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.

23 of 427 comments (clear)

  1. Dun dun dun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Dun dun dun by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    2. Re:Dun dun dun by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't have a right to not be offended, but Twitter has a right to try and maximize their profits. If people are being driven away from their product because of what they perceive to be offensive behavior, Twitter owes it shareholders to try and combat offensive behavior.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Dun dun dun by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Let me ask you. Who is a greater threat? A mob of spoiled brat, dragging people out of cars, ganging up on little girls, bashing pregnant women's car windows in ....

      Or a someone chanting "Build a wall" ?

      I am not denying there are people that "hate" out there, and bigots and such, but they are pretty much feckless cowards mostly hiding behind anonymity. On the other hand, there seems to be hundreds of thousands of people willing to cause mayhem protesting our democratic republic after an election, where people actually get to register their voice, and what is supposed to be a "peaceful" transition of power. Or that is what Hillary and the Left were claiming just 4 months ago.

      Sorry, the REAL danger are the precious snowflakes throwing temper tantrums like spoiled three year olds who don't get the toy they wanted, who are literally kicking and screaming because someone (over half of Americans who voted) said "no".

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Dun dun dun by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can keep banging that drum if you like but it gets no less silly.

      While people have no right to not be offended, you also don't have a right to offend people: you cannot force them to listen to you and if they leave then there is nothing you can do about it, legally. Whine all you like but if people leave Twitter because they don't want to listen to blatontly bigoted shit all day, that's their perogative. Twitter has decided it would rather keep those people around.

      So tough luck buttercup.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Dun dun dun by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem isn't the stance of "build a wall" to prevent illegal immigration. It is the idea to build a wall because they want to keep out groups of people, because they are not the same as they are.

      With those stories of mob violence. There are also stories about minorities being threatened, bullied and abused. Because the Hate speech now got authority behind it, allowing people with the hidden feeling that they are emboldened to act on them.

      Now during this election season there was talk about "Second Amendment supporters" preventing a Clinton agenda. And if Trump lost he will rally against a Rigged election. Now if a few votes had changed to the other side... And the other people were causing the problems...

      Both sides are in the wrong here. Twitter cannot stop people doing physical harm, but they can stop hate groups from inciting it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Dun dun dun by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is the idea to build a wall because they want to keep out groups of people, because they are not the same as they are.

      Isn't that kind of the point of walls? I mean, I have walls in my house to keep out hobos, who are not the same as my family. Does your home have walls, or door locks? Why?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:Dun dun dun by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And we are saying that maybe its time we revisit that stance and start applying common carrier rules to these services once they reach a certain threshold of users. AT&T was once a 'private' entity too, but We The People determined that their service was so necessary that common ground rules had to be put in place for the good of all.

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re:Dun dun dun by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >>To some people, mass murder is a political view.

      And to some people, cannibalism is a diet choice. What's your point?

    9. Re:Dun dun dun by penandpaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does that mean a baker should not forced to bake a cake for a gay couple? I am confused, both are private services offered yet one cannot decide on their policy for the use of their service.

    10. Re:Dun dun dun by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, I do.

      Actually you don't.

      the "First Amendment".

      That gives you the right to try. Not the right to succeed. If someone refuses to listen to you you do not have the right to go and offend them because the first amendment gives you no right to force your speech on someone who doesn't want to listen to you.

      Which is kind of the whole point of these articles. Twitter is giving people the right to not listen. Fools who don't understand the first amendment whine horribly.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  2. So cracking down on freedom of speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. The new era of censorship by sinij · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Doubling down by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Cool! by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Cool! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, no, you don't understand. That's not hate speech because BLM activists support the same political agenda as Twitter. Hate speech is opposing their agenda.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Cool! by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trump said "Stop it" to a few of his people that were acting badly. Where's Obama and Hillary saying "Stop it" to BLM and to the Portland rioters?

  6. Re:I am not ashamed of being white. by sinij · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am.

    Feel-free to hate yourself, but at least do it for the right reasons - because you are an idiot. You have no control over your race, and your race on the whole, despite what SJWs will get you to believe, isn't any more racists than Hispanic, Asian, Black, or Arab.

  7. Good by DogDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:Twitter's format is a big part of the problem by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While the 140 character limit certainly does hinder nuance and full expression, the coarsening of civil discourse in open space is much more far reaching than that. Look at just about any unmoderated comments section on the web for a prime example. I'd bring up Penny Arcade's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, but anonymity seems to be only part of the equation. I would argue rather that it is the increased degree of removal from immediate social consequence that enables and encourages people to be flaming shitbags to each other on the internet.

    We have certain expectations of polite behavior in person, and someone who violates those norms gets punished by the way everyone around reacts to them. This doesn't carry over to the internet though - worse, you can probably find people who will support you in your asshole-ish behavior.

  9. Re:"Why isn't anyone using us"? by sinij · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As usual, reading comprehension is entirely abandoned in favor of partisan hackery. Twitter was caught red-handed applying filters to people they ideologically disagree with while leaving blatant abuse from ideologically like-minded individuals unaddressed. This isn't about individuals deciding they want to create filters that apply to their own feed, it is about Twitter deciding to apply filters to specific individuals and forcing this filter on everyone else.

  10. Re:Twitter is a for-profit company, not a megaphon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:"Why isn't anyone using us"? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There are tons of people sreaming about that on twitter who have not been banned.

    Have any been banned for insulting white people? There's tons of celebrities shitting all over white people on twitter right now. Think any of them will get banned? Doubt it.

    Just face facts. You're a biased fuckwit who unironically thinks reality has a liberal bias.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.