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

71–80 of 116 posts

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

#71

Post by GVIrish »

nxsynonym wrote: post #38
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…

I agree with you. The only thing that censorship brings in this particular case is a safe space for advertisers. I see exactly 0 harm in sharing a platform with people with alternate views than me. If you don't like the way a social platform is heading, then leave it. You are not entitled to a safe space. At the end of the day twitter is going to cater to its biggest and most influential users. It costs you nothing t…

> The only thing that censorship brings in this particular case is a safe space for advertisers.

What??? There are people out there getting death threats, getting doxxed, being attacked with all manner of epithets on Twitter. It stands to reason that maybe the experience would be better for those people without that sort of content directed at them.

> If you don't like the way a social platform is heading, then leave it. You are not entitled to a safe space.

Yes. And as a business, Twitter has a vested interest in not letting their platform drive away swaths of users due to toxicity. Indeed, one of the key reasons Facebook was successful is that users have the ability to restrict communications to the people they want to.

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

#72

Post by daxorid »

croon wrote: post #66
daxorid wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 I…

> This would only be a fair standard if also applied to Communists. In terms of sheer historical body count, there is no rival. Depending on how I was born, nazis want to get rid of me. Who exactly are these "communists" wanting to get rid of? And how can I spot those people? A lot of people has died in the name of Christianity. Would you call Christianity violent in terms of ideals? I don't disagree that communist r…

Advance apologies for getting a little off-topic, but compelled to reply in this case.

I'm...not even sure how to respond to this historical misunderstanding, other than Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_...

> there is literally nothing in the tenets against groups of people or violence

Depending on the particular regime and which groups they designate as the bourgeoisie: Scientists, Farmers, Journalists, Factory Managers, Christians, Jews, Petty Criminals, Tartars, Kurds, Ukrainians, Germans, Poles, Estonians, Kulaks, Teachers(who taught the wrong thing), Capitalists, etc.

The wonderful thing about Communism is that if the Eye of Sauron falls upon your arbitrary group and designated as bourgeoisie, you will be (enslaved|tortured|killed).

At least with national socialism you have a chance to get out.

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

#73

Post by GVIrish »

ProAm wrote: post #27

I'm surprised this is an actual article from the NY Times and not an editorial. Im very surprised any journalist would plead for censorship on the internet.

Is he pleading for actual censorship though? It sounds more like he's saying that the platform should help people avoid content they find offensive.

So someone is free to post their racist and misogynist memes but someone who doesn't wish to see that content just wouldn't see it.

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

#74

Post by ProAm »

rhcom2 wrote: post #56
ProAm wrote: post #27

I'm surprised this is an actual article from the NY Times and not an editorial. Im very surprised any journalist would plead for censorship on the internet.

It's a column expressing one person's (Farhad Manjoo's) viewpoint. It isn't a news article or opinion from the NYT editorial staff.

Im not extremely familiar with how newspapers categorize their content, but wouldnt this still go under an opinion piece or be labeled as such? Honest question.

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

#75

Post by nprz »

pjc50 wrote: post #63
nxsynonym wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. The only thing that censorship brings in this particular case is a safe space for advertisers. I see exactly 0 harm in sharing a platform with people with alternate views than me. If you don't like the way a social platform is heading, then leave it. You are not entitled to a safe space. At the end of the day twitter is going to cater to its biggest and most influential users. It costs you nothing t…

> I see exactly 0 harm in sharing a platform with people with alternate views than me. Spoken like someone who's never been the victim of a targeted harassment campaign. It's a little hard to take that view when people are posting pictures of your children's school along with their death threats.

Since when is sharing a platform with people whose political views differ from yours equal to allowing targeted harassment? I don't think many would disagree that someone who threatens real life violence on someone should result in a banning from that platform. But an automatic ban based on political affiliation seems undemocratic.

