Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Announces (More) Hate-Speech Fighting Tools (Again) (cnn.com)
Building on anti-harassment tools announced in November, Twitter is now "trying to shake its reputation as a haven for online harassment" with still more new internal algorithms and features, reports CNN. An anonymous reader quotes their report:
The changes include preventing serial abusers from creating new accounts, a new "safe search" function and blocking potentially abusive and "low-quality" tweets from appearing in conversations, Twitter's engineering chief Ed Ho said in a blog post. Twitter is working on identifying users that have been permanently suspended and prevent them from creating new accounts, Ho said. This new measure specifically targets "accounts that are created only to abuse and harass others," he said, a problem that has long plagued the platform.
The new safe search function prevents tweets that are abusive, or from blocked and muted accounts, from appearing in users' search results. Those tweets can still be found if people want to see them, but they "won't clutter search results any longer," Ho said. And Twitter will now collapse tweet replies that are potentially abusive or low quality -- like duplicate tweets or content that appears to be automated. But those tweets "will still be accessible to those who seek them out," Ho said.
The blog post announces Twitter's ultimate goal is "a significant impact that people can feel," arguing that freedom of speech for all viewpoints is "put in jeopardy when abuse and harassment stifle and silence those voices."
The new safe search function prevents tweets that are abusive, or from blocked and muted accounts, from appearing in users' search results. Those tweets can still be found if people want to see them, but they "won't clutter search results any longer," Ho said. And Twitter will now collapse tweet replies that are potentially abusive or low quality -- like duplicate tweets or content that appears to be automated. But those tweets "will still be accessible to those who seek them out," Ho said.
The blog post announces Twitter's ultimate goal is "a significant impact that people can feel," arguing that freedom of speech for all viewpoints is "put in jeopardy when abuse and harassment stifle and silence those voices."
Let me give you an example of "Hate Speech" that I have been harassed and attacked over saying, including on this very website.
"There are only two genders. Male and Female."
Which pretty much sums up the problem with fighting "hate speech." The regressive left has co-opted and twisted the meaning of the already meaningless term "hate speech" -- along with other terms like "racism" or "nazi" -- to the point that they've lost all semblance of meaning.
But "Twitter announces more [UnAmerican Political Censorship] tools (Again.)" doesn't have the same kick to it, I guess.
After banning (and shadowbanning) quite a lot of Trump supporters, it seems like the Brownshirt alliance of Anti-Trump fascists is now only allowed to persist, but to prosper.
Ask the people in Berkely who just wanted to hear Milo Yannopolis speak but were assaulted with flagpoles instead just who are the violent brownshirts of today...
But I guess you consider it OK to beat women with flagpoles because they are just Trump supporters, right?
Watch that video, I dare you to come back and say that Trump supporters are the brownshirts.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I recently came to learn what Left and Right used to mean, and when that definition is applied, the main difference between what the so-called left and right is what they want the government to tell the people they have to do. Right apparently used to mean that a person didn't want the government telling people what to do.
"Political Correctness" is believing "Coloured People" is racist, but "People of Colour" is respectful.
Twitter wants to have it both ways: it wants to have a big room where they can put in all the liberals and conservatives, all the Islamists and Zionists, and have them talk about whatever is happening in their world... and then it wants them all to get along. It doesn't work that way.
If Twitter's actions of late are any indication, it would be more accurate to say that it wants to put everyone in a big room where only the SJW/liberal voices are allowed to talk and everyone else sits quietly out of fear of being banned like Milo.
There is no such thing as one-way freedom of speech. If you're telling someone else that their speech is hate speech and therefore not allowed, you're ultimately hurting your own freedom just as much as theirs. As Robespierre could warn you, the rules and laws you make to oppress others today will be turned against you tomorrow.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Which group is asking for 'safe spaces'. Which group is trying to silence the other? If you think it is what you call 'conservatives' you are willfully blind or have not been paying attention for the past year or deliberately trying to be a fool.
You assume I do not want to debate you. On the contrary. I just use your own words against you. You can not pick a stance that is logically defensible. I have a *large* library of so called liberal people saying things that bolster my conservative positions. Your positions are merely hallucinations of cognitive dissonance. You refuse to even consider that your own position causes the very issues you seek to fight.
