Twitter, It’s Time to End Your Anything-Goes Paradise(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Twitter, It’s Time to End Your Anything-Goes Paradise
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/technology/twitter-end-anything-goes.html
115 comments
Anything goes? Twitter have been actively censoring hashtags, banning people, shadow-banning accounts and most recently "de-verifiying" people due to political differences.
They've been deverifying people for breaking their ToS.
I find it astonishing how presumably sober people think it's reasonable to cry for censorship.
> Is someone making a positive contribution to the service, for example by posting well-liked content and engaging in meaningful conversations?
Yep, because these are easily verifiable parameters that don't depend in any way on the ethical beliefs and political alignment of whoever rates users.
Yep, because these are easily verifiable parameters that don't depend in any way on the ethical beliefs and political alignment of whoever rates users.
"Does this user have a racial slur in their username?" would knock out like a really good chunk of the problem, tbh. Or like "Is the user saying they are a nazi" would cover a lot too. Pretty basic stuff would go a long way.
> "Is the user saying they are a nazi"
This would only be a fair standard if also applied to Communists. In terms of sheer historical body count, there is no rival.
And then, if you did draw ideological lines in the sand, who sets that line? Whom does it emcompass? Does it apply to religions? Do we exclude Christians and Muslims? Do we exclude anybody who ever said anything nice about Genghis Khan or the Achaemenid Immortals?
Establishing standards of tolerance is one thing, but defining where the lines are can be difficult, and possibly embroil anyone.
This would only be a fair standard if also applied to Communists. In terms of sheer historical body count, there is no rival.
And then, if you did draw ideological lines in the sand, who sets that line? Whom does it emcompass? Does it apply to religions? Do we exclude Christians and Muslims? Do we exclude anybody who ever said anything nice about Genghis Khan or the Achaemenid Immortals?
Establishing standards of tolerance is one thing, but defining where the lines are can be difficult, and possibly embroil anyone.
> This would only be a fair standard if also applied to Communists. In terms of sheer historical body count, there is no rival.
Depending on how I was born, nazis want to get rid of me.
Who exactly are these "communists" wanting to get rid of? And how can I spot those people?
A lot of people has died in the name of Christianity. Would you call Christianity violent in terms of ideals?
I don't disagree that communist regimes have killed innumerable people, and even if I disagree with communism and think it's a terrible idea, there is literally nothing in the tenets against groups of people or violence.
Depending on how I was born, nazis want to get rid of me.
Who exactly are these "communists" wanting to get rid of? And how can I spot those people?
A lot of people has died in the name of Christianity. Would you call Christianity violent in terms of ideals?
I don't disagree that communist regimes have killed innumerable people, and even if I disagree with communism and think it's a terrible idea, there is literally nothing in the tenets against groups of people or violence.
Advance apologies for getting a little off-topic, but compelled to reply in this case.
I'm...not even sure how to respond to this historical misunderstanding, other than Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_...
> there is literally nothing in the tenets against groups of people or violence
Depending on the particular regime and which groups they designate as the bourgeoisie: Scientists, Farmers, Journalists, Factory Managers, Christians, Jews, Petty Criminals, Tartars, Kurds, Ukrainians, Germans, Poles, Estonians, Kulaks, Teachers(who taught the wrong thing), Capitalists, etc.
The wonderful thing about Communism is that if the Eye of Sauron falls upon your arbitrary group and designated as bourgeoisie, you will be (enslaved|tortured|killed).
At least with national socialism you have a chance to get out.
I'm...not even sure how to respond to this historical misunderstanding, other than Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_...
> there is literally nothing in the tenets against groups of people or violence
Depending on the particular regime and which groups they designate as the bourgeoisie: Scientists, Farmers, Journalists, Factory Managers, Christians, Jews, Petty Criminals, Tartars, Kurds, Ukrainians, Germans, Poles, Estonians, Kulaks, Teachers(who taught the wrong thing), Capitalists, etc.
The wonderful thing about Communism is that if the Eye of Sauron falls upon your arbitrary group and designated as bourgeoisie, you will be (enslaved|tortured|killed).
At least with national socialism you have a chance to get out.
> I'm...not even sure how to respond to this historical misunderstanding, other than Wikipedia:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_....
So you didn't actually even read my post. This is what I wrote:
> I don't disagree that communist regimes have killed innumerable people
And then you continue:
> Depending on the particular regime and which groups they designate as the bourgeoisie: Scientists, Farmers, Journalists, Factory Managers, Christians, Jews, Petty Criminals, Tartars, Kurds, Ukrainians, Germans, Poles, Estonians, Kulaks, Teachers(who taught the wrong thing), Capitalists, etc.
This was exactly my point.
> At least with national socialism you have a chance to get out.
Not if you're born the wrong way.
And I'm curious as to why you didn't comment on Christianity, and how you view killing in the name of Christ/God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence#War
Is Christianity then the same as Communism in terms of violence?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_....
So you didn't actually even read my post. This is what I wrote:
> I don't disagree that communist regimes have killed innumerable people
And then you continue:
> Depending on the particular regime and which groups they designate as the bourgeoisie: Scientists, Farmers, Journalists, Factory Managers, Christians, Jews, Petty Criminals, Tartars, Kurds, Ukrainians, Germans, Poles, Estonians, Kulaks, Teachers(who taught the wrong thing), Capitalists, etc.
This was exactly my point.
> At least with national socialism you have a chance to get out.
Not if you're born the wrong way.
And I'm curious as to why you didn't comment on Christianity, and how you view killing in the name of Christ/God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence#War
Is Christianity then the same as Communism in terms of violence?
