41–50 of 89 posts
Does this mean that Swiftian satire such as South Park's episode making fun of prominent Scientologists is now unfit for Twitter?
I don't believe it would be affected -- as I recall, that episode mocks the religion and its members, but doesn't dehumanize them.
It would be helpful if Twitter were bold enough to provide examples of permissible types of criticism/satire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's entirely possible to criticize without dehumanizing.
The problem is that it's also possible to criticize in a way where it's simply not possible to determine if it was a good faith criticism or not. There's a wide population of people who even optimize for that, they're called trolls. Moderation mistakes are inevitable, and the consequences of a bad moderation decision can be as bad, or worse, than the effect of the message itself. IMO, people should learn to defend th…
That's a problem in some generic sense perhaps, but not with the application of this policy, which does not rely on a determination of “good faith criticism”, but instead of dehumanization.
Note that the examples of what is covered all are dehumanizing in a very narrow sense (stating directly that the target groups are vermin, viruses, etc.): https://blog.twitter.com/content/dam/blog-twitter/official/e...
Religious and ethnic persecutions have often gone hand-in-hand. Religious minorities of all types will be helped by this, and we'll see less hate-speech on twitter. Seems to be a very reasonable step.
Sidenote: any religion topic really brings out the "I have a problem with religion" types on HN.
What if someone's holy book contains text that dehumanizes people on the basis of religion?
Criticizing a religion is not the same thing as dehumanizing its followers. Dehumanization is a defense mechanism which helps us avoid feeling the pain of realizing that humans sometimes do (subjectively) abhorrent things. It's seductive to define such people outside the bounds of humanity as it allows us to excuse treating them poorly. It is nearly always a mistake to do so, because people are, in fact, people.
People can still freely express their distaste for any and all religion on twitter so long as they don’t dehumanize the people who follow that religion.
I get skin color, sex, gender, sexual orientation etc for protection, but including religion and excluding political word view has always been weird to me. Calling one of the two innate and deserving of protection and the other a choice and undeserving seems like a religious answer. Narrow down what’s considered — Respondents said that “identifiable groups” was too broad, and they should be allowed to engage with pol…
[1]: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-condu...
What if someone's holy book contains text that dehumanizes people on the basis of religion?
Bingo. In that case you have to pick a winner and loser. Then you suppress the loser and promote the winner. Which is the whole point. These issues of free speech have been around for a very long time, especially with regards to religious speech, which is at the bedrock of free speech, and the Western liberal tradition espouses free speech principles not because it didn't realize someone might get offended, but becau…
You're over-reacting to what the linked post from twitter actually says.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What if someone's holy book contains text that dehumanizes people on the basis of religion? Then they probably aren't allowed to tweet their holy book.
What if, as part of a developing story, a journalist quotes a government official making such statements?
You are essentially asking “will Twitter make use/mention distinctions in enforcing this policy”. While it is of course impossible to state for certain in advance, I don't see any particular reason to believe they would either be disinclined to or incapable of doing so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm very concerned about loosing the right to attack religion You aren't losing the right. You may be losing Twitter's active cooperation if the manner in which you do so is unacceptable to Twitter, but you never had a right to Twitter's active participation in your attacks to lose.
You are of course correct in a grand sense, but there's this weird gray area philosophically where someone builds a town square and says "everyone come and talk in my square"...until the hear what you are speaking about! The problem is likely greater in our corporate/mercantilist system where some state-sponsored and some natural monopolies develop. Totally get and appreciate the private property of the corporation a…
I think most of the things regarding regulating speech coming out of twitter are about avoiding being put in the spotlight next year in the next U.S. election. If what happened in 2016 happens again to any social network, the hammer will fall.
I'm very concerned about loosing the right to attack religion. It's an important discussion to have and for children to see. All religion is foolish, and has to be approached from a reality-based context.
