Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Rolls Out Stricter Rules On Abusive Content (apnews.com)
Twitter has begun enforcing stricter policies on violent and abusive content like hateful images or symbols, including those attached to user profiles. From a report: The new guidelines, which were first announced one month ago, were put into place Monday. Monitors at the company will weigh hateful imagery in the same way they do graphic violence and adult content. If a user wants to post symbols or images that might be considered hateful, the post must be marked "sensitive media." Other users would then see a warning that would allow them to decide whether to view the post. Twitter is also prohibiting users from abusing or threatening others through their profiles or usernames. While the new guidelines became official on Monday, the social media company continues to work out internal monitoring tools and it is revamping the appeals process for banned or suspended accounts. But the company will also begin accepting reports from users.
They're never gonna ban the president though. It's a conundrum.
Twitter has begun enforcing stricter policies on violent and abusive content....
Baloney. If this were actually true Trump's account would get suspended immediately. He abuses people routinely and is clearly a bully.
Trump has launched a lot of personal hurtful and childish attacks on people, and Twitter, so far, has done: nothing.
I left Twitter because they supported Trump, and maybe you should, too.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Look, another SJW making false equivalences.
Nope, haven't falsely equated anything. If businesses have the right to deny service to gay people then they equally have the right to deny service to alt-right trolls.
The right to free speech is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. The right to buy a cake - yeah, I don't see it there, anywhere.
Only guaranteed in that the government cannot restrict your right. Neither the Constitution nor any case law stated that an entity such as Twitter has to give you a speech platform against their wishes. Did you really think this argument was gonna fool me?
In fact, if you listened to the baker's argument, he has a very good point: he was essentially being contracted to make an artistic statement he disagreed with. Wedding cakes are less about the cake being eaten and more about the art and sculpture of the cake being made. He refused to make an artistic statement he disagreed with.
And Twitter is refusing to associate with people they disagree with. A political affiliation is also not a protected class. So Twitter in no way has to host alt-right trolls.
When you provide a service designed around allowing people to communicate, you should have no say in the messages people make.
That's great for you to wish such a thing, but Twitter has no such legal obligation. They are free to ban and block anyone they want.
Says the right-wing snowflake.
That's so cute watching you guys try to turn that term around. It must really sting.
No, sorry, you are the ones with the "safe spaces" and the coloring books. Ain't going to work ...
Sorry, but the definition of "snowflake" is one of intolerance - the original poster wanted to leave everything open to everyone, you are the one wanting to shut down specific subgroups because they offend you. That makes you the snowflake here.
I have seen a number of times the left's bumbling attempts to use the right's terminology black at them, but every time it ignores the meaning of words and just makes you look like an idiot that proves the original point even further.
BTW, it's funny how the right-wingers are always going on and on about how businesses shouldn't have to serve gay people if it goes against the belief of the business owner,
The VAST difference is; no-one is asking Twitter to PRODUCE offensive content. They are just a conduit, that ideally would let anyone say anything they liked and let anyone read anything they wanted, offensive or not. That would be truly neutral.
A baker is very different; they are in essence an artist you are hiring to produce a certain work. Forcing a person to produce a work they fundamentally do not believe in is not right, I think even you can see that.
Now here's where I think you got lost, no-one is saying twitter should be FORCED to allow anyone to post anything - instead what they were saying was that it is hypocritical to claim you are for a truly content neutral internet, while at the same time using a very large platform to ensure internet content is not neutral, but heavily filtered. If it's OK for Twitter to block specific ideas why is it not OK for Comcast to try different rate plans? What if Comcast charged nazis 2x the normal rate for instance. All the sudden doesn't seem so unappealing to you, now does it?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Honestly, now is the time for someone to start up a non-censored competitor if you've got the money to start it and would like to make even more money while burying Twitter.
Someone already created a non-censored Twitter-like platform over a year ago; Gab. It promptly became an alt-right echo chamber that everyone else avoids.
So, yeah... good luck with that fabulous, money-making idea you've got there.
When a person kicks a puppy, you don't whine that puppies get away with kicking people all the time, you just beat the kicker to death.
Black people aren't puppies. A puppy has no power and no understanding, and that's why we feel bad for them.
Black people don't lack understanding, they just lack power, so they get half the sympathy of the puppy.
White people have understanding and power, so if they choose to be assholes, fuck 'em.
These are the rules of sympathy. Please stop whining now.