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.
False equivalency is false.
Real net neutrality means that packets aren't judged by their content or source/destination, but net neutrality also means that comments don't get deleted/hidden/censored and users don't get banned just for engaging in perfectly reasonable and legal discussion that some thin-skinned mental weaklings on the political left dislike.
Says the right-wing snowflake. 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, but if a business determines they don't want toxic, alt-right trolls on their website you guys suddenly do a 180 and baaaah like little babies. The sword cuts both ways, snowflake.
Twitter should just prevent users from writing their own comments, and instead let users pick from a predefined list of comments that have been deemed acceptable. Based on what I've seen of Twitter comments lately, they could have approved comments like 'Fuck Drmupf!!;!!#!', and 'Women can have penises, too!' and 'That is racist!'. Those alone would cover about 95% of typical Twitter comments these days. They could even take it a step beyond that, and instead of having a user pick a pre-approved comment, Twitter could just choose one automatically on behalf of the user each day.
Look, another SJW making false equivalences. 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.
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.
If a sculptor refused to make a statue of a man they didn't like, would that be a Supreme Court issue? Of course not.
The cake thing is the exact same thing. When you're asking someone to do something artistic, they absolutely should have the right to refuse.
When you provide a service designed around allowing people to communicate, you should have no say in the messages people make.
The two are completely different.
The only problem is that they have history of enforcing rules against racists, crazies and trolls rather halfheartedly and the few times they've at least tried to enforce those rules properly those normally excluded racists, crazies and trolls have cried fowl.
In all seriousness twitter has never really been a place where any even slightly valuable dialogue takes place. 140 characters and a massive potential audience is great for chanting slogans, both political and advertisement ones, mindless drivel and abuse (there's dozens of people who have regularly do what Milo Yiannopolis got banned for), but not much else. I don't think anything has caused as massive of a regression in public discourse as twitter has so the sooner they finally destroy their platform and run themselves into bankruptcy, which should have long since happened seeing how they've never come close to turning a profit, the better.
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
So, you're wrong. But you probably already knew that.
In the case of the baker/cake/gay-wedding:
When you operate a business of public accommodation, that is, a business that is open to the public, you have to operate under certain rules and laws. One of those laws is that you cannot deny service to a person solely based on that person's inclusion in a protected class.
Now, federally, there are several protected classes. They include, sex, age, nation of origin, and race. (This list is not exhaustive.)
Now, that means, if you operate a business open to the public, you cannot refuse service to someone simply and solely because they are a woman, or because they are black.
States can add to the list of federally protected classes, but may not remove anything from that list.
Colorado, where the bakery/gay-wedding case took place has added sexual orientation to that list.
Which means that the bakery could not, legally, refuse service to the couple simply because they are gay.
If the bakery had been booked solid, and could not have produced the wedding cake in the time required, it wouldn't have been a discrimination case.
If the bakery didn't even offer wedding cakes as one of the services they offered, it wouldn't have been a discrimination case.
But because they do make wedding cakes, and because the owner made it clear he wasn't selling the couple a wedding cake because they were gay, it was discrimination, and it was illegal under Colorado's laws.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
You seem to be mixing up right wing and alt-right.
alt-right are a populist leftists that got tired of the worst progressive bullshot and yet still don't like the conservatism of the rightwing.
Conservatives dont care for alt-right populists either. They see both progressives and alt-right populists as two sides of the same mob mentality coin. Both sides of that coin are intersectional identitarians looking to embrace victimhood as a virtue in different ways. They can both rot.
Creating a work of art is a First Amendment act, and cannot be compelled - even if the artist is otherwise running a business. No public accommodation law overrides the First Amendment rights of the artists that would be creating the cake.
Notice that in the Masterpiece Cake case, the owner of the store offered to sell the couple an undecorated cake AND the decorations so they could make it themselves. This would have allowed the couple to get their cake and for the artist to avoid being compelled to speak. Instead, they chose to sue. Who is actually the hater here?
Covfefe?
Real net neutrality means that packets aren't judged by their content or source/destination,
Correct.
but net neutrality also means that comments don't get deleted/hidden/censored and users don't get banned just for engaging in perfectly reasonable and legal discussion that some thin-skinned mental weaklings on the political left dislike.
Incorrect. Network neutrality is all about connecting people to websites. It's like allowing people to use roads to drive to their destination. Once you get to your destination/website then you have gone onto private property. So if you drive to the grocery store and start yelling obscenities at other customers, they can tell you to leave and the police will kindly escort you out the door if you refuse. Further, if the grocery store does not want to let you back in later, they don't have to because they are a private establishment. Why would you think a website would be any different?
The surprise ending here is that you accuse other people of being "snowflakes" but really you have been the snowflake the whole time.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Societies die because people don't value speech with which they disagree. It is easy to categorize anything one doesn't like as hate speech and appeal to authority to cleanse it from one's world. The 20th century has taught us the best way to combat hate speech is not to limit it but to defeat it with well reasoned arguments. Driving speech into a silo will only cause it to fester and grow without common visibility. I am not saying that government should force any private company to do business in an approved manner. I am saying that it is disturbing that so many including those on this thread are for silencing opposition. They'll come for you next.
racists, crazies and trolls
You are probably not qualified to call anyone names, much less support the curtailment of their freedoms based on these judgements. You wave your hand and try to dehumanize others. You are missing the most important aspect of life: competition. You are claiming to be better but you refuse to compete. You are basically claiming to be a god on earth and above competition from the "mean things".
cried fowl
AVIAN BEAST! BIRD! BIRD!
In all seriousness twitter has never really been a place where any even slightly valuable dialogue takes place
Says you. Are the thoughts and actions of the hundreds of million people who use it invalid? Do they matter to nothing? Yet they are influenced by what they read on twitter. It's an important platform and it should by right be free for all to use.
The thing about marxist enforcement outlets is that they tend to be propped up regardless of profit. The hidden value is in how they are used to condition the population. They will be propped up as long as people keep going there. They will get endless investments for their contribution to the status quo, for their effort in rendering the human capital in this society to liquid.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
Good thing you know less of the law then you're quoting. You see where the word "incite" is? Now go look up the definition, and show where he tells people to go out and do it.
Ex: You know what I hate? All those muslims and mexicans, damn well integrate into society and stop crossing over illegally and being a drain on society. - This is not a 319 offence.
Ex: You know what I hate? All those muslims and mexcians. We need to get the trees ready, and get the rope. And here's where we're starting boys! - This is a 319 offence.
Note that 319 also covers "reasonable discussion" the above is also not a 319, I could have a discussion on a street corner in Canada arguing both points of view and it's still not a hate crime.
Om, nomnomnom...
You are confusing the alt-right with various other non-right groups, such as neo-Nazis. The press has been doing that on purpose for the last couple of years, and some people who have nothing to do with the alt-right have been trying to pretend that they are for fun and profit.
Here is the core of alt-right philosophy: What the Alternative Right is
And here is an article about a writer going to a meeting organized by Richard Spencer. Spencer likes to pretend that he is alt-right, but he supports about 95% of the Democrat platform/Socialist agenda, which makes him not only not alt-right, but also not any-right. Money quote:
See that "Preview" button?
If if just meant Nazi, why was it applied to anyone not having a left leaning outlook? The meaning of a word is in how it's used. Alt-right was used indiscriminately as an attack weapon, not any sort of accurate political label.
...should have enough sense not to vote for people who'll push them into being 0.5-1 month of unemployment away from foreclosure proceedings?
8 years under Obama is generally what got those people there in the first place. Their options are: More of the same, or a different path. Looks like the choice of "a different path" is working out much better for most people already.
Most of what the democrats are pulling right now is "more of the same" and people are tired of it. It's the same reason that the democrats are experiencing what's called "party flight" where the core becomes more moderate and looks at 3rd party alternatives, or they simply switch because they want to see them burn. The democrats delegates just finished electing a full-on anti-white race baiter to the leadership of the party, that's not going to help them win either the rustbelt or the heartland. It's also not just happening in the US, but Canada as well. There has been a shift from Liberals to both Green and NDP effectively fracturing the "left-wing vote" into 1/3's. ~20 years ago it was the Conservatives(PC) and Reform Party(smaller government, more resource exports, etc). Canada did very well under the CPC(party that replaced both of them under unification), regardless of what your views on Harper are, Canada was the only G8 and G20 country not to enter recession during the 2008 crash. And was the only country to gain net FT jobs over PT jobs during the recovery period.
Om, nomnomnom...
You can easily not use Twitter.
Except where your government has turned around and directly uses it for public discourse, weather alerts/warnings/etc, policy announcements and so on right? Then we get into the area where twitter has moved from a private company with no protections, to a private company that has an influence on public discourse, information and so on.
Om, nomnomnom...
I got suspended once on twitter after I got carried away in a flame war and said something I was honestly ashamed of. I took my punishment meekly because I was very much wrong. What bothers me is that since that day I've reported 15 people for crossing that same line and not one of them was ever considered a problem by twitter. I came to the conclusion that twitter judges strictly on political grounds and I'm more convinced every day.
You don't have a right to arbitrary free shit.
Yes I do. I insist that I do and I will fight you or anyone else to the death who denies my right.
I have a right to be part of public discourse, I have a right to be int he same place as the majority and speak freely there. The livelihood, my future, and my freedom depend on this. So no matter what lesser or false law or rule would forbid me from doing so, I will do it anyway and if anyone tries to stop me I will fight back to the point of killing them or being killed myself if need be.
No, it's cooperation. Everything you see around you is the result of cooperation.
And how would we know what to cooperate about if an individual didn't propose a way to do things and assert it's superiority above all others?
Marxism is characterized by inventing a class of oppressors (evil nazi white supremacist hate bigots in this case) and pitting the most easily influenceable part of the population against them (poor people in almost every case).
The whole farce about capital always rotting in the hands of a few oligarchs unless the state steps in and micromanages everything is just a lie to give the controllers of the state the wealth and let it rot the same way they claim they will prevent it from rotting.
It turns out you do not even know what freedom is or what life is about and that you are the one who hates what is right.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
Funny how after the Unite the Right march it was Nazis crying out for safe spaces. Like they didn't realise they would get fired for marching with swastikas and chanting "blood and soil".
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC