Slashdot Mirror
Twitters Says It Will Ban Trump If He Breaks Hate-Speech Rules (qz.com)
Twitter has made a serious effort as of late to limit hate speech on its social media site, especially after Election Day where "biased graffiti, assaults and other incidents have been reported in the news." The company now faces President-elect Donald Trump, who has used Twitter for the past 18 months as a megaphone for his views and rants, which many would consider as "hate speech." According to the American Bar Association, hate speech is "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits." Quartz reports: While Trump's deceptive tweets may not violate Twitter's rules against harassment, threats and "hateful conduct," Twitter is still keeping an eye on his account for more egregious offenses. This week, the company told Slate it would consider banning key government officials, even the president, if its rules against hate speech or other language were violated. "The Twitter Rules prohibit violent threats, harassment, hateful conduct, and multiple account abuse, and we will take action on accounts violating those policies," a spokesperson wrote. Twitter confirmed with Quartz that everyone, including government officials, were subject to the policy: "The Twitter Rules apply to all accounts," a spokesman wrote. Trump may not have crossed that line yet, but he hasn't exactly refrained from making incendiary claims. Most recently, he claimed that Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who allegedly carried out an attack injuring 11 students at Ohio State University, "should not have been in our country." Artan was a legal permanent U.S. resident, whose family had fled Somalia for Pakistan in 2007. He arrived in the States in 2014.
Actually I agree with Trump with this one. This guy should not be in our country. He obviously hated it. So he should go live in a Muslim country, like Somalia or Pakistan. Love it or leave it. And stand the fuck up for the anthem too, you aren't being oppressed.
if it's hate speech that @jack agrees with. @jack is a hypocritical asshole and everyone knows it.
Seriously does no one see the slippery slope here ? We're talking about banning speech based on someone taking offense ?
If you don't agree you can go fuck yourself you stupid cunt.
Bans solves everything!
And they wonder why Trump won?
Nobody is talking about banning speech. Twitter is talking about banning users who violate their rules. That's it.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Being welcomed to a country you are not citizen of is not a human right. We can consider pros and cons to ourselves vs humanitarian benefits of admitting a particular immigrant of from a particular country where terrorism and other crime is more common than in US.
Refusing to have a rational discussion on this subject without accusations of hate and racism is how we got Trump.
There's no such thing as hate speech if you have free speech. STFU and do something useful.
He's already broken hate speech rules repeatedly for basically his entire campaign. What alternate world are we living in here, where we're now pretending he did otherwise?
Awwww, didums poor widdle "progressive" crybullies get offended by a policy disagreement?!?!
Ah, yes. Let's ban, ban, ban on our way to obscurity.
The next thing to remember is to put next things next.
And their rules are simple: "No speech that we dislike."
If you expand "hate speech" to include "speech that offends groups" then so did EVERY OTHER politician (and most of their supporters).
In fact, doesn't Hillary calling Trump supporters "deplorables" fit this definition almost perfectly? I'm pretty sure Trump supporters are a group who were pretty fucking offended by that statement.
But something tells me only the right-wing politicians and supporters will get banned. Call it a crazy intuition.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
He's already broken hate speech rules repeatedly for basically his entire campaign. What alternate world are we living in here, where we're now pretending he did otherwise?
I'm anxious to hear the left's comprehensive rules that identify hate speech in a non-partisan way. Rules that clearly delineate unbridled hatred (to be banned) from opposing political views (to be discussed).
You guys keep pounding on how every slight and subtle thing Trump does is wrong, how about showing us your vision of how things should be?
Note that illegal speech has a fairly clear and specific definition, along with examples, and has been vetted through the court system. Saying "all abortionists should be killed" is not illegal, but saying "abortionist John Doe should be killed on Tuesday outside his house in Durham" constitutes a threat.
Go ahead, shoot holes in the first amendment and get the big companies to enforce your safe spaces. Your ends always justify your means.
All you leftists have is anger and hate.
Use it to take out the first amendment.
hate speech is "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits.
Everything is hate speech? Awesome.
It occurs to me that, while a company shouldn't necessarily advocate for open harassment of its users, it needs to apply the policy equally if it is to be taken seriously.
Take, for example, the radical feminist Clementine Ford. She has repeatedly engaged in blatant anti-male harassment and is known to then cry wolf when a man responds with anti-female harassment and had a man fired from his job for his comment. Yet, for some reason, Clementine Ford's account is still miraculously active. No matter what Trump said he did or didn't grab, this woman should be off Twitter permanently by that same policy.
