Twitter photo-removal policy aimed at improving privacy goes into effect(text.npr.org)
text.npr.org
Twitter photo-removal policy aimed at improving privacy goes into effect
https://text.npr.org/1060600043
135 comments
So basically they just removed the ability for people to hold people in power accountable by making their mischievous acts known in public, while it is known that "proper, lawful" channels would not have worked due to conflict of interest..?
"Public figures are exempt from the policy, Twitter said"
Is the president's son smoking crack with a hooker a public figure?
Or a guy mowing down a Christmas Parade in his car?
A guy did that? The news told me an SUV did it and it was an accident. Nothing to see here, move along.
An SUV that "was not being chased by police." Wonder what the truth is.
Is a cop beating a protestor a public figure?
I assume it falls under "newsworthy events" too.
There have been cases where independent journalists have had their footage censored by Twitter on specious grounds (riot footage as "promoting violence", etc), only for that same footage to be allowed on the accounts of larger media companies. This policy is only going to further entrench MSM institutional power.
Why are people up in arms about Twitter blocking videos? Just post your YouTube link somewhere else. What am I missing?
Because a) Youtube does it too and b) often they get their Twitter accounts suspended.
The problem is the time between when the video is published and when it gets seen by enough people to be considered newsworthy.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Let’s be clear, is Epstein a public figure?
Well he’s dead. So in general you always have to be careful.
For anyone who hasn't seen it, this is a joke, using Bill Gates' actual answer to an interviewer asking about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LNAwUxZ5nfw
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LNAwUxZ5nfw
Wow this is bad lol, can't believe no one coached him. Looks like a kid trying to worm out of punishment.
At least HN would never censor and stop you from posting a video like this right? It sounds like he practiced his response with a team of lawyers and everything said was carefully scripted.
[deleted]
[deleted]
And the mainstream media decides who is a "public figure" and who isn't.
No, Twitter moderators and appeals/review committees do, for Twitter (the site we’re discussing).
_dain_(1)
They really don't want people like Andy Ngo posting photos of people rioting / committing crimes / etc.
They also REALLY don't like that Project Veritas uses their service to link people to undercover videos of big tech companies admitting to doing shady stuff. Big tech covers for big tech.
They also REALLY don't like that Project Veritas uses their service to link people to undercover videos of big tech companies admitting to doing shady stuff. Big tech covers for big tech.
[deleted]
It's frustrating to see how tech is consistently unable to implement systematic yet fair solutions that are possible in law. Not that people aren't genuinely trying - but the nature of automation and the design of platforms just seem at odds with working privacy.
German law, for example, generally protects people's privacy (i.e. you are not allowed to take a photo of people without permission, even in public). But it implements fine-grained exceptions for people of national importance - either globally (i.e. politicians who remain so) or temporarily (i.e. you may take photographs of such people for a time but no longer when they have ceased to be famous).
German law, for example, generally protects people's privacy (i.e. you are not allowed to take a photo of people without permission, even in public). But it implements fine-grained exceptions for people of national importance - either globally (i.e. politicians who remain so) or temporarily (i.e. you may take photographs of such people for a time but no longer when they have ceased to be famous).
> you are not allowed to take a photo of people without permission, even in public
This is clearly not true though. People end up in other peoples’ photos all of the time without permission. So it sounds like a bullshit law that can be used to arbitrarily string people up rather than anything actually enforceable or reasonable.
This is clearly not true though. People end up in other peoples’ photos all of the time without permission. So it sounds like a bullshit law that can be used to arbitrarily string people up rather than anything actually enforceable or reasonable.
I'm pretty sure the law is about publishing photos, not taking photos.
And in general the focus of the photo matters. You don't need permission from random folks who are not recognizable in the background.
Intent also matters. If I post a picture of my kid eating icecream and there's some random dude in the background no court will prosecute that.
If I add a caption identifying the person in the background things might look different.
And in general the focus of the photo matters. You don't need permission from random folks who are not recognizable in the background.
Intent also matters. If I post a picture of my kid eating icecream and there's some random dude in the background no court will prosecute that.
If I add a caption identifying the person in the background things might look different.
what good is taking a photo if it can't be published?
