Slashdot Mirror
Twitter To Get Even Harsher On Trolls (cnbc.com)
Twitter is cracking down even harder against trolls, including temporarily barring accounts that are harassing other users. From a report: In a blog posted Wednesday, Twitter's vice president of engineering, Ed Ho, announced more safety measures to stop abuse on its platform. One of the methods includes using the company's internal algorithms to identify problematic accounts and limiting certain account functions -- such as only allowing the aggressor to see their followers -- for a set period of time if they engaged in troublesome behavior. Twitter said it was also open to further action if the harassment continued. Other anti-trolling tools include new filters to let users see what kinds of content they want to view from certain accounts and well as allowing people to "mute" tweets based on keywords, phrases or entire conversations.
I'd like to see the business that identifies "problematic accounts". In fact, if I were them I'd be very open about it. Otherwise it's censorship.
They can't be transparent, because they're targeting the political opponents of the twitter admins. The second they admit that -- openly or accidentally -- shit is going to hit the fan.
I can see banning harassers, etc., but trolling is one of the cornerstones of the internet.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Apparently you have no clue what censorship is.
Nobody's saying you have freedom of speech on Twitter.
That doesn't mean you still can't have issues with censorship.
And Twitter most definitely DOES.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Twitter? You mean the internet company that doesn't understand the internet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No Thank You. I don't need a Trust and Safety council anymore than a Ministry of Truth.
Leave your dissenting opinion at the door please.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They use terms to mean whatever they want anyway.
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.
It's their platform. They can do as they please. Don't like it, find somewhere else to post.
It's fair game to criticize Twitter, if you feel they've done wrong, but I find the idea that you want some sort of mandatory regulation more than a little absurd.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
First of all, it's a private company doing it, so it's not censorship
Let's put this myth to rest. Free speech is a bigger concept than the 1st Amendment (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters).
The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:
https://www.aclu.org/other/wha...
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
Was there a "Second of all"?
So, Twitter can do "anything they please", huh? Let's examine your premise a bit.
First, censorship can happen on a lot of levels and in a lot of places. Just because the Constitution forbids only the Federal government (and, by extension in later amendments as well as by state government Constitutions, state governments) from creating laws to censor speech, doesn't mean that what Twitter is doing here (and Facebook, Google, et.al.) isn't censorship. It is. Let's be clear about that. These companies are engaging in censorship, and they can do a great deal of it. If you're unclear just how pervasive it can be, here is a primer for you on how Google censors voices.
Next question, can they really do anything they want? Twitter and Google and other ISPs have certain protections from torts (lawsuits) through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, a federal law. It basically says that sites like Twitter cannot be held responsible for user-generated content hosted or available from their site or services. That's a HUGE benefit provided to these companies, that individuals do not get. But, the more an operator edits or manages the user content on their site, the more they expose themselves to being liable for that content.
It leads one to wonder: If government has provided this awesome protection from liability to Twitter, wouldn't it be the responsibility of government to ensure they are providing an open platform (that is, NOT engaging in damaging censorship). The censorship Twitter and especially Google engages in is certainly damaging. There are many cases, and many lawsuits about Google silencing people. In Europe and other places with less protections for free speech, Twitter must comply with guidelines that require them to censor content, and they do just that. Governments have recognized that Google is so large and so pervasive that it is one of the few companies they can go to that can effectively censor content in their country. So clearly Twitter is much more than just some private entity among a large set of competitors. And for Google, using their "malicious website" lists, they can basically censor content at user's client computers.
Think about something else. The US government imposes a large number of regulations on businesses. Using the "public accommodation" definition, business are banned from discrimination, are required to accommodate the needs of the disabled, provide specific services for patrons on an equal basis, and much more. The FCC requires broadcasters to submit ways that they are of benefit to the community. We have common carrier rules that prohibit censorship over some communication channels. In many ways, Twitter is identical to a common carrier, but with even greater influence over communications.
With only 6 corporations controlling most of the media, and only 3 companies controlling most of the Internet, I think it's time we were a little more realistic about what is happening and what can be done about it. These companies can control the narrative and basically mind-control vast portions of the public.
Do we really want to just throw up our hands and declare "Well they're private companies they can do anything they want?" Even when the result could be controlling the opinions and minds of most of the country?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
whatever we're calling worthless hateful fucks
Funny, you're the only one I see spewing hate in this conversation.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.