71–80 of 80 posts
Migrate to an alternative app, such as Parler, ASAP.
Why does this decision change anything? They've been allowing rule-breaking material from politicians for a while, they just now let the user know and prevent the rule-breaking content from spreading.
>We're not going to delete it but we're going to algorithmically prevent discovery Tech monoliths like facebook, google, and twitter are starting to show very obvious political biases. If we push them to be equitable to differing opinions, they basically get to continue enforcing their own political biases because we can only ever do blackbox testing. God knows what the backend is doing. If we push them to own their…
On the other hand: If your political stance violates the TOS that is enforced on non-public offical users, is it really "political bias"? Maybe you should rethink your politics if bullying, inciting violence, and inciting hate speech is part of your position.
https://www.label56.com/wp-content/uploads/verified-hate-1.j...
What is worse is the secondary effects when people point to twitter not taking action as a justification that posting 'kill ' is somehow acceptable if == white. After all, twitter allows it so it must be OK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand: If your political stance violates the TOS that is enforced on non-public offical users, is it really "political bias"? Maybe you should rethink your politics if bullying, inciting violence, and inciting hate speech is part of your position.
I've seen far more on the left calling for bullying, inciting violence, and inciting hate than the right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand: If your political stance violates the TOS that is enforced on non-public offical users, is it really "political bias"? Maybe you should rethink your politics if bullying, inciting violence, and inciting hate speech is part of your position.
I've seen far more on the left calling for bullying, inciting violence, and inciting hate than the right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what is the alternative here? Allow everything from copyright infringement to threats of violence to child porn? That is what I don't get about the complaints of these companies censoring users. Every mature government has already agreed that completely unlimited free speech is not a good thing as speech can infringe on the rights of others. We are just debating about where exactly the line is now. You are free to…
The alternative is to not selectively enforce the rules. I didn't even mention anything about censorship.
So by definition there is no objectively "pure enforcement" possibility. And the other end of the spectrum, no enforcement whatsoever makes the site suck for lots of people so that's out of the question.
So there's going to be "selective enforcement," as you call it. And if you were in charge of enforcement, I bet you'd think you were being 100% objective, not selective/subjective, but I bet more that somebody would disagree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand: If your political stance violates the TOS that is enforced on non-public offical users, is it really "political bias"? Maybe you should rethink your politics if bullying, inciting violence, and inciting hate speech is part of your position.
There is a great example in the thread below that might as well be surfaced here. When blue-checks on twitter post 'kill white people' it is magically not bullying, not inciting violence and not hate speech. https://www.label56.com/wp-content/uploads/verified-hate-1.j... What is worse is the secondary effects when people point to twitter not taking action as a justification that posting 'kill ' is somehow acceptable…
- Dadito Calderone was making a joke about people who pretend to be concerned about crime in black neighborhoods when really they're trying to demonize black people as criminals.
- ka5sh, and possibly Brian Clevinger, is quoting the TV series Roots.
- Bobbie Oliver was talking about a movie in which a black man escapes slavery by killing his captors.
- Shay Stweart Bouley was sharing a story with an intentionally provocative title
- Tracy Bommeisha-Ann Clayton was ironically using a painfully exaggerated black accent.
- Yasser Lester is saying something similar to Nick Hanauer telling plutocrats to beware of pitchforks and torches.
None of these people were actually advocating for killing white people, nor or they making these jokes in a targeted way that would constitute bullying. Furthermore, many of these tweets are many years old, which indicates that they were found by scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a great example in the thread below that might as well be surfaced here. When blue-checks on twitter post 'kill white people' it is magically not bullying, not inciting violence and not hate speech. https://www.label56.com/wp-content/uploads/verified-hate-1.j... What is worse is the secondary effects when people point to twitter not taking action as a justification that posting 'kill ' is somehow acceptable…
- Teddy Wilson was mocking the "white genocide" conspiracy theory. He's also white. - Dadito Calderone was making a joke about people who pretend to be concerned about crime in black neighborhoods when really they're trying to demonize black people as criminals. - ka5sh, and possibly Brian Clevinger, is quoting the TV series Roots. - Bobbie Oliver was talking about a movie in which a black man escapes slavery by kill…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If not political advocacy groups, who would be a better consultant choice? Isn't the entire purpose of advocacy groups to encourage the safety of certain groups?
I think an apolitical philosophical framework would be better than _biased_ (however good their intentions) groups who have the mostly the well being of their interest group in mind. An advocacy group isn't a group which will take a balanced approach. Naturally, if they are advocates, they would represent their position _fully_ and uncompromised. An apolitical (not advocating anything outside a framework) would be be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- Teddy Wilson was mocking the "white genocide" conspiracy theory. He's also white. - Dadito Calderone was making a joke about people who pretend to be concerned about crime in black neighborhoods when really they're trying to demonize black people as criminals. - ka5sh, and possibly Brian Clevinger, is quoting the TV series Roots. - Bobbie Oliver was talking about a movie in which a black man escapes slavery by kill…
I am pretty sure that if one would take the approaches you have outlined - e.g. quoting some TV show, making a 'provocative title', speakig in an exagerrated accent -- but with the people swapped, they would be flagged in a relatively short order. No matter how bening the motive, the message is not OK. The fact that you think that it is OK and make excuses for it is the illustration of my GP post's last point.
[1] https://twitter.com/KillerMike/status/612315197663940608.
[2] https://twitter.com/TheBillyProcida/status/62535136510415257...
[3] https://twitter.com/ZaidZamanHamid/status/505972865766658048
[4] https://twitter.com/AlexisGZall/status/604026752013230080
Why the special treatment for politicians? I could imagine Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos saying something edgy and of similar significance.
Elon already has the SEC getting on him for his tweets, I imagine they would go after Bezos too. Both would face shareholder lawsuits for anything sufficiently controversial, so it probably doesn't need to be as much of a priority for Twitter.
