Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Bans 'Hateful Conduct' (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Twitter has updated their site rules to prohibit "behavior intended to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence another user's voice." According to the new rules, "You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease." This follows criticism that Twitter (and other social networks) haven't done enough to prevent the ramblings of the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. "Tuesday's announcement did not disclose changes to Twitter's enforcement strategy. A company spokesman declined to say if any were in the works. The new rules also said that Twitter might respond to reports that somebody is considering 'self-harm' by contacting the person to express concern and provide contact information to mental health practitioners."
Twitter ban 'dissenting political opinions'.
So is Twitter actually banning hate speech like (Only) Black Live Matter or are they only banning the speech of white males, as everyone knows that only white males can hate anyone and that anyone advocating the eradication of law enforcement is by definition not hateful because they're a minority and minorities can't be hatemongers?
Sometimes the "reply" tweets where someone adds me in on twitter involve morons threatening other people, especially women.
About time they banned Bill Cosby.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Will we prevent you from silencing others by silencing you. Pray I do not alter the deal further.
These new rules make me feel intimidated, harassed and I'll now be silent on Twitter out of fear.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Seems odd you can’t voice a dissenting opinion without what amounts to threatening violence to express your political opinion. You wouldn’t be Republican would you?
I can be against all sorts of behaviors without resorting to harassment or abuse. This seems squarely aimed at intimidating replies to others or exhorting to violence. Seems this almost fall under regular law and Twitter is just enforcing it more directly.
It's all about how the audience interprets what you said. With today's hyper PC attitudes on many trendy websites, saying something as innocent as "I won't vote for Hillary Clinton because her views on fighting ISIS are dumb." Could easily be intentionally misinterpreted as "I hate Hillary because she is a woman." in order to shut down any opinions that deviate from the site's group-think.
My first thought is that twitter would implement it using a twitter bot. I think that would do more harm than good. Think about it anyone remember clippy?
I see you are contemplating self harm would you like to:
Chat with a certified chatbot?
Email twitter support?
Send a tweet with the hashtag #HELPME ?
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Prohibiting "behavior intended to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence another user's voice"? Does that include the hate speech against muslims that has become a part of the Trump campaign's effort to get votes? The hate speech against "the great Satan" you get out of some in the middle-east? The hate speech again Israel you get out of millions of people worldwide? The hate speech against Palestine you get out of Israel? The hate speech against ISIS you get out Paris in the wake of the terrorist attacks? The hate speech against Parisian Jews you get out of Parisian Muslims?
Isolationist, anti-foreigner Joe McCarthyism, Anti-Semitism, Donald-Trumpism, there is always someone trying to use fear and hate as part of a power grab in a country's domestic political narrative. Do we really want corporate leadership at Twitter to be in charge of deciding when that's okay and when it should be censored?
If only it were that easy!
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
The moment Twitter's pet SJWs run afoul of the rule will be the real test.
Far too many people believe that dissenting opinions are threatening and abusive in and of themselves.
Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt. --Herbert Hoover
Is it okay if I advocate violence against Assad or Putin or Bin Laden or any tin pot dictator? What about advocates for the very racist death penalty we have? Will they be banned? And what, they are going to have everyone hooked into the suicide hotline now? This is all very political.. Somebody is working to get people to demand the repeal of the 1st Amendment.
Eh, whatever. They are really just looking after the bottom line. It could backfire though if the censorship becomes so draconian so as to help start up some competition: The New and Improved Uncut Punk Rock Twitter!
I really hope so, it would prove he's right.
Oh, wow, so no more "Kill All Men" hashtag or "I Drink Male Tears" images? Because those are pretty damned hateful, even though it's apparently socially acceptable to hate men in a way that it's not for women...
(Whisper, Whisper)
Oh, that's still ok? Huh. Well, at least, no more "Men are the source of all school shootings in the world" type posts, right? Because that's a bigoted, ignorant, statement that ignores...
(Whisper, Whisper)
Huh. Well, ok, then at least they're going to block ISIS accounts and the people perpetuating the fake "Max Temkin is a Rapist" hate-crime posts, right? Because the former is a ltieral terrorist organization and the latter is a discredited hoax that people are using to try and destroy someone whose only crime is he's young, male, and heterosexu... 0000%#N$! NO CARRIER
You have been blocked for Thoughtcrime against the Party, please delete your posts to be allowed back in.
All this is going to do is give the psychotic misandric and racist losers (the so called "Social Justice Warriors," the left-wing authoritarian hate-mob that has infested the Liberals in the US) an in so they can continue to use bots to mass-report dissenting opinions and get them banned. They're already doing so, this just codifies it as official Twitter policy.
Censoring free speech is awful. Not as bad as islam, but still awful. This is a mistake.
Seems odd you can’t voice a dissenting opinion without what amounts to threatening violence to express your political opinion.
For the sake of the argument, if I believe that the place of a women is at home, taking care of the kids while I support the family, ie. a traditional view of a nuclear family, that marriage is something religious between a man and a woman, that gun are tools to protect life, and that the US are based on Christian values (while being non-practicing myself) I would not be threatening anybody, yet, I would most likely get reported.