And this is why I no longer ever want to be in photos. Not everything needs to be published to the world.
From a privacy standpoint AND the fact that everyone feels that everything must be uploaded to social media for narcissism points is one of my top worries.
My problem is that attempts to legally curb this have gross implications for the rights of people to keep informed about ongoings in the world. We have a right to be able to show corrupt cops as much as we do criminals and rioters. We have a right to showcase protests when going well or when they're destructive. We have a right to film stuff like Rittenhouse's situation and use that information to jail or free him of charges.
And any corporation will exploit this citizen desire for 'privacy' and use it as a wedge to strip us of our power as citizens, nevermind to allow some information that is in line with establishment values but disallow information that runs contrary to it's power.
You can't solve all these problems at once.
Censorship - both from the state and monopoly actors in the private sector, is incredibly worrisome.
What would be the worst case scenario is that our privacy is utterly gone AND censorship, citing privacy concerns, never really addresses privacy in a practical way but does help corporations and states manipulate the public discourse and undermine our very democracy.
As far as i'm concerned - even as a privacy advocate - our privacy is gone. We lost this battle. Theere's things we can do to maximize our privacy and make it better but the toothpaste is never going back into the tube.
But this is a moment where censorship is about to be normalized in an extreme way and this is a fight that shouldn't be lost.
My problem is that attempts to legally curb this have gross implications for the rights of people to keep informed about ongoings in the world. We have a right to be able to show corrupt cops as much as we do criminals and rioters. We have a right to showcase protests when going well or when they're destructive. We have a right to film stuff like Rittenhouse's situation and use that information to jail or free him of charges.
And any corporation will exploit this citizen desire for 'privacy' and use it as a wedge to strip us of our power as citizens, nevermind to allow some information that is in line with establishment values but disallow information that runs contrary to it's power.
You can't solve all these problems at once.
Censorship - both from the state and monopoly actors in the private sector, is incredibly worrisome.
What would be the worst case scenario is that our privacy is utterly gone AND censorship, citing privacy concerns, never really addresses privacy in a practical way but does help corporations and states manipulate the public discourse and undermine our very democracy.
As far as i'm concerned - even as a privacy advocate - our privacy is gone. We lost this battle. Theere's things we can do to maximize our privacy and make it better but the toothpaste is never going back into the tube.
But this is a moment where censorship is about to be normalized in an extreme way and this is a fight that shouldn't be lost.
I think you are wrong. I think there is a lot we can do with regard to privacy. We should not give up privacy protections because they could hypothetically be abused by people in power. Especially when the privacy protections have explicit exceptions for the cases you worry about.
there's no "hypothetical" to it.
if someone in power can bend the law to protect their power, they will.
if someone in power can bend the law to protect their power, they will.
People have been taking photos for over a century, and only a small percentage of them are ever published. Most are taken for what they've always been primarily taken for - memories.
Most of the times, the prohibition is not "taking the photo" but distributing it, which is much easier to enforce. At least it's how it is in Spain, where we have a similar law.
The law in question only concerns itself with publishing. It has accounted for the case you mention: It is explicitly allowed to publish photos that include people which have wandered into frame by chance and the main focus is some locality and not the person in question.
As an American, the EU seems like it's rife with bullshit laws that protect the gentry and aristocracy.
what's worse is that it always seems, online, that the EU citizenry think it's for their own good. Almost every time.
You see this out of Aussies, often, too.
You see this out of Aussies, often, too.
You cannot take a picture of a person where the person is the subject of the photo. This is not the case when you take a picture of a statue and there's people in the background, for example.
Cropping the photo changes the subject. What a stupid criteria.
You can, as long you're not using it for publications. The usage on your own blog or Facebook account is allowed but the line is drawn at billboards, on TV or such (larger) channels. For those you must have an agreement.
This is not true and hasn't been for a while. It used to basically be a grey area but courts have repeatedly stated that just taking the picture was not allowed even if there wasn't ever any intention of publishing it anywhere.
You would have to justify it anyway and personal rights in Germany always trump the rights of others to create art, for example. You'll find many cases that are about surveillance cameras as well and even there's it's often in favor of the person not wanting to be on camera.
https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=VI...
http://lrbw.juris.de/cgi-bin/laender_rechtsprechung/document...
