Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Says It's Cracking Down on Hate Speech (usatoday.com)
With public backlash growing, Twitter says it's taking steps to crack down on hate speech, from making it easier to report alleged incidents on the social media service to educating moderators on what kind of conduct violates the rules. From a report on USA Today: Twitter users will also gain more control over their experience on Twitter with the ability to mute words and phrases, even entire conversations, if they don't want to receive notifications about them, said Del Harvey, Twitter's head of safety. The effort comes as an uptick in biased graffiti, assaults and other incidents have been reported in the news and on social media since Election Day, prompting president-elect Donald Trump to call for people to "stop it" during a 60 Minutes interview on Sunday night. The FBI reports that hate crimes rose 7% in 2015, led by attacks on Muslim Americans.
Every time you see the word "Trump" in a newly posted article, take a shot.
This is a slippery slope.
You don't have the right to not be offended.
The echo chamber is the reason Trump got elected. It made the American left complacent.
And the wonder why people that might consider using them go elsewhere.
"Shame about that speech you have over there, shame if anyone called it hate speech."
If you hate it, then learn sign language.
Let's put the hammer down on Twitter, for being so cowardly!
Considering that those on the left consider support Trump to be "hate speech" I assume what this really means is cracking down on the freedom of speech.
People have been investigating those so called "Trump-caused hate incidents" and a lot of them turn out to be faked. There is no "hate backlash" brought on by Trump. What you're seeing are the people who lost the election trying to smear the winner to take away from the fact that THEY LOST and that America does not want to go down the path they've been pushing.
The problem with this is that it will be up to Twitter to define "hate speech". Is it saying hateful things to someone? Is it threatening someone? Is it saying things they disagree with?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Free Milo!
So the technocrats didn't like the outcome of the past election and are now determined to ensure it won't happen again. Lets not pretend this has anything to do with hate speech.
The only thing that would push me to vote for a despicable candidate like Trump if the other side is attempting censorship.
Is this hate speech?
Want to get rid of most hate speech? Just delete Trump's account. Calling Mexicans rapists is the textbook definition of hate speech. They won't have the balls to do it, though.
entropy happens
It's your site, you get to do what you want with it, but if you're gonna crack down on hate speech, you better define what it is.
Obviously certain tech companies hate that their censorship and propaganda failed, so they are doubling down. Time for competing products to rise up, assuming you don't get sued out of business for the next couple months at any rate.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
So when BLM activists agitate for felonies to be committed against teenage girls that disagree with them, Twitter will finally block their accounts, right?
Right?
"the ability to mute words and phrases"
I've been hoping for this for a long time. I'll start by filtering out "Liberal" and "Conservative" and go from there.
...that they are going to shut down twitter ?
You are somehow able to cherry pick a fragment out of a 20 second speech to make claims, same thing as the oligarchs and their media did. You should have listened to Robert Downy Jr. "Never go full retard."
Are they going to crack down on wall street bankers posting that they wished that ISIS would rape melania trump?
Or are they going to finally stop being hypocrites and get rid of the T&S council which is composed of feminist trolls?
I bet not.
Twitter's collapse continues unabated as expected.
"Why isn't anyone using us"?
And they wonder why people that might consider using them go elsewhere.
"Nice things you're talking about over there, shame if anyone called it hate speech".
"Twitter Says it's Cracking Down on Free Speech"
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
Now that Trump has been elected, we enter a new era where white men now have license to say whatever insulting, sexist, and racist things they want. In other words, hate speech is encoraged. Therefore filtering out hate speech would be unnecessary and heavily discouraged.
On a more serious note, filtering out “hate speech” must be considered carefully. In the 60’s, you could shut anyone up just by labeling them a commie. Today, you can squelch any dissenting opinion you want by labeling it hate speech. I’m believe in being nice and tactful, but we need to protect our constitutional right to free expression. It is not illegal to be an asshole.
To the British, the American colonists who wanted indepedence were “assholes” who didn’t know their place under the monarchy, regardless of their lack of representation in the government. To white racists, people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were assholes for standing up for the civil rights of black people. Today, anyone who stands up for gay marriage is an asshole to many conservatives. It’s actually important that people be “assholes."
Twitter itself is a huge part of the problem in the coarsening of political debate. The emphasis on short, snappy "soundbite" statements and the e-peen benefits of being retweeted serve as powerful incentives for people to forgo civility and mean that the most extreme voices, whatever their persuasion, get the most prominence.
