Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Is Working On Anti-Harassment Keyword Filtering Tool, Says Report (bloomberg.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the cease-and-desist dept.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has made it a top priority for company to limit hateful conduct. In late December 2015, for example, the company changed its rules to explicitly ban "hateful conduct" for the first time. A new report says Twitter is working to further curb the rise of hateful conduct as it is "working on a keyword-based tool that will let people filter the posts they see, giving users a more effective way to block out harassing and offensive tweets." Bloomberg reports: "The San Francisco-based company has been discussing how to implement the tool for about a year as it seeks to stem abuse on the site, said the people [familiar with the matter], who asked not to be identified because the initiative isn't public. By using keywords, users could block swear words or racial slurs, for example, to screen out offenders. The filtering tool could eventually become a moderator for any kind of content, the people said. For example, users could block a hashtag about an event they don't care to read about."

18 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. it'll still be political by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I bet all the keywords will be carefully chosen to avoid hitting political allies like the social justice nutters.

    1. Re: it'll still be political by Fragnet · · Score: 2

      Nobody's "constantly exposed to it" on Twitter. This is a censorship tool plain and simple. There's no agreed definition of "hateful conduct" anyway. For the typical SJW, just disagreeing with them is "hateful". And if you can't even do that on Twitter all the fun is sucked out of it and it becomes just another fucking marketing stream.

      If you own shares, sell them.

    2. Re: it'll still be political by Fragnet · · Score: 2
      There are already three tools for filtering: (1) block, (2) mute, (3) don't bother logging in.

      Do you also walk up to randos in public and interject in their conversations too?

      Are you fucking serious? Twitter is a public platform. It's for putting it out there publicly. If you don't want that you can change your account such that only people you specifically flag can see your tweets. Listen dude, if you don't understand the subject why the fuck do you bother having an opinion about it?

      Fucking idiot.

    3. Re: it'll still be political by Izuzan · · Score: 2

      It is only a Tool if it is allowed to be selectivly used. If it is forced on all users it is censorship.

    4. Re: it'll still be political by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are already three tools for filtering: (1) block, (2) mute,

      Except we both know those are ineffective against harassment swarms.

      (3) don't bother logging in.

      So the only option is currently to let a bunch of assholes bully you off the site so you can no longer engage in the conversations you actually want to engage with.

      I seriously do not understand why you object to people having control over their own feed. It's almost like you think you should be able to either force your opinions on them or force them off the site.

      Are you fucking serious? Twitter is a public platform.

      Yes I am serious. Being in public is also in public. Just because something is in public does not give you some sort of moral right to be an asshole without consequences. If some people are having a conversation on a park bench, they can't stop you joining the conversation without leaving. If you do that and the only way to make you stop is to leave then congratulations, you're a major asshole.

      People on twitter having public conversations is not all that dissimilar to having a conversation in public. If you keep butting in on people's feeds o the point where they leave twitter, then congratulations, you're a major asshole.

      Simply existing in public does not give every jerk with an axe to grind some sort of ethical free pass on being a dickhead.

      Oh and if not being enabled to be a massive dickhead by twitter actually hampers you in any way, then you really, really need to reconsider your life.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re: it'll still be political by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Yeah, you're right, all those civil rights activists who got lynched and the 'four dead in Ohio' at Kent State were asking for it because they were a nuisance.

      Do you believe you should be allowed to stand on my front lawn, exercising you free speech with a megaphone at 2am?

      If no, then where do you draw the line?

      If yes, then you don't have the faintest clue what free speech is or what it's for.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  2. Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem for Twitter is there just aren't enough Feminists/SJWs out there to keep a dying social media platform alive.

    1. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two in a row, you're really doing a great job as a living example. "Alt-right" along with "reactionary" is just yet another smear word invented by SJWs to attack anyone committing thoughtcrime. EVERYONE they dislike is an alt-right reactionary misogynist gamergater MRA pissbaby fuckboy.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    2. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Informative

      No one is stopping you from spewing whatever inane stupidy passes for incitement commentary among your crowd. You'll be just as free to make an idiot of yourself on Twitter once these changes are in effect.