As it's XGiving, I lack time to respond in full, but again, compelled to reply to this:
>> At least with national socialism you have a chance to get out. > Not if you're born the wrong way.
This is demonstrably untrue. A good historical example would be the Madagascar Plan, in which Germany was willing to fund the relocation of their "undesirables", but was prevented from doing so by the Allies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
Prior to even this, Nazi Germany absolutely did give their "undesirables" ample opportunity to flee, which led to a major humanitarian crisis (about which the Allies did nothing):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference
The larger point here is that: yes, National Socialism is a certain grade of evil, but as an ideology that offers the chance for their targeted groups to get out, it is significantly and substantially less evil than an ideology that kills/tortures/enslaves ON SIGHT and not only offers no chance of escape, but actively prevents it, as is the case of nearly every implementation of Communism the world has seen thus far.
So, if you are a member of a targeted group, if given a choice between two evils:
1. An evil which hates you but at least gives you the chance to make a life somewhere else.
and
2. An evil which prevents you from leaving and shoots, starves, or enslaves you on sight.
I don't think there is any objective argument to me made that option 1 is somehow worse. Option 2 is objectively more evil.
Perhaps after USXGiving I will have more time to respond to your other points. Cheers!
>> At least with national socialism you have a chance to get out. > Not if you're born the wrong way.
This is demonstrably untrue. A good historical example would be the Madagascar Plan, in which Germany was willing to fund the relocation of their "undesirables", but was prevented from doing so by the Allies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
Prior to even this, Nazi Germany absolutely did give their "undesirables" ample opportunity to flee, which led to a major humanitarian crisis (about which the Allies did nothing):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference
The larger point here is that: yes, National Socialism is a certain grade of evil, but as an ideology that offers the chance for their targeted groups to get out, it is significantly and substantially less evil than an ideology that kills/tortures/enslaves ON SIGHT and not only offers no chance of escape, but actively prevents it, as is the case of nearly every implementation of Communism the world has seen thus far.
So, if you are a member of a targeted group, if given a choice between two evils:
1. An evil which hates you but at least gives you the chance to make a life somewhere else.
and
2. An evil which prevents you from leaving and shoots, starves, or enslaves you on sight.
I don't think there is any objective argument to me made that option 1 is somehow worse. Option 2 is objectively more evil.
Perhaps after USXGiving I will have more time to respond to your other points. Cheers!
Wait: the one who wants to silence speech is you.
We are just saying that, if you want to silence people in the name of past mass killings, you have to silence a lot of people. Nazis, communist / socialists, probably even Christians and Muslims, yes.
Wouldn't be better to just not try to silence anyone? :)
We are just saying that, if you want to silence people in the name of past mass killings, you have to silence a lot of people. Nazis, communist / socialists, probably even Christians and Muslims, yes.
Wouldn't be better to just not try to silence anyone? :)
> Wait: the one who wants to silence speech is you.
> We are just saying that, if you want to silence people in the name of past mass killings, you have to silence a lot of people. Nazis, communist / socialists, probably even Christians and Muslims, yes.
> Wouldn't be better to just not try to silence anyone? :)
No, I'm saying that inherently violent ideologies are different from non-violent ideologies that have been used for violent ends.
> We are just saying that, if you want to silence people in the name of past mass killings, you have to silence a lot of people. Nazis, communist / socialists, probably even Christians and Muslims, yes.
> Wouldn't be better to just not try to silence anyone? :)
No, I'm saying that inherently violent ideologies are different from non-violent ideologies that have been used for violent ends.
Good luck drawing a line. Communism advocates destruction of the borgeouisie. Is it inherently violent? "Destruction" seems pretty violent to me.
I, for one, am a bourgeois and happy to be. I'd be in deep shit if any communist or socialist inspired group hypothetically took power in my country.
>Who exactly are these "communists" wanting to get rid of?
It's this kind of ignorance that will drive Twitter into irrelevance, once they eliminate all opposing points of view. It will exist as a community but not as a source of information.
It's this kind of ignorance that will drive Twitter into irrelevance, once they eliminate all opposing points of view. It will exist as a community but not as a source of information.
Those people wouldn't vanish from Twitter, they would just choose a slightly more subtle username.
Correct. They would use more cryptic slurs which would be used in context and would be not easily differentiable from common words.
You can't just silence hate speech with censorship. More generally, you can't silence ideas. If you try, you normally end up in a worse situation.
You can't just silence hate speech with censorship. More generally, you can't silence ideas. If you try, you normally end up in a worse situation.
Can this be summarized as "Twitter, implement censorship because people are saying things we don't like?" I fully understand that Twitter is a company offering a service and they are intrinsically allowed to police content being posted on their platform.
The whole point of democratic society in the United States is to allow people freedom of speech and thought. If we limit the discussion of ideas to only popular/accepted/politically-correct ones, then there is no chance to analyze ideas from a relative perspective; there is nothing to compare those ideas to. We must allow discourse, even at the extremes of the spectrum.
To quote various sources, "There can be no light without dark."
The whole point of democratic society in the United States is to allow people freedom of speech and thought. If we limit the discussion of ideas to only popular/accepted/politically-correct ones, then there is no chance to analyze ideas from a relative perspective; there is nothing to compare those ideas to. We must allow discourse, even at the extremes of the spectrum.
To quote various sources, "There can be no light without dark."
Can this be summarized as "Twitter, implement censorship because people are saying things we don't like?"
Yes, basically. OP apparently also thinks that what constitutes community is a central authority handing out badges.
the company should issue badges of status or of shame based on signals about how people actually use, or abuse, Twitter. In other words, Twitter should begin to think of itself, and its users, as a community
And believes that Facebook or Linkedin profiles are markers of online reputation.
