Twitter Suspended Hundreds of Thousands of Accounts Amid 'Violent Extremism' (fortune.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Suspended Hundreds of Thousands of Accounts Amid 'Violent Extremism' (fortune.com)

Posted by msmash on Tuesday March 21, 2017 @06:00AM from the taking-a-stand dept.

Twitter said on Tuesday it had suspended more than half a million accounts since the middle of 2015 as the company steps up efforts to tackle "violent extremism" on its microblogging platform. From a report: The company shut down a total of 376,890 accounts in the last six months of 2016, Twitter said in its latest transparency report.

36 of 202 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What's the plan, Stan? by tietokone-olmi · 2017-03-21 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because shutting down extremist accounts ends violent extremism... how exactly? What about the baby, freshly dumped alongside bathwater?
(of course the point was always to dump the baby to begin with.)
1. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by vvaduva · 2017-03-21 06:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Exactly...censoring speech (whatever that speech is) doesn't actually change people's hearts and minds. It just pushes the speech into darker corners of the web. I would much rather know who the hateful and bigoted are so I can avoid them.
2. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by tietokone-olmi · 2017-03-21 06:22 · Score: 2
  
  Moreover, I'd like to have all the extremist argumentation slapped the fuck down by intellectuals in public. Given the way things are going however, it's as though transparency and public discussion were anathema to those with power to censor.
  I mean, it can't possibly be that some jack-ass white supremacist, trash-ass ISIS goon, or wank-ass Hillary Trumponite, were hard to repudiate -- unless your own wack bullshit depends on similar constructions. Then it's really hard without stabbing yourself in the back.
3. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by ganjadude · 2017-03-21 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  the problem with pushing it to the dark corners of the web is thats when they go off the deep end
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
4. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by nine-times · 2017-03-21 06:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because shutting down extremist accounts ends violent extremism... how exactly?
  Maybe I'm missing something, but where does it say that they intended to end violent extremism? It said they're trying to "tackle 'violent extremism' on its microblogging platform," but I think a more reasonable interpretation of that is that they're not trying to deal with violent extremism itself, but with its presence on their platform.
  And actually, to deal with your question more directly, denying extremists a platform does help prevent the spread of that extremism. It doesn't really matter if it's ISIS or the KKK, if you help people spread their propaganda, you're deepening the problem. Twitter has simply taken the position that they don't want to assist in spreading that kind of propaganda. And before you start harping on the First Amendment, no, the First Amendment does not require that private parties assist you in spreading your speech. It only disallows the government from making your speech illegal.
5. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by vvaduva · 2017-03-21 06:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It's still censorship. It's legitimate and legal, but still censorship. The word censorship doesn't always have to carry a negative connotation. Parents censor the speech of their children often or the TV content their children are exposed to. There is nothing wrong with it.
6. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by MightyMartian · 2017-03-21 06:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I've never quite understood this argument how censorship actually makes extremists stronger. In a modest way I can see some legitimacy in saying be an "underground" movement will have a certain romantic appeal, but it's still pretty damned limiting. When White Supremacists had their shady BBSs and later websites, those were places that one had to actually seek out. But Twitter, Facebook and Google have given these groups a kind of free mass distribution they could only have previously dreamed of, and I think these services blocking them will not be doing the extremist types any favors. Quite the opposite, it's going to push them back under their online rocks again, where yes, maybe they regain a sort of mystique, but not what they really crave, which is mass media attention.
  And it's coming. Advertisers and potential buyers are making it clear that extremist content on these major services is harmful to their own brands. So, whether you believe Google, Twitter and Facebook should just allow this kind of content on their systems because of simplistic notions about freedom of speech is irrelevant, they won't do it because it will cost them money. If the extremists want to broadcast their message, they're going to have to do it on their own, and without the assistance of the major online portals.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
7. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by MightyMartian · 2017-03-21 06:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Generally when censorship is brought up here, it's an attempt to conflate First Amendment protections with a private organization's lawful right to moderate content. Yes, in technical terms it is censorship, but since some people seem to believe that the First Amendment protection of speech somehow should be imposed on private companies' Internet-facing content, I think it's useful to draw a distinct line between content moderation and censorship.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
8. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by stdarg · 2017-03-21 07:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's virtually impossible in an unmoderated forum. For instance if your opponents vastly outnumber you, your brilliant repudiations will largely go unnoticed due to the noise. Not to mention many people judge arguments based on apparent popularity. If lots of people are acting offended by what you say, regardless of the merit of your argument, there is a huge group of people who simply won't want to believe you because you're a troll/jerk/mean/whatever.
  