Seems odd you can’t voice a dissenting opinion without what amounts to threatening violence to express your political opinion.
This rule won't be used to ban users who threaten violence. It will be used to ban those all who disagree with the orthodox radical-leftist ideology of Silicon Valley SJW's. "Hate speech" has long-ago been broadened on the radical left to not only include speech which ACTUALLY threatens violence, but all speech which the hearer BELIEVES to be threatening, or intimidating, or to create a "hostile environment," or to be even remotely critical of them, etc, etc.
In other words, it won't be used against posts saying "I'm going to kill you" (which are already illegal). It's going to be used against any post that disagrees with a very specific radical ideology.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
So may I presume that all SJW's who try to silence all dissenting opinions to their ideology will be banned?
I hadn't thought of that. There could potentially be a positive outcome to this news!
"Twitter might respond to reports that somebody is considering 'self-harm'" Well, it seemed like a good idea to roll out our new policy all in one go, but make sure there wont be any legal liability problems if we fail or choose not to act. Anyone want to bet the terms of service will protect Twitter if they report someone incorrectly to mental health professionals, and thus cause problems in that persons life?
They can censor anything they want to, or not censor anything they want to.
This isn't a 'Free Speech' issue, so all the anti-SJW's can go back to their homes, nothing more to see here.
For anyone who thinks that the parent is exaggerating and who hasn't been following just how far down the rabbit-hole things have gone on the far-left (the ideology that dominates Silicon Valley these days, sadly), you should probably read up on topics like "Stare Rape" (and how it's not only hate speech, but also rape):
http://boysmeneducation.com/go...
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Twitter is a business. You, the cattle, are free to imbibe at the trough so long as you dont:
1. kick or bite other cattle
2. produce bad milk. Just because youre the biggest user of the pasture, doesnt mean you own the farm.
Good people go to bed earlier.
> Could easily be intentionally misinterpreted
Easily and intentionally and misinterpreted are an incompatible combination. You aren't misinterpreting something you do intentionally. Logical contortions are not often easy so that barely makes sense.
Intentional misinterpretation is a VERY real thing,especially in public, politically charged settings. Just watch how a politician comments on something said by their opposition.
Instead of
"You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of..."
How about
"You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people." PERIOD
I don’t joke about harming people. It’s stupid and rude. Hell, I don’t joke about harming terrorists. I just make statements about how they need to be stopped. And there are a few cases that I believe are criminal, like threatening to kill the US president. Anyone who threatens to commit voilence or even jokes about it deserves to be smacked around (but in a figurative sense, of course).
That being said, I think that explicitly prohibiting statements like this is a can of worms that you don’t want to deal with.
Actually, twitter prohibiting this kind of speech is totally legal, because it’s a private business.
But what I’m concerned about is any time a stupid joke can be taken too seriously by humorless people in authority, and some kid’s life gets ruined because they had a moron moment.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I believe that, with the exception of a few very rare cases, all speech should be protected, no matter how stupid it is.
And don’t get me started on this “safe zone” bullshit that’s been popping up at universities.
Twitter intentionally excluded political orientation from their list of protected classes, so SJWs are free to call for killing conservatives and Republicans -- while reporting conservatives and Republicans as being hateful for asking that the US enforce immigration and employment laws.
"America is the land of opportunity"
Is thought of as hate speech currently, and classified as a microaggression.
Hey look you, set you strawman nicely on fire!!
Well done.
Wall Street already doesn't like Twitter's lack of growth and if they eliminate hateful trolls and fake accounts then Twitter is going to have to start eliminate analysts' twitter accounts as well because the projections are going to be rather 'hateful' as well.
I guess with the holiday and all, we could just go ahead and consider today Friday, right? I mean, it's not like anybody's doing any work.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why do you hate worms so?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Poor Twitter. Nobody understands that they're only censoring us for our own good. I love it when people do that, it gives me a warm feeling, like I just shit my pants.
I wish you were exaggerating. But there are leftist thinkers out there who have gone so far off into la-la-land as to think a statement like "I'm proud to be a Christian" is a statement of religious hatred (since they believe it implies that no one should be proud to be a Jew, Muslim, atheist, etc.). And those thinkers aren't even considered that radical anymore, especially on college campuses (and not just Berkley, mind you, we're talking state colleges in even some of the most conservative states).
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Wow, strawman much?
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
He's smart, and his rhetoric is just an amplification of the views of a non-negligible portion of the American population, .
Recognize your privilege fool.
This is true. I've been using my white male superpowers to stare at women my whole life without even realizing I was a rapist.
Why wasn't this even mentioned at the secret white male meetings where we plot to keep everyone else down?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Twitter ban 'dissenting political opinions'.
Twitter is free to ban whatever it chooses. It is their forum --- their platform -- not yours.
That said, free speech cannot survive in an environment that lacks civility and is open to unrelenting personal attacks and threats of violence. Hate speech is the oldest and most subtle eternal enemy of free speech.
Twitter ban 'dissenting political opinions'.
You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease.
A strawman is fictional. Let's see how long it takes for the usual-suspect feminists/race-hustlers/professional-victims to start using this rule to get their critics banned from, or censored on, Twitter.
If this never happens, I'll happily concede your point that it was just a strawman and will gladly rejoice that this rule was only used against the most vile terrorists, and not to promote a radical leftist ideology.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
It's their site. They don't have to host you if they don't want to. There is nothing to stop you posting stuff elsewhere. But you probably knew that.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Twitter is a private business. What they allow on their service is entirely up to them. If they don't want to host somebody or some organisation, that's up to them. Not hosting somebody is not the same as censoring them and it doesn't impinge on that person's free speech.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
From my point of view, yes. Though, you are free to disagree. Something that the modern Left won't let me the luxury of, as I will automatically be classified as sociopath, or having a mental disease of some sort.
It isn't the being reported that's a problem. It's the report being taken seriously instead being a joke on the office bulletin board that's a problem.
...in these comments.
Actually, yes, you can report it. I think I reported five GG people who were harassing certain Twitter posters today.
On the other hand, it's not integrated into the tweet itself, it's more of an individual account thing. Which is kind of silly.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
did slashdot get taken over by MRA/gamergate trash
Somewhere back in 2004.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Put twitter to the test.
Go search for something like "#killallmen" and start reporting users for threatening violence against people because of their sex.
See how many are required to change what they post or are banned, vs. are just ignored.
That'll be the real test if twitter is serious about what they say, or if it's just a SJW anti-conservative takeover.
I know which my money would be on.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
OK, let's see if anyone reports you.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I don't twit with the twits, but maybe I'll start. I'll have to find some nice Rev Rice quotes and twit them. I'll be happy to have my accounts flagged or flogged or modded out of existence.
A friend of mine's account was banned because she was warning people on Twitter about Aaron Brown, now going by "Timmer", who was convicted of wire fraud and embezzlement, as well as lost a lawsuit after defrauding a charity, then left the US to escape having to pay. He's highly active in the Barcelona area, professes to be a wine expert.
She's been following his activity on twitter, and tweeting people who interact with him, warning them about him.
Bam - account permanently deactivated a few weeks ago. Gone. All her tweets, years worth, gone. Nobody to talk to, nobody to appeal to, no process. Account disabled, end of story.
Twitter is now allowing scammers to use its anti-harassment policies to silence people warning others about them. Good job, Twitter...
Please help metamoderate.
Complete agreement. The platform does not support meaningful dialog or depth, so it just ends up being a soapbox for narcissists and contributing to the atrophication of this generation's attention span.
Nope, I cannot.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I'd submit that it is an affliction. It's even a curable affliction. It's sometimes an easily curable affliction but it often needs an acknowledgement of the problem, a willingness to get beyond ones ego, critical thinking, objectivity, and effort. It surely may need more than those few things that I mentioned but I refuse to be a pessimist tonight.
There are so many people who are hell bent on retaining their views, regardless of the evidence against them, that it's like a contest to see who can stick with the most absurd conclusions the longest. We call politicians who change their minds based on new information things like "wishy washy." We call someone who wants to collect facts and make an informed decision names like "indecisive." We call a change in strategy a "sign of failure." We call those who admit that they do not have the answers "stupid." We call those who seek the answers "ignorant."
Basically, the older I get the more convinced I become that humans are much like dumb herd beasts only blessed by the fact that they somehow managed to acquire opposable thumbs. That we've made it this far is nothing short of miraculous. We're panicky, ignorant, fearful, frightful, impulsive, and more. In short, humans kind of suck. I'm glad I'm not one of them!
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals. - Agent K.
I hope I am never that way. I try my best to keep an open mind and not lock into a mindset. I suppose for that having a poor memory is a blessing. Although it makes day to day tasks rather difficult.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Hold on, you said the same thing last time Twitter updated its policies, and when Reddit did, and even when 4chan banned GanerGate. So the evidence should exist already. You should be and to point to specific examples of things feminists etc. used to get people banned that fit your criteria.
Please either provide evidence or concede the point as you promised to.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Note how the actual text written by the college doesn't say starring makes you a rapist, only the shitty article you linked does. What the college does say is that being a creep is creepy and you shouldn't do it. Pattern of behaviour rather than individual things etc.
I'm convinced that the MRA movement is mostly people who find reading comprehension hard work, so just read the inaccurate summary without bothering to figure out of it is true out not. This /. article is a good example - even the summary doesn't say what MRA commentators assume it does, presumably because they were only able to skim read it for keywords.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
SCOTUS: "Twitter is a corporation and entitled to free speech. Its users...not so much."
Well, in fairness, if we assume the opposite, and we assume they did read the summary, we're looking at a bunch of people who are saying "OMG! They're coming for hardline Islamic Terrorists! We anti-SJWs are obviously so similar to extremist religious fundamentalist anti-women anti-gay anti-people-not-like-us murderous nutjobs that we're obviously next!"
In which case it's a fairly revealing admission...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I love how some people get bent out of shape when other want to exercise their 1st Amendment rights. "Oh, but that doesn't apply here!" Oh, okay, so then corporations really are people. Which is it? Either the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, everywhere, in every case... or it doesn't.
The coddling of the American Mind:
http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...
Sigh
-- I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.