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!
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.
How refreshing!
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Ah, yes. Let's ban, ban, ban on our way to obscurity.
The next thing to remember is to put next things next.
On the one hand, hate speech, censorship, and the limits of Presidential power are all very serious topics.
On the other hand, President Trump getting banned from Twitter and watching the resulting tantrum would be beyond hilarious.
I stole this Sig
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.
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.
Actually no, they're not that simple. You can read them here.
I reaffirm: nobody is banning speech. Twitter is banning people who break their rules of conduct on their forum.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
As is their right as a private corporation.
Petition Trump to setup tweet.gov. The "1st Amendment Platform for the US Government".
Look I get you kids like Twitter and Facebook but STOP USING THEM if you don't like them. Jesus. I wouldn't think twice about dropping a BBS account or IRC pseudonym. If you really want to spew what ever comes to your head you can use hashtags and join a #TrumpForLife IRC channel and mash the keyboard.
Twitter's now a platform for middle aged women to tweet The View and feel like someone is listening to their opinion. Hence all the Tide, Sharpie, et al accounts. Anything that doesn't fit that isn't profitable.
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.
Please be aware the following groups are exempt from this:
* Men
* Straight People
* White people
* Conservatives
Their rules are one thing. How evenly they apply them is another.
There are people who have done a lot of experiments in the form of posting some variation on "I hate black people for voting for Hillary" and "I hate white people for voting for Trump" then reporting both accounts to Twitter.
Guess which kind of hatred they refused to ban?
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?
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.
The definition is very simple, even if you want to be obtuse and pretend you don't know: Saying someone is somehow inferior because of their skin color, gender or sexual orientation is hate speech. And Trump has crossed that line many, many, MANY times and continues to do so even now.
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.
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?
No, Trump's followers (and a lot of others) complain that Twitter isn't honest about the rules they use. Also that a lot of Twitter's supporters are inconsistent in applying the values they claim to hold or as dishonest as Twitter.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
"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.
This is not about citizenship. Yes, Twitter can take away your speech on Twitter. Maybe, it is not a big deal — if Twitter bans you, but Reddit still remains a free speech zone.
But people tend to dislike being told, where they can not protest, so I pointed it out to the OP, that he is barking up the wrong tree, as it were. However offensive he is, Trump is not going to come after him — not until he knives a bunch of people or some such.
On contrast, Twitter will shut him up — if he offends a religion more equal than other religions, or an ethnic group more equal than other ethnic groups, and so on — and will not even explain, why exactly.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Some people aren't even that subtle. For example, take Manveer Heir the openly racist developer at Bioware who makes no secret how much he hates all white people by broadcasting it all over Twitter. This is really the problem, they only consider it racism if it's hate speech directed at certain select groups.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
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.
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.
Yes. I make the choice every time I choose who to have sex with.
If you want to screw guys and choose not to, you're closeted. You choose who you have sex with, you can't choose who you *want* to any more than the "pray away the gay" crowd can choose to not have those thoughts.
Why would you think it isn't a choice?
Because many people have tried and failed.
What sort of evidence do you have that this one behavior is not a choice as opposed to every other behavior being a choice?
Who says everything else is a choice?
Do you think people don't have free will?
Define "free will".
Do you think that people are so compelled to some actions that they cannot help themselves?
Try holding your breath for 4 minutes. It won't cause you any harm.It's just a choice to breathe.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
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.
This is tricky bit when you stop using "freedom" as a glittering generality and start tying to live it as a practicality: freedoms impinge on each other. Your freedom to say whatever the hell you want impinges on Twitter's freedom to set whatever ground rules it wants for its privately funded and hosted service. And vice versa.
Which means nobody gets unlimited freedom; or at least most people can't have it; if one person has unlimited freedom than everyone else has no actual rights -- we call that a dictatorship. Or a small group can have almost unlimited freedom, but everyone else has limited rights -- an oligarchy.
To maximize freedom for most people you need rules which adjudicate conflicting freedoms. One such principle is that we can't, as a society, punish things which we are allowed as individuals to punish. The KKK is perfectly legal, but you don't have to let them use your premises or services as a platform.
And it means drawing lines, and whenever you do that you end up with similar looking cases on either side of the line. You can't (in most states) deny gays or blacks housing or other essential services. But you can deny Klansmen housing, if you have the courage to do so. You can redraw the lines elsewhere, but no matter where you choose to draw the line there'll be similar looking cases on either side.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.