When you are trying to fit your thoughts into a character limit, what kind of clauses are you going to cut? How about:
"I see your point, but have you considered..."
"I understand why some people are attracted to that argument, but..."
"I know there are exceptions to this rule..."
"I might be oversimplifying here..."
"This is purely anecdotal, but..."
Twitter is a remarkably effective tool for stripping conversations of all of the little niceties, qualifications and acknowledgements that keep things civil. It's a platform for thumping certainties, hysterical over-reactions and wanton attention-seeking. I've known rational, well-spoken people, often well-regarded in their professional fields, who turn into flaming morons on Twitter.
It's not a problem of Twitter's moderation policies or editorial stances, but rather a fundamental problem with the medium. Being mischievous, maybe 140 characters should be the minimum rather than the limit.
I'm glad. I'm tired of the trolls and racists and assholes trying to ruin every single Internet discussion. Fuck them. Not that Twitter is a good place for a discussion, but the assholes have run rampant in every place on the Internet where people (try to) communicate. I would never spend time in a real life place that had these same idiots saying these same kind of things, and I don't online, either. I'm sick of it. I don't need it.
I don't respond to AC's.
I thought that they would also mention the many death threats Trump has received. As much as I dislike Trump, he was also a victim of threats on Twitter, but that is nowhere mentioned in the article.
Hate-crime is neo-Stalinist thought-crime tyranny. Imagine fecking-A sand.Niggar Obama telling a white man what to think! Crush out the concept and practice. Stupid lazy and violent neo-Stalinists have earned the verbal iron bootheel -- and lots more with their narco.MEX and Semite companions. EDEP (warmest) and globalist elites know what to expect for their crimes and assault on yeomanry liberty. Historians agree methinks ... payback time bitches ......
I thought they already banned Milo
If you use Twitteriffic (iOS), you'll find you have the ability to "muffle" tweets that contain particular phrases or words. It's been my client of choice for years. (Not sure if other clients on Android offer this functionality). Whilst that doesn't censor hate-speech, it does give you freedom over what you want to read.
That's the problem, so to speak, with freedom of speech. One mans free thought, is another mans "hate". There are a ton of things out there, like porn and what not, I don't care for, but, I'll defend YOUR right to see/read it. The issue is, who is going to determine what is bad? And, when you start down that road, there is NO going back.
I'm torn. On the one side, harassment has been redefined on the Regressive Left to mean "disagreed with a Radical Regressive Leftist." So when I hear there's people harassing people on social media, I'm reminded that some of the professional victims crying about this harass themselves for victim credentials, while others dox and harass others while running an industry blacklist of their enemies. Both of which are allowed to continue unopposed due to them sharing the politics of the people running the site.
Oh, and that's not even getting into the fact that the biggest Radical Regressive Leftist "anti-Harassment" campaign, "Crash Override Network," is actually a fake organization dedicated to organized harassment and doxing of people. (Yes, the abbreviation for this fake organization is "CON," and yes, the founder is an old SomethingAwful forum troll, why do you ask?)
So yeah, giving these sociopaths more tools to create a hugbox isn't good. We just saw an entire election be decided because one side refused to step outside of their bubble for 6+ months at a time.
On the other hand, this will let me block certain stupid shit like "problematic," "mansplain," and "KillAllMen." And I suppose letting people block racist hate groups like Black Lives Matter can only be a good thing.
Because this is how you get a second term for Trump.
I am. These racist idiots aren't giving me a lot of reasons to be proud.
Just because someone else acts the fool doesn't mean they are your responsibility or that you should be embarrassed by them just because they happen to share your skin color. I was born white and had no control over it. I see no reason to be ashamed over something I had no control over nor any reason to apologize for it. I'm disgusted by the racist behavior of many white people but I'm equally disgusted by the racist behavior of non-white people. Skin color is never a reason to feel ashamed no matter what the shade. It's how YOU behave that matters.
It's hard to tell my girlfriend that the idiot who told her to go back to her country, is an isolated incident.
I think it's naively optimistic of you to think that such a thing is an isolated opinion in this country. While it is not be the majority of white people I think a double digit percentage of the population probably would not be offended by such behavior at all and too many would agree with and condone it. Remember that we have tens of millions of white folks who think nothing of deporting 11 million Latin American people, most of whom are here peacefully and contributing to the economy. We have people who think police "stop and frisk" harassment of minorities is somehow justifiable. Minorities are subject to police harassment on a routine basis. We're not in some post-racial utopian society. We've made progress in the last 50 years but there is a looooong way yet to go. The recent election is proof positive of that.
