posted by
CoolHand
on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:35AM
from the will-they-crack-down-on-el-presidente dept.
from the will-they-crack-down-on-el-presidente dept.
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Twitter has launched a new way to punish users for bad behavior, temporarily "limiting" their account.
Some users are receiving notices their accounts are limited for 12 hours, meaning only people who follow them can see their tweets or receive notifications. When they are retweeted, people outside their network can't see those retweets.
Some speculate these limitations are automatic based on keywords, but there is no hard evidence.
This would be fine if this was used uniformly to clamp down on harassment, but it appears to be used on people, simply for using politically incorrect language.
Source: http://heatst.com/tech/twitters-new-tool-to-crack-down-on-politically-incorrect-language/
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Twitter's New Tool to Crack Down on Politically Incorrect Language
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 82 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:46AM
I got a chuckle behind the meanings of the names, time to kick the euphemism mill into hyperdrive.
For those not in the know: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/operation-google [knowyourmeme.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 21 2