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

Twitter locked my account for a nine year old tweet

fightthefuture.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 367 posts

Re: Twitter locked my account for a nine year old tweet

#281

Post by dingo_bat »

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #139

I (@alfiedotwtf) got suspended. I asked support for clarification as to why I got suspended, but only to get a reply saying "we can't tell you why you were suspended, and don't ask again because we won't respond". Wtf Jack. Edit: It was one week before the Australian federal election, which does make me suspicious as to the reasoning of my suspension Edit 2: Since there's a slim chance that someone from Twitter will…

Do you remember sending a horrifically foul tweet like in the linked story? If yes, that's probably it.

Re: Twitter locked my account for a nine year old tweet

#282

Post by dogma1138 »

notyourwork wrote: post #272
dogma1138 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Verizon is a public company would you allow them to block you from making a call because of a text you’ve sent 9 years ago?

Your question implies you consider Twitter a common carrier. Verizon as a phone company falls under common carrier rules. Twitter (social media) does not and therefore, its not the same. If we want to reclassify social media as common carrier we need regulation to do so but that is not how the internet or social media companies work today. Sadly the internet in of itself doesn't even fall under common carrier.

I understand I think when you have a monopoly over a communication medium common carrier laws should apply even without legislation.

The problematic case here is that all other common carrier are funded through service chargers where social media is funded through advertising and other revenue streams.

That said it’s not like social media companies aren’t at fault here too they hide behind the notion that they are a common carrier or a publisher when it suits them as in when they don’t want to be directly liable for the content on their platform.

On the other hand they moderate content to appease advertisers even when there is no direct pressure to do so like in this case.

My personal opinion is that Twitter should not ban anyone, if the Twits are sufficiently offensive (not in a personal manner but rather a legal one) then law enforcement should handle it like it would handle any other type of abusive or offensive communication.

If I send you a death threat via the post the postal service won’t ban me the police might come tho if you report me.

Re: Twitter locked my account for a nine year old tweet

#283

Post by sarah180 »

Counterpoint: you used Twitter to publish aggressively misogynist language, and by leaving it up, you continued to distribute hateful material. If Twitter is going to police hate speech, this the right kind of content, and "it was a while ago" is not really a defense when you're still distributing that content.

People often play the "it's not misogynist speech" game, but the first thing you did was to dismiss her based on her gender. Your fault here is more than "two party hate," and you still haven't owned up to your misogynist behavior in my opinion.

Re: Twitter locked my account for a nine year old tweet

#284

Post by jmull »

stronglikedan wrote: post #216
tablethnuser wrote: post #172

The rule of thumb I use is to ask: if someone had shouted this in a supermarket or bank line, what would happen? Internet communities should aspire to be more like local communities. If you're a jerk in real life, people will show you the door. Making this about grand abstract concepts like free speech or censorship is internet fun for people who like to debate. But it's overcomplicating the situation. Twitter is jus…

> what would happen? Nothing. It's not a bad tweet. It's not threatening violence. It's not racist. It's not hateful towards a particular group. It's just a criticism wrapped in an insult, and frankly, not even a comparatively harsh insult. It's sad that some people think it should be removed.

I think the person would be kicked out of the store, possibly permanently.

I don’t think you’re going to convince too many people it’s perfectly OK to shout profanities and insults at people.

Re: Twitter locked my account for a nine year old tweet

#286

Post by root_axis »

dogma1138 wrote: post #282
notyourwork wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your question implies you consider Twitter a common carrier. Verizon as a phone company falls under common carrier rules. Twitter (social media) does not and therefore, its not the same. If we want to reclassify social media as common carrier we need regulation to do so but that is not how the internet or social media companies work today. Sadly the internet in of itself doesn't even fall under common carrier.

I understand I think when you have a monopoly over a communication medium common carrier laws should apply even without legislation. The problematic case here is that all other common carrier are funded through service chargers where social media is funded through advertising and other revenue streams. That said it’s not like social media companies aren’t at fault here too they hide behind the notion that they are a…

> when you have a monopoly over a communication medium

Twitter does not have a monopoly over internet communication.

Re: Twitter locked my account for a nine year old tweet

#287

Post by beefield »

clarkmoody wrote: post #120
beefield wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately looks to me that if you do not have a Ministry of Truth, you end up with a society where private actors pump people with soma[1]. Personally, I am willing to accept a restricted version of Ministry of Truth to avoid that outcome. [1]See Huxley, Brave new world.

The Ministry of Truth has coercive power. They can arrest you, jail you, torture you, or kill you -- legally -- for the content of your thought and speech. Private sector actors cannot do that.