You would have to justify it anyway and personal rights in Germany always trump the rights of others to create art, for example. You'll find many cases that are about surveillance cameras as well and even there's it's often in favor of the person not wanting to be on camera.
https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=VI...
http://lrbw.juris.de/cgi-bin/laender_rechtsprechung/document...
I think Facebook isn't covered because the uploader needs to give Facebook all rights over the image which they can't.
noduerme(1)
What do you think about the French law that didn't pass, which would have made it illegal to upload photos of the police? Arguably, the actions of police officers are more of a public concern than those of national politicians, but they also fall into the category of non-famous people.
> you are not allowed to take a photo of people without permission, even in public
I'm curious how this is expected to work in practice. Is there a clear definition of "a photo of people"? Taking a close-up portrait of a random stranger in public would be one extreme (and I guess most people would agree it should require permission). Presumably a photo of my kids and their friends having fun at the park is still clearly "a photo of people", and therefore also requires permission.
But if I take a photo of a street scene in Berlin, do I have to get permission from every passer-by who happens to appear? How about a landscape photo where I only realise later, on reviewing the picture, that there were a couple of hikers on a distant hill? To my mind, that's not "a photo of people", yet there are people in the photo.
Somewhere between the extremes, it seems to me there's an awfully wide grey area.
I'm curious how this is expected to work in practice. Is there a clear definition of "a photo of people"? Taking a close-up portrait of a random stranger in public would be one extreme (and I guess most people would agree it should require permission). Presumably a photo of my kids and their friends having fun at the park is still clearly "a photo of people", and therefore also requires permission.
But if I take a photo of a street scene in Berlin, do I have to get permission from every passer-by who happens to appear? How about a landscape photo where I only realise later, on reviewing the picture, that there were a couple of hikers on a distant hill? To my mind, that's not "a photo of people", yet there are people in the photo.
Somewhere between the extremes, it seems to me there's an awfully wide grey area.
Edited to preface: I'm not a lawyer, I'm mostly paraphrasing and translating the source below.
There are three cases where you can publish[1] a photo without consent:
- Person of special public interest (literally: person of contemporary history, this is an idiomatic term and sounds less strange in German), which means you can take a picture of a politician holding a speech or an artist doing a public performance or a CEO addressing employees. Important exception for professionals, but there are various rules one needs to be aware of, for instance you probably cannot take a photo of the same CEO buying new shoes or eating dinner at a restaurant.
- The photograph does not primarily depict the person. Your landscape photo would be fine, for example, and your street scene may or may not be. Apparently the test criterion is: is the picture materially changed if the person is removed? So a photo of a beach landscape is permissible, but not so much if there's people bathing in the foreground.
- The photo is of a public gathering: a public concert, a political rally, though this only applies if it's a photo of the gathering as a whole, and not specifically an individual in it.
So, yes, in the end it is a bit of a case of "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". In practice, you just err on the side of caution, and it works out fine. E.g. I don't really worry about if when I take a photo of a friend outside and there's a few people in the background (due to rule #2).
Source (German): https://www.medienrecht-urheberrecht.de/fotorecht-bildrecht/...
[1] I'm not sure how the law handles the case of merely taking a photo and never publishing it, nor what exactly constitutes publishing, e.g. presumably showing holiday snaps at a family gathering does not constitute publishing
There are three cases where you can publish[1] a photo without consent:
- Person of special public interest (literally: person of contemporary history, this is an idiomatic term and sounds less strange in German), which means you can take a picture of a politician holding a speech or an artist doing a public performance or a CEO addressing employees. Important exception for professionals, but there are various rules one needs to be aware of, for instance you probably cannot take a photo of the same CEO buying new shoes or eating dinner at a restaurant.
- The photograph does not primarily depict the person. Your landscape photo would be fine, for example, and your street scene may or may not be. Apparently the test criterion is: is the picture materially changed if the person is removed? So a photo of a beach landscape is permissible, but not so much if there's people bathing in the foreground.
- The photo is of a public gathering: a public concert, a political rally, though this only applies if it's a photo of the gathering as a whole, and not specifically an individual in it.
