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."
Twitter provides a block feature, a mute feature, the ability to report harassment, and various features to control how public your tweets are. If someone is harassing you, why don't you block them? I'm not sure why we need to kill free speech to fix a problem that appears to be already solved...
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
"Free speech" doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you. Unfortunately the Twitter staff act like it does.
Twitter lacks effective ways for people not to listen to things. Users lack ways to filter the content they see, filter who can send to them, filter seeing third party mentions of them, and so on.
The asshole problem on twitter is that they can be effective assholes: twitter makes it hard, or impossible, for the targets of attack to block or filter out the messages, so the targets of abuse receive the messages, so the assholes succeed in abuse. "Not using twitter" is not a realistic option for many people who work in media, PR, or whose jobs and lives are about communication - so they end up in a situation where they are the targets of the assholes and cannot do much about it.
Twitter should care more about the recipient users, not the sender users - and they can do that without compromsing anyone's ability to speak.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
Slashdot has the best system I've seen so far. Reddit's just leads to bandwagoning. Slashdot is capped at -2:5.
Additionally if I only have 5 points I'll usually not waste them on 0, I normally just browse at +2. Back in the day you would have entire threads of +5s. I'll save them for someone that needs modded up, not waste it on someone that doesn't need to be heard.
Agreed. Slashdot has easily the single best method of moderating out of every major website, changing that would be foolish. Besides, moderators are surprisingly fair - I have gone against the grain plenty of times, and extremely often these reached +4 or +5. If you state your opinion reasonably and rationally, Slashdot is almost always interested in hearing it. Character attacks on unnamed moderators, with no examples or anything of substance at all, are not inside this category.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
When Twitter quits banning people who haven't broken their rules, we'll talk.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Either you believe in free speech or you don't.
Unfortunately even in today's modern world, unpopular opinions continue to need Voltaire's "defending to the death" because those in power are all too ready to mete it out (if they only could) - instead of countering it with their own opinion and civilized debate.
And it doesn't matter where in the political spectrum you fall, people everywhere pay lip service to "free speech" only when it suits them. To the contrary, those on the left are often the most intolerant of people saying something falling foul of the accepted orthodoxy.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Because repeatedly sending out abusive tweets directed at one person in particular should be allowed.
It is one thing to disagree with someone, criticize their actions or point of view, but to repeatedly and ad nauseum go after them because of their race, that is not something which, despite free speech, should be tolerated on someone elses platform.
As Twitter said when banning him:
"People should be able to express diverse opinions and beliefs on Twitter. But no one deserves to be subjected to targeted abuse online, and our rules prohibit inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others."
But go ahead. Whine about how only one point of view was censored while completely ignoring the relevant facts.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Have you thought about your usage pattern and how it relates to the whole?
You only see things that other people either value or agree with. You don't get the whole conversation (and in fact /. is weird and forces you to move the slider to see more; maybe getting an (undeleteable) account you can have that preference saved). Maybe you're okay with that -- I have no clue -- but if the goal is socializing and conversing, it seems to me that having the whole picture in an unbiased, threaded ranking (be it random, sort by time, whatever) is the best way to get the whole picture without having gatekeepers who control who gets to be heard (read).
A lot of these sites like to compare themselves with democracy, and they forget the fatal flaw: a majority can turn against a minority and tamp them out. That flaw flies in the face of any professed "freedom of speech" they assert.
Free speech means assholes. It means racists, Nazis, birthers, preppers, furries, Joe Normal®, Jane Normal®, feminists, conspiracy theorists, communists, and so on. If we decide they don't get to be heard because "reasons", who gets to decide the dialog for everyone? Why do they deserve that power? Why should that power exist in the first place? Strong ideas can withstand competition.
Some people confuse topicality or spam with free speech abuses. Interfering with the flow of conversation (e.g. posting the same thing dozens of times), or talking about something irrelevant to the conversation (Raging about the moon landing in a mosquito thread) is handled not to silence people, but to maintain the purpose and function of a given system.
