I'm very concerned about loosing the right to attack religion. It's an important discussion to have and for children to see. All religion is foolish, and has to be approached from a reality-based context.
Updating our rules against hateful conduct
11–20 of 89 posts
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#12I've been deeply concerned with attacks on religious freedom as of late, this seems like a strong step in the right direction.
I do wonder if they will remove comments from prominent American fundamentalists who dehumanize non-Christians and/or atheists?
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#13What if someone's holy book contains text that dehumanizes people on the basis of religion?
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#14I'm very concerned about loosing the right to attack religion. It's an important discussion to have and for children to see. All religion is foolish, and has to be approached from a reality-based context.
> I'm very concerned about loosing the right to attack religion
You aren't losing the right.
You may be losing Twitter's active cooperation if the manner in which you do so is unacceptable to Twitter, but you never had a right to Twitter's active participation in your attacks to lose.
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#15What if someone's holy book contains text that dehumanizes people on the basis of religion?
Sorry but if you're not a member of the tribe, you can't possibly interpret the tribe's book. (said in jest to point out the problematic response)
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#16Interesting. So criticizing religious positions against abortion, against vaccines, against homosexuality, and in favor of the flat earth will now result in post removal. Assuming this policy is going to be impartially and fairly applied as stated.
It's entirely possible to criticize without dehumanizing.
The problem is that it's also possible to criticize in a way where it's simply not possible to determine if it was a good faith criticism or not. There's a wide population of people who even optimize for that, they're called trolls.
Moderation mistakes are inevitable, and the consequences of a bad moderation decision can be as bad, or worse, than the effect of the message itself.
IMO, people should learn to defend themselves against trolls rather than helplessly relying on a nanny from above to do it. Unfortunately, using those platforms doesn't give us much of a choice in the matter.
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#17I'm not convinced centralized models being politically "pushed around" in the age of the internet will succeed. They may likely be a retreat, and long term ebb-and-flow from centralized to decentralized poles. The centralized but politically watched model is also specially susceptible to Taleb's "The Most Intolerant Wins" theorem.
[deleted]
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#18What if someone's holy book contains text that dehumanizes people on the basis of religion?
> What if someone's holy book contains text that dehumanizes people on the basis of religion?
Then they probably aren't allowed to tweet their holy book.
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#19Interesting. So criticizing religious positions against abortion, against vaccines, against homosexuality, and in favor of the flat earth will now result in post removal. Assuming this policy is going to be impartially and fairly applied as stated.
It's entirely possible to criticize without dehumanizing.
That depends entirely on their definition of dehumanizing.
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#20Does this mean that Swiftian satire such as South Park's episode making fun of prominent Scientologists is now unfit for Twitter?