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.
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.
"There are only two genders. Male and Female."
Disproved by genetics. Your own science disagrees with you. You must be some kind of ignorant idiot. Go educate yourself.
Ignoring your textbook SJW stupidity... (Genetically XX and XY are the two genders. Everything else is a birth defect.)
See everyone? Point proven.
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"
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.
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.
Twitter allows you to follow and block people. That alone seems like "Free Speech" to me. I don't believe you gain much by 140 characters and links, and quite frankly never thought it would be as popular as it is. I thought it would be Nagios channels for everyone who needed it. That said, you don't have to read things you dislike and can sign up for things you like.
Twitter got into trouble by blocking Free Speech. Many people stopped using it or went on the offensive because of Twitter blocking people who Twitter's board and execs didn't like politically. People banned from Twitter were all of the same political view. Same crap as we see on campuses with claims of "violent speech" so that physically attacking people and damaging property are justified, "violent" and "hate" speech were used to justify banning people. Death threats, calls to violence, calls to riot, and personal attack abound targeting conservatives. Twitter laughs them off as "those people are just joking". They have continued to ratchet up the political blocking instead of looking at why their platform has turned to crap. Twitter is extremely averse to ban people who are abusive on the left.
Yeah yeah, Twitter is not the Government so they don't have to protect first amendment rights and all that. Food for thought: Remember when a teenager went to jail for saying on Facebook that he'd like to shoot President Obama? Well how many people have gone to jail for threatening to shoot Trump exactly?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
If the government doesn't get to tell people what to do, why even have a government? Just let people do whatever they want and see what happens.
Liberal: "Hey, let's try this new thing!"
Conservative: [sound of door being slammed] "Sorry, we're closed now."
-- Steve Martin
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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.
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.
Nope, sorry. You already lost that argument when your side bankrupted a bakery that tried to implement "my business, my rules".
We've read Alinsky too, and we are perfectly happy mocking you for failing to live by your own rules.
See that "Preview" button?
1791 - The Democratic-Republican Party is formed by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson against Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party. The Democratic-Republicans strongly opposed government overreach and expansion, the creation of a national bank, and corruption.
1804 - Andrew Jackson purchases the plantation that will become his primary source of wealth.
1824 - The Democratic-Republican Party split. The new Democrats were supported by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, and the National Republicans were supported by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay.
1828 - Andrew Jackson is elected President of the United States.
1830 - Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, whereby the Cherokee and other native tribes were to be forcibly removed from their lands.
1831 - Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, whereby the Supreme Court ruled that Cherokee Nation was sovereign and the U.S. had no jurisdiction over Cherokee lands. Andrew Jackson had already started to enforce the removal of the Choctaw.
1832-33 - The Whig Party is formed in opposition to Jackson’s government expansion and overreach in the Nullification Crisis and the establishment of a Second National Bank. The Whig Party successfully absorbs the National Republican Party.
1838 - Many Indian tribes had been forcibly removed. Under Jackson, General Winfield Scott and 7,000 soldiers forced the Cherokee from their land at bayonet point while their homes were pillaged. They marched the Cherokee more than 1,200 miles to the allocated Indian territory. About 5,000 Cherokee died on the journey due to starvation and disease.
1854 - The Whig Party dissolves over the question of the expansion of slavery. Anti-slavery Whigs and anti-slavery democrats form the Republican Party with their sole goal being to end slavery.
1861 -The election of President Lincoln spurs the beginning of the Civil War.
1862 - Lincoln writes a letter where he declares he wishes to preserve the union regardless of the morals on slavery. He issues the Emancipation Proclamation, whereby all slaves in Union territories had to be freed. As states came under Union control, those slaves too had to be freed.
1863 - Frederick Douglass, former slave and famous Republican abolitionist, meets with Lincoln on the suffrage of emancipated slaves.
1864 - Lincoln revised his position on slavery in a letter to Albert G. Hodges stating “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”
1865 - Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrenders at the Appomattox Courthouse to Union victory. After Lincoln’s Assassination, Democrat President Johnson issues amnesty to rebels and pardons the slave owners of their crimes.
1865 - The 13th Amendment which ended slavery passed with 100% Republican support and 63% Democrat support in congress.
1866 - The Klu Klux Klan is formed by Confederate veterans to intimidate black and Republicans through violence, lynching, and public floggings. They gave open support to the Democrat Party.
1866 - The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is vetoed by Democratic President Andrew Johnson. Every single Republican voted and overturned the veto.
1868 - The 14th Amendment which gave citizenship to freed slaves passed with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The first grand wizard of the KKK, Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest is honored at the
1968 Democratic National Convention.
1868 - Representative James Hinds who taught newly freedmen of their rights is murdered by the KKK.
1870 - The 15th Amendment which gave freed slaves the right to vote passed with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
1871 - The violence of the KKK grew so savage that congress passed the Enforcement Acts to repress their influence.
1875 - Democrat Senator William Saulsbury speaks out against the Civil RIghts Act of 1875, claiming it will allow “colored men shall sit at the same table beside the white guest; that he shall enter the same parlor and take his seat beside the wife and daughter of the white man, whether
Unfortunately for you, a majority of SJWs are racists.
SJWs calling conservative black people "Uncle Tom" (Larry Elder, Ben Carson), calling Asian conservatives "Traitors to their race" and "Self hating $*&@" (Michelle Malkin), etc.. has been normalized by the left. They are a religion, and has become far more dangerous to the US than other Religions. Hell, the Westboro Baptist Church was 16 wackos yelling slurs at people and was demonized by Media and largely ignored. The Left has exponentially more people and the Media treats them like heroes.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Oh, so we're judging ideologies by how a minority of supporters behave?
We do when the majority it does not condemn, and mostly cheers violent action... it was not a minority of people cheering on that "nazi punching" video. That's all great until people realize you are the Nazi... good luck with what you have normalized and deemed acceptable.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
You seemed to have left out the Southern Strategy and the War on Drugs, which went a long way towards splitting the parties.
Conveniently towards the end of your timeline, Nixon during his 1968 campaign appealed to many dixiecrats who were upset about the passage of the civil rights act, stating it was a form of government encroachment on their lives. This in turn led to a party shift where former dixiecrats turned republicans and in time, the former republicans turned progressive. Once the parties flipped, you've got the War on Drugs for the 1970s and 1980s that heavily criminalized communities of color and anti-war liberals. Or as John Erlichman said it "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news,"
Blacks, who were outright demonized by the right, turned to the left, which accepted them because who would not turn down the free vote. The left still treats black voters in a passive-agressive manner, knowing they can reliably count on the black vote, but the relationship is not as antagonistic as what is seen on the right.
So many right wing people love to crow about how Republicans freed the slaves and were responsible for most progressive legislation early on in this country. All that is true, but the conveniently leave out the part where Nixon and Lee Atwater flipped the parties, and when both Reagan and Bush used race based fear mongering to further drive the republican base whiter and more conservative.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/...
13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
Don't take Wikipedia's word for it, follow the links to the two references and read them yourself.
In fact, why not just ask Milo himself on Twi... Er, where ever she shitposts these days. He won't deny it, he's quite open about his views.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC