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."
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. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.â
and
"Political Correctness is fascism pretending to be manners"
- George Carlin
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.
To put it more technically, Twitter's problem is that, as a social network, it reflects a connected graph of hundreds of millions of people. A lot of those people aren't going to like each other very much. Now they're making themselves responsible for the safety of their users, and that does two really bad things:
1) It announces that Twitter is presently an unsafe platform, and
2) It puts them in the middle of whatever fight any two people might have, equipped with no tools to resolve the underlying conflicts that drive those fights, and only their own subjective morals (with all the attendant biases those bring) to resolve them.
Twitter is at war with itself here.
Blasphemy reporting about a faith or cults reaction to cartoons? No cartoons posted, links to cartoons? SJW approved news sites about cartoons that might show cartoons then also get banned?
Communist party officials don't like been reminded of any terms surrounding Tiananmen Square and the use of numbers like 1989?
Whats left on the site that teams of SJW approve of?
Celebrities posting about events or their new projects? Only happy movie reviews are allowed by teams of SJW?
Governments posting "fictional" accounts of tourism in their repressive nations?
No mention of human rights issues or import/export deals to support wars?
SJW approved officials promoting their city or town projects can be helped to trend?
People posting real news or comments about such policies are removed and reported to their own governments?
Everyone fun or interesting expecting freedom of speech and freedom after speech will just follow the fun people to real US sites offering real freedoms.
Been banned and reported on by gov workers from other nations, by SJW and other groups does not make interesting people want to stay with any brand offering social media.
Censorship by a SJW in the name of a faith, gov, political party is not a selling point that attracts users.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Right means conservative. Left means liberal. Conservative means "let's do the things we have always done." Liberal means "let's change how we do everything"
That has never really been true, and it certainly isn't true today, when many liberals want go back to the social policies of the 1960s and the economic policies of the 1950s.
I think the main difference between right and left is not the policies, but the justification for the policies. The right justifies their policies by saying they are good for the country, while the left says their policies are good for the citizens. The actual policies are not that different. Donald and Bernie have much more in common with each other than either has with moderates.
False. American conservatism is small, limited government. American liberalism is "Government is God and can solve all of humanity's problems if we just have more of it". Most of American Conservatives dislike both Democrats and Republicans because they are both for Big Government. What you describe are traditionalists. Our Founding Fathers were conservatives. Comparing them to people who say "Let's do the things we have always done" is beyond ridiculous.
Arbitrary? Really?
You either have XX or XY chromosomes in every cell of your body if you are a normal human. Even if you go through hormone therapy and sexual re-assignment surgery your cells contain the same chromosomes.
Everything else is a birth defect and considered a syndrome. (Turner's syndrome, Klinefelter's syndrome, etc..)
Like you are doing, that group you mentioned in the 1930s didn't like science much either when it hurt their ideology. Your pathetic appeal to emotion does not counter facts.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.