  unless your own wack bullshit depends on similar constructions
  Your own wack bullshit DOES depend on similar constructions! Unless you're only going to go out and argue the most basic, obvious things that virtually nobody disagrees with.
9. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by meta-monkey · 2017-03-21 07:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  but since some people seem to believe that the First Amendment protection of speech somehow should be imposed on private companies' Internet-facing content
  That's not the argument. No one is saying companies should be forced to comply with the first amendment. "Free speech" as a principle exists outside of the Constitution...it's the shared cultural value that the Constitution seeks to protect. The cultural value came first, then the legal protection. This is how descriptive legal systems like english common law came to be.
  The point is that these online platforms like Twitter don't hold this cultural value. That's okay, I guess, you don't have to. But they claim to, while saying they're only denying a platform for "hate speech," but this is bullshit too since they never punish anyone for saying "killing white people." That's pretty damn hateful.
  They're not for free speech, they're not against "hate" on principle, they're just partisans.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
10. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by tietokone-olmi · 2017-03-21 07:41 · Score: 2
  
  >I've never quite understood this argument how censorship actually makes extremists stronger.
  That's not the argument. The argument is that censorship neither removes extremism nor makes it less relevant in a concrete security sense, and that censorship is invariably applied to goals that have nothing to do with anti-extremist programs. See the "baby w/ bathwater" simile in my first post.
  Furthermore, censorship is anathema to an open society. To wit: once permitted, you'll find that the censors are never wrong, and that they commit no errors.
11. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by GLMDesigns · 2017-03-21 08:58 · Score: 2
  
  this is a lie that striking has been equated with terrorism.
  
  However take a look at the violence by the left (reminiscent of Maoist Red Guards) over talks by Charles Murray and Milo.
  
  --
  If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
  Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
12. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by AmiMoJo · 2017-03-21 09:10 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is we don't know enough about the accounts to make an informed judgement.
  For example, Twitter has a problem with sockpuppets. It's got a lot better recently, so one might speculate that some proportion of those accounts which were banned are sockpuppets. Is sockpuppetry a form of trolling that the company should try to deal with so that other users are not hounded and harassed off their service, or should the just let it be a free-for-all?
  On the one hand we know that 4chan/8chan style forums where free speech is nearly unlimited (even they have rules) don't seem to scale well and are certainly not ever likely to turn a profit, which means they could never operate on the scale Twitter does... So there has to be some debate about what rules and limits a site should have to remain viable and allow maximum free speech.
  To address your specific point about "killing white people", actually Twitter do ban accounts that say that.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
13. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by GLMDesigns · 2017-03-21 09:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I've been a union member. I'm also active in Libertarian politics. I read everything from the Reason, AEI, Cato and Heritage Foundation publications, The Economist, Wall Street Journal and have never seen "striking, unionization, the ability of workers to switch companies " associated with terrorism.
  
  All free market people are completely supportive (in concept) with striking and switching companies. There is a problem with public service employees being unionized because there isn't anyone negotiating on behalf of the taxpayers. The politicians want the unions on their side so ... who are the unions negotiating with. (That is the problem).
  
  Please show me quotes equating striking, switching companies with terrorism. Now there have been union goons, but that is not the same as equating unionism with terrorism.
  
  --
  If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
  Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
14. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by AHuxley · 2017-03-21 11:21 · Score: 2
  
  ".. First Amendment protection of speech somehow should be imposed on private companies' Internet-facing content.. "
  Thats fine until governments, political leaders use a service at a city, state and federal level.
  Then the product becomes more of a public record that needs to allow access, comment and archiving.
  Allowing different governments in is not a "private companies" "Internet-facing content".
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
15. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by stdarg · 2017-03-21 14:39 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  it's absolutely necessary to have open fora -- and for platforms like Twitter etc. -- for the presentation of minority views
  I agree. What does "open" mean though? For that to be meaningful the platform has to be moderated. The quality of the outcome correlates with the quality of the people involved. The fact that you think it's a silly viewpoint tells me that you lack experience in unmoderated discussions with large groups of hostile people. When you have 20 people all arguing slight variations of the same theme against you, and not reading your replies to other people, it's just a quagmire. If you have no way of "muting" most of the people, the exercise is pointless.
  Slashdot is open enough for me and has great moderation because it's mostly great people who mostly value principles like free speech.
16. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by tbannist · 2017-03-22 01:22 · Score: 2
  
  Moreover, I'd like to have all the extremist argumentation slapped the fuck down by intellectuals in public. Given the way things are going however, it's as though transparency and public discussion were anathema to those with power to censor.
  After all, it's worked so well on Slashdot, right? That's why we never have arguments over whether or not Climate Change is real any more. Once the bous arguments of the climate change denying posters were shown to be based on false claims and conspiracy theories, all of the anti-climate change posters recanted their positions are accepted the truth, right?
  I think the problem is that people don't actually behave the way you think they should, when intellectuals slap down extremists in public, people who agree with the extremists tend to become more extreme, not less. Evidence and reason won't work on most people unless the source of the evidence and reason is considered "one of us", and sometimes a position is so fundamental to some people's identity that merely questioning it is enough to make the questioner automatically "one of them" and thus not to be listened to or trusted. Add to that the fact that it may take between 3 and 6 months for someone to change their mind on an important topic and it seems that slapping down arguments on twitter lies somewhere between counter-productive and ineffectual.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
17. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by meta-monkey · 2017-03-22 01:42 · Score: 2
  
