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."
you mean "everybody who hurt my feelings and whom i don't like"
Then when questioned on the application twitter spokespersons seem to offer this as a explanation, "its the algorithm that decides". If this banning / not banning continues then sooner or later, twitter (and others) may soon learn the hard way what "Common Carrier" means.
Passionately Indifferent
Socialists and Nazi fascists were and are today mortal enemies, read more retard nazi apologist lol. No wonder they're kicking you off social media, you faggots are too dumb to continue to exist lol.
Dorsey didn't deliver on the Alex Jones ban. He chickened out and went for probation. That's breaking ranks.
He pays the price now. Pressure is going to get ramped up until Dorsey is ousted from Twitter. Media hitpieces week in week out until he crumbles or the stock implodes or both.
Because this isn't tech anymore. It's not even business. It's politics.
Freedom is a high price to pay to get rid of "jerks".
If you aren't anonymous, then you are far less likely to be a jerk.
But Facebook has already demonstrated that this is not true.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
You don't have to be a conservative in order to get censored on these sites. You just need to question the political agendas.
Link to data that disproves a shadow-government talking point? Watch the post get removed for "not meeting community standards"
It's just that conservatives disagree with the current talking points far more often than the neo-liberals that you see in the media lately, who are not to be confused with classical liberals who actually do care about freedoms.
Do you also believe tiger sharks are actual tigers? Do you think corn snakes are made of corn? It's in their name, after all.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The problem is that anyone to the political right of Bernie Sanders is often labeled as a Nazi. We have sitting Congresspeople wanting to impeach a President that they readily admit has not broken any laws, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors, because they believe he is a Nazi. So I guess you kick at least half the US population into the retard bin...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Candace Owens was banned from Twitter for simply retweeting what racist NY Times editor/writer Sarah Jeong posted, but changing all racial references from white to black. And Candace Owens is black. Why was she banned? She's a conservative. And that's not allowed.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Iâ(TM)m sure Chinese dissidents would 100% agree with you.
I guess we are not longer innocent until proven guilty?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
because that's what got Alex Jones banned. The final straw was when he mimed a gun shot talking about Mueller. The platforms are worked one of his listeners is going to go off and shoot somebody. This isn't idle speculation either.
I looked up a few of the ones you listed. Manveer Heir is walking the same fine line Jones did with what can only be described as a left wing dog whistle. You're right, he's hot garbage (just trying to make a name for himself stirring up controversy). But I couldn't find an implicit let alone explicit call to violence against white people. The rest are either opportunists or, in Sarah Jeong's case, a dumb kid saying angry things. Again though, couldn't find any calls to violence.
Banning Jones and the like isn't something these platforms want to do. Remember, they're corporations who sell advertising. All they care about is eyeballs. They could care less how they get them. Hell, the reason Trump's president is the media gave him $6 billion in free advertising so they could get eyeballs to do their own ads to. They're worried about getting sued if they don't act and one of Jone's listeners acts on his (pretty blatant and at times outright overt) suggestions of violence.
"Antifa" is blown out of proportion by media. They're the American equivalent of soccer hooligans. And the most the left does is "Punch Nazis". I've yet to see one of them mime a shooting or show up with guns.
TL;DR: The Left isn't getting banned because they don't lean on violence.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
DMCA is for copyright. This isn't about copyright, this is about negligence. Jones' listeners already have a history of going off half cocked. My guess is google, Twitter, etc are worried about a negligence lawsuit the next time one of them fires a gun if it hits something.
They could hide behind common carrier, but that's a very high bar to meet. It means being a dumb pipe, like the telephone company. It wouldn't be worth it. They couldn't even ban trolls from flood posting and the like. No social network could survive that.
Instead they're policing their network as best the can. Make no mistake, they didn't want to kick Jones & his ilk off. His viewer's money spends the same as everyone else's and they'd be happy with the advertising dollars. The final straw was when he mimed shooting Bob Mueller.
If you want a sci-fi take on what they're afraid of go read this. I'm not saying Jones is trying to get somebody killed, but I'm saying words have power (as that Pizzagate business proved) and Jones is using them recklessly.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Socialism is an economic distribution model, not a government.
So there are no Socialist governments? Venezuela would like a word with you.
You're engaging in Post-Modernism. Why do you want to regress to something the West abandoned long ago for logic and reason during the Enlightenment which propelled humanity thousands of years forward in the space of a little more than a century?
Read about this stuff, Strat.
Back at you AC, and at least I have the confidence in my knowledge, principles, opinions, and facts to not post AC.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
If content is not illegal, Twitter should not be restricting it in any way.
Name one business that uses "not illegal" as its required standard of behaviour for patrons.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If you say "socialism" and "Venezuela" in the mirror three times a socialist account will appear behind you to tell you Venezuela isn't actually socialist and anyway it was done wrong. (just like all of the others)
LOL! Noice! Agreed, the socialists always trot-out that old, tired, "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy every time. People have gotten tired of hearing that BS to the point that even folks who aren't very politically-minded roll their eyes at those types anymore.
Strat is exactly right. Fascism was an attempt to avoid the economic collapse of Leninism while retaining the authoritarian control.
Thank you. Yes, Lenin even congratulated Mussolini when he took Italy Fascist, as Socialism and Fascism are both based on Marxist ideology.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.