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

#76

Post by GVIrish »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #50
GVIrish wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is not a universally Good Thing, that is an extremely facile reading of free speech. Is it a good thing if someone at your job shouts racial epithets at you all day? Should woman have to tolerate being jeered and catcalled at every private business they patronize? Should a restaurant turn a blind eye to a belligerent customer that curses at the wait staff and everyone in ear shot? Of course not. A private busin…

>Is it a good thing if someone at your job shouts racial epithets at you all day? Should woman have to tolerate being jeered and catcalled at every private business they patronize? Should a restaurant turn a blind eye to a belligerent customer that curses at the wait staff and everyone in ear shot? No. It's reasonable to fire someone who berates other employees. It's reasonable to kick patrons out of your store if th…

Twitter is a business, and they get to choose what sort of business they want to be.

If they want to be totally hands off, they can do that. But if they want to set a tone for how people use their service, they can do that too.

Reddit is a platform for discourse too, and they've decided to evict certain communities from their platform because they don't match Reddit's goals and values. HN is a platform for discourse and there is a reputation system that controls how people interact with it. Facebook is another platform where users can decide who they interact with, and how.

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

#77

Post by nxsynonym »

pjc50 wrote: post #63
nxsynonym wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. The only thing that censorship brings in this particular case is a safe space for advertisers. I see exactly 0 harm in sharing a platform with people with alternate views than me. If you don't like the way a social platform is heading, then leave it. You are not entitled to a safe space. At the end of the day twitter is going to cater to its biggest and most influential users. It costs you nothing t…

> I see exactly 0 harm in sharing a platform with people with alternate views than me. Spoken like someone who's never been the victim of a targeted harassment campaign. It's a little hard to take that view when people are posting pictures of your children's school along with their death threats.

Meh, these threats exist in the real world as well. You can't silence everybody who might possibly be a threat at some point.

Those who actually make the threats should be dealt with, but last time I checked it's "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty until proven liberal".

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

#78

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

GVIrish wrote: post #76
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is it a good thing if someone at your job shouts racial epithets at you all day? Should woman have to tolerate being jeered and catcalled at every private business they patronize? Should a restaurant turn a blind eye to a belligerent customer that curses at the wait staff and everyone in ear shot? No. It's reasonable to fire someone who berates other employees. It's reasonable to kick patrons out of your store if th…

Twitter is a business, and they get to choose what sort of business they want to be. If they want to be totally hands off, they can do that. But if they want to set a tone for how people use their service, they can do that too. Reddit is a platform for discourse too, and they've decided to evict certain communities from their platform because they don't match Reddit's goals and values. HN is a platform for discourse…

>If they want to be totally hands off, they can do that. If they want to be totally hands off, they can do that. But if they want to set a tone for how people use their service, they can do that too.

Yes, they can. I'm just going to repost my canned response now:

>The government supports free speech because it's important and a Good Thing. Just because private companies aren't required to do the same doesn't make it any less important and a Good Thing.

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

#79

Post by pjc50 »

nprz wrote: post #75
pjc50 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see exactly 0 harm in sharing a platform with people with alternate views than me. Spoken like someone who's never been the victim of a targeted harassment campaign. It's a little hard to take that view when people are posting pictures of your children's school along with their death threats.

Since when is sharing a platform with people whose political views differ from yours equal to allowing targeted harassment? I don't think many would disagree that someone who threatens real life violence on someone should result in a banning from that platform. But an automatic ban based on political affiliation seems undemocratic.

The original article doesn't mention anything like "an automatic ban based on political affiliation". The de-verification of white supremacists argument hinges around both verification as endorsement, and the possibility that some political beliefs (white supremacy) are in themselves a threat of violence.

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

#80

Post by eitland »

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.

I hate nazism as much as everyone else.

Problem is they and other media companies (and often the users as well) has ridiculous problems to understand the diffence between racism (judging and treating people different depending on who their parents where etc) and scepticism towards a recent immigration wave (do we want to relocate all these humans right here, right now? Can we help more people by doing it differently?)

Post reply on HN