  I find that claims that white people are as frequently the objects of out and out hate speech tend to be pretty hyperbolic.
  I think you just don't notice. One of the critical functions of our brains is making most of the world irrelevant. There's an infinite number of facts in any room, from the patterns of scuff marks on the floor to the discolorations in the paint on the walls etc etc. If you noticed all those things you're probably on drugs or brain damaged and incapable of functioning. So you just don't notice shit that isn't either a tool to help you achieve your objectives or an obstacle in your way. Somebody saying "kill white people" doesn't register as obstacle for you. But you absolutely have leftist celebs like Lena Dunham saying we need to "end white males" or Sarah Silverman going on about how she's glad the Jews killed Jesus and she'd do it again. These are not nice things to say. They do not help me achieve my goal of racial and religious harmony, so I notice them. On the other hand if someone said "fuck Judaism and we need to end Jewish females," boy ears would perk up. If you notice one and not the other it's because you fundamentally don't find the idea of eliminating whites offensive.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
18. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by eaglesrule · 2017-03-22 05:07 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps the ones doing the debating don't all walk away sharing the same opinion, but that doesn't mean that those observing haven't been swayed. A good intellectual smack down of extremists is useful for those who haven't fully formed an opinion of their own and who may not be well informed on the subject but learn something from the debate.
  As for changing the minds of extremists, there's this old expression:
  
  A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.
19. Re:What's the plan, Stan? by EmptyHead · 2017-03-25 20:44 · Score: 2
  
  So your basically suggesting that we should ban anyone that is espousing ideas that you don't believe in. Your alt-right nazi fk comment is very hypocritical then. When did everyone become political zealots? I don't think it was just Obama and Hillary that brought us this nightmare (Trump has only been a PIA since the election cycle began), something bigger must be happening. That is where the real conversations should be directed.
Scared me there for a second by Tablizer · 2017-03-21 06:15 · Score: 2

It's a good thing my non-violent extremism is left untouched.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:So Hillary's account got deleted? by DaHat · 2017-03-21 06:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

As a moderate conservative and former Republican,
That sounds like a shibboleth...

I put the blame on the RNC nomination process — or lack thereof.
Specifically what part of the non-process did you find broken? What should the process/party have done to prevent Trump (or any other candidate)?

They had the responsibility to ensure that they fielded qualified candidates for the nomination.
Except they are sort of limited to who throws their hat into the ring... and unlike the Democrats, worked to not play favorites and let the candidates & their supporters duke it out.

Trump is neither a conservative nor a Republican, and, until a few short years ago, a Clinton Democrat. :/
A Bill Clinton Democrat maybe, but thanks to the wonderful DNC nomination process, they ended up with the worst possible candidate. Of course, I contend that it was actually the election of Obama which moved the Overton window enough to make a Trump run & presidency possible.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I tried to Open a Twitter Account by sycodon · 2017-03-21 07:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

...the first tweet I made in response to someone (I forget now) that was critical of the Democrats, the account was suspended and they demanded all kinds of personal information so they could, "decide" if I were a bot or not.
Fuck them. Fuck the SJWs from Silicone Valley. The Big Quake can't come soon enough if you ask me.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
1. Re:I tried to Open a Twitter Account by amiga3D · 2017-03-21 07:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I've made plenty of responses to lefties on twitter. Most of the time I avoid profanity and always avoid obscenities and the F bomb. I'm amazed at people that get on twitter and say horrible things to other people they don't even know. I have had people call me names and just as a social experiment I responded in a reasoned manner ( remembering my 7 habits classes ) and continued to argue my point. At the end I almost always got one of two solutions. Either they called me bad names and then blocked me, or surprisingly, they became calmer and began to debate in a reasoned manner and in the end agreed to disagree. I've trolled on /. a few times but with twitter I've been experimenting and it's an interesting format. Trying to debate with people with 140 characters is a challenge that will sharpen your skills.
2. Re:I tried to Open a Twitter Account by nuckfuts · 2017-03-21 08:17 · Score: 2
  
  Fuck them. Fuck the SJWs from Silicone Valley. The Big Quake can't come soon enough if you ask me.
  Nothing violent or extreme in that opinion. You know, just the catastrophic demise of a few million people.
  If you're not just trolling you ought to calm down a notch.
3. Re:I tried to Open a Twitter Account by amiga3D · 2017-03-21 09:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Oh no, I don't love everyone. I just miss the good old days when you could be civil even with people you hated.
4. Re:I tried to Open a Twitter Account by amiga3D · 2017-03-21 09:53 · Score: 2
  
