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.

Comments

Dun dun dun

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Dun dun dun

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Re:Dun dun dun

[Anonymous Coward]

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" ?

This is what is known as the False Dilemma.

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.

Except there you are denying them. Ok, ok, I'll qualify it, you're downplaying them. Here.

Elsewhere, you made a denial about the 1950s.

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.

And here was have Exaggeration.

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".

Yes, this is belittlement, and discrediting. After all, if you can portray them as unworthy, you can dismiss them. And hey, remember all the complaints about Agent provocateurs?

Bet you can't acknowledge that instigators may be operating under a False Flag.

Re:Dun dun dun

[spire3661]

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.

Re:Dun dun dun

[penandpaper]

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.

"Why isn't anyone using us"?

[0100010001010011]

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."

So cracking down on freedom of speech

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Who watches the watcher?

[slapout]

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?

The new era of censorship

[sinij]

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.

Doubling down

[s.petry]

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.

Cool!

[MikeRT]

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?

Re:Cool!

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Re:Cool!

[Oswald McWeany]

Actually, they've both asked people to make the transition as peaceful as possible and told the public to accept the results of the election.

Re:I am not ashamed of being white.

[sinij]

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.

Twitter's format is a big part of the problem

[RogueyWon]

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.

Re:Twitter's format is a big part of the problem

[Fire_Wraith]

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.

Good

[DogDude]

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.

Re:Just delete Trump's account

[meta-monkey]

So, not all Mexicans, then? Just some of the illegal Mexicans crossing the border? Which makes sense because 80% of central American women and girls are raped during their illegal border crossing. So, somebody's doing the raping. I'm so glad we elected Trump! Once he builds that border wall and we cut down on people crossing illegally, so many women and girls won't be raped! It's wonderful! Can you believe those despicable, evil people who voted for Hillary, the pro-rape candidate? Why do they love rape so much? Clearly that's the only reason they voted for her: to keep rape alive.