Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Bans 'Hateful Conduct' (reuters.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the vague-vagaries-for-vile-virtual-vagabonds dept.

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."

17 of 492 comments (clear)

  1. FTFY... by x0ra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Twitter ban 'dissenting political opinions'.

    1. Re:FTFY... by schizrade4954 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      x1000 SJWs rejoice, now they can muzzle any and all opponents by crying "hate speech".

    2. Re:FTFY... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems you live in an alternate reality where SJWs are on the side of good. They are not. Any movement or political thought that seeks to ban free speech is the enemy of all of civilization.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:FTFY... by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, we all hate it when other people disagree with us. So to be safe, maybe we should just ban all speech, period.

      Better yet, just shut down Twitter altogether. Only way to be sure.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:FTFY... by blue9steel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I support others people's right to say things that I despise, that is what free speech is all about.

    5. Re:FTFY... by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease"

      I don't see "political views" listed there. Also,

      Lol, so naive.

      Don't you know that saying "I like Donald Trump" these days is the equivalent of saying "I hate all Muslims" and is therefore a hate crime? Or that going to a feminist rally and holding up a sign that says "I disagree with feminism" creates a hostile environment for women and is therefore not only a hate crime, but also a form gender discrimination and also rape?

      I wish I were joking. That's how far the left that I was once proud to be a part of has sunk in recent years.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    6. Re:FTFY... by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      lol sjw are bad because i saw it on an internet forum

      No, SJW's are bad because they get people kicked out their colleges, fired from their jobs, and even imprisoned simply for expressing opinions that disagree with their own radical ideology.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    7. Re:FTFY... by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It deeply saddens me to see that the liberal movement that I once supported is now actively arguing against the very right to free speech that we used to champion.

      You're using the very same arguments that the far-right used to use to try to silence us. The "There are some people who citizens simply shouldn't be allowed to criticize" argument is the very same one we used to hear when we criticized the President or the government.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    8. Re:FTFY... by Chas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Going out of your way to get someone fired/arrested/expelled isn't a "consequence".

      It's you being a complete dick to someone who happens to not believe the same thing as you do.

      PERIOD.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    9. Re:FTFY... by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Haha so boycotts and legal, nonviolent shunning are the same as racially-motivated violence to you?

      Trying to get people fired from their jobs, kicked out of universities, and even arrested goes way beyond a little civilized disagreement, and well into "persecution."

      again suggesting that you should have special protection from the consequences of this speech - just like we protect people from racial discrimination.

      Yes, that is ABSOLUTELY what I'm saying (if by "consequences" you mean "persecution"). I'm not sure what country you're from. But in the United States we do, in fact, have clear protections in both cases. Both the right to free speech and protection from racial discrimination are considered "civil rights" that all U.S. citizens enjoy (along with freedom of religion, freedom to assemble and many others).

      again suggesting that you should have special protection from the consequences of this speech

      Should a conservative be able to tell his or her employees that there will be "consequences" if any of them ever publicly supports any pro-homosexual cause? It's a private company so they don't deserve any special protection from "consequences," right? Something like: "You know, you boys are technically free to support those evil faggots trying to take our way of life away all you want--just so long as you understand there are going to be, you know, consequences...You boys understand that, right, that if you ever speak up for those queers there will be some consequences?" Some people (like me) might call that a case of an employer threatening his employees with persecution for exercising their right of free speech. But I guess a wise man like YOU recognizes that he's just warning his employees that there will be consequences for exercising certain forms of free speech.

      But opinions are not like ethnicity.

      Again, yeah they are. Both are important protected civil rights in the United States.

      You can safely change them or keep them private.

      LOL, so you're seriously arguing that we should be able to persecute anyone we want to for anything they can CHANGE? "Hey, I don't like the political party you're in asshole! Change it now or I'm going to get you fired from your job!!" Bloody hell!

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    10. Re:FTFY... by RoLi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly.

      These rules are never universally applied, for example it is still allowed to harass, inimidate and demonize white people, Christianity and "traditional gender roles".

      Similarily, in the official FBI crime statistics, "Hispanics" is a victim category but they are lumped into whites for perpetrators.

      So when a Hispanic kills a white for racial reasons, the crime goes onto the books as a "racist white-on-white hate crime". (No joke, they really count that way in order to reach their anti-white race quotas - without Hispanics there are just too few hate crimes with white perpetrators.)

      Most hate crimes are of course Hispanic on black and vice versa, so with that trick you get a ton of "white on black" and "black on hispanic" hate crimes even though whites have usually nothing to do with them.

      You can call for genocide of white people in any politically correct medium and you will NOT get banned.

  2. Re:So Twitter is banning Twitter? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Funny

    Perhaps it's time to realize that "those yahoos" are real people with real opinions, and their vote counts just as much as yours. You don't want to live in the same country as them, and buddy I hear ya. Have you considered emigration? I hear France is lovely this time of year. Canada is always a popular choice for Americans fleeing oppression and reactionaries. There are several countries which share your far-left views and where you would be far more comfortable than in incorrigible forever-racist America: Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia. There will be a bit of a lifestyle change, for instance food lines will be a new thing to you, but I'm sure you'll get through. Bon voyage! Come back in 20 years and let us know how it turned out.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  3. Nice! by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Nice! by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if you cant post your "dissenting opinion" without "threatening people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease", then you have some issues you need to work on.

      Ok, lets talk about what they claim, and how this will go down in reality. Because Twitter has a really bad track record of saying one thing and enforcing another.

      For example. There is a delightful young transwoman named Sarah Nyberg who has been harassing gamers on twitter for months now. (But that's ok, because harassing neuroatypical white males is socially acceptable. Especially if they're overweight and straight, too.)

      Sarah Nyberg is a pedophile. She openly admits this. She also openly admits that she took photos of her 8 year old niece in her underwear and shared them online. She openly admits that doing so gave her an erection.

      She admits all of this, but that it was ok because some people were rude to her and that's somehow worse.

      TALKING about this, due to Sarah Nyberg being part of the SJW clique, results in you being mass-reported by a botnet and your account auto-locked by Twitter's algorithms until you delete the "harassing" posts.

      The people doing this openly brag about doing this. Twitter does not care.

      Twitter can post all the fluff pieces about how this is going to combat trolls and harassers they want. People who have been the victim of this passive agressive "crybullying" know that the authoritarian nutjobs involved claim any disagreement with their socio-political views is "harassment" or "Cyberviolence" and that Twitter apparently agrees with them.

  4. Re:Or maybe just abuse by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. these arent negotiable, and never were. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  6. Oh the idiocy... by Simulant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...in these comments.