This is a pattern that repeats over and over. As it is obvious that Twitter is engaging in selective enforcement, they are not only slowly alienating a substantial portion of their user base for the minority of vocal SJWs, they are threatening their own safe harbor provisions for anything else that goes on Twitter such as terrorist communication or other criminal activity. That translates to fewer users and significant financial risk for operating as they currently do.
The real question is: why are the shareholders not demanding Dorsey's resignation for these policies? Mentioning Trump is a complete non-sequitur and clickbait for Salon's liberal slant. More importantly, it indicates that they are defocused from the real goal of shareholder returns and preserving shareholder value. The tail can't wag the dog any more, and it has to belong to the same animal in any case. Either Twitter curates content consistently or they get out of that business and respond only to complaints of criminal and terrorist activity; otherwise, this half-way house will fall on itself.
SJWs versus the US government. I wonder who will win?
I hope the 1st Amendment wins. Donald has said plenty of things that are offensive and politically incorrect. But ridicule is not "hate".
Yeah, I'm pretty sure SJW's will still be free to call every Trump support a racist, sexist, homphobe. And Black Lives Matter supporters will still be able to post whatever vile shit they please about those evil white people. But the second someone dares post "#alllivesmatter" or uses the term "illegal immigrants" it's HATE SPEECH!!!!!!!!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If you believe Donald Trump is racist, sexist, and bigoted, it's likely that nearly everything he says will appear hateful to you.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Yep, just like a private bakery is free to establish a policy of only baking cakes for weddings between a man and woman, right?
I mean, a private company doesn't have to respect anyone's civil rights, amiright?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Please be aware the following groups are exempt from this:
* Men
* Straight People
* White people
* Conservatives
I hope the 1st Amendment wins.
The 1st Amendment will win. No matter whether Twitter shuts down his account or not, Donald Trump will still be free to say whatever he wants.
He doesn't have the right to come over to my place and paint it in yard-high letters on my garage door, though.
Breakfast served all day!
by encouraging them to patrol their neighborhoods looking for Muslims _is_. Trump did that, among other things, during the campaign.
And there was a rational discussion. Several folks (notably Jon Oliver) pointed out very rationally that immigrants from terrorists nations are incredibly well vetted. You'd be more likely to see Dutch terrorists sneaking in with wooden shoe bombs than an actual terrorists sneaking through. But all that was lost on the Fox news crowd.
And we got Trump because the Blacks and Latinos couldn't be assed to come out and vote for Hilary. Trump got the 60 million Romney voters from 2012. 5 million of the 65 that showed up for Obama stayed home. For fucks sake people, you don't have to like it but when the consequences are that obvious get the hell out and _vote_. You've got 2 years. Assuming Trump's justice department hasn't locked you all up to fill their private prisons then don't screw it up again.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
A corporation banning me for saying hateful things is exactly the same as a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a couple because they're gay!
And there were many (*many*) people this election cycle who disparagingly attacked Trump supporters as "white male heterosexual virgins", which is offending all kinds of protected classes, none of whom (or very few of whom) were kicked off twitter. If someone on the other side of the spectrum had gone on about "black trans lesbian sluts", they'd have gotten banned by Twitter more or less instantly.
Nota bene: I'm not a Trump supporter, just really sick of the racist assholes on both sides of the political spectrum, and even more disgusted at the power-hungry self-righteous hypocrites on the left who seek to control other peoples speech by trying to re-define words to make their opponents look bad (like, for instance, claiming you simply can't *be* racist against white people).
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
And for those of you who guess it, isn't it funny that you're able to predict this outcome?
Does that feel right to you? Do you think that decent people ever feel good about seeing someone pre-judged based on the color of their skin?
Twitter is banning people who break their rules of *speech* on their forum. That's why they are, in essence, banning speech. Admit it already!
Does a bakery, as a private company, have the right to say "No cakes that we don't like"?
Does a family-owned store, as a privately held corporation, have the right to say "We won't pay for medical services that we believe are morally equivalent to murder"?
Many Americans think the answer to those should be "yes" -- and if you say no to this, but yes to Twitter, then you should think very carefully about how much sense it makes to draw the line where you draw it.
Depending on New York State law, with which I'm not familiar, Donald Trump's restaurants may have the same requirement.
Nonsense. Restaurants provide general service. If they refused to host a special occasion or make some off-menu item, then it would be a fair comparison. But the bakery in the Oregon case did not refuse to sell any items for a gay wedding. They refused to sell custom-made items. It makes all the difference when discussing whether this was a religious coercion or not.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Nice strawman: Nobody ever claimed #alllivesmatter or "illegal immigrants" was hate speech. The hate speech was in claiming people to be inferior and not entitled to the same rights as the rest of us because of their skin color or gender.
