Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a such thing as good violence?
Why does your country have an army? A police force?
I'd consider that violence a necessary evil, not good. And certainly not to be glorified.
Enforcing New Rules to Reduce Hateful Conduct and Abusive Behavior
111–120 of 139 posts
Re: Enforcing New Rules to Reduce Hateful Conduct and Abusive Behavior
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's quite equal as there is a clause about protected groups. So I imagine that some abuse can be allowed if the target is not protected. Edits, worth pointing out that the link to the policy in depth adds an "or" to the clause in a less ambiguous way I'm not sure what a protected group is, whether there's a list somewhere, of it's all relative (who holds more 'power' is less protected)?
For hint, look at Twitter's trust and safety partners, who determine what constitutes 'hate' https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html
I hope Twitter realizes that this kind of skewed enforcement will just amplify the current cultural struggles and strengthen the compartmentalization between the political left and right.
Notable organizations in the list that I noticed:
Anti-Defamation League - The group that decided pepe the frog was a hate symbol
Muslim Advocates, World Jewish Congress - This group doesn't irritate me so much, except there are no advocacy groups for Christians.
National Network to End Domestic Violence - Specifies that they focus on ending female domestic violence only.
Feminist Frequency - Given how few people identify as feminists, I'm surprised this one is here.
There are probably more sketchy ones that I don't know.
Re: Enforcing New Rules to Reduce Hateful Conduct and Abusive Behavior
#113There's nothing wrong with Twitter operating a highly moderated platform. Hacker News is a successful example. In both cases though, it's a huge problem that there aren't alternatives that do off truly uncensored speech. At the very least, there needs to be a force that checks these organizations when they step over the line.
> there needs to be a force that checks these organizations when they step over the line. Why? Consumers are not paying twitter for a product or service and use of twitter is not a necessity.
> use of twitter is not a necessity
This is arguable. Our country is changing massively, and because of the network effect[1], social media platforms condense to only a few winners, currently mostly Facebook and Twitter I believe. This oligopoly[2] means that a handful of sites basically run what is considered the internet for most people.
In America, we have a constitutional right to free speech. If in our country, most people speak solely on one of these sites, then why shouldn't our constitutional rights extend onto them?
Re: Enforcing New Rules to Reduce Hateful Conduct and Abusive Behavior
#114Re: Enforcing New Rules to Reduce Hateful Conduct and Abusive Behavior
#115That's how authoritarianism is and will be implemented in the US: by using the excuse that because a corporation is doing it, then it's not bound by the constitution. "Twitter is a private entity, so they don't have to follow the first amendment." But when the government has privatized and outsourced everything to corporations, then the corporations control the narrative, and censorship becomes de facto instead of by…
If you don't like how a corporations handles speech you don't need to use their services. The social media corporations are not being controlled at this point by the government and these issues of free speech are being implemented not because of the will of the government but because they are wanted by the consumers (even if it doesn't seem that way here). Consumers should be able to use the services they want and th…
> If you don't like how a corporations handles speech you don't need to use their services.
And what are the alternative services that these people should use? Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. simply don't have any alternatives that are widely used or credible.
Re: Enforcing New Rules to Reduce Hateful Conduct and Abusive Behavior
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dear Twitter, If I'm a member of a visibly protected minority group (Black Muslim) and I tweet "Death to Zionist Sodomites occupying Holy Jerusalem" would I be suspended? Asking for a friend.
Probably, as you are violating one of Twitter's partner organizations on the Trust and Safety Council, the ADL, whose mission is to eliminate anti-semitism. You can view Twitter's safety partners here to learn which groups have advisory over what counts as 'hate speech' : https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html
Note he didn’t say Jews but Zionists so it would be ok as long as there won’t be too many brackets in his tweet.
/s
Re: Enforcing New Rules to Reduce Hateful Conduct and Abusive Behavior
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems a little unclear on that. Can a candidate say "If you elect me to office, I pledge to wage war against the elbonians" and post it on Twitter?
We know that Twitter is willing to ban US political ads that violate their personal values. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/twitter-bans-bl...
That ad was rejected because of a line that was linked libelously untruthful. In the article you linked it says that Twitter would run the ad with the offending line edited out.
I believe that particular decision was probably somewhat about disagreeing with her politics, but moreso about stopping outright lies ("fake news") from propagating on their platform when they could stop it.
Re: Enforcing New Rules to Reduce Hateful Conduct and Abusive Behavior
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, this is absolute doublespeak. Twitter's not 'enforcing' anything, and as others have pointed out, they are actually making the situation worse. Now it's clear that even Twitter says if you're rich and famous you can be abusive without the same consequences as someone who is not wealthy. Ridiculous. Nobody has ever held Trump accountable for anything. Hilariously, Twitter holds a lot of power over Trump due to c…
> Nobody has ever held Trump accountable for anything. Hilariously, Twitter holds a lot of power over Trump due to controlling his popular account. They could hold him accountable. They choose not to. Insane. Trump is the elected president of USA, one of the most important country on Earth. The fact that you suggest a private company should police his speak is insane to me.
If Donald Trump joined a site I was in charge of and broke the rules, I'd damn well police 'his speak'. A good community manager needs to be willing to slam the hammer down on anyone who breaks the rules, regardless of whether they're a pariah within the community scraping by with nothing in real life or a government figure, celebrity or billionaire.
The fact Twitter (and a lot of other companies running community/social media sites nowadays) don't seem to have the guts to do this shows how bad they are at enforcing their own 'guidelines'.
But yeah, if Trump joined a service I was in charge of and broke the rules, he'd get punished like any other user would for doing the same thing.
Re: Enforcing New Rules to Reduce Hateful Conduct and Abusive Behavior
#119That's how authoritarianism is and will be implemented in the US: by using the excuse that because a corporation is doing it, then it's not bound by the constitution. "Twitter is a private entity, so they don't have to follow the first amendment." But when the government has privatized and outsourced everything to corporations, then the corporations control the narrative, and censorship becomes de facto instead of by…
This is one of the biggest issues the internet has in general, at least where freedom of speech is concerned. There is no such thing as public property online, and even with alternatives technically existing, this makes it all too easy to de facto censor speech by denying someone an audience.
Indeed, I think a lot of people miss that the nature of public property and governments not being able to censor free speech did basically guarantee people an audience in the olden days. Did you have a message you wanted people to hear? Protest in a heavily trafficked area (like a town centre), and you had an audience of thousands or even millions, regardless of whether they wanted to hear what you had to say or not.
Imagine how much less useful political movements would be if corporations owned everything in the real world and the people protesting had to do so in their own homes/some private property away from the public. That's the situation these social media sites have set up.
But hey, I guess it's not a new thing, nor an issue exclusive to the internet. In some places, a shopping mall or other corporate property might be the 'heart of the local community', and like with Twitter and Facebook, they could ban those they don't like and de facto censor their speech too.
Re: Enforcing New Rules to Reduce Hateful Conduct and Abusive Behavior
#120I wish companies would grow some character and tell those they don't want on their platform "Hey we don't like you, get the fuck out". Instead they always resort to incredibly weaselly lawyer-speak statements like "Our trust and safety initiative has concluded that these users have violated our content and user behavior acceptability inclusiveness policies on several occasions". Arbitrary enforcement of rules always…
You mean like Cloudflare did when the cancelled Stormfront's hosting for being assholes? That copped a lot of backlash.