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

“Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#491

Post by gffrd »

dleslie wrote: post #409
luxuryballs wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the interview he clarifies what he meant, he’s frustrated with apparent nepotism within an industry. I would be shocked if he claimed that he had a problem with a randomly chosen person who happened to be Jewish, it doesn’t make sense.

This is fairly clear to me, I don't need to hear his later equivocations: > And what I'm doing, I'm calling out the Jewish community as a whole ... Imagine calling out an entire ethnicity for your woes, and being surprised that people find that offensive.

“You people” never got anyone worked up, right?

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#492

Post by concinds »

partiallypro wrote: post #280
jszymborski wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bunch of accounts like The Babylon Bee and Ye have been unbanned w/o input from any such committee of diverse viewpoints. I don't have much faith that Musk will not act unilaterally in service of his friends and allies.

Babylon Bee being suspended was one of the dumber things the previous Twitter rules had done. It's a satire site, it's right leaning, nothing in the piece they said was hateful or even an unpopular view. Kanye's ban, he's just a mentally ill person. I don't think he meant "death con" he just didn't know that it's actually "def con." His remarks are still reprehensible. Twitter's whole moderation problem has been it i…

> Then, there are things like the Taliban, Russia, China, etc which have at times actively cheered on social media about the death of Americans or an American defeat

Soleimani. He helped the U.S. fight the Taliban. The U.S. later killed him in "self-defense" (no, really, that's what the U.S. Ambassador to the UN said). Scholars and the UN said the assassination was illegal. Do people who cheered his death deserve a ban?

That's not a trick question or whataboutism. At an international scale, principles have to be rigorously and fairly applied.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#493

Post by squidbeak »

partiallypro wrote: post #406
slg wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Babylon Bee being suspended was one of the dumber things the previous Twitter rules had done. It's a satire site, it's right leaning, nothing in the piece they said was hateful or even an unpopular view. Twitter banned the Babylon Bee for targeting a random and rather anonymous bureaucrat that likely isn't among the 1000 most powerful people in government in the US for the sole purpose that she is trans. This target…

The piece satirized the confusion between sex and gender. It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from "gender is a social construct" to "sex is a social construct." It's still a highly debated topic and well within the public sphere of debate. Also, this person was a public official and was in the news from general news outlets (named Woman of the Year) which puts them well within the public realm of…

Even if none of those things were true, satire and pisstaking shouldn't ever be banned.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#494

Post by jokethrowaway »

slg wrote: post #432
partiallypro wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The piece satirized the confusion between sex and gender. It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from "gender is a social construct" to "sex is a social construct." It's still a highly debated topic and well within the public sphere of debate. Also, this person was a public official and was in the news from general news outlets (named Woman of the Year) which puts them well within the public realm of…

>It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from... Would you have said the same thing about ridiculing someone for being openly gay in government 30 years ago, being Catholic in government 60 years ago, or being Black in government 80 years ago?

No post body was provided.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#495

Post by cm42 »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #352
fernandotakai wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's one of the things i never understood. twitter gives you SO MANY TOOLS to avoid seeing what you don't want to see. you can lock your account, lock replies, block accounts, mute accounts, filter keywords and that's not without mentioning the granularity of notifications. i, myself, almost never see what i consider hateful content.

Maybe I’m just not willing to put in as much effort as you, but despite everything I tried I could not stop unwanted content from meeting my eyes. Except for the step of not using it any longer, of course.

I feel like "unwanted" and "hateful" content are potentially two very different circles in a Venn diagram.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#496

Post by partiallypro »

freemrkt8 wrote: post #488
partiallypro wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The piece satirized the confusion between sex and gender. It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from "gender is a social construct" to "sex is a social construct." It's still a highly debated topic and well within the public sphere of debate. Also, this person was a public official and was in the news from general news outlets (named Woman of the Year) which puts them well within the public realm of…

There is no right to zero consequences for speaking freely. I say give users the moderation power and let aggregate voting dictate content that remains visible. No one wants public control of democracy though. What these guys want is a business friendly soapbox.

Where did I claim there was? You can philosophically believe that free speech (and also know that the 1st Amendment does not apply to private companies, but that the "right" to it is a general philosophy outside of government) should exist while holding the position that you can be held accountable for some things.

The question is how much a public forum should allow or not, especially one that has advertisers but is also an important forum for our democracy. That's very important and just saying everything under the sun is hate speech is not a good debate starter, especially when it's unevenly applied, and the rules are written by one viewpoint.

I think the "downvote" system which does eventually hide comments (until you request them) is a feature that already exists in beta. I think that's better than the "shadow banning" and suspensions in some instances. Obviously, you still can't tolerate some things, such as calls for violence, rioting, etc. Moderation is very difficult, but I err on the side of more openness than locking things down and stifling speech and debate.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#497

Post by khazhoux »

vdnkh wrote: post #381
DoctorNick wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Babylon Bee being suspended was one of the dumber things the previous Twitter rules had done. It's a satire site, it's right leaning, nothing in the piece they said was hateful or even an unpopular view. They didn’t even make a joke. They just called trans woman a man. It was hate speech, pure and simple. I am very afraid for the future of twitter now. Hate speech is going to run rampant on that platform now.

Not to mention that the person who attacked Pelosi's husband with a hammer was also posting transphobic crap (along with a lot of other right-wing garbage). Hate online definitely has real world impact.

Is there any evidence he was specifically influenced and motivated by online rhetoric?

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#498

Post by jokethrowaway »

floober wrote: post #379
robertlagrant wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The premise of speech is damaging, unless it's slander / libel, is I think the main thing Elon Musk wants to change at Twitter.

What about incitement to violence?

That's already illegal, report it to the police

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#499

Post by TulliusCicero »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #251
TulliusCicero wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in the US, there's a lot of noxious speech that's legal. The US has very permissive free speech laws overall.

"Very permissive" seems an odd way to put it. It's a human right. The way this is stated is just as if giving women the right to do everything men can do was "very permissive."

We're not just talking about basic political speech freedoms, there's plenty of gray area about.

For example, the US and UK both have laws on libel/slander (I think most countries do), but the US is much more permissive than the UK, in the sense that it's a lot harder to prove that someone committed libel/slander.

Is it a "human right" to maliciously and publicly lie about whether some other person, say, killed a child for fun? You could certainly argue "people should be able to say whatever they want whenever they want", but I think most people would agree that some restrictions on that kind of speech is reasonable, because it ends up harming others.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#500

Post by concinds »

themitigating wrote: post #439
hexis wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the random and anonymous person, right? One of USA Today's 2022 Women of the Year? https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/opinion/2022/03/13/rachel-...

Are they known to the public is what's important

Levine was very prominent among conservative media, not due to being trans, but due to being a prominent part of Biden's Covid response alongside Fauci. It wasn't a random targeting.
Post reply on HN