Slashdot Mirror
Former Twitter Employees: 'Abuse Problem' Comes From Their Culture Of Free Speech (buzzfeed.com)
Twitter complained of "inaccuracies in the details and unfair portrayals" in an article which described their service as "a honeypot for assholes." Buzzfeed interviewed 10 "high-level" former employees who detailed a company "Fenced in by an abiding commitment to free speech above all else and a unique product that makes moderation difficult and trolling almost effortless". An anonymous Slashdot reader summarizes their report:
Twitter's commitment to free speech can be traced to employees at Google's Blogger platform who all went on to work at Twitter. They'd successfully fought for a company policy that "We don't get involved in adjudicating whether something is libel or slander... We'll do it if we believe we are required to by law." One former Twitter employee says "The Blogger brain trust's thinking was set in stone by the time they became Twitter Inc."
Twitter was praised for providing an uncensored voice during 2009 elections in Iran and the Arab Spring, and fought the secrecy of a government subpoena for information on their WikiLeaks account. The former of head of news at Twitter says "The whole 'free speech wing of the free speech party' thing -- that's not a slogan. That's deeply, deeply embedded in the DNA of the company... [Twitter executives] understand that this toxicity can kill them, but how do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line? I would actually challenge anyone to identify a perfect solution. But it feels to a certain extent that it's led to paralysis.
While Twitter now says they are working on the problem, Buzzfeed argues this "maximalist approach to free speech was integral to Twitter's rise, but quickly created the conditions for abuse... Twitter has made an ideology out of protecting its most objectionable users. That ethos also made it a beacon for the internet's most vitriolic personalities, who take particular delight in abusing those who use Twitter for their jobs."
Twitter was praised for providing an uncensored voice during 2009 elections in Iran and the Arab Spring, and fought the secrecy of a government subpoena for information on their WikiLeaks account. The former of head of news at Twitter says "The whole 'free speech wing of the free speech party' thing -- that's not a slogan. That's deeply, deeply embedded in the DNA of the company... [Twitter executives] understand that this toxicity can kill them, but how do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line? I would actually challenge anyone to identify a perfect solution. But it feels to a certain extent that it's led to paralysis.
While Twitter now says they are working on the problem, Buzzfeed argues this "maximalist approach to free speech was integral to Twitter's rise, but quickly created the conditions for abuse... Twitter has made an ideology out of protecting its most objectionable users. That ethos also made it a beacon for the internet's most vitriolic personalities, who take particular delight in abusing those who use Twitter for their jobs."
. . . perhaps if you have the correct POV. Anyone on the Right, however, seems to be subject to arbitrary and capricious censorship on the Twitter platform, without explanation or even appeal.
And it happens to targets large and small: the obvious large example is Milo Yiannopolous, but also lesser lights like SF author Brian Niemayer.
Add to that, the recently created Trust and Advisory Board which all comes from the same end of the political spectrum. Apparently, Twitter is all about Free Speech. . . only some Speech is More Free than others. . .
The block feature has proven to be ineffective because trolls just keep creating new accounts, or moving on to harassing followers and friends of their victims. When people try to make it more powerful, e.g. with the "ggautoblock" script, the howls of "censorship!!" start up.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
the obvious large example is Milo Yiannopolous
The guy was banned for organizing troll mobs. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, if you shout "fire!" in a theatre you will get banned regardless of your rights.
If anything he is proof that Twitter will give people every possible benefit of the doubt and every opportunity to remain on the service. The amount of racist crap he spewed out over the years was pretty awful, but Twitter tolerated it because they only ban over direct threats and mobbing, the former of which is a crime in their jurisdiction.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The problem are moderators who decide to moderate on topics they feel strongly about. Good moderators make sure the messages stay on topic, and valid discussion is occurring. Because it is too easy for a vocal group to take over the discussion and spam it with like ideas or just poor arguments. But if the moderator has an emotional attachment to a side, a different view is often felt as a personal attack, thus can get censored.
However message trolls can be just a detriment to free speech by spamming a good conversation with hate and nonsense changing the tone of topic from an insightful expression of ideas a bunch of idiotic ranting.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Someone posted a link and it would generate so much traffic it could crash the server (slashdotting). Not so much anymore.
This isn't such a great argument as you might think. The rise of easier-to-use caching software and technology services like Cloudflare have made it much easier for smaller sites to withstand even a slashdotting. You should see how much of the web runs through Cloudflare these days. There are still some servers that run pretty much standalone and when that happens someone usually posts the content quickly to the slashdot story, but by and large, you simply can't say that Slashdot doesn't matter anymore because it doesn't destroy >80% of the sites it links to.
The examples of Milo's racism are very easy to find:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
In case you don't realize why depicting a black person as a gorilla is racist, here is a little history:
http://www.authentichistory.co...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I am now blocked by tens of hundreds of people I don't know, for reasons _they don't fucking know!_ but apparently I'm in Wheatons "toxic" list.
Why are you so fascinated with talking to the type of people that would blindly choose to use Wil Wheaton's censorship list?
What if we have something in common and I would have stumbled across them to discuss something? We clearly have an interest in Star Trek. What if I make a product they'd like that they miss out on (and I miss their sale) because I'm blocked by them
If you're coming to Slashdot to get sympathy for your right to advertise your product to people that don't want to hear it (for whatever reason), you've probably come to the wrong place.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
BEEP ME!
You're quoting the Daily Mail? Read the comments on that site! They're every bit as bad as the "SJWs" (who barely exist) in that they down rate ANYTHING that doesn't conform to their world view!
Lastly, given the reference above, calmly explain what this has to do with "The Left". I suggest you are a sock puppet to your own prejudices! I believe you are part of the same problem you are describing.
All you have is name calling.
matthew
According to the US government money is speech. So unlimited free speech makes it legal to pay someone to kill someone else.
Sorry, non-sequitur. Paying somebody to commit a crime is still a crime. Nothing has changed that.
And, although nobody seems to care about details, the Supreme Court decision in the "Citizens United" case at no point stated "money is speech." That's a popular simplification that is, in fact, a glib overgeneralization. A good summary of what the decision actually concluded is here: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rp...