What if someone's holy book contains text that dehumanizes people on the basis of religion?
I guess you can't post those quotes on twitter then.
Updating our rules against hateful conduct
21–30 of 89 posts
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#22Interesting. 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.
> So criticizing religious positions against abortion, against vaccines, against homosexuality, and in favor of the flat earth will now result in post removal.
Only if you "dehumanize" said religious people. All of the examples Twitter posted involved comparing the religious in question to animals (or viruses).
So, I doubt a tweet like "I don't think it's right to let the mother die because of fetus complications" would be removed, but something like "Those Christian pigs think a clump of cells are worthy of having human rights?! What kind of monkeys are leading them!" probably would.
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#23I'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.
As a religious person I disagree that all religion is foolish. But I agree that religions should be attacked. As a christian I've seen many ideas that were presented as "Christian" be attacked severely and then the entire christian culture is forced to re-evaluate the idea in the context of the scripture and determine that the idea is in fact not present or contrary to proper biblical teaching. Attacking ideas is good attacking people is bad.
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#24I'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.
This crosses into religious flamewar. That's not ok on HN; please don't do it here.
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#25Interesting. 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.
[deleted]
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#26Interesting. 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.
I am very certain that tweets criticizing these types of things (which are generally tweets against the beliefs of Christians, however misguided) will remain.
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#27Interesting. 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.
No, because positions are not people. If you can criticize an idea without dehumanizing the person who holds said idea, then your criticism doesn't fall into the "dehumanizing people" category.
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#28Does this mean that Swiftian satire such as South Park's episode making fun of prominent Scientologists is now unfit for Twitter?
I don't believe it would be affected -- as I recall, that episode mocks the religion and its members, but doesn't dehumanize them.
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#29Twitter needs to be a set of open source protocols and standards like the internet.
Imagine if all of the internet was owned by one company and they had this kind of power. This is more power than many governments around the world.
Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct
#30What 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.
What if, as part of a developing story, a journalist quotes a government official making such statements?