Yeah, this asshole should have left instead, but to consider that basis for that asinine "love it or leave it" line is just so wrong. You're using those lost lives for your own pathetic agenda.
That is vague by design. More accurately they do not tolerate anything that risks advertising revenue.
If you were a famous person tweeting it and that annoyed enough people and they did not feel so good about using Twitter, then yes Twitter would consider that statement hateful. Twitter want their users to "enjoy the experience" so something that bursts a comfortable bubble could make the users spend less time with Twitter's application looking at their advertisements.
Framing it as a free speech issue as the summary suggests is more than just a little naive, so while your examples are very good in another context they are just not relevant. You are free to say things without getting locked up but Twitter will pick and choose what they block.
Not hate
Twitter should go ahead and do it. Trump can then open an account on gab, and him publicizing it will draw his crowds there. Or better still, his company could open an online Twitter competitor. Whatever he does, anything he publicizes will attract the crowds away from Twitter
Honestly, how stupid is Twitter's management? Here is one person who has helped Twitter actually eclipse the MSM, despite the fact that nobody want to buy them, and this is how they wanna treat him? Go right ahead, and he can dry up the Twitter swamp.
On another note, come Jan 20, Trump will own both @RealDonaldTrump as well as @POTUS. Now, they may ban the former, but will they ban the latter as well?
The GOP wants bakeries to be able to reject potential customers based on their religious beliefs, yet they want twitter to be forced to broadcast the angry ramblings of Trump just because he's Trump? The double standard is staggering. I haven't seen anyone preventing Trump from hiring someone two come up with their own site similar to Twitter; if he's as wealthy as he wants everyone to believe he should have no difficulty hiring brilliant programmers to write something that people would want to use even more than Twitter.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
You can support absurd levels of P.C. standards if you like, that just makes you a psychological marshmallow
No, it is not the same. Not even close.
Being gay is a physical condition.
Bullshit. It's a personal choice. People claim that it's a physical condition just to stop other people from blaming them for that personal choice.
Are you straight? (I'm guessing yes.) Do you remember choosing to be straight?
I'm straight, and I don't remember choosing. I just am.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Ok...
Dude, you are confused. It is neither Trump nor "trumpers", who threaten your right to freely show disrespect. It is Twitter!
It is Twitter, who'll shut you up, should you, in their opinion, engage in "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits."
Unless, of course, the "race" is White, "religion" — Christianity (or, better yet, Scientology), and "sexual orientation" — "straight male"...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"We don't serve your kind here" is not something to cheer for.
Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding is not the same thing as refusing service at a restaurant.
1) The bakery owners weren't refusing all service to gay couples. They didn't say, "I won't serve you as a customer because you're gay." or "I won't sell you this donut because you're gay." They were refusing to support gay marriage. The bakery owners were rejecting gay marriage, not gay customers.
2) Suppose a gay couple was offended by the refusal to bake a cake, and they wanted to force the bakery owner to voice support for them. So they sue the bakery owner, and say they'll only be satisfied when the owner stands in front of a TV news camera, holds a sign that says, "I support gay marriage", and says into the mike and camera that he/she supports gay marriage. That demand would be going too far, right? You and I disagree with the bakery owners, but we have no right to force them to state that they support gay marriage. I think the bakery owners see the wedding cakes this way. I think they see making the cakes as a symbol or statement that they support gay marriage.
In case you're wondering, I have nothing against gay/lesbian weddings. (In fact I'm all for them, because I think overpopulation is one of mankind's biggest problems, and gay/lesbian couples tend to produce fewer children than straight couples.) I just hate to see the bakery owners be pressured to bake a cake, which symbolizes that they agree with gay marriage, when they don't agree with it.
"1 retailers have the right to refuse service for any reason (and even lie about what the reason is)"
Please see: Civil Rights Act of 1964
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
If it's absurd levels of PC standards that denounces Trump for implying that a female news reporter, a significant one from a major news outlet, was only questioning him because she was on her period then I don't know what sexism is. To imply that a female professional at the top of her game couldn't aggressively question him because she was some how out of her wits because of a natural bodily function she's been dealing with since she was 13 is absolutely sexist.
A clearly not sexist approach he could have taken: actually address what she is saying.
And that's just the easiest one to illustrate off the top of my head.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you can't see that Twitter is not banning white male Republicans
Sure sounds like they're about to start. I don't really see much functional difference between "I'm not going to ban you because you're Muslim. But if you espouse any Muslim ideas openly, I'll ban you for that." So you can't pretend that "I'm not banning you for *being* Republican. But I'm labeling all Republican positions as racist, sexist, and homophobic and anyone who espouses them will be banned for *that*." is anything more than a verbal sleight-of-hand.