These people (he's not alone) are watching their authority eroding and believe that it could be stopped with another status symbol. Doubtful.
Aside, which online communities has Anil Dash created?
Yes, basically. OP apparently also thinks that what constitutes community is a central authority handing out badges.
the company should issue badges of status or of shame based on signals about how people actually use, or abuse, Twitter. In other words, Twitter should begin to think of itself, and its users, as a community
And believes that Facebook or Linkedin profiles are markers of online reputation.
These people (he's not alone) are watching their authority eroding and believe that it could be stopped with another status symbol. Doubtful.
Aside, which online communities has Anil Dash created?
There was an entire startup built around social media profile reputation, called Klout. It's possible for some people to earn decent lifestyle incomes from social media, although this usually means Instagram.
> Aside, which online communities has Anil Dash created?
Stackoverflow? https://stackoverflow.com/company/management
> Aside, which online communities has Anil Dash created?
Stackoverflow? https://stackoverflow.com/company/management
He joined way after that was created.
I agree with you. The only thing that censorship brings in this particular case is a safe space for advertisers. I see exactly 0 harm in sharing a platform with people with alternate views than me.
If you don't like the way a social platform is heading, then leave it. You are not entitled to a safe space.
At the end of the day twitter is going to cater to its biggest and most influential users.
It costs you nothing to ignore the users who are saying things you don't like.
If you don't like the way a social platform is heading, then leave it. You are not entitled to a safe space.
At the end of the day twitter is going to cater to its biggest and most influential users.
It costs you nothing to ignore the users who are saying things you don't like.
> The only thing that censorship brings in this particular case is a safe space for advertisers.
What??? There are people out there getting death threats, getting doxxed, being attacked with all manner of epithets on Twitter. It stands to reason that maybe the experience would be better for those people without that sort of content directed at them.
> If you don't like the way a social platform is heading, then leave it. You are not entitled to a safe space.
Yes. And as a business, Twitter has a vested interest in not letting their platform drive away swaths of users due to toxicity. Indeed, one of the key reasons Facebook was successful is that users have the ability to restrict communications to the people they want to.
What??? There are people out there getting death threats, getting doxxed, being attacked with all manner of epithets on Twitter. It stands to reason that maybe the experience would be better for those people without that sort of content directed at them.
> If you don't like the way a social platform is heading, then leave it. You are not entitled to a safe space.
Yes. And as a business, Twitter has a vested interest in not letting their platform drive away swaths of users due to toxicity. Indeed, one of the key reasons Facebook was successful is that users have the ability to restrict communications to the people they want to.
> I see exactly 0 harm in sharing a platform with people with alternate views than me.
Spoken like someone who's never been the victim of a targeted harassment campaign. It's a little hard to take that view when people are posting pictures of your children's school along with their death threats.
Spoken like someone who's never been the victim of a targeted harassment campaign. It's a little hard to take that view when people are posting pictures of your children's school along with their death threats.
Since when is sharing a platform with people whose political views differ from yours equal to allowing targeted harassment? I don't think many would disagree that someone who threatens real life violence on someone should result in a banning from that platform. But an automatic ban based on political affiliation seems undemocratic.
The original article doesn't mention anything like "an automatic ban based on political affiliation". The de-verification of white supremacists argument hinges around both verification as endorsement, and the possibility that some political beliefs (white supremacy) are in themselves a threat of violence.
Meh, these threats exist in the real world as well. You can't silence everybody who might possibly be a threat at some point.
Those who actually make the threats should be dealt with, but last time I checked it's "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty until proven liberal".
Those who actually make the threats should be dealt with, but last time I checked it's "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty until proven liberal".
Yeah, it's pretty fucked up when an internet lynch mob gets you fired because you said "dongle" or something similarly bad.
You can say and think whatever you like. Companies giving platforms to hate is not something that democracy requires.
It's less "that idea is popular" and more "these people are inciting hatred against other people".
I'm baffled that people still repeat this "free speech is important" thing when we're talking about a private service giving an audience to white supremacists.
It's less "that idea is popular" and more "these people are inciting hatred against other people".
I'm baffled that people still repeat this "free speech is important" thing when we're talking about a private service giving an audience to white supremacists.
Yes. They are not legally required to provide service to anyone.
But indiscriminately providing services to everyone (within the laws of your country), without booting people based on a personal agenda, is the ABC of gaining the trust of your users.
But indiscriminately providing services to everyone (within the laws of your country), without booting people based on a personal agenda, is the ABC of gaining the trust of your users.
But people aren't leaving twitter because they perceive it as favoring one side. People are leaving because they are being flooded with hateful, abusive comments from trolls and their bots. So it seems the key to gaining trust is creating a place where users don't experience rampant abuse.
It depends on what you mean by 'personal agenda'. If someone is directing hate speech at other users, would it be pursuing a personal agenda to ban or otherwise sanction that user?
It's not always easy to draw a line on conduct, but I think there is plenty of behavior on Twitter that 99% of people could easily identify as toxic.
It's not always easy to draw a line on conduct, but I think there is plenty of behavior on Twitter that 99% of people could easily identify as toxic.
Wrong. A respected editorial standard allows for even more trust.
Example: Do you trust Washington Post or Twitter more?
Example: Do you trust Washington Post or Twitter more?
Twitter and it’s not even close. A journalists synthesis of what he thinks the evidence is carries no weight. Twitter is like a mini trial. You hear the testimony from the horse’s mouth, people cite documentary evidence, and you weigh credibility to reach a conclusion.
Comparing a centralized, unified group like a newspaper writing team with a diffuse, decentralized mob like Twitter makes me question your sincerity.
Twitter is a single corporation. It can choose to limit the scope of its published tweets if it wishes, via stronger editorial rules.
It could also choose to open a steel factory and produce I beams -- why are we not criticizing its low steel output?
Twitter would immediately lose all utility to me if it transitioned out of the business of being a forum/socialization platform to a poorly sourced algorothmic newspaper. (They're flirting with it -- and frankly, it doesn't seem to be going well, because that's not what people want.)
It seems outright disingenuous to suggest that Twitter and the NYT are in the same business, and seems to be based entirely around a false equivalence about "publish". There are multiple kinds of businesses that publish things, and the solution to problems in one domain aren't just to be a differemt type of business.
Twitter would immediately lose all utility to me if it transitioned out of the business of being a forum/socialization platform to a poorly sourced algorothmic newspaper. (They're flirting with it -- and frankly, it doesn't seem to be going well, because that's not what people want.)
It seems outright disingenuous to suggest that Twitter and the NYT are in the same business, and seems to be based entirely around a false equivalence about "publish". There are multiple kinds of businesses that publish things, and the solution to problems in one domain aren't just to be a differemt type of business.
I believe democratically elected governments should have more power than corporations. Right now, corporations have complete and utter control over the most common and important communications method of our time.
Think about what you're saying: corporations have the power to prevent you from saying anything online. Twitter and Facebook can ban you for your political opinions. Fine, you say: get your own website. Well, we've seen that your registrar, CDN, and hosting providers will also kick you off if they find your speech sufficiently offensive (or if enough pressure comes down on them to do so.) In the end, your ISP can do the same thing. Corporations own the commons we all use. Yes, the FA only protects you from government censorship, but the societal principle of free speech is not so limited. If you cannot speak because every commons is owned by a private corporation, or where any speech can be banned because a mob is threatening to protest you, you do not have free speech in any meaningful sense.
I don't believe the solution to our problems is to blithely conclude that corporations can do whatever they want, it's their platforms, and that anyway, it's about "hate" (who gets to define that?) We need to look very seriously about how communication has evolved since the 18th century and what "freedom of speech" means now, and how to settle it in a way that at least leads to democratically elected institutions having the power to restrict it, rather than corporate overlords.
I would also argue that repression of speech is a contributing factor to the rise of violence. As long as all speech is legitimized, there's a relief valve for despicable beliefs. The Nazi Party was born in an environment where political violence was already commonplace, and where nationalist rhetoric resulted in the nationalists being severely beaten. Consequently, only the most violent and committed people remained, who then organized their own violent mobs. Ultimately, the perception of being "repressed" by both mob violence and the state (the Nazi party was later banned) only lent support by people who felt for the "underdog" and radicalized supporters who felt that legitimate, nonviolent means would never be enough.
Think about what you're saying: corporations have the power to prevent you from saying anything online. Twitter and Facebook can ban you for your political opinions. Fine, you say: get your own website. Well, we've seen that your registrar, CDN, and hosting providers will also kick you off if they find your speech sufficiently offensive (or if enough pressure comes down on them to do so.) In the end, your ISP can do the same thing. Corporations own the commons we all use. Yes, the FA only protects you from government censorship, but the societal principle of free speech is not so limited. If you cannot speak because every commons is owned by a private corporation, or where any speech can be banned because a mob is threatening to protest you, you do not have free speech in any meaningful sense.
I don't believe the solution to our problems is to blithely conclude that corporations can do whatever they want, it's their platforms, and that anyway, it's about "hate" (who gets to define that?) We need to look very seriously about how communication has evolved since the 18th century and what "freedom of speech" means now, and how to settle it in a way that at least leads to democratically elected institutions having the power to restrict it, rather than corporate overlords.
I would also argue that repression of speech is a contributing factor to the rise of violence. As long as all speech is legitimized, there's a relief valve for despicable beliefs. The Nazi Party was born in an environment where political violence was already commonplace, and where nationalist rhetoric resulted in the nationalists being severely beaten. Consequently, only the most violent and committed people remained, who then organized their own violent mobs. Ultimately, the perception of being "repressed" by both mob violence and the state (the Nazi party was later banned) only lent support by people who felt for the "underdog" and radicalized supporters who felt that legitimate, nonviolent means would never be enough.
I hate nazism as much as everyone else.
Problem is they and other media companies (and often the users as well) has ridiculous problems to understand the diffence between racism (judging and treating people different depending on who their parents where etc) and scepticism towards a recent immigration wave (do we want to relocate all these humans right here, right now? Can we help more people by doing it differently?)
Problem is they and other media companies (and often the users as well) has ridiculous problems to understand the diffence between racism (judging and treating people different depending on who their parents where etc) and scepticism towards a recent immigration wave (do we want to relocate all these humans right here, right now? Can we help more people by doing it differently?)
OK, but there are definitely plenty of clear cut cases and Twitter has historically had issues dealing even with these. This isn't an issue of media in general, we're talking about Twitter, that's what the article is about.
Because free speech is important. That includes speech you do not like.
This is it - this is what baffles me, thank you for posting this.
hate cannot be precisely defined though. Thats the crux of the argument.
Plenty of countries have legal definitions which are well enforced (1) and which often rely on internationally agreed upon standards (2).
Slippery slopes is usually a fallacious argument, decidedly so in this case where plenty of successful examples exists.
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Keegstra
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civi...
Slippery slopes is usually a fallacious argument, decidedly so in this case where plenty of successful examples exists.
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Keegstra
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civi...
Sure it can.
It means "intense dislike". If that is directed at an intrinsic property of a group of people, that's hate speech.
Example: black people as opposed to smokers.