      Really? You should pay more attention, because that's exactly what's happening. This is just one case of many, where there is one set of rules for one group of people and another for the "right kind of people."

      Keep in mind that Milo never did that, but Leslie Jones sure did. So have several other people who were verified including a rapper, reporter, and a EiC of a magazine ...all of whom sic'd their followers on other people for engaging in wrong think. There's also another case of a person threatening a reporter with rape...for weeks(wish I could remember her name but it escapes me atm). Those are just off the top of my head. You know what the difference between them and Milo is? Milo doesn't carry the same political ideology as them. That reporter? She's a conservative. But in both cases when there are actual threats against them? Twitter has done nothing.

      Disagree all you want, but when you cross into harassment then GTFO. No one is under any obligation to stand there while you abuse them.

      Sure thing. Let me know when they actually start going after the actual harassers okay? You know people like Zoe Quinn, Kathleen Cross, Randy Harper, Izzy Galvez, Chris Kluwe and so on. You know, the people who claim that they're against harassment...right out there...harassing people, doxing people, and so on.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  3. Who gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me?" If someone offends you, ignore them. If you can't bear to do that, a Block option has been on Twitter forever, use that. If you're still getting triggered, maybe you should step away from the computer for awhile.

    1. Re:Who gives a shit by negRo_slim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me?"

      In the Age of Feels what you speak of is now unthinkable. Just like sending your kids out to play until dark and limits on screen time, being able to handle mere words with tact is loooong gone my friend.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    2. Re:Who gives a shit by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 3, Informative

      these are the de facto leaders of the MRM. You'll notice that the majority are women, one's black, and one's a bisexual single mom. The elderly woman in the center is the woman who founded the very first domestic violence shelter in the modern world... and had a drive by shooting at her house for daring to shelter male victims as well as female ones.

      The only people that can't stop being offended by women and minorities seem to be feminists and the regressive left.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    3. Re:Who gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      The emergence of the alt-right was an inevitable response to the PC shithole the world has become. White people are sick of having the rules dictated to them by minorities; men sick of having the rules dictated to them by radical feminists. Every issue championed by neo-marxist regressives results in a deliberate inversion of power, whereby the majority is held to ransom by a small but vocal minority with an axe to grind. People are sick of it.

    4. Re:Who gives a shit by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me?"

      What happened was it is and always was obvious bullshit. Let me counter with another trite saying: the pen is mightier than the sword. If speech is inconsequential, then there's no need to fight hard to keep it free, because you'd lose nothing of consequence.

      If someone offends you, ignore them.

      That's exactly what this is about.

      If you can't bear to do that, a Block option has been on Twitter forever, use that.

      No it hasn't, at least not one that's remotely effective. I mean sure you can block one user, but they can (and do) just come back with sock puppet accounts and keep spamming you with crap.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Who gives a shit by bfpierce · · Score: 2

      "If someone offends you, ignore them."

      That's exactly what such a tool would allow you to do. It just allows a user to automate the process of avoiding post by racist/bigot dipshits.

    6. Re: Who gives a shit by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      That's rubbish. Allowing people to filter you out of their feed is not equivalent to gagging you. You have no right, mitral or otherwise to make people listen to you or force them away if they don't want to. If you interrupt a conversation I'm having in public with someone else, me telling you to eff off isn't gagging you either. You have no right to be listened to.

      And here's the thing, if words are "just words" and of little consequence, why bother defending the right to use them freely. You cannot have it both ways where words are so important that their free use must be defended yet so unimportant that they are inconsequential.

      With defenders like you, free speech doesn't need enemies.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  4. Does it filter #FREEMILO? by jafiwam · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well? Does it?

  5. Just eliminate messaging and mentions by pauljlucas · · Score: 2
    One way to fix Twitter would simply be to eliminate mentions and messaging. IMHO, the use-case for Twitter is to allow people to receive broadcast (one-way) messages from others.

    For example, if I follow Bob, then I (and everyone else who follows Bob) would receive Bob's tweets. If EvilJerk also follows Bob, he can be as outraged and tweet about it as much as he wants -- nobody except those who opted-in to follow EvilJerk would get his tweets.

    Problem solved.

    --
    If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.