Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Bans, Removes Verified Status of White Supremacists (thedailybeast.com)
After updating the rules of its verification program on Wednesday, Twitter has begun banning and removing verified check marks from white supremacist accounts. For example, white supremacists Richard Spencer and Charlottesville "Unite The Right" protest creator Jason Kessler had their verified statuses revoked today. The Daily Beast reports: The verified check mark was meant to denote "that an account of public interest is authentic," the company said in a series of tweets on Wednesday, but that "verification has long been perceived as an endorsement." "This perception became worse when we opened up verification for public submissions and verified people who we in no way endorse," a company spokesperson tweeted. Users can now lose their blue checkmarks for "inciting or engaging in harassment of others," "promoting hate and/or violence against, or directly attacking or threatening other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease," supporting people who promote those ideas, and a slew of other reasons.
whining about how they're being persecuted for hating people.
So... now there's no way to verify that a white supremacist actually said that racist thing?
So, people think the check means Twitter is endorsing the verified person. So, now it officially does.
Considering the recent moves in the media, be it twitter, facebook, news articles, reddit posts, moderation across the web, youtube, shaming campaigns etc, it's extremely difficult to actually identify, clear, distinct, genuine racists.
The term has been wildly thrown around the web in the past 3 years (along with misogynist and other such things) to the point it's verging on meaningless.
Why take someones words and analyse them when you can just shriek and bray and imply they're saying something they're not. The accusation alone is enough to "throw a dead cat on the table" and totally redirect the conversation.
I myself am 'clearly racists' according to some comments I've got on reddit, because I have the gall to take issue with my countries *extremely high* immigration policy, which is impacting housing affordability, renting affordability and the jobs market (as well as general congestion, sustainability) - I need not mention a race mind you, but I'm clearly racist because I think maybe we should be thinking about this long term.
The wild labeling of any 'dissenter of our groupthink' is just causing more backlash. I can't help but take a cynical view now of anyone accused of such things and try to find the *actual truth* of what was said, to see if it's taken out of context or not.
In conclusion, basically, I'm not sure I really trust twitter to get this right, in the slightest.
NOTE / DISCLAIMER: (general rant, 2 people mentioned in article could *totally* genuinely be lunatics for all I know, but I'll be damned if I'd take twitter opinion as the final word on it, nor the average twitter users 'reports' either)
Saying that it's treated as an endorsement, they are acknowledging they use the checkmark as an endorsement now. So the 'Verified' checkmark means Twitter, as a corporate entity, is endorsing whomever they give it to. As a potential investor, I find it extremely off-putting a media organization would taint themselves with moderation of speech because there's no way to come out clean. Someone *always* disagrees with whatever you say, and Twitter decided to join the fray? That's *insane*!
> "inciting or engaging in harassment of others," "promoting hate and/or violence against, or directly attacking or threatening other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease
Fuck those 3 white supremacist dudes, but it's ok for tens of thousands ANTIFA and similar to spew hate, insult and otherwise promote hate and violence ?
Everybody is aware of this.. just making sure it's pointed out, as it should be, every time they do something like this where they decide who gets to have a voice and who doesn't.
I think this is the wrong thing for Twitter to do. They ought to reinforce the idea that verification is just that: verification of identity. It's no more an endorsement of the person than a driver's license is an endorsement of them by the DMV. Personally I like a flag that tells me whether an account really belongs to the person in question or a troll trying to get them in trouble. In the case of white supremacists and their ilk, I consider the verified checkmark to be a target selection aid. It helps me insure I'm taking offense at and responding to someone who deserves it, not someone who's gotten the MAGA folks annoyed.
How about they just make it actually mean "verified" and allow ANYONE to get verified by sending in identification verification? Problem solved and it isn't a special club anymore!
-SaNo
Yep, they removed the mark from these people BECAUSE they don't endorse them. So "if we don't endorse someone, we remove the check mark".
They did NOT remove the check mark from Black Panthers and Antifa accounts.
Twitter fucked up here. Once they start removing the check mark from people they don't endorse, obviously people will say "so why don't you remove the check mark from bad person)?" If they refuse to remove the mark, that now looks like an endorsement.
And also here: https://xkcd.com/1357/
That always was a shit comic and for good reasons.
Om, nomnomnom...
"I think Twitter is overstepping its bounds on determining what is offensive and what is not."
Read the fucking Constitution. Only the govenrment is barred fromcesoring.
Private companies like this just don't want to bake a wedding cake for racists, as it is their right.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
-- George Orwell
Unfortunately, the fascists here are the "liberal" of the left, like Twitter who has now determined that an old "this is a real person" flag has become a "this is a person we approve of" flag. ie exactly the opposite of what Twitter was trying to do.
I'd say that's what twitter is TRYING to do, but what they are REALLY doing is feeding into the persecution complexes of the alt-right.
The alt-right doesn't have to believe that it has a persecution complex. There is a persecution of ideas, viewpoints and discussion against not only them but of a variety of groups that don't fit within the progressive victimization sphere. The people outside of that sphere? Well it's alt-right(and alt-lite) sure, it's also conservatives, gamers, progressive muslims, gun owners, believe that gender is a binary, that trannies are mentally ill, and pretty much anyone else that they feel steps out of line with their orthodoxy.
Gab.ai, minds.com, and so on didn't come into existence in a vacuum. They came into existence because there are groups of people being silenced for wrong-think, wrong-speech, and whatever else. And the mindset in progressive circles right now seems to be: Silence them, and if you can't silence them, go after their income and/or families. This also doesn't endear them to anyone when they start screeching that if you don't believe whatever we tell you to believe you're a racist, sexist, misogynist, and also a neo-nazi. FYI: Believing in free speech being an absolute right is enough to make you a nazi in their books.
Om, nomnomnom...
Taking the first three panels from someone else's comic without giving them credit, and then pretty clearly ripping off their style to tell your own message is a dirtbag thing to do.
The comic you linked to is full of obvious errors. For example, it quotes John Stewart Mill, but completely misses the point he was making. He wasn't arguing that Twitter should not ban anyone ever because it's the new town square public forum, he was arguing for anonymous speech and for the availability of safe spaces where people could express unpopular views.
Basically Mill was an advocate of 4chan and privacy.
The other obvious flaw is that it says we risk leaving who can speak to who can shout the loudest, while also advocating that everyone be given a free megaphone. Mill understood this, his argument was not that everyone should get their own column in The Times, it was that as an individual one should seek to consider all points of view and arguments. In fact, he recognized that publications specializing in certain ideas were necessary to fully develop them, because otherwise you end up constantly defending the basics and never get to discuss the detail with like-minded people in a safe environment.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well it's alt-right(and alt-lite) sure, it's also conservatives, gamers, progressive muslims, gun owners,
Oh fuck this, gamers in general will not be lumped into the basket of deplorables over one incident involving a bunch of fedora-wearing MRA neckbeards who happen to play videogames. This shit will not stand, the sheer percentage of female gamers these days ensures it.
Progressive Muslims are also extremely wary of the same problem and would gladly tell you where you can shove this idea.
Gab.ai, minds.com, and so on
"So on" being the Daily Stormer and other hate sites. These aren't a new phenomenon. Mainstream sites should not attempt to cater to these userbases. Let them remain in the deepest darkest corners of the Internet, I say.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That always was a shit comic and for good reasons.
And other bollocks. Throwing in a bunch of quotes randomly combined with a complete misunderstanding of British history is not a rebuttal. The XKCD was not against free speech, it was pointing out that just because it's not illegal to say does not entitle you to a platform, let alone any platform you like. Also freedom without responsibility is anarchy, the same is true with free speech, free speech has never protected you from criticism.
People trying to defend racism (yes, white supremacists are racists, placing one race as superior to another... let alone all others is the dictionary definition of racism) are the ones who are destroying free speech. They are using this as a thought terminating cliche to silence criticism. White Supremacists are not some hard done by minority group fighting for equal rights or recognition, they are fighting to suppress equal rights for other groups they don't like. Using free speech to defend them from critics is devaluing free speech. Free speech does not mean what you say is right, it just means it is not illegal to say it. Using the free speech excuse to silence critics, especially valid critics, reduces freedom.
I'm a firm believer in playing the devils advocate, but one must always consider the nature of the devil for which one advocates for. Knowing who you are defending is key in defending it successfully. Often using the wrong defence harms you more than not defending them in the first place. Finally, using free speech as a defence is the worst possible argument, falling back on free speech means that the most compelling defence you have for what you said is that it is literally not illegal to say it.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.