It means "intense dislike". If that is directed at an intrinsic property of a group of people, that's hate speech.
Example: black people as opposed to smokers.
Very soon that leads to any speech criticizing, say, the capitalists or the politicians in power.
> Very soon that leads to any speech criticizing, say, the capitalists or the politicians in power.
No, because that's not an intrinsic property.
Hating people who take too long at the register isn't the same as viewing all redheads as inferior.
No, because that's not an intrinsic property.
Hating people who take too long at the register isn't the same as viewing all redheads as inferior.
What is intrinsic? Is being poor intrinsic? Can I spew hate against the poor and the homeless then? The problem is these definitions are unclear, and policing hate against black people obliges you to police hate against the homeless, and pretty soon everything else. I have seen far more examples of slippery slopes happening than not, so forgive me if I'm skeptical.
The whole point is that lines are not easy to draw. Religion is a belief system and is not an intrinsic property either. Are you going to allow speech like "Kill all muslims" which is not very different from "Kill all capitalists".
Free speech is so critical to a functioning free society that I'd rather err on the side of allowing bad speech rather than banning not-bad speech by mistake.
Free speech is so critical to a functioning free society that I'd rather err on the side of allowing bad speech rather than banning not-bad speech by mistake.
I'm terrified of people who use phrases like "inciting hatred" as an excuse for why we should start ostracizing entire swatches of people from social discourse. Hilariously, I'd say that if anyone is "inciting hatred", it's probably you at your strawmen.
In my experience, they're much more dangerous to the well-being of society than the people they're trying to silence, as they're generally authoritarians of the worst sort without a shred of remorse because they're doing it for The Right Reasons(TM) and are sure of it.
But if I tolerate you speaking, someone I view as an immediate and visceral threat to my society, I suppose I can tolerate just about anyone using words.
It's a shame we'll likely come to violence because you can't show the same tolerance, and use words not force on people you disagree with.
In my experience, they're much more dangerous to the well-being of society than the people they're trying to silence, as they're generally authoritarians of the worst sort without a shred of remorse because they're doing it for The Right Reasons(TM) and are sure of it.
But if I tolerate you speaking, someone I view as an immediate and visceral threat to my society, I suppose I can tolerate just about anyone using words.
It's a shame we'll likely come to violence because you can't show the same tolerance, and use words not force on people you disagree with.
No, how about users (me, at least) are leaving Twitter because it's a rotten cesspool of misogyny, racism and stupidity. Maybe users should get a choice to avoid some of this?
Any public platform is going to have this. You have to first decide what you don't want in clear language and legislate it very specifically and clearly. Or you will destroy diversity and free speech.
Newspapers and TV are controlled so you don't see too much of it. But any public internet site cannot avoid this without heavy moderation which at Twitter, Youtube, Facebook scale are not easy problems to solve.
Newspapers and TV are controlled so you don't see too much of it. But any public internet site cannot avoid this without heavy moderation which at Twitter, Youtube, Facebook scale are not easy problems to solve.
But you have a choice and according to you, you are already using it: leaving Twitter.
To your point, say twitter existed when segregation was accepted as “normal society”, Or pre-lgbt general acceptance.
That's exactly my point. I myself am not racist, nor do I believe in segregation, but does that mean I or others should actively work to prevent the discussion of those ideas? Wouldn't we become just as bad as the people we decry if we tried to suppress their viewpoints?
No, because we'd still be, you know, not racist.
But I think suppressing a viewpoint is counterproductive. Instead, the holders of those viewpoints should be held to the light, and it's a Twitter problem in that such people can be completely anonymous or even fake. Hard to have a public debate when some of the participating citizens are fictional.
But I think suppressing a viewpoint is counterproductive. Instead, the holders of those viewpoints should be held to the light, and it's a Twitter problem in that such people can be completely anonymous or even fake. Hard to have a public debate when some of the participating citizens are fictional.
The arguments for the US constitution in the Federalists Papers were presented pseudonymously. Debate doesn't require some silly real names policy.
Yes, and no? Proposing racial segragation is something is highly offensive to non-white people, discriminatory in and of itself. If you're an employer, letting some guy talk about his beliefs in racial discrimination in your workplace is creating a hostile environment for your other employees. If you have any kind of position in a community, you shouldn't allow it there either.
No, that's an insufficient summary. At the least, you should note harassment as a significant issue, since the author brings it up many times.
The 1st amendment only applies to the government, not to your peer citizens or to companies. They can censor whatever they want.
I scrolled down until I found this comment just so that I could give you my canned response:
The government supports free speech because it's important and a Good Thing. Just because private companies aren't required to do the same doesn't make it any less important and a Good Thing.
The government supports free speech because it's important and a Good Thing. Just because private companies aren't required to do the same doesn't make it any less important and a Good Thing.
No it is not a universally Good Thing, that is an extremely facile reading of free speech.
Is it a good thing if someone at your job shouts racial epithets at you all day? Should woman have to tolerate being jeered and catcalled at every private business they patronize? Should a restaurant turn a blind eye to a belligerent customer that curses at the wait staff and everyone in ear shot?
Of course not. A private business has a vested interest in creating an environment where customers feel welcome. They could also choose to do nothing and let the chips fall where they may, but if enough bad actors make things bad for everyone else, that business will fail.
You have a right to not face retaliation from the government for speaking your mind. It doesn't mean everyone else has to accommodate whatever it is you have to say.
Is it a good thing if someone at your job shouts racial epithets at you all day? Should woman have to tolerate being jeered and catcalled at every private business they patronize? Should a restaurant turn a blind eye to a belligerent customer that curses at the wait staff and everyone in ear shot?