It actually reminds me of the silliness of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy towards gays. Yeah, we * absolutely welcome* all you gays, just as long as you stay good and quiet and don't let anyone know you're gay. It was the kind of typical symbolic bullshit that was so symptomatic of the Clinton administration--trying to pretend to be liberal while stabbing liberals in the back at every turn.
How about we just let everyone speak and people can decide for themselves what to believe?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
A biological basis is irrelevant. Race is used as a way to group people. Humans love putting things in categories, and other humans are no exception. You can get over your whole "there's no such thing as race" crap, because it's totally irrelevant to the way the term is used.
No, that's not how "real" people talk. The reporter in question was a national grade reporter. To suggest she couldn't handle basic female issues she's dealt with since she was a child while interviewing some one is the very definition of sexism.
Believe it or not, women arent just masses or hormones, They actually have brains on their own.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Because like brexit, if you support Trump, you are automatically a racist, bigot, sexist etc. No matter what actual real reasoning used to support Trump. People don't want it attached to their identity due to the harassment, shouting down and inaccurate name calling of supporters recieved instead of having a conversation lead to many people not discussing it and just voting in the booths, the use of anonymous posting is another.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
The hate speech was in claiming people to be inferior ...
What does that have to do with hate? Most people don't hate their inferiors.
not entitled to the same rights as the rest of us because of their skin color or gender.
Whats the point of having the right to have babies if you don't have a womb?
Love it or leave it. And stand the fuck up for the anthem too, you aren't being oppressed.
"Love it or leave it" is what privileged fools say when they are actively sticking their fingers in their ears so they don't have to hear the truth from people who are being abused by our government. There are plenty of people who genuinely ARE being oppressed in this country. Sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes in very blatant ones. Ask any black person if they feel oppressed by the police. Ask a person with brown skin how easy it is to get a bank loan. Compare the number of unarmed minorities who get shot by police to the number of white people. Ask women how things are going with that equal pay for equal work.
I am a US Citizen because I was born here. I didn't ask to be born nor did I ask to be a citizen. Love isn't unconditional. The notion that I should automatically love the country if it is doing things to actively harm me or things I care about is just nonsense. There are lots of people who are oppressed. Just because YOU aren't being oppressed doesn't mean shit to someone who is. If they want to sit down to make a statement during the playing of the national anthem then they are doing EXACTLY what the first amendment is for. So is burning a flag. Free speech isn't about what is comfortable for you to hear. It is making a statement that tells what they think without harming anyone.
There is no biological basis for race. If you believe that there is, you are a racist.
So, all the SJWs are racists. Not that it should come as any surprise...
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Thus, in our time, being a heterosexual and masculine male is now considered to be a deviant social choice.
That's just utter rot. The thing that's being stimatized is acting like a dickhead.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure SJW's will still be free to call every Trump support a racist, sexist, homphobe
SJW? You say it as if it is an insult; I think having the courage and decency to stand up for what you know is right, being willing to put yourself on the line to speak out for the weakest and working towards a fairer and better society, are things to be proud of.
It would be easy for me to just go "Well, if you don't want to be called racist, don't be one"; but if you feel that your views are always being rejected, despite being well thought out, perhaps it is something in the way you present them? Fire and brimstone doesn't persuade - it just alienates. That is why I try to stick to measured arguments and facts; not that I always succeed, but when I do, people quite often listen and sometimes even agree. And sometimes I have to change my mind too, if I realise that my views are wrong.
I could maybe accept that argument if Trump were saying things that were truly racist, sexist, etc. If he were tweeting things like "I wish black people would go back to Africa" or "Man, I hate women" or "I think Asians are inferior to white people" then yeah, I could see your point. But when the SJW left has so expanded the definitions of "racism," "sexism" to include saying things like "I think we should deport illegal aliens" or "I think we should build a wall on our border" or "I love fucking supermodels" then the terms have lost all meaning. Calling someone a racist/sexist/blah/blah just because they disagree with a radical social agenda that's completely out-of-line with mainstream America is part of what got Trump elected (and what's probably going to help get him reelected in 2020).
And just remember that the same vile paintbrush can be used by the other side too. I'm pretty sure you don't appreciate people on the right labeling all Clinton supporters as "baby murderers" because Hillary Clinton said she supports abortion, do you? Well, it cuts both ways. The lower you sink, the lower your opponents will sink too.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.