So, yes, in the end it is a bit of a case of "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". In practice, you just err on the side of caution, and it works out fine. E.g. I don't really worry about if when I take a photo of a friend outside and there's a few people in the background (due to rule #2).
Source (German): https://www.medienrecht-urheberrecht.de/fotorecht-bildrecht/...
[1] I'm not sure how the law handles the case of merely taking a photo and never publishing it, nor what exactly constitutes publishing, e.g. presumably showing holiday snaps at a family gathering does not constitute publishing
publishing usualy mean "making public" so showing photos in a private context is obviously not public.
That obviously makes sense to me, but IANAL, so I'll refrain from making any definitive judgement. A huge percentage of pictures are immediately shared with a third party (by being uploaded to the cloud).
Beyond that, while the rules outlined above deal with publishing, there are also rules for merely taking pictures. The exact rules for that aren't 100% clear to me[1], but if it's permissible to publish them, it must also be permissible to take the photo in the first place.
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutsch... it seems complicated
Beyond that, while the rules outlined above deal with publishing, there are also rules for merely taking pictures. The exact rules for that aren't 100% clear to me[1], but if it's permissible to publish them, it must also be permissible to take the photo in the first place.
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutsch... it seems complicated
Yeah, who knows. It's arbitrary and probably depends mostly on how long it's been since the judge has had a meal* when they are making their decision. For some bizarre reason things like this are thought of as very enlightened when done in Europe, but would be seen as authoritarian and dystopian if done anywhere else.
* https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/apr/11/judges-lenient-b...
* https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/apr/11/judges-lenient-b...
Just because there might be a grey area doesn't mean it's arbitrary.
99% of cases are going to be pretty clear.
99% of cases are going to be pretty clear.
> I'm curious how this is expected to work in practice.
Most of the time, the prohibition is on distribution. And it's only applicable when the people in the picture can be reasonably identified. A street scene in Berlin where you barely see people's faces or two hikers on a distant hill wouldn't be problematic.
Most of the time, the prohibition is on distribution. And it's only applicable when the people in the picture can be reasonably identified. A street scene in Berlin where you barely see people's faces or two hikers on a distant hill wouldn't be problematic.
> it's only applicable when the people in the picture can be reasonably identified.
I think the law needs to be updated, since face recognition software is now available.
I think the law needs to be updated, since face recognition software is now available.
As many people have pointed out, the primary protection in this law is on publishing.
However, there are also penal codes preventing the mere taking of pictures where intimate privacy is affected, i.e. in intimate situations, in your own home, or when you are helpless (i.e. when injured in public).
However, there are also penal codes preventing the mere taking of pictures where intimate privacy is affected, i.e. in intimate situations, in your own home, or when you are helpless (i.e. when injured in public).
Exactly. If I take a picture of you standing naked in front of your first floor window, it's totally acceptable, you should have expected to be noticed. However if I use a teleobjective to photograph you getting naked out of the shower on the twelfth floor, that's an invasion of your privacy - because your expectations were different.
Unable or unwilling? If their network effects endow them with an impenetrable moat, why would they voluntarily spend lots of money to address a problem that harms only a minority of customers and isn't substantial enough to drive people off the platform?
it's impossible to make a fair censorship rule.
>German law, for example, generally protects people's privacy (i.e. you are not allowed to take a photo of people without permission, even in public).
So everything from the videos showing Kyle Rittenhouse doing nothing illegal, to Chauvin videos providing evidence that he killed George Floyd wouldn't be allowed in Germany. Got it.
>German law, for example, generally protects people's privacy (i.e. you are not allowed to take a photo of people without permission, even in public).
So everything from the videos showing Kyle Rittenhouse doing nothing illegal, to Chauvin videos providing evidence that he killed George Floyd wouldn't be allowed in Germany. Got it.
Yeah, Germany has the best laws regarding speech: https://www.courthousenews.com/german-nationalist-wins-injun...
On the other hand, there are numerous cases where Facebook has been compelled by German courts to restore posts they have deleted under their content policy to protect the user's free speech rights. Something like that is unthinkable in the US.
Calling her a Nazi or fascist would have been fine as that's understood as an expression of opinion, calling her a swine is clearly an insult and insulting someone is a crime under civil law (not sure how this translates to the US but it's not something the police will arrest you for but something the insulted party can take you to court over).