Of course not. A private business has a vested interest in creating an environment where customers feel welcome. They could also choose to do nothing and let the chips fall where they may, but if enough bad actors make things bad for everyone else, that business will fail.
You have a right to not face retaliation from the government for speaking your mind. It doesn't mean everyone else has to accommodate whatever it is you have to say.
>Is it a good thing if someone at your job shouts racial epithets at you all day? Should woman have to tolerate being jeered and catcalled at every private business they patronize? Should a restaurant turn a blind eye to a belligerent customer that curses at the wait staff and everyone in ear shot?
No. It's reasonable to fire someone who berates other employees. It's reasonable to kick patrons out of your store if they harass women. It's reasonable to kick out a belligerent customer.
But Twitter is none of these things. Twitter is a platform for discourse.
No. It's reasonable to fire someone who berates other employees. It's reasonable to kick patrons out of your store if they harass women. It's reasonable to kick out a belligerent customer.
But Twitter is none of these things. Twitter is a platform for discourse.
Twitter is a business, and they get to choose what sort of business they want to be.
If they want to be totally hands off, they can do that. But if they want to set a tone for how people use their service, they can do that too.
Reddit is a platform for discourse too, and they've decided to evict certain communities from their platform because they don't match Reddit's goals and values. HN is a platform for discourse and there is a reputation system that controls how people interact with it. Facebook is another platform where users can decide who they interact with, and how.
If they want to be totally hands off, they can do that. But if they want to set a tone for how people use their service, they can do that too.
Reddit is a platform for discourse too, and they've decided to evict certain communities from their platform because they don't match Reddit's goals and values. HN is a platform for discourse and there is a reputation system that controls how people interact with it. Facebook is another platform where users can decide who they interact with, and how.
>If they want to be totally hands off, they can do that. If they want to be totally hands off, they can do that. But if they want to set a tone for how people use their service, they can do that too.
Yes, they can. I'm just going to repost my canned response now:
>The government supports free speech because it's important and a Good Thing. Just because private companies aren't required to do the same doesn't make it any less important and a Good Thing.
Yes, they can. I'm just going to repost my canned response now:
>The government supports free speech because it's important and a Good Thing. Just because private companies aren't required to do the same doesn't make it any less important and a Good Thing.
Posting the same canned response twice in one thread doesn't advance the discussion at all.
It's proposing that you read it agian, with the implication that you probably missed the point.
I feel like those of us that are very scared of authoritarian tendencies demonstrated in this thread are being interpreted as promoting hatred. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," could not be more applicable.
The point your canned response misses entirely is that it is non always a 'Good Thing'
People on both sides pull this card out till it affects their PoV. Imagine the calls we'd witness from one side of the spectrum if Twitter went 4chan.
If Twitter went full 4chan it would implode. There's no way Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or even Reddit would have gotten to the size they have if they were curated in favor of trolls.
When subgroups of trolls have gotten booted from larger communities and tried to start their own social media enclaves, they've never gotten to a truly large scale because most people don't want to be part of that kind of community.
When subgroups of trolls have gotten booted from larger communities and tried to start their own social media enclaves, they've never gotten to a truly large scale because most people don't want to be part of that kind of community.
My point is people are okay with sites self governing till self government evolves into the loudspeaker for the other side and then they want regulation.
A better way, in my view would be for twitter to allow people to subscribe to groups and those groups have their own moderation. Obviously some things would be subject to regular laws like immediate threats of violence, doxxing, etc.
A better way, in my view would be for twitter to allow people to subscribe to groups and those groups have their own moderation. Obviously some things would be subject to regular laws like immediate threats of violence, doxxing, etc.
I didn't mention the First Amendment on purpose. I am quite aware--like most US-based readers here--that it does not apply to private discourse. My first paragraph should be interpreted as such.
No one believes they can't. But should they? https://theintercept.com/2014/08/21/twitter-facebook-executi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Tolerance is generally a useful tool for social discourse, but when your "peers" are actively working to recruit and organize a movement to silence/deport/kill your friends it's generally not useful to tolerate that behavior.
Tolerance only works when you have at least the smallest and most fundamental amount of social cohesion.
Tolerance is generally a useful tool for social discourse, but when your "peers" are actively working to recruit and organize a movement to silence/deport/kill your friends it's generally not useful to tolerate that behavior.
Tolerance only works when you have at least the smallest and most fundamental amount of social cohesion.
Is there any mainstream movement for reporting legal immigrants?
As for illegals, every major country in the world deports illegal immigrants, even good old Canada, to the chagrin of many who thought they'd walk over and be granted immigration status without any further effort.
As for illegals, every major country in the world deports illegal immigrants, even good old Canada, to the chagrin of many who thought they'd walk over and be granted immigration status without any further effort.
(I'm assuming "reporting" was a typo for "deporting")
Brexit?
Helpfully Brexit is a multi-faceted movement, so you can't pin down people as supporting or opposing any particular policy. But it seems a large part of it was driven by opposition to "eastern europeans" - who are in the UK legally under freedom of movement.
If Brexit happens without a new rule being introduced, suddenly millions of people who legally immigrated to the UK will become "illegal". (They can try the naturalisation process, which is long, expensive, not at all guaranteed to succeed, and closed to many categories of people)
Brexit?
Helpfully Brexit is a multi-faceted movement, so you can't pin down people as supporting or opposing any particular policy. But it seems a large part of it was driven by opposition to "eastern europeans" - who are in the UK legally under freedom of movement.
