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

They're trying to get me kidnapped and tortured, but Twitter doesn't care

waqas.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 258 posts

Re: They're trying to get me kidnapped and tortured, but Twitter doesn't care

#101

Post by dnissley »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #80
karaterobot wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What should Twitter do in this case? You say "their damn job", but their job is to apply their content policies, which they say they are doing. Given only the tweets linked in the article, I can see how a moderator would look at them and not find that they are obviously breaking any rules. They may be false accusations, but Twitter has not agreed to do independent investigations of every report by a user, or take on…

I've been a moderator. Decisions are made contextually. One of his complaints is they clearly don't know what the hell is going on in Pakistan and this is a root cause of their mishandling of things. It is a completely reasonable criticism.

Is it really reasonable? Twitter fails regularly to take such context into consideration when making moderation decisions in their home country. How could it be reasonable to expect them to get it right when it comes to the context of a foreign country?

Re: They're trying to get me kidnapped and tortured, but Twitter doesn't care

#102

Post by MichaelCollins »

QuantumGood wrote: post #57
MichaelCollins wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a very low opinion of twitter and certainly wish they'd do a better job. But the premise of twitter as a shield against state-sponsored kidnapping or murder seems flimsy at best.

Isn't there a word for the fallacy that something can improve a situation and should, but because it can't solve it we should ignore that it's improvement is important ethically?

> we should ignore that [twitters] improvement is important ethically

I have not said this, and I do not think it. What I actually said is that I wish twitter would do a better job, you've managed to somehow invert that.

Re: They're trying to get me kidnapped and tortured, but Twitter doesn't care

#105

Post by iso1631 »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #98

This is why Elon backed out of the twitter deal due to fake accounts.

He backed out because he overpaid for a company at the height of the boom just as we head into a recession that could well be deeper than 2008

Re: They're trying to get me kidnapped and tortured, but Twitter doesn't care

#106

Post by satellite2 »

Bakary wrote: post #68
hackerlight wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preventing harassment isn't the same as "taking a political stance".

Most people don't think their stance is ever political. But it very clearly is here since Twitter would be directly at odds with the Pakistani government if they sided with the journalist.

From his description, he only suspect the government to be behind the troll accounts. So by blocking/fact checking the trolls Twitter wouldn't take any risk it seems. It seems more likely they are unable to understand or verify the messages of the trolls.

Re: They're trying to get me kidnapped and tortured, but Twitter doesn't care

#107

Post by fluoridation »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #97
bell-cot wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay - replace '"ordinary" person' with some polite phrase of your choice, which still makes it clear that the victim is not a head of state, ambassador, top military officer, Speaker of the House, Fortune 50 CEO, etc., etc. No, I am not arguing that your idealism is morally wrong. I am arguing that the real world very often functions in ways which bear little resemblance to your ideals. No amount of idealism about "…

Idealism? I'm not an idealist. I'm a pragmatist. But the internet allows businesses to operate virtually in de facto war zones. This is getting people killed when the business tries to act like they don't need to account for that fact. If they physically went into a war zone to sell products and it was getting people killed, would that merit a "Too bad, so sad. Gotta make money, doncha know. Can't be worried about ni…

How could a business possibly account for that in a way that doesn't make doing business over the Internet logistically impossible?

Re: They're trying to get me kidnapped and tortured, but Twitter doesn't care

#108

Post by tsimionescu »

I think this is one case that goes to the heart of what we expect Twitter to be.

If they are supposed to be a public square, a company that is simply meant to offer a technical means of broadcasting your opinions, then we can't also expect them to fight government propaganda, any more than we would expect that of, say, Google Search.

On the other hand, if we want Twitter to be a kind of new media company, than we should indeed hold them to journalistic standards and expect them to cut through government lies wherever they decide to have a presence.

Re: They're trying to get me kidnapped and tortured, but Twitter doesn't care

#109

Post by fluoridation »

Asooka wrote: post #26
ricardobeat wrote: post #20

I can see where he’s coming from, but Twitter is a media company. They are not directly responsible for anyone’s safety and have no reason to take down content that isn’t a direct threat or clear defamation. That’s the police or justice system’s job. An unfortunate situation but he is barking at the wrong tree it seems.

Twitter has already booted former president of the USA Donald Trump due to similar conduct. As they say, with great power, comes great responsibility. Twitter have shown themselves willing to wield their power for the good of the USA, thus they should also accept their responsibility for the good of all mankind.

It could be argued that since the latter is impossible, they should abstain from the former.

Re: They're trying to get me kidnapped and tortured, but Twitter doesn't care

#110

Post by DoreenMichele »

fluoridation wrote: post #107
DoreenMichele wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idealism? I'm not an idealist. I'm a pragmatist. But the internet allows businesses to operate virtually in de facto war zones. This is getting people killed when the business tries to act like they don't need to account for that fact. If they physically went into a war zone to sell products and it was getting people killed, would that merit a "Too bad, so sad. Gotta make money, doncha know. Can't be worried about ni…

How could a business possibly account for that in a way that doesn't make doing business over the Internet logistically impossible?

The arguments I'm seeing here boil down to "It's okay to go in with your tank full of tchochky souvenirs and run over a few powerless locals to protect yourself so you can make a few bucks."

The general trend is that, when in doubt, Twitter should cover its own ass. I would like to see a standard of "When in doubt, don't run over pedestrians with your tank."

Surely a company can come up with some best practices that err in the right direction here. Or maybe that's expecting too much of the best of the best of the best, sir!

Post reply on HN