Sorry, not answering all comments, but we do already have this kind of restricted Ministry of Truth. For example, there are libel laws and you may end up in jail for the content of your speech. And that is in my humble opinion a good thing. (With the painfully obvious disclaimer that I guess needs to anyhow be added in these kind of discussions, no, not all restriction of speech is good, there are really murky waters there when you want to draw the line, And that is why we have a thing called Democracy.)

Re: Twitter locked my account for a nine year old tweet

#288

Post by metalliqaz »

sarah180 wrote: post #283

Counterpoint: you used Twitter to publish aggressively misogynist language, and by leaving it up, you continued to distribute hateful material. If Twitter is going to police hate speech, this the right kind of content, and "it was a while ago" is not really a defense when you're still distributing that content. People often play the "it's not misogynist speech" game, but the first thing you did was to dismiss her bas…

> "it was a while ago" is not really a defense when you're still distributing that content.

I think you're missing the point here. It was published 9 years ago. He didn't continue "distributing" it, he published it once and Twitter distributed it for 9 years.

The point, as I understand it, is that Twitter passively agreed that the tweet was just fine for their platform for 9 years. Then, after doing so, their standards changed. Fine, standards are supposed to change. However rather than simply delete the tweet, they suspended the account.

So, in effect, "your account did something that is against the rules, before it was against the rules."

I won't wade into the politics here, but I'm curious how you know that he dismissed her ideas because of her gender? Is there any reason to think that he would have embraced her ideas if she was a he?

Re: Twitter locked my account for a nine year old tweet

#289

Post by johnisgood »

brokensegue wrote: post #220
johnisgood wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think he is justifying it, it's just that you need to be able to deal with insults in a healthy way. Stoicism comes to mind.

But not being able to deal with it isn't what we're discussing.

He said:

> If someone cant handle a verbal insult over the internet, I don't think they are fit for office

Then many people immediately jumped on him and made the assumption that he is justifying insults or "toxic behavior". I do not see how this would be the case. Care to explain?

It is not a justification of insults or toxic behavior. He is merely pointing out the fact that if you cannot deal with insults, then this and that. Toxic behavior is, well, toxic, but you have to be able to handle them in a manner that is, say, not self-destructive, while at the same time you being against said toxic behavior.

I agree with him. If you cannot deal with insults thrown at you on the Internet or in real life and it leads to, say, psychological turmoil or whatever, then you should probably do something to alleviate this negative effect insults have on you. This does not justify insults or toxic behaviors. Do you disagree?

Re: Twitter locked my account for a nine year old tweet

#290

Post by floatrock »

mattnumbers wrote: post #92

IANAL. One of the reasons that this feels so novel is that this is an example of ex post facto enforcement. In this case, Twitter is punishing the user for an action performed at a point in time before such an action was punishable. (In fact, I haven't checked - it may have been punishable, but the punishment was not usually enforced, which is a separate issue of selective enforcement.) The US Constitution prevents b…

Thanks for this description -- yes the tweet was stupid, yes the person could eventually get fired after someone digs it up so twitter was doing them a favor, blahblah none of those other threads are why this is an interesting post this morning. "Ex post facto" is a bit jargoney, but you explained the issue right: the interesting question is how should we feel about retroactive punishments for something that wasn't illegal/against private ToS at the time.

A lot of people my age love The Office, but some of the earlier episodes... well, they haven't really aged well. The show was great at the time, but the first few seasons today would be a giant #MeToo fiasco. Culture changes and moves on, and what was acceptable then probably isn't acceptable now, but that doesn't (shouldn't?) mean Steve Carrel gets blackballed for the comedy he did at the time.

Early Disney cartoons were flat-out racist, but they're still available with a historical context disclaimer that basically says "We disavow everything in here, but it's a greater shame to pretend that this never happened so here it is for the historical record."

One of the most interesting conversations about social media right now I think is how does someone apologize for what they've done, and do it in a genuine and authentic way that can be accepted. When you serve prison time, the idea is you pay your debt to society and move on. With social media, I don't think we've yet figured out how to say "yes, I was a stupid angry person back then but that's not who I am now". Part of the reason is it's really difficult to figure out who's being authentic and who's trying to half-heartedly weasel themselves out of something.

And I don't think you CAN do that on social media because the only way to really make that decision is to know someone in more depth than some multiple of 140 characters. It's a decision that can't be made with the small bite-sized serotonin pings that we've started to define our relationships and judgements around. We've become jacks of all relationships, masters of none.

Post reply on HN