You don't have the right to pretty much anything on twitter, a private service offered for free use. They can decide on their policy for the use of their service.
Hit the nail on the head! A company cannot and should not sit idly by if they think their product, brand, and core business is being damaged by something they could prevent or reduce the impact of.
Slashdot should take note.
Since Twitter and Trump had a very symbiotic relationship during the primaries, Twitter should make sure that it recognizes real hate speech from just opinions of people on either side
Is the only son of God.
Oops, hang on a sec ... thought I heard a shotgun being cocked outside my door.
Be right back ...
Hope? Just report it, it's that easy friend. You said you were offended, that means the verdict is already guilty.
I would never want to offend overly sensitive and self absorbed snowflakes. Each one of you is special and unique and is destined to change the world.
Look, twitter would be a better place if it removes comments like "you stupid bitch" and "you neckbeard racist". They are content free attacks that diminish the value of what one gets out of tweeter.
I would equally ban Killary/Drumpf postings. If you cannot make a point without a childish nickname, go some place else. This does not censor content, it censors non-content and has no bias per se to the left or right.
This article could also be called: "How Twitter will go out of business even FASTER!" Censorship is dead. Tell your users to grow up.
This sounds very arbitrary. Who decides what's hate speech and what's one person calling another person out?
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
psst....
It's no secret where their politics are - you already knew there might be a problem trying to communicate your message on the platform of a company that's vehemently against what you stand for. This shouldn't surprise you. Besides, you're a guest. If you don't like the house rules, you can go elsewhere or roll your own platform.
You mean like refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, because you find homosexuality morally abhorrent?
The problem is that one half of our cultural/political spectrum has taken it upon themselves to redefine terms to suit their liking.
So the word "Hate Speech" only means "Disagrees with me"
"Phobia" has gone from "irrational fear" to "Doesn't completely and unconditionally support and embrace"
"Girl" now means "Man with a dress on"
"White Supremacist" now means "White male with traditional values"
"Sexism" and "Racism" now have nothing to do with sex or race.
When one of these hypocrites takes it upon themselves to absolve the world of what THEY consider "hate speech", everyone that hasn't drunken the Kool-Aid knows exactly what that really means. It means anything outside the lines of the liberal brainwashing machine.
kill that buttfucker, I am offended by that I even have to make an effort to reply here
who will really miss them?
There is no question in my mind that Twitter is within their rights to moderate their service as they want in order to maximize their profit. While I'll be interested in what Twitter defines as "hate speech". Yes of course, there is the dictionary definition, but then there's always a practical use of the word by extending its interpretation.
I personally use Twitter as a RSS feed to get news from researchers and news outlets and post by own. As a discussion platform, Twitter is shallow and only represents the result of emotional stimuli. I can hardly belief the number of times tweets are referenced by the media as sources about whatever subject they are covering at the moment. What could happen is that another less restricted Twitter-like service will appear, appealing to different groups unwelcomed users or users "feeling threatened" on Twitter. Each of these groups will live in their own echo chambers, both in the physical and virtual worlds.
What I am more concerned about is the constant self-imposed isolation of people to uncomfortable realities and opinions. The "Safe spaces", personalization of media consumed and block lists. While there are legitimate uses such as filtering shitposting, spam and insults, it will also be used by users to wall themselves in their own "safe" reality since they are in control of what they read and see. They are in shock when confronted with the real world and opposing view points. It seems Brexit and the elections are representations of the phenomena. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same reaction in European elections next year.
Filtering "hate speech" will not make it go away. While it may sound counter-intuitive to some, it actually need to be aired widely on the public space so any rational can be scrutinized and demolished with arguments. Those who persist in their claims without reasonable arguments and facts will found themselves - in my opinion - without any following and support. My question is thus, where can this happen nowadays? Private medias and universities are also profit-based and can choose conversations and debates held in their campus and broadcasts.
So in one word, how will Twitter arbitrate hate speech, will it be able to stay neutral or will it eventually fall under moderators that will decide what constitute hate speech? Yes, we should take step to make discussions more civil (and as it was mentioned above, Twitter is a terrible place for this) without just outright blocking it.
@cyberrecce
You mean like refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, because you find homosexuality morally abhorrent?
Lesbians are a protected class. People who bake cakes are not.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
You mean like refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, because you find homosexuality morally abhorrent?
Lesbians are a protected class. People who bake cakes are not.