If Brexit happens without a new rule being introduced, suddenly millions of people who legally immigrated to the UK will become "illegal". (They can try the naturalisation process, which is long, expensive, not at all guaranteed to succeed, and closed to many categories of people)
And white supremacists say their enemies are against social cohesion and organizing to silence people (in the latter case there's a bit of truth, in terms of the anti-civil-liberties streak of my fellow progressives and leftists).
In the end it's still taking political sides.
In the end it's still taking political sides.
> where even the vilest, most hateful and antisocial behavior should be tolerated.
I'm confused, I see stories complaining about Twitter's heavy-handed censorship all the time, whether it's banning accounts or simply removing objectionable hashtags from the "Trending" list.
When did they suddenly develop the opposite problem?
I'm confused, I see stories complaining about Twitter's heavy-handed censorship all the time, whether it's banning accounts or simply removing objectionable hashtags from the "Trending" list.
When did they suddenly develop the opposite problem?
They’ve never done a good job of dealing with problem people.
There are two stories you hear:
1. Twitter killed the account of normal person X for no reason (or for arguing with someone who deserves to have their account killed but don’t)
2. Twitter, for once, killed the account of someone who really deserved it and all their followers/ideological believers scream CENSORSHIP LIBERAL MEDIA at the top of their lungs
There are two stories you hear:
1. Twitter killed the account of normal person X for no reason (or for arguing with someone who deserves to have their account killed but don’t)
2. Twitter, for once, killed the account of someone who really deserved it and all their followers/ideological believers scream CENSORSHIP LIBERAL MEDIA at the top of their lungs
It's just one more battle Twitter can't win. The problem with Twitter is not any particular political view, it's that Twitter is an extreme polarizer and troll amplifier.
When was the last time anyone referred to Twitter as "anything-goes"?
NYT, it's time to end your "editorials are news" dystopia.
NYT, it's time to end your "editorials are news" dystopia.
It's a columnist presenting their own views, something newspapers have always had.
That's true, except it used to be common to label such articles as "editorial" or "opinion". Granted, you and I can already recognize that it's an opinion piece, but not having an explicit distinction is obviously intended to blur the lines between fact and opinion. I'm just not a fan of this practice.
Very fair. I have seen people share opinion pieces as news articles before too. Very similar to the ads that look exactly like articles.
I feel like making a service where people can post public 140 character messages, and other people can follow them, and thats the entire app, and call it twitter classic.
Hm. Spin it up under a non-profit, create or build upon an open protocol. Appeal to the folks who think the Internet would be better off with something twitter-like but as kind-of a public service, and more open.
If you do allow responses/conversations, allow it only between users who follow one another. But maybe just don't allow it at all.
[EDIT] actually, if anyone's thinking about doing this and wants to chat... email's in my profile.
If you do allow responses/conversations, allow it only between users who follow one another. But maybe just don't allow it at all.
[EDIT] actually, if anyone's thinking about doing this and wants to chat... email's in my profile.
Spam?
How's it spam? I select people/accounts I want to follow, and tweets from them show up in chronological order in my timeline. Sounds brilliant, someone should get on that!
So no @ and no #, ie no way to discover what people you're not following are talking about unless linked by someone you do follow?
# — sure, allow it. If you ask for all the comments that mention a hashtag, you're requesting a drink from the firehose, and you should get it.
@ — maybe allow it, but only for users who mutually follow one another.
@ — maybe allow it, but only for users who mutually follow one another.
I'm surprised this is an actual article from the NY Times and not an editorial. Im very surprised any journalist would plead for censorship on the internet.
It's a column expressing one person's (Farhad Manjoo's) viewpoint. It isn't a news article or opinion from the NYT editorial staff.
Im not extremely familiar with how newspapers categorize their content, but wouldnt this still go under an opinion piece or be labeled as such? Honest question.
Usually repeating columns in newspapers have names next to the byline. So this one is attributed to Farhad Manjoo - STATE OF THE ART which is explained as "A column from Farhad Manjoo that examines how technology is changing business and society."
Columns are very much opinion pieces. Editorials are opinion pieces written by the editorial staff and usually are looked at as having the support of the paper (like endorsing a candidate). It definitely be more clear though.
Columns are very much opinion pieces. Editorials are opinion pieces written by the editorial staff and usually are looked at as having the support of the paper (like endorsing a candidate). It definitely be more clear though.
Is he pleading for actual censorship though? It sounds more like he's saying that the platform should help people avoid content they find offensive.
So someone is free to post their racist and misogynist memes but someone who doesn't wish to see that content just wouldn't see it.
So someone is free to post their racist and misogynist memes but someone who doesn't wish to see that content just wouldn't see it.
Pretty sure that's not what he's saying though.
Many journalists are happy to censor opposing views.
Twitter is turning into a platform for censorship.
Or rather, a platform for nothing. RIP Twitter.
Or rather, a platform for nothing. RIP Twitter.
> It’s no accident that it is President Trump’s social network of choice.
This writer does realize that President Obama was the first President to consistently utilize twitter right? Of course President Trump took it to another level, but he is insinuating that President Trump is using to twitter to sway "small minded" Americans, but ignoring the fact that President Obama did the exact same thing on a smaller scale.
This writer does realize that President Obama was the first President to consistently utilize twitter right? Of course President Trump took it to another level, but he is insinuating that President Trump is using to twitter to sway "small minded" Americans, but ignoring the fact that President Obama did the exact same thing on a smaller scale.
Maybe, I'm missing some larger point, but it seems like the real dilemma here is that people lack the discipline to give up things that do not benefit them. As per constant discussion here on HN, many of us continue to untangle social networks from our lives.
If Twitter has become a place where users spend more time complaining about the platform rather than actually using the platform, they should quit. Not because I have some utopian capitalist view where each user can just go off and build their own Twitter clone or because of some "don't like it, leave" mentality. I'm saying this because I believe it's conducive to their mental health.
