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

Updating our rules against hateful conduct

blog.twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 89 posts

Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct

#61

Post by whatshisface »

duskwuff wrote: post #56
whatshisface wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly does "dehumanization" mean?

It means precisely what it sounds like -- using language which describes the targeted group as something other than (and lesser than) human. The article gives examples where religious groups are described as "rats", "viruses", "filthy animals", or "maggots".

Many cultures use animal analogies to describe nuanced and complicated personality trait combinations. Some of them are more negative than others, referring to combinations of positive and negative traits in varying proportions.

Reductively, calling someone a lion is just as dehumanizing as calling them a shark. In the Bible, people are both complemented and insulted with comparisons to lions. Calling someone a shark is more respectful than calling them a rat, unless you're Chinese in which case I'm not sure what rat means. What exactly is banned here? Twitter gave us only the most obvious examples, leaving the hazy zones open for the endless fighting that I predict is about to start.

Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct

#62

Post by loudtieblahblah »

rubidium wrote: post #44

Everyone should read the examples so they have a clear understanding of what twitter is meaning when they say "dehumanize". It's not "hey I disagree with these people" it's "hey I want these people dead/injured/equated to shit". Religious and ethnic persecutions have often gone hand-in-hand. Religious minorities of all types will be helped by this, and we'll see less hate-speech on twitter. Seems to be a very reasona…

If experience is anything to go by, "things I don't like" or "things that offend me" get twisted into things far more severe than what is actually stated, words are now "violence" and make people feel "unsafe".

This rule's application - like all rules like this - will be stretched and exaggerated to cover much more than intended and will be applied unevenly across demographics.

Just like we see on Reddit when /r/ChapoTrapHouse and /r/Bad_cop_no_donut (both of which I sub to, genuinely) gets a pass, while right wing subs do not, when it comes to violent threats and comments.

Atheists and Christians will get the short end of the stick on this. Mark my words.

Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct

#63

Post by loudtieblahblah »

throwaway98434 wrote: post #40
whatshisface wrote: post #13

What if someone's holy book contains text that dehumanizes people on the basis of religion?

Criticizing a religion is not the same thing as dehumanizing its followers. Dehumanization is a defense mechanism which helps us avoid feeling the pain of realizing that humans sometimes do (subjectively) abhorrent things. It's seductive to define such people outside the bounds of humanity as it allows us to excuse treating them poorly. It is nearly always a mistake to do so, because people are, in fact, people.

> Criticizing a religion is not the same thing as dehumanizing its followers.

That is all in a matter of perspective. To you it might not be.

Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct

#64

Post by loudtieblahblah »

elliekelly wrote: post #45
throwaway98434 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criticizing a religion is not the same thing as dehumanizing its followers. Dehumanization is a defense mechanism which helps us avoid feeling the pain of realizing that humans sometimes do (subjectively) abhorrent things. It's seductive to define such people outside the bounds of humanity as it allows us to excuse treating them poorly. It is nearly always a mistake to do so, because people are, in fact, people.

This is the important point everyone seems to be missing. If you look at the example tweets they all have some aspect of making the [Religious Group] out to be less than human: rats, virus, maggots, etc. People can still freely express their distaste for any and all religion on twitter so long as they don’t dehumanize the people who follow that religion.

Application will be different from stated intent. How much you want to bet ?

haven't we all seen this in practice long enough now to know how this little routine goes?

Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct

#65

Post by drak0n1c »

rubidium wrote: post #44

Everyone should read the examples so they have a clear understanding of what twitter is meaning when they say "dehumanize". It's not "hey I disagree with these people" it's "hey I want these people dead/injured/equated to shit". Religious and ethnic persecutions have often gone hand-in-hand. Religious minorities of all types will be helped by this, and we'll see less hate-speech on twitter. Seems to be a very reasona…

Twitter would be better received if it were bold enough to also state specific examples of permissible religious satire/criticism. I think that would do a lot to address what people are worried about, and be a step in the direction of having more concrete rules and predictable enforcement.

Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct

#66

Post by creaghpatr »

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #62
rubidium wrote: post #44

Everyone should read the examples so they have a clear understanding of what twitter is meaning when they say "dehumanize". It's not "hey I disagree with these people" it's "hey I want these people dead/injured/equated to shit". Religious and ethnic persecutions have often gone hand-in-hand. Religious minorities of all types will be helped by this, and we'll see less hate-speech on twitter. Seems to be a very reasona…

If experience is anything to go by, "things I don't like" or "things that offend me" get twisted into things far more severe than what is actually stated, words are now "violence" and make people feel "unsafe". This rule's application - like all rules like this - will be stretched and exaggerated to cover much more than intended and will be applied unevenly across demographics. Just like we see on Reddit when /r/Chap…

Well sure, because while there are Muslim and Jewish activist groups on Twitter's Trust and Safety Council there are no groups dedicated to defending Christians or Atheists. https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html

Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct

#67

Post by creaghpatr »

drak0n1c wrote: post #65
rubidium wrote: post #44

Everyone should read the examples so they have a clear understanding of what twitter is meaning when they say "dehumanize". It's not "hey I disagree with these people" it's "hey I want these people dead/injured/equated to shit". Religious and ethnic persecutions have often gone hand-in-hand. Religious minorities of all types will be helped by this, and we'll see less hate-speech on twitter. Seems to be a very reasona…

Twitter would be better received if it were bold enough to also state specific examples of permissible religious satire/criticism. I think that would do a lot to address what people are worried about, and be a step in the direction of having more concrete rules and predictable enforcement.

>Twitter would be better received if it were bold enough to also state specific examples of permissible religious satire/criticism

Talk about a PR Minesweeper, expert mode.

Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct

#68

Post by goto11 »

jngreenlee wrote: post #31
dragonwriter wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You are of course correct in a grand sense, but there's this weird gray area philosophically where someone builds a town square and says "everyone come and talk in my square"...until the hear what you are speaking about! The problem is likely greater in our corporate/mercantilist system where some state-sponsored and some natural monopolies develop. Totally get and appreciate the private property of the corporation a…

If Twitter was the whole internet, then you would have a point.

Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct

#69

Post by bassman9000 »

jngreenlee wrote: post #10

I'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.

Specially when religious (or other kind of) minorities where Twitter HQ are located won't necessarily be somewhere else.

Re: Updating our rules against hateful conduct

#70

Post by kstrauser »

ngngngng wrote: post #60
kstrauser wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which religious freedoms have been attacked, and where?

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/other-examp...

Sounds like a series of cases where courts ruled that religious reasons were not justifiable to allow discrimination, as per the Constitution.
Post reply on HN