  I think I talked with you on twitter recently.
Re:So Hillary's account got deleted? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-21 07:35 · Score: 3, Informative

Lookie its creimer posting a political post again.
Moderate conservative. The same guy that constantly insults and lies about everyone who is not a hard core as left as they come liberal. Let me guess, later on he will be spouting for Clinton... Looking later in this thread he did. Shocking! He lied again.
Doesn't like the GOP nomination. Well, after the whole GOP nomination and Russian hacking and everything else, you know who DID rig an election? The DNC did, that's who. And yet not a SINGLE mention of that.
- Superdelegates, well right there the DNC rigs their nomination process.
- Donna Brazile giving debate questions to Hillary.
- Campaign fund raising that is blatantly unethical, but legal because of strange loop holes put into campaign finance rules by the DNC when they were in power.
- John Podesta literally editing WaPo articles before they are published to help Hillary and hurt Sanders.
Yea, but you don't have a problem with that. Cremier doesn't have a problem with rigged elections at all, he has a problem with legitimate elections having outcomes he doesn't agree with. Your vote should only count if you vote the way he wants. That's right, his REAL problem with the GOP nomination is they didn't rig it like the DNC to prevent Trump. Seeing as he gave a pass to the rigging of the DNC and failed to explain how the GOP did rig it for Trump, that is the ONLY conclusion you can make.
But, I better be careful. cremier has threatened to shoot me before when I said things he didn't like, and since I am calling him a liar once again, I expect more of the same.
Re:So Hillary's account got deleted? by rickb928 · 2017-03-21 07:41 · Score: 2

The RNC isn't supposed to be in control. You don't understand what happened.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
More to Free Speech Than the First Amendment by Kunedog · 2017-03-21 08:08 · Score: 2

And before you start harping on the First Amendment, no, the First Amendment does not require that private parties assist you in spreading your speech. It only disallows the government from making your speech illegal.
But as usual, it's the pro-censorship side (i.e. you) who's brought up the First Amendment first, as a strawman so you can dismiss it.

The concept of free speech (and censorship) still exists outside of the 1AM (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters). The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment [aclu.org] wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:

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.
First Amendment a Common Strawman by Kunedog · 2017-03-21 08:15 · Score: 2

Generally when censorship is brought up here, it's an attempt to conflate First Amendment protections with a private organization's lawful right to moderate content.

That's funny, because the way I usually see it go on /. is that the pro-censorship side (i.e. you) brings up 1AM/government censorship first, as a strawman so they can claim that, because it doesn't apply, we should care about private censorship either. The concept of free speech (and censorship) still exists outside of the 1AM (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters). The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment [aclu.org] wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:

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.
Selectively Banning Racism by Kunedog · 2017-03-21 08:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

A business deciding they're not going to allow certain kinds of messages on their public bulletin board is no more censorship than me ordering my racist uncle to stop talking trash or get out of my house.
Which is only to say that "Yes, both situations are examples of censorship."

To make the metaphor more accurate to what Twitter is doing, let's say you had two uncles, each a different color and both racist toward the other. Now let's say you picked sides and only threw out the uncle whose racism you disagreed with.

Even if you are within your rights to do that, the banned uncle (and plenty of other, non-racist folks) are right to call you out for both your hypocrisy and your own racism.
Re:It's paying off, too! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2017-03-21 09:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

99% of which were conservative, no doubt. When left wing extremists get violent, they get cheered and let off.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
All the violence has been on the anti-Trump side by walterbyrd · 2017-03-21 11:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seems to me all the violence has been on the anti-Trump side:
1. Hillary hires violent thugs to disrupt Trump Rallies - as was proved by the Veritas project.
2. Hillary supporters beat down homeless African American woman.
3. Hillary supporters beat down man in Chicago, and steal his car, because they thought he voted for Trump.
4. Hillary supporters abduct and torture mentally ill man because man supported Trump.
5. Violent riots when Trump was elected
6. Violent riots when Trump was inaugurated
For reference by s.petry · 2017-03-21 14:04 · Score: 2

The subject for people to review is called Natural Law. Individual Liberty has been an issue since recorded history began. John Locke was one of the main influences for the Founders of the US, but also influenced Law in much/most of the West.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re: Speaking of payoffs by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-22 06:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Exactly. A load of the people kicked off were Pro- Trump supporters to help perpetuate the lie that Trump Is very unpopular, even though he has a massive and loyal fanbase. Indeed many of the Twitter anti-Trump members are NGO spooks. Twitter is dirt - in it with big media and cronyism like CNN. Pity. Its a useful platform but is now forever smeared in the minds of anyone with half or even 1/4 of a brain.