not to do anything to avoid showing they did know?

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

#103

Post by i_cant_speel »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #71
sushid wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Missed that, thanks. Great to know that robots are running our censorship tools now!

What is the alternative? Allow terrorists to spread propaganda? You aren't going to keep up with them without automated tools.

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

#104

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

i_cant_speel wrote: post #103
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Missed that, thanks. Great to know that robots are running our censorship tools now!

What is the alternative? Allow terrorists to spread propaganda? You aren't going to keep up with them without automated tools.

>What is the alternative? Allow terrorists to spread propaganda?

Yes

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

#106

Post by orf »

virmundi wrote: post #73
orf wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Two things: 1) Google shouldn't have free speech since it is not a person. 2) The reason things get enshrined in the Constitution is to limit the ability of the government to get rid of it. The UK's non-constitutional, constitutional monarchy is a rather problematic thing if the monarchy ever wanted to exercise itself.

1) Sure, but taken as a literal interpretation of the constitution they should, as they are a collection of people[1]

2) From a purely theoretical standpoint I agree, it does occupy an interesting place. If the monarchy ever did try to exercise any of its powers it possesses outside of delegation it would trigger a consisting crisis that would mean they would be immediately stripped of such powers.

I mean, the Queen technically has all the powers of state and those are granted "at will" (air quotes) to the prime minister and other officials. If she ever woke up and decided to declare war, strip parliament of its authority or execute a few commoners what would happen?

1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

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

#107

Post by ohsnapman »

Saw a lot of speculation about what ISIS does or does not do without actual links. Here are a few good ones I've seen in the past:

https://www.wired.com/2015/11/isis-opsec-encryption-manuals-...

This podcast was pretty good. ISIS were using a Turkish Dropbox like service to move files ... except the service was actually based in France, something a whois on the domain could have easily detected. Fighters have also geotagged tweets/instagram/Facebook posts, which led to a drone strike:

https://gimletmedia.com/episode/62-decoders/

So ... they're both more sophisticated than you think when it comes to opsec. And less sophisticated than you think when it comes to opsec.

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

#109

Post by slg »

grandalf wrote: post #95
slg wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But no drone strike is launched with the sole intent of killing civilians. That is a world of difference. I used to agree with your assertion. I will explain why I no longer do. The goal of warfare is very simply to break the will of the opposing population to keep fighting. Taking out roadways and bridges and sewage treatment plants with smart bombs is another way to break the opponent's will. Not quite as demoral…

I agree with a lot of what you said (and thanks for laying that out in depth, it was an interesting read), but that still doesn't change the fact that the method the US uses to target drones strikes is completely different than the method terrorists use to target their strikes. It is possible to recognize the ethical problems of the drone program while also saying it is on a higher moral ground than the random killing that terrorists employ.

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

#110

Post by wutbrodo »

softawre wrote: post #50
aphextron wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There was a recent /r/science article that suggested the banning of coontown and fatpeoplehate resulted in less hate on the platform as a whole. Would you argue this hate moved to other avenues of the web? I'd bet some of it did, but some people just stopped being so hateful on the internet once their cesspool went away. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6zg6w6/reddits_ban...

> resulted in less hate on the platform as a whole

The study is interesting, but this is decidedly not what it says, and you should be wary of overinterpreting its arguments. If you look at the definition of hate speech they used, it was defined as "the vocabulary of the subreddits in question". This isn't a general complaint about hate speech being slippery and hard to pin down, it's a criticism of the fact that defining it as the specific vocabulary of the subreddits in question is a huge confounder. What the study's conclusion boils down to is:

"If you ban a subreddit, the exact vocabulary (in-jokes, etc) of that subreddit declines."

Well, duh. This is an especially tautological result for communities that have such a rich vocabulary of in-jokes (and slurs) :(

There's not much in the paper to suggest that the emigrants from coontown and FPH aren't expressing the exact same ideas elsewhere, without using the exact same lexicon that they developed in their original communities. I would be surprised if this result didn't replicate for pretty miuch any community that has its own internal vocabulary and in-jokes, such as nominally pro-social-justice subreddits or even narrow political subreddits like /r/anarchism or something.

Post reply on HN