The purpose and function of ranking systems like /. and reddit is to distill the submitted content to the ones who were modded up heavily, meaning popularity. People in general have a hard time separating popularity from quality. They rarely, if ever correlate.
Note I'm having to talk about the points instead of the nature of the conversations or the interfaces that may work best for such conversing. We get wrapped up in the irrelevant and taken in by tools that allow us to assist in silencing others. So by following score-based designs, any viewer is getting an incomplete conversation, skewed by what the most number of people like or dislike.
Can I ask the people on the left, when did the left start to view free speech as being a bad thing?
It started when they got so offended by opposing viewpoints that they started condemning them as hate speech, then adopted the mantra "hate speech isn't free speech"
Have you noticed lately how censorship enthusiasts always resort to ad-hominem attacks against unnamed crimethinkers? Their basic argument goes like this: "oh, they're just a bunch of assholes, they don't deserve free speech like me and my goodthinking buddies do."
"right-wingers tend to be vindictive hateful assholes" ?
They might say mean words on the twatter, but it's the left wings SJWs that organize hate campaigns to get people fired for daring to say things that they don't like
Well, that's because right-wingers tend to be vindictive hateful assholes a majority of the time.
This differentiates them from left-wingers how exactly?
Why would Milo get banned and not the people making racist, homophobic and abusive messages to and about him?
Twitter's censorship policy may be equal in concept, but it's demonstrably flawed to hell in practice.
Chill out, dude. We all know Twatter can and do eagerly censor whomsoever they want. That's a given.
We also all know that Twatter is a de facto public forum. Thus many here and elsewhere call that company's leadershipo to account for their policies that diminish the scope of public discussion.
Also - get over the tired left/right meme. Leftist = rightist = centrist = capitalist. Bellyfeel notwithstanding, they're all the same, and all enemies of the people.
I noticed that death and rape wishes were conveniently left out of your comment on topicality. Nobody is leaving twitter because people talk about moon landings when they are trying to talk about mosquitos. They are leaving because entitled brats on twitter are telling them how much they hope they are beaten, raped, or killed just for expressing an opinion that they don't appreciate.
By following a design where people can run others off of twitter by flooding their mentions with graphic depictions of rape, murder, and other forms of violence against them, any viewer is getting an incomplete conversation, skewed by what the most number of people like or dislike.
The people on the left liked free speech when their speech was unpopular. They turned against it once they gained enough control of the culture to be the majority voice. As with most people they don't support free speech, only popular speech. They don't support liberty, only the idea that everyone should be free to live the way they themselves think people should live.
The actual source of Twitter's abuse problem is that it is all about identity and popularity, rather than content or discussion. You can't make much of an argument in 140 characters, but you can engage in social signalling and trolling. The most successful Twitter users are those with the most followers, and narcissists and minor celebrities want to increase that number; and the easiest way of increasing those number is through self-righteous indignation and trolling.
The solution to Twitter's problem is simple: discourage the use of real names. You'd find that most Twitter users with many followers would drop in popularity to nothing, and they would be discouraged from trolling people.
How often are opposing views labeled as "trolling" on Slashdot? I have submitted a thoughtful post without any inflators words and it was modded down.
So what? I've had posts marked as troll, and I don't get much butthurt about it. If you had the balls to post with even a pseudonym, you might see that sometimes mini range wars erupt over posts. I get email notifications of mods to my posts, and sometimes its a litany of a post getting modded insightful, then troll, then insightful, ant overrated, then informative, then flamebait. I consider that as showing I am onto something.
Then again, I don't have the bitched up idea that everyone has to agree with me. If I end up as Troll in the end, then maybe I was being an asshole. So what.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Well, first you have to consider that anyone can be a moderator. I don't have mod points right now, but I've had them within the last week, and I don't post that much on here any more.
Second, there is such a thing as meta-moderation. (Or at least there was. Not actually sure it's there any more.)
Third, Slashdot doesn't want their moderators harassed. You don't get to see who modded down your post, because they don't want you going to every post that moderator makes and revenge-modding them, or harassing them.
Fourth, if you are consistently being modded down (presumably under your Slashdot handle, rather than as an AC), then the problem isn't the mods, it's you. It is highly unlikely that one or more mods are specifically looking for your posts and going "HaHa! Time to mod him down again!" while twirling their mustaches. If you're being modded down while posting as an AC, how are the mods supposed to know it's you specifically? Not even mods see who is behind a particular AC post.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Bollocks.
Both the left and the right want free speech. The problem is the asshats on both sides.
There are some on the left who think that no-one should ever be offended ever and want safe spaces for everyone, because god forbid someone be exposed to a scary idea. Bunch of bullshit if you ask me.
And there are some on the right who think that they should be able to say whatever they want, consequence free, and if anyone is ever offended, and wants them banned from a forum or whatever, they HATE free speech. Also a bunch of bullshit, if you ask me.
Let's get something straight. In the U.S., freedom of speech stops the government from punishing you for exercising it. (There are certain limitations, though.)
Just the government.
Only the government.
If you post (for example), some racist screed on a private owned forum (such as Slashdot, or Twitter, or wherever), and they decide to ban you, it's not a violation of your first amendment rights, because Twitter isn't run by the government. (Although, going by their track record, Twitter will take a long time to ban you)
You're still free to say what you want. You just can't use that forum to broadcast it if they decide to ban you. You have a right to free speech. You don't have a right to use a private venue to voice those statements if the venue decides they don't want you there.
And you don't have a right to ignore the consequences of your speech. If you want to stand in your front yard and yell offensive things as the neighbors, you're free to do so. Just don't expect that magically, everyone will go "Oh, he's just exercising his freedom of speech." No, they're probably going to think you're an asshole. But the two are not mutually exclusive. It's possible to be exercising free speech AND be an asshole. Just don't be surprised that people don't want you around because you're being an asshole.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
all in all the Fascist and Marxist are the same in being totalitarian ideologies
you simply can't say that Slashdot doesn't matter anymore because it doesn't destroy >80% of the sites it links to.
True but there are plenty of reasons I can say Slashdot doesn't matter so much any more. The volume of comments is way down. 200-400 comments per story used to be the norm. Now it's often less than half that and sometimes doesn't even get to 100. There are far fewer well known geeks frequenting Slashdot. It used to be a premier destination and a place to hear what the best and brightest had to say. But years of neglect and bad management have slowly driven away a substantial portion of then user base that once set Slashdot apart from other news/discussion sites. I won't say it doesn't matter at all but it's not the place it once was. Perhaps the new management can fix that though I'm not holding my breath...
If you post (for example), some racist screed on a private owned forum (such as Slashdot, or Twitter, or wherever), and they decide to ban you, it's not a violation of your first amendment rights, because Twitter isn't run by the government
It's not a violation of first amendment rights, but it is a violation of free speech.
One of the reasons I like Slashdot is the commitment to free speech, and the use of alternate methods besides banning people.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Can I ask the people on the left, when did the left start to view free speech as being a bad thing?
It started when they got so offended by opposing viewpoints that they started condemning them as hate speech, then adopted the mantra "hate speech isn't free speech"
Then quickly added, "Hate speech is anything WE don't agree with."
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Plenty of examples in the black lives matter.
If you disagree with blm or think all lives matter = racist.
Sure, those websites/companies can ban comments/commenters that are racist or w/e but then they don't "have a culture of free speech" like TFA is saying.
Kind of hard to say "we have a culture of free speech and love free expression so much except when we don't like what you say." with a straight face.
Just like the government, there are acceptable limitations that could be put in placed (doxxing, threats, etc) but that is not what we are talking about, are we.