Well, hang on. Google/Wikipedia says sexual orientation is protected under employment laws, per the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As for other areas, there are lawsuits in the works. Such as this one going to the Washington State Supreme Court today.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
You mean like refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, because you find homosexuality morally abhorrent?
Lesbians are a protected class. People who bake cakes are not.
That's not an argument for how things should be. Religious freedom is constitutionally established. The government should not be able to compel people to actively work against their religious beliefs (or any deeply held beliefs, really), without first proving both compelling state interest, and that the proposed solution is as narrow as possible.
Burning hatred of Christians and/or traditional values is not itself a justification for action.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The problem is that one half of our cultural/political spectrum has taken it upon themselves to redefine terms to suit their liking.
So the word "Hate Speech" only means "Disagrees with me"
"Phobia" has gone from "irrational fear" to "Doesn't completely and unconditionally support and embrace"
"Girl" now means "Man with a dress on"
"White Supremacist" now means "White male with traditional values"
"Sexism" and "Racism" now have nothing to do with sex or race.
Since I don't have mod points, I can only highlight the AC.
This is it exactly. No one on the right is fooled when Twitter says "ban hate speech". Apparently, many on the left think they're talking about death threats. That's what an echo chamber does for you. And, yes, that's how you get Trump.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It can't be half as violent and neo-Stalinist as some AC who goes around using "sand n n****r"? You seem like the type that would have be a good Brown Shirt back in the day, fully of hate and looking to let the world know it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"Hate speech" is not a crime. It's called free speech. In fact you may express your opinion any way you like. It's not a "hate crime" until you actually commit a crime because you hate somebody. For example, If somebody attacks a trump supporter, it's simply an assault. But if they attack a Trump supporter because they hate everybody that supports Trump, then it becomes a hate crime.
If you simply want to say you Hate Hillary Clinton, you are well within your right to do so.
Twitter is attempting to control free speech, and many people are ready to start retaliating against these corporations that are stepping outside their bounds.
I wish I could give you a thumbs up for that one. It's dead on.
You mean like refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, because you find homosexuality morally abhorrent?
Like refusing to treat a homosexual with AIDS because you think it is God's wrath?
The problem is that one half of our cultural/political spectrum has taken it upon themselves to redefine terms to suit their liking.
The bigger problem is that you think it isn't something that happens on all sides.
So the word "Hate Speech" only means "Disagrees with me"
So "hate speech" becomes "offering an alternative point of view"
"Phobia" has gone from "irrational fear" to "Doesn't completely and unconditionally support and embrace"
"Irrational hatred" has become a "fair and honest view that others can't tolerate"
"Girl" now means "Man with a dress on"
"Using the bathroom facilities where you won't get harassed" means "Rape Rape Rape"
"White Supremacist" now means "White male with traditional values"
Oh that isn't new. It's been true since before Preston Brooks beat Charles Sumner.
"Sexism" and "Racism" now have nothing to do with sex or race.
"Sexism"and "Racism" don't apply to people who are judging people based on sex or race, since now Mexicans, Jews, Irish, are not a race, and sexism doesn't apply since you're just picking on me.
When one of these hypocrites takes it upon themselves to absolve the world of what THEY consider "hate speech", everyone that hasn't drunken the Kool-Aid knows exactly what that really means. It means anything outside the lines of the liberal brainwashing machine.
When one of these hypocrites takes it upon themselves to absolve the world of what THEY deny is "hate speech", everyone that hasn't drunken the Kool-Aid knows exactly what that really means. It means anything integral to the conservative brainwashing machine.
Huh, pretty easy to riposte your bullshit. Seriously, you could at least admit it is a long-standing practice.
I know you can't fathom that the right does it.
And why are you idiots repeating the JEWS' phrase over and over again, thereby giving it legitimacy?
"Hate" speech means "Anything the Jew doesn't want you to hear" and "Anything the Jew doesn't want you to say".
Where did the phrase "hate" speech come from? From the Jew media, that's where. And then the Jew occupied government decided they could finally get away with making it 'law' that nobody is allowed to use "hate" speech - i.e. nobody is allowed to expose the JEW.
http://balder.org/judea/Hate-Speech-Laws-Immigration-Jewish-Influence-Britain.php
So leftists get to censor anything that is not in line with their political agenda.
This AC's angry hyperbolic reply misses the point completely. When a company thinks their product or brand is being damaged they can act to protect it. Individual right to free speech is secondary. If individuals think the company overreacted, it's a free market and they are free to take their activities elsewhere to avoid that product/service. It's a two-way street.