There's a common misconception in Germany that there is a law about "Beamtenbeleidigung" (insult of a public official) but the truth is that public officials have no special protection in that regard per se, it's just usually easier for them to sue people (esp. when you insult a police officer as they're literally the police). There are some caveats when insulting government officials, especially foreign government officials, but insulting a Nazi politician on Facebook is not any different from insulting a celebrity on Facebook.
The problem with social media is that it can be difficult to find out who to sue and compelling a foreign company to release the likely incomplete information they have on a user in an attempt to identify them isn't great. I'm not saying the law in question (NetzDG, requiring social media companies to block such content in Germany) is a good solution to this problem but it's certainly not the worst.
If anything, the problem with NetzDG is that it allows users who are able to avoid revealing their identity unambiguously to engage in Holocaust denialism or Volksverhetzung[0] and have their posts still be visible with a proxy if blocked (allowing Nazi groups to organize and operate hidden in plain sight) or when the content is deleted for those crimes to just be swept under the rug and make it harder to report to the actual authorities rather than the social media company. Social media companies like Twitter have also made it nearly impossible to report ToS violations in Germany as the report button immediately funnels you into NetzDG technicalities users aren't meant to understand like which specific law you believe the offending post violates.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
There's a common misconception in Germany that there is a law about "Beamtenbeleidigung" (insult of a public official) but the truth is that public officials have no special protection in that regard per se, it's just usually easier for them to sue people (esp. when you insult a police officer as they're literally the police). There are some caveats when insulting government officials, especially foreign government officials, but insulting a Nazi politician on Facebook is not any different from insulting a celebrity on Facebook.
The problem with social media is that it can be difficult to find out who to sue and compelling a foreign company to release the likely incomplete information they have on a user in an attempt to identify them isn't great. I'm not saying the law in question (NetzDG, requiring social media companies to block such content in Germany) is a good solution to this problem but it's certainly not the worst.
If anything, the problem with NetzDG is that it allows users who are able to avoid revealing their identity unambiguously to engage in Holocaust denialism or Volksverhetzung[0] and have their posts still be visible with a proxy if blocked (allowing Nazi groups to organize and operate hidden in plain sight) or when the content is deleted for those crimes to just be swept under the rug and make it harder to report to the actual authorities rather than the social media company. Social media companies like Twitter have also made it nearly impossible to report ToS violations in Germany as the report button immediately funnels you into NetzDG technicalities users aren't meant to understand like which specific law you believe the offending post violates.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
noduerme(2)
If they really believed this they’d make it so any photo with any face must be approved before being shown by those in the photograph.
This is an intractable problem and just exists as another lever to arbitrarily punish people.
This is an intractable problem and just exists as another lever to arbitrarily punish people.
Is this a response to J.K. Rowling's concerns a few days ago? Three people supporting trans rights took a photo in the front of her house, showing the address, and published it on Twitter. In a Twitter thread published by Rowling, she mentions people reporting it to Twitter Support helped to get it removed [1].
[1] https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1462758324177444870 or backup: https://www.rowlingindex.org/work/ttfaddr/
[1] https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1462758324177444870 or backup: https://www.rowlingindex.org/work/ttfaddr/
Public figures are exempt from the policy.
In this case it counts as trying to silence her so it would likely be removed. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2021/private-i...
Is there a definition of a public figure? Is writing a book enough? Is having an opinion enough? Is stepping out of the house enough for a public figure to be photographed and published about?
More likely it is a response to Andy Ngo, Project Veritas, and accounts like Libs of TikTok.
I wonder if Twitter will begin to enforce this by requiring photos of people to be tagged, and the subject of the photos to "consent" to Twitter using their photos. If so, and if Twitter behaves like any other tech company in using manipulative tactics engineered to extract "consent", I can only see this ending badly for privacy.
This will also be abused by politicians, while it will largely be ignored for normal people.
I don't think the new policy applies to politicians[1], though of course they may still try to abuse it.
[1] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2021/private-i... This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures...
[1] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2021/private-i... This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures...
Is Jeffrey Epstein a public figure? Or only the people that used his services?
I can think of one UK MP who would try to abuse this.
Since we have not had in person conferences or tech meet ups for 2 years it will be interesting to see all the tweets about them in the future not having any of the usual photographs of the crowd, people in the corridors on laptops and participants in sessions, at social events.
I wonder what other behaviours we have forgotten that used to occur? No photos of people in a pub, at a cafe, on vacation. This might make Twitter a less appealing place for the average person.
Imagine if Facebook did this.
I wonder what other behaviours we have forgotten that used to occur? No photos of people in a pub, at a cafe, on vacation. This might make Twitter a less appealing place for the average person.
Imagine if Facebook did this.
Why do we hold companies like Twitter in high regard? More so, why do we consider what is primarily a media company to be valued and considered as a technology company when in many regards it is more like the Washington Post or NY Times than it is like Google? I think the whole framing of Twitter as a tech company needs to be rethought and they need to be valued and considered in the same vein as media companies.
I don’t really see how Twitter is anything but a glorified Internet forum with some high profile posters.
People always focus on the big hypotheticals with these kinds of features. The big potential abuses that could stifle speech and damage democracy.
I think it’s interesting to instead think about the number of individuals this might help. People being bullied, harassed, doxxed, etc. It could be life changing for them.
I think it’s interesting to instead think about the number of individuals this might help. People being bullied, harassed, doxxed, etc. It could be life changing for them.
That’s just the standard “think of the children” argument though. Yes, there are some people it will help. That’s not really relevant in the conversation for what rights everyone is losing.
I disagree. You’re not losing any rights. People act like being able to say/do anything on these private social media platforms is important and censorship of it harms our society - but society seemed to function much better and be much less divided before these platforms arose.
We weren't less divided, our cultural divisions were merely swept under the rug while the powerful got to set the tenor of our cultural and societal development. We're in an age of reckoning, and I think that's a good thing.
Censorship is life changing for everyone
If it’s an actual case of doxxing or canceling, as the parent comment is alluding to as a hypothetical, then dismissing this as censorship does a disservice to those who have to deal with the real censorship (of opinions) that is happening elsewhere on the internet, including on Twitter.
Taking down a Karen video shouldn’t be compared with real censorship (i.e of opinions) when these videos are weaponized to ruin lives over a bad day, and serve little other material value.
Taking down a Karen video shouldn’t be compared with real censorship (i.e of opinions) when these videos are weaponized to ruin lives over a bad day, and serve little other material value.
Or we can just refuse to tolerate any censorship
> It could be life changing for them.
Sure, if it were fairly enforced, it might. But do we trust Twitter to fairly enforce it? Do they have a transparent, accountable process, with the right to appeal? Do they have a trustworthy track record for making fair decisons?
Sure, if it were fairly enforced, it might. But do we trust Twitter to fairly enforce it? Do they have a transparent, accountable process, with the right to appeal? Do they have a trustworthy track record for making fair decisons?
People always focus on the big issues because they are not hypothetical at all.
We are talking about a platform that has had dubious fact check warnings attached to tweets for a year now, which mainly seem to serve to reinforce a false consensus and prevent open debate.
People being bullied, harassed, doxxed, etc are a distraction from this larger issue, and will not benefit from this, because the only ones you ever hear about are people with enough influence and clout to turn being a target into being a public victim.
We are talking about a platform that has had dubious fact check warnings attached to tweets for a year now, which mainly seem to serve to reinforce a false consensus and prevent open debate.
People being bullied, harassed, doxxed, etc are a distraction from this larger issue, and will not benefit from this, because the only ones you ever hear about are people with enough influence and clout to turn being a target into being a public victim.
I don’t know. I had an unflattering photo of myself posted without permission once, and the guy tagged my handle that I use for business rather than the other account. It was good that the guy took it down when I asked. But he could have declined and it would have been a problem for me but not so much for him. This sort of thing happens more than you would think and is not hypothetical.
Important point! Twitter should implement a reporting function where people can report harassment, bullying and doxxing.
They already have that.
It's not hypothetical. Far right trolls are already using this rule to shut down people opposing them: https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1465831941157052416
I'm shocked people are using this as a political tool =O, nobody would ever guessed that.
These right wing trolls may be the only thing that might convince Twitter to cancel the new policy.
But Twitter, you haven't even fixed what's "Trending", specifically in the local context. For example, the word "Jane" is trending in your country, Jane is a well known politician who has probably said something interesting. You click the word to see whatsup...twitter returns some random posts that mention "Jane" probably basing on number of likes
This would be a nice ticket to fix...
This would be a nice ticket to fix...
Whether this was the CEO's first act of business or not, people should be genuinely scared of him. He doesn't give a fuck about the First Amendment and thinks it's his job to dictate what a healthy conversation is and who gets to participate [0]. People should be abandoning this company immediately, but the sad part is that many of its most active users agree with him ideologically. At least Jack gave the appearance of giving a fuck about free speech.
[0] https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/11/18/1012066/emtech-s...
[0] https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/11/18/1012066/emtech-s...
I don't know much him nor have I read that entire transcript, but one of the main jobs for a CEO is to set the direction and tone for a companies services. They can say/do whatever they want wrt free speech and their own messaging platform.
Can't an act fall under both "they are legally allowed to do this" and "we should be scared of anyone who'd do this"?
"privacy".
Uh huh. This will be applied unevenly. Pics that violate this that support one political cause will be allowed, pics that violate this that support the opposite will be banned.
Uh huh. This will be applied unevenly. Pics that violate this that support one political cause will be allowed, pics that violate this that support the opposite will be banned.
Wouldn't this be an actual ideal use case for facial recognition? Apple wanted to do CSAM before upload, Twitter could do consent-checking before posting.
Users might consider saying "I do not want my images being public" and can be prohibited before posting.
Taking it down after it's posted is useless, it'll be in caches all over the world and by that time, it's too late.
For example, every reddit post ever posted (or near enough) are scraped in real time (pushbullet, bigquery etc) so the take-downs need to happen before it hits public APIs.
I also think we need to enforce consent, and begin taking action against tech firms - if I did not consent and they allowed it to be published, they should be held to account. They need stronger measures to ensure consent was freely and fairly given.
Users might consider saying "I do not want my images being public" and can be prohibited before posting.
Taking it down after it's posted is useless, it'll be in caches all over the world and by that time, it's too late.
For example, every reddit post ever posted (or near enough) are scraped in real time (pushbullet, bigquery etc) so the take-downs need to happen before it hits public APIs.
I also think we need to enforce consent, and begin taking action against tech firms - if I did not consent and they allowed it to be published, they should be held to account. They need stronger measures to ensure consent was freely and fairly given.
So I guess we will see much more of this [0] and then it won't be a "mistake" but rather "protecting these peoples privacy!"
[0] https://nypost.com/2021/03/24/twitter-censoring-detention-ce...
[0] https://nypost.com/2021/03/24/twitter-censoring-detention-ce...
this is already being abused
https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1465831941157052416
https://twitter.com/NotToadMckinley/status/14660133488986931...
https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1466155751328530437
https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1466218599626854404
https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1466232833815420930
https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1465831941157052416
https://twitter.com/NotToadMckinley/status/14660133488986931...
https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1466155751328530437
https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1466218599626854404
https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1466232833815420930
A lot of political blogs think it is designed to remove memes ahead of an election. It likely won't be fairly enforced.
Is it time to create new platforms that decentralize power? If we agree that some level of social digital connections are important, then why should corporations be in charge? Shouldn’t it be a democratic solution?
And so it begins. The degenerates already are using it to their advantage:
https://ibb.co/yX61n4T
https://ibb.co/yX61n4T
The one thing I see a lot on Twitter is people "retweeting" the wrong photo of the wrong person. I saw all sorts of people being pictured as that school shooter last week.
Whatever we think of this policy, anyone who tweets or re-tweets a photo of an uninvolved person in a breaking news case should be, by their policy, permanently banned (or shadowbanned).
(And also misinformation, like what Spike Lee did: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/spike-le... )
Whatever we think of this policy, anyone who tweets or re-tweets a photo of an uninvolved person in a breaking news case should be, by their policy, permanently banned (or shadowbanned).
(And also misinformation, like what Spike Lee did: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/spike-le... )
It's already being heavily used to censor citizen groups that expose white supremacist terror organizations. Just as expected.