Otherwise, people become quite cynical and make choices they wouldn't normally make - as in limiting free speech for the sake of corporate gains.
If Twitter has become a place where users spend more time complaining about the platform rather than actually using the platform, they should quit. Not because I have some utopian capitalist view where each user can just go off and build their own Twitter clone or because of some "don't like it, leave" mentality. I'm saying this because I believe it's conducive to their mental health.
Otherwise, people become quite cynical and make choices they wouldn't normally make - as in limiting free speech for the sake of corporate gains.
I don't understand why Twitter doesn't generate some general "white/blacklist" feature that people could opt in/out of? Things like, a "porn" filter, a "n-word" filter, a "faminist"/"mysogynist" filter, etc. Some of these could be automatic (e.g. porn and spam and virus links), some manual (e.g. "all people who this particular user disagrees with"), they could be curated by Twitter itself or by any other entity/user, and some general would be default/opt-out (e.g. porn, hate speech, gore), others would be opt-in (e.g. "no politics" filter).
IMO that solves most of the problems - allowing unbiased freedom of speech/communication, while still preserving basic decency for the majority of people. In addition, you'd have a capitalist market/competition for ideas - if a curator of a filter becomes untrustworthy (starts abusing their "power" by "censoring" too many voices) the filter could simply by forked, improved, and users would migrate to something better!
Edit: In addition, this would also solve all kinds of legal issues - you could simply make a per-country level filters that users connecting from that country would automatically be exposed to, but all such government-imposed censorship would be implemented in a very transparent manner!
IMO that solves most of the problems - allowing unbiased freedom of speech/communication, while still preserving basic decency for the majority of people. In addition, you'd have a capitalist market/competition for ideas - if a curator of a filter becomes untrustworthy (starts abusing their "power" by "censoring" too many voices) the filter could simply by forked, improved, and users would migrate to something better!
Edit: In addition, this would also solve all kinds of legal issues - you could simply make a per-country level filters that users connecting from that country would automatically be exposed to, but all such government-imposed censorship would be implemented in a very transparent manner!
Per-country filters already exist.
https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169222#
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kz57j/this-is-ho...
User-curated blocklists were tool deployed by both sides in Gamergate. https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2015/sharing-block...
https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169222#
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kz57j/this-is-ho...
User-curated blocklists were tool deployed by both sides in Gamergate. https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2015/sharing-block...
> IMO that solves most of the problems
And creates echo chambers.
That's part of the problem with Facebook, once you start posting and interacting with certain types of content you get the same type of content more often. Leaving out the opposing viewpoints and giving you the impression that everyone agrees with you.
And creates echo chambers.
That's part of the problem with Facebook, once you start posting and interacting with certain types of content you get the same type of content more often. Leaving out the opposing viewpoints and giving you the impression that everyone agrees with you.
People are getting all caught up on the idea of censorship here but it is really about what Twitter is, and what does it want to be.
Does Twitter want to be a dumb pipe where it doesn't do anything at all about what people post? If that is the case, then yeah, don't do anything about bots, trolls, harassment/abuse, etc.
Is Twitter actually an online community? If that is what they want it to be, then it will need at least some mechanisms to deal with toxic users.
Maybe that's just giving users robust tools for filtering what they want to see. Maybe you could use sentiment analysis to give people the ability to block certain types of tweets from reaching them. And indeed, they already have some of that with the 'sensitive content' setting on images and video.
The author here wants to go further into a reputation system, which may or may not be the right choice for Twitter. That seems to be a harder thing to do technically, but I'm pretty sure they could come up with something that tones down the impact of the worst abuse.
At the end of the day, if a general public social media platform becomes too toxic for too many users, it probably won't survive. And that's not even getting into the real world consequences that we're starting to see from foreign intelligence services attempting to manipulate them.
Does Twitter want to be a dumb pipe where it doesn't do anything at all about what people post? If that is the case, then yeah, don't do anything about bots, trolls, harassment/abuse, etc.
Is Twitter actually an online community? If that is what they want it to be, then it will need at least some mechanisms to deal with toxic users.
Maybe that's just giving users robust tools for filtering what they want to see. Maybe you could use sentiment analysis to give people the ability to block certain types of tweets from reaching them. And indeed, they already have some of that with the 'sensitive content' setting on images and video.
The author here wants to go further into a reputation system, which may or may not be the right choice for Twitter. That seems to be a harder thing to do technically, but I'm pretty sure they could come up with something that tones down the impact of the worst abuse.
At the end of the day, if a general public social media platform becomes too toxic for too many users, it probably won't survive. And that's not even getting into the real world consequences that we're starting to see from foreign intelligence services attempting to manipulate them.
There's a MUCH bigger problem to talk about.
Air, it's time to end your anything-goes paradise. Your medium allows murderers, rapists and my crotchety old neighbor to create vibrations that will reach the ears of others.
Why are we allowing these criminals to vibrate molecules of air? We should be ashamed of ourselves.
I'm happy to announce Airfilter. A new device that uses machine learning-based active noise cancellation (and a blockchain reputation system) to selectively remove offensive vibrations from the entire atmosphere of the earth.
We're hiring!
Air, it's time to end your anything-goes paradise. Your medium allows murderers, rapists and my crotchety old neighbor to create vibrations that will reach the ears of others.
Why are we allowing these criminals to vibrate molecules of air? We should be ashamed of ourselves.
I'm happy to announce Airfilter. A new device that uses machine learning-based active noise cancellation (and a blockchain reputation system) to selectively remove offensive vibrations from the entire atmosphere of the earth.
We're hiring!