He's denying the validity of the hate-speech concept itself. It's a bogus argument designed to shut down criticism whenever it's inconvenient.
Like refusing to treat a homosexual with AIDS because you think it is God's wrath?
Then find another doctor. Do you really want him treated by someone who has that opinion anyway, even if he was forced to by law? I'm sure the patient would want to know this up front. Honesty is the best policy here.
"Irrational hatred" has become a "fair and honest view that others can't tolerate"
Often, these days, that is precisely the case.
Besides, he and his supporters appear to be the targets of political violence, not the prevalent perpetrators.
Teach users to block, and ban anyone who circumvents the block by means of alternate accounts or by proxy.
If I block FatassMcGee because he's a jerk. If he makes FatassMcGreg and continues, ban him. If he @mentions FatassMcGeeFan and tells him to bother me, ban them both. If he publishes a hit piece on me, ban anyone who jumps on the harassment bandwagon.
That's all Twitter has to do.
Ah, let's see what I can get on the other side.
"Refuse to bake a cake" means "run an Internet harassment campaign".
"Law and order" always means imposed order, never law.
"Locker room talk" means "confession of sexual assault".
"Freedom of religion" means many things, including "being an asshole to people who are different" and "spend money on Christian things".
If I cared, I could add more, but this should be good for a start.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The government has an interest in how, in general, business is conducted. You have no duty to bake a cake for a party following a same-sex wedding. If you are in the business of baking wedding cakes, however, you are subject to rules on how to run a business, and that includes not discriminating against same-sex weddings (at least in some states).
The compelling state interest is that people should be able to do business as long as they behave.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I don't like Trump, but assuming you're referring to his Access Hollywood comments, what he said is not a confession of sexual assault. It's a statement that, IF carried out against a specific person, MAY constitute sexual assault. But he never said "I grabbed X by the pussy against her will," or "I raped this bitch," or anything like that. There was no specific admission of any activity in what he said.
I, for instance, have "grabbed" my girlfriend "by the pussy" a few times. And every time, it was consensual, and judging from the orgasms she had, perfectly welcome and enjoyable for her. If you've never touched your girl's pussy (assuming you have a girl), you might want to try it. It can be quite an enjoyable departure from fucking through a small hole cut in a sheet, you prude.
No, White supremacist does not now mean "White male with traditional values". It continues to mean persons promoting white supremacy, which is a yuuuuge difference.
Telling someone "no, i will not perform a service for you" is the real issue in this regard. Where does it end. Would I be fined and or compelled to mow the lawn of black people, homosexuals, transgendered by force of law if I tell them no? I haven't misbehaved. I've simply said no to them and that is now a punishable offense. it was one thing to discriminate based on skin color because that was a matter of real differentiation in terms of behavior towards another human being along racial lines, but to extend that same gratuity along gender fluidity? It's nonsense.
The more we hear Twitter trying to purge its platform of anything not leftist enough, all that you have left is the Party line.
If it wasn't evident by Leslie Jones's bigotry towards Milo Yiannopolous, it should be clear by now.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Make a point to engage the media in places they cannot control and call out Twitter to as an enabler of racists - of the leftist type.
Stop only when they've:
* Purged every narrative control feature since blocking & muting
* Enabled conservatives to rejoin the conversation.
* Apologized for their actions.
* Run out of leftists to fund them.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
So that means it's OK for them to support bigotry committed towards whites? That is, Twitter itself is a supporter of racism & bigotry, and should be listed as such by an equally bigoted SPLC. It doesn't magically become not-hate if done by a leftist in an approved manner.
Perhaps you should reconsider your use of a fallacious handwave. Your statement boils down to arguments only being able to be supported by removing all criticism.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Will Twitter get this right or will they fuck it up?
Since they've already used it as intended, which was to silence the right but not the left, Twitter done goofed.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Depends. Are you running a business providing that service? I used to run (not actually successfully) a consulting service. If I'd refused a customer for being Christian, say, that would have been illegal. I don't run that any more, so if someone asks me to do something for them, I can refuse for any reason, including the requester being Christian. If you run a lawn mower business and you won't take black customers,, you're violating the law. If you aren't, you can mow lawns as you please (if the owners approve of it, anyway).
I'm not sure about your final sentence. Are you saying that it's more reasonable to discriminate on the basis of skin color rather than sexual orientation? That I (if I ran a business) should be enjoined against discriminating against people because of race or sex, but not religion or sexual orientation?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Isn't that what the little flag is for? ---->
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?