"All Democrats are insane, but not one of them knows it; none but the Republicans and Mugwumps know it. All the Republicans are insane, but only the Democrats and Mugwumps can perceive it. The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane." - Mark Twain
I get the feeling he had little love for politics. But it isn't conservatives that decided to edit Huckleberry Finn.
I was writing a lengthy response that contained observations and conjectures about social media, when I hit upon one important factor. For some reason YouTube and Twitter seem to have sort of "media darlings", and that factor more than any other seems to indicate whether harassment happens.
This is the kind of freeze peach that alt-right snowflakes want to protect. Their right to tip the punch bowl, molest the family dog, and shit on the floor without being told that they're not welcome at the party any more until they know how to behave.
And when someone makes a social media platform that promises that it's OK to tip the punch bowl, molest the family dog, and shit on the floor (gab.ai), they say, "No, we want to be at the Twitter party, or nothing, because shitting on the floor isn't fun unless someone gets upset". This is why nobody gives a good goddamn about their complaints.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't really care for the content of that post to be protected, but I know that if I start drawing lines, it will only encourage people to draw lines that endanger speech that I think should be protected.
I think there is still an #assassinatetrump tag.
Thousands of such threats are posted all the time.
On the hand, Twitter has recently disabled the account of a cartoonist, with 1.3 million followers, because he offended a feminist.
Any kind of anti-white hate is fine. Okay for Muslims to post hateful tweets against Jews, or anybody else, but it is not okay to offend Muslims.
Oh, it's protected. It's just not protected in my fucking house. Or in Twitter's fucking house.
And the person posting that does not have a right to demand there are no consequences. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Disagreement is now harrassment.
Mockery is now hate speech.
Offense is now trauma.
Criticism is now abuse.
Compelling criticism is now violence.
Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll.
Anyone at random is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc if they say so.
The use of this alarmist (and usually, simply wrong) language is ubiquitous and deliberate. It's all a pretense to justify a disproportionate censorial "response," especially when they know no response is warranted at all. It's also a brazenly transparent tactic, especially since Twitter/Reddit/etc rarely seem to use it against users that properly align with their politics.
This video is an excellent illustration of how the media lies about "online abuse" (and how even the crumbs that are true are exaggerated for false impact):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
P.S. It's also entertaining as Hell cuz Milo's a riot.
Donald and Bernie have much more in common with each other than either has with moderates.
If you truly believe that, then you have your head up your ass.
âoePolitical correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination.
This isn't about restricting or controlling people's language or fighting discrimination, it's about stopping harassment.
Consider criminal law, assuming you don't care about safety or property or anything besides freedom, then what do you want for a set of laws?
The easy answer is anarchy, but that's wrong because under anarchy a strongman will come in and take your freedom. The laws that give you the most freedom are also going to protect your safety and property, because if others are free to threaten you then you don't have freedom.
The same applies to speech, giving people the freedom to harass gives them the power to silence.
I stole this Sig
I don't think that is correct. My feeling is that the alt-right is more like the cowardly bully looking behind themselves and blathing "Right, guys!?" in an attempt to cast their broken, intolerant, stark terror of change as a strength and mob approved, rather than the pathetic weakness and fear that it is.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
I call bullshit. Political correctness changes with time, what is politically correct today will be politically incorrect tomorrow. A mere century ago it was "The only good n!gger is a dead one" that was politically correct, today it is "kill whitey " that is considered PC. Both are equally as wrong and both ideologies of hate have somehow managed to manifest themselves into the two major American political parties, which is quite disturbing to say the least. With Twitter's new methods of censoring speech are they going to remove the actual hate speech, or speech that is deemed "hate" by popular opinion? If it is the latter then there is a good chance actual non-hateful speech is going to be censored with little if anything a user can do about it, after all "majority is always right" is the prevalent attitude in the world. Such actions are making racial tension even worse. Mark my words, as there is a God in heaven America will have to deal with a civil war, worse than the first civil war, by the end of the month if racial tensions increase at the rate they are going now.
A socialist defending property rights.. how interesting..
So while you're correct that twitter has the right to impose whatever restrictions on expression it likes, it does not mean what it's doing to online discourse isn't harmful. I'm sure you'd agree if they were banning people based on race or sex instead of expressing political opinions that clash with left wing doctrine... or perhaps you're one of those 'power+privilege' socialists who think bigotry is perfectly ok as long as it targets whites and males.