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

Twitter, It’s Time to End Your Anything-Goes Paradise

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 116 posts

Re: Twitter, It’s Time to End Your Anything-Goes Paradise

#21

Post by rimliu »

tdees40 wrote: post #10
nathanaldensr wrote: post #3

Can this be summarized as "Twitter, implement censorship because people are saying things we don't like?" I fully understand that Twitter is a company offering a service and they are intrinsically allowed to police content being posted on their platform. The whole point of democratic society in the United States is to allow people freedom of speech and thought. If we limit the discussion of ideas to only popular/acce…

No, how about users (me, at least) are leaving Twitter because it's a rotten cesspool of misogyny, racism and stupidity. Maybe users should get a choice to avoid some of this?

But you have a choice and according to you, you are already using it: leaving Twitter.

Re: Twitter, It’s Time to End Your Anything-Goes Paradise

#22

Post by nathanaldensr »

craftyguy wrote: post #4
nathanaldensr wrote: post #3

Can this be summarized as "Twitter, implement censorship because people are saying things we don't like?" I fully understand that Twitter is a company offering a service and they are intrinsically allowed to police content being posted on their platform. The whole point of democratic society in the United States is to allow people freedom of speech and thought. If we limit the discussion of ideas to only popular/acce…

The 1st amendment only applies to the government, not to your peer citizens or to companies. They can censor whatever they want.

I didn't mention the First Amendment on purpose. I am quite aware--like most US-based readers here--that it does not apply to private discourse. My first paragraph should be interpreted as such.

Re: Twitter, It’s Time to End Your Anything-Goes Paradise

#23

Post by GVIrish »

mc32 wrote: post #9
craftyguy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1st amendment only applies to the government, not to your peer citizens or to companies. They can censor whatever they want.

People on both sides pull this card out till it affects their PoV. Imagine the calls we'd witness from one side of the spectrum if Twitter went 4chan.

If Twitter went full 4chan it would implode. There's no way Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or even Reddit would have gotten to the size they have if they were curated in favor of trolls.

When subgroups of trolls have gotten booted from larger communities and tried to start their own social media enclaves, they've never gotten to a truly large scale because most people don't want to be part of that kind of community.

Re: Twitter, It’s Time to End Your Anything-Goes Paradise

#24

Post by rimliu »

staticassertion wrote: post #6
nathanaldensr wrote: post #3

Can this be summarized as "Twitter, implement censorship because people are saying things we don't like?" I fully understand that Twitter is a company offering a service and they are intrinsically allowed to police content being posted on their platform. The whole point of democratic society in the United States is to allow people freedom of speech and thought. If we limit the discussion of ideas to only popular/acce…

You can say and think whatever you like. Companies giving platforms to hate is not something that democracy requires. It's less "that idea is popular" and more "these people are inciting hatred against other people". I'm baffled that people still repeat this "free speech is important" thing when we're talking about a private service giving an audience to white supremacists.

Because free speech is important. That includes speech you do not like.

Re: Twitter, It’s Time to End Your Anything-Goes Paradise

#25

Post by daxorid »

staticassertion wrote: post #8
curtisblaine wrote: post #2

> Is someone making a positive contribution to the service, for example by posting well-liked content and engaging in meaningful conversations? Yep, because these are easily verifiable parameters that don't depend in any way on the ethical beliefs and political alignment of whoever rates users.

"Does this user have a racial slur in their username?" would knock out like a really good chunk of the problem, tbh. Or like "Is the user saying they are a nazi" would cover a lot too. Pretty basic stuff would go a long way.

> "Is the user saying they are a nazi"

This would only be a fair standard if also applied to Communists. In terms of sheer historical body count, there is no rival.

And then, if you did draw ideological lines in the sand, who sets that line? Whom does it emcompass? Does it apply to religions? Do we exclude Christians and Muslims? Do we exclude anybody who ever said anything nice about Genghis Khan or the Achaemenid Immortals?

Establishing standards of tolerance is one thing, but defining where the lines are can be difficult, and possibly embroil anyone.

Re: Twitter, It’s Time to End Your Anything-Goes Paradise

#28

Post by nathanaldensr »

mysterydip wrote: post #13
nathanaldensr wrote: post #3

Can this be summarized as "Twitter, implement censorship because people are saying things we don't like?" I fully understand that Twitter is a company offering a service and they are intrinsically allowed to police content being posted on their platform. The whole point of democratic society in the United States is to allow people freedom of speech and thought. If we limit the discussion of ideas to only popular/acce…

To your point, say twitter existed when segregation was accepted as “normal society”, Or pre-lgbt general acceptance.

That's exactly my point. I myself am not racist, nor do I believe in segregation, but does that mean I or others should actively work to prevent the discussion of those ideas? Wouldn't we become just as bad as the people we decry if we tried to suppress their viewpoints?

Re: Twitter, It’s Time to End Your Anything-Goes Paradise

#29

Post by MBCook »

gthtjtkt wrote: post #11

> where even the vilest, most hateful and antisocial behavior should be tolerated. I'm confused, I see stories complaining about Twitter's heavy-handed censorship all the time, whether it's banning accounts or simply removing objectionable hashtags from the "Trending" list. When did they suddenly develop the opposite problem?

They’ve never done a good job of dealing with problem people.

There are two stories you hear:

1. Twitter killed the account of normal person X for no reason (or for arguing with someone who deserves to have their account killed but don’t)

2. Twitter, for once, killed the account of someone who really deserved it and all their followers/ideological believers scream CENSORSHIP LIBERAL MEDIA at the top of their lungs

Re: Twitter, It’s Time to End Your Anything-Goes Paradise

#30

Post by chmod775 »

staticassertion wrote: post #6
nathanaldensr wrote: post #3

Can this be summarized as "Twitter, implement censorship because people are saying things we don't like?" I fully understand that Twitter is a company offering a service and they are intrinsically allowed to police content being posted on their platform. The whole point of democratic society in the United States is to allow people freedom of speech and thought. If we limit the discussion of ideas to only popular/acce…

You can say and think whatever you like. Companies giving platforms to hate is not something that democracy requires. It's less "that idea is popular" and more "these people are inciting hatred against other people". I'm baffled that people still repeat this "free speech is important" thing when we're talking about a private service giving an audience to white supremacists.

Yes. They are not legally required to provide service to anyone.

But indiscriminately providing services to everyone (within the laws of your country), without booting people based on a personal agenda, is the ABC of gaining the trust of your users.

Post reply on HN