Slashdot Mirror
Inside Twitter's Long, Slow Struggle To Police Bad Actors (wsj.com)
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has personally weighed in on high-profile decisions, frustrating some employees. An anonymous reader shares a report: When Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey testifies before Congress this week, he'll likely be asked about an issue that has been hovering over the company: Just who decides whether a user gets kicked off the site? To some Twitter users -- and even some employees -- it is a mystery. In policing content on the site and punishing bad actors, Twitter relies primarily on its users to report abuses and has a consistent set of policies so that decisions aren't made by just one person, its executives say. Yet, in some cases, Mr. Dorsey has weighed in on content decisions at the last minute or after they were made, sometimes resulting in changes and frustrating other executives and employees [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source], according to people familiar with the matter. Understanding Mr. Dorsey's role in making content decisions is crucial, as Twitter tries to become more transparent to its 335 million users, as well as lawmakers about how it polices toxic content on its site.
Last month, after Twitter's controversial decision to allow far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to remain on its platform, Mr. Dorsey told one person that he had overruled a decision by his staff to kick Mr. Jones off, according to a person familiar with the discussion. Twitter disputes that account and says Mr. Dorsey wasn't involved in those discussions. Twitter's initial inaction on Mr. Jones, after several other major tech companies banned or limited his content, drew fierce backlash from the public and Twitter's own employees, some of whom tweeted in protest. [...] "Any suggestion that Jack made or overruled any of these decisions is completely and totally false," Twitter's chief legal officer, Vijaya Gadde, said in a statement. "Our service can only operate fairly if it's run through consistent application of our rules, rather than the personal views of any executive, including our CEO."
Last month, after Twitter's controversial decision to allow far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to remain on its platform, Mr. Dorsey told one person that he had overruled a decision by his staff to kick Mr. Jones off, according to a person familiar with the discussion. Twitter disputes that account and says Mr. Dorsey wasn't involved in those discussions. Twitter's initial inaction on Mr. Jones, after several other major tech companies banned or limited his content, drew fierce backlash from the public and Twitter's own employees, some of whom tweeted in protest. [...] "Any suggestion that Jack made or overruled any of these decisions is completely and totally false," Twitter's chief legal officer, Vijaya Gadde, said in a statement. "Our service can only operate fairly if it's run through consistent application of our rules, rather than the personal views of any executive, including our CEO."
To some Twitter users -- and even some employees -- it is a mystery
LOL. No it's fucking not. It's really fucking obvious who gets kicked off the platform.
Are you a prominent conservative political figure that is currently in the focus of a lot of angry liberal people who like to mash the "report" button (for frivolous or false reasons) and aren't too big/connected that there will be business/corporate/financial retaliation if you get kicked off the site?
Congratulations, have a boot to the head! You're banned!
I'm still waiting for publicly known harassers and perpetrators of violent hate speach to get banned from Twitter like: Randi Harper, Zoe Quinn, Manveer Heir, Sarah Jeong, Robbi Rodriguez and all those antifa goons. They are guilty of actions that are at the least worse than conservative entities on twitter are accused of doing and yet they get to spew things like "murder all white people" or send pictures of their hairy assholes to other people, or use twitter to orchestrate a network of followers to harass both online and in real life people whom merely disagree with their ideology.
Fascism and socialism or social-democratic-ism are not the same thing in any respect nor did the Nazis practice socialism.
Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are all top-down, command-and-control, redistributionist, collectivist, authoritarian ideologies that place little value on individual freedom over the interests of the collective. "Everything within the State, nothing outside the State." applies equally to all three. In none of them does the individual have "rights", only privileges allowed by the State that can be revoked anytime for any reason.
It's like Catholics, Protestants, and Methodists each accusing the others of not being Christian. They are all Christians that differ only on relatively minor points of doctrine. It's the same with Fascism, Socialism (and it's sub-variants like "Democratic Socialism" which is an oxymoron) and Communism.
Rather than "Left" and "Right" we should be discussing an "Up" and "Down", "Up" being larger government with the commensurate loss of individual liberty, and "Down" which is smaller, less powerful government with a commensurately larger amount of individual liberty.
With a less powerful government "Left" and "Right" would not matter as much nor affect individual liberty as drastically.
Get "Down" baby, and get free!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
If your "facts" are demonstrably false and any reasonable person can conclude that you're committing libel, and it happens repeatedly, I don't really see why banning would be an issue.
Jones is trying to say he's posting his opinion. That's bs. Saying someone is an actor in a faked school shooting is a factual statement. It is true or it is not. It's not an opinion. If he was doing musical reviews, he'd be giving opinions. In this case, he is repeatedly spreading false information that is impacting the lives of other people.
I don't care if he's right-wing, left-wing, whatever. He peddles huge lies that are demonstrably false.
That is correct. Nazis were not socialists.
You are welcome on my lawn.
True, false or otherwise, they were not socialists. Nazis killed socialists.
Here's something else you can ruminate on: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea really isn't democratic. It's just a name.
Nazis were indisputably fascist. They arose out of a far right movement in Europe that was a reaction against leftists. The original name of Hitler's party was Deutcher Arbeiter Partei (D.A.P). It didn't become the N.S.D.A.P. until they were trying to steal socialist support (which they never got). There is not a single historian that will say the Nazis were socialists or leftists. It's the same today. You will notice that when the Nazis marched in Charlottesville, they didn't call their rally, "Unite the Left". They called it "Unite the Right".
Also, did you know that the Nazis hated being called Nazis? They have that in common with the Nazis of today.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The platforms are worked one of his listeners is going to go off and shoot somebody. This isn't idle speculation either.
By that standard, MSNBC is guilty of incitement and should be taken off the air: "The next month, he cited the MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show as one of his favorite television programs, adding that a recent show had highlighted the contributions of 17 wealthy donors to the Republican Party."
TL;DR: The Left isn't getting banned because they don't lean on violence.
Bullshit. Funny how you excuse Antifa, who practice actual violence. Why were the Proud Boys banned, when the only violence they commit is to defend themselves when attacked by the likes of Antifa?
Twitter has policies against promoting violence and racism, yet leftists accounts get away with it all the time. Say you hate black people, and you'll be banned in a nanosecond. Speak out in favor of white genocide, not only will Twitter let you keep your blue checkmark, they suspend the guy pointing you out.
Socialist. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
If twitter banned Alex Jones for his nut job conspiracy theories and lies, they'd also have to ban @realDonaldTrump for his abuse, lies, and conspiracy theories. So my conspiracy theory is that Alex still has access because otherwise Trump wouldn't.