Live data from Hacker News

Twitter locks out Irish Bishop after he criticized euthanasia

reclaimthenet.org

11–20 of 209 posts

Re: Twitter locks out Irish Bishop after he criticized euthanasia

#11

I don't think this is "cancel culture" or being "woke" like the article implies. This is just an AI or inattentive human reviewer seeing the phrase "There is dignity in dying" in the same Tweet as the word "suicide" and misinterpreting it. This just seems like a non-story that will get resolved once the right person at Twitter sees it, that is being pushed by a biased website in their fight against what they perceive…

> resolved once the right person at Twitter sees it that is being pushed by a biased website

Which only validates the existence of that "biased website" if Twitter and other giants in the industry decide to ignore such issues otherwise. Except for Google, which just won't care at all.

Re: Twitter locks out Irish Bishop after he criticized euthanasia

#12
Why does it matter if the flagging is automatic? Does that somehow make it more acceptable?

The popularity of this view makes me wish more people read Kafka. A future tyranny might end up not being Orwell's 1984 or Huxley's Brave New World, but a kafkesque nightmare where people are lost in a world of AI giving out absurd punishments. [1] Kafka's book The Castle [2] is essentially about this, although I think his aphorisms and short stories are much better than his novels.

Quoting from Wikipedia:

> The villagers hold the officials and the castle in high regard, even though they do not appear to know what the officials do. The actions of the officials are never explained. The villagers provide assumptions and justification for the officials' actions through lengthy monologues. Everyone appears to have an explanation for the officials' actions, but they often contradict themselves and there is no attempt to hide the ambiguity. Instead, villagers praise it as another action or feature of an official.

Replace officials and castle with AI and it is almost the exact same scenario.

1. This is already happening: https://www.wired.com/2017/04/courts-using-ai-sentence-crimi...

2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Castle_(novel)

Re: Twitter locks out Irish Bishop after he criticized euthanasia

#13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the screenshot shows an appeal took place and their team looked at it and upheld it. on edit: basically whoever read it probably did not have the English language skills to realize it was against Euthanasia, as the phrasing was more complicated than needed to make that point.

Even with English language skills, maybe just scanning the text and not fully comprehending? Slightly off-topic: I wonder how impartial a human has to be - would the outcome be different depending if the reviewer was a devoted catholic or an atheist?

when I say English language skills I don't necessarily mean they don't read English, but just that they don't read it well enough to have understood the distinction under whatever constraints they were working - if those constraints include scanning quickly then they did not have the skills to read that text quickly and understand it.

Re: Twitter locks out Irish Bishop after he criticized euthanasia

#14
This is a non-story. Someone on twitter wrote:

> There is dignity in dying. As a priest, I am privileged to witness it often. Assisted suicide, where it is practices, it not an expression of freedom or dignity, but of the failure of a society to accompany people on their "way of the cross"

Twitter then flagged it for "promoting or encouraging suicide or self-harm". Obviously it is not, but this is a rather complicated sentence and I can imagine a false positive from AI. It sounds like it was appealed and then a human upheld the flag, but hey, I can't imagine that the person who upheld this honestly understood the sentence either.

This is not "wokeness" or "cancel culture" as the post here describes... just bad moderation. They need to hire @dang.

Re: Twitter locks out Irish Bishop after he criticized euthanasia

#15

Has to be an overzealous AI surely, or is religion the one thing they /really/ don't want arguments to start on - maybe safer to just nip any flamewars in the bud?

the screenshot shows an appeal took place and their team looked at it and upheld it. on edit: basically whoever read it probably did not have the English language skills to realize it was against Euthanasia, as the phrasing was more complicated than needed to make that point.

If your job is to read English text, and decide if it's semantics match banned semantics; Then maybe a good grasp of English is a job requirement - I'd say ignorance is no excuse (for the hiring employer).

Re: Twitter locks out Irish Bishop after he criticized euthanasia

#17
> And even if euthanasia is just that – and Twitter is very proud to toot its horn as the sensitive and sensible, woke platform that clamps down on promotion and encouragement of self-harm, including its ultimate form, suicide – the tweet, even though it opposed it, got banned.

This is such an interesting topic, because while euthanasia can be considered a way of suicide, advocating against it can also be considered advocating for painful suicide (since some patients will still suicide, just in a much worse way).

Note that the bar for euthanasia is incredibly difficult - and it should be - in most countries that allow it. A draft to make it legal was approved recently in my home country, Spain, and to apply it you need to do:

Prequisite: have a severe incurable illness.

1. Day 0. First written application.

2. Day 2. Doctor discusses with patient the diagnosis, treatments and their results, and other kind of alternatives.

3. Day 15. Second written application.

4. Day 17. Same as 2, Doctor discusses with patient the diagnosis, treatments and their results, and other kind of alternatives.

5. Day 17. Ask if the patient wants to follow up.

6. Day 27. Doctor consults with a different kind of doctor to approve situation.

7. Day 30. The president of "guarantee and evaluation" of the "state" has to be made aware of this.

8. Day 32. The president designates a doctor and lawyer to verify everything is okay.

9. Day 39. These new doctor + layer present their report.

10. Day 39. The patient signs and chooses modality of death (they can self-administer the substance or have it administer by a nurse).

Note: days here point some times the shortest possible dates, e.g. Day 15 is actually "from 15 days since Day 0" and some times to the longest available "up to 2 days since Day 0".

Re: Twitter locks out Irish Bishop after he criticized euthanasia

#18
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simplest answer is that a bot at twitter initiated the ban, the the low-paid worker who managed the appeal didn't have enough of a grasp of academic English and/or catholic theology to understand that the tweet in question was actually against assisted suicide.

That's plausible, but he was also turned down on appeal, which was probably by a different pair of eyes.

Yeah: the first set of eyes. Before then, it's pure automation (afaik).

Re: Twitter locks out Irish Bishop after he criticized euthanasia

#19

I don't think this is "cancel culture" or being "woke" like the article implies. This is just an AI or inattentive human reviewer seeing the phrase "There is dignity in dying" in the same Tweet as the word "suicide" and misinterpreting it. This just seems like a non-story that will get resolved once the right person at Twitter sees it, that is being pushed by a biased website in their fight against what they perceive…

On the one hand you may be right, on the other hand you're giving Twitter so much deniability that you'd never get enough evidence to convince you that you're wrong.

Re: Twitter locks out Irish Bishop after he criticized euthanasia

#20
post #14

This is a non-story. Someone on twitter wrote: > There is dignity in dying. As a priest, I am privileged to witness it often. Assisted suicide, where it is practices, it not an expression of freedom or dignity, but of the failure of a society to accompany people on their "way of the cross" Twitter then flagged it for "promoting or encouraging suicide or self-harm". Obviously it is not, but this is a rather complicate…

Exactly, that seems to be the obvious explanation to me as well.

I don't know what this website is, but it looks like they really want me to subscribe, and I guess they need some content to make me think there is a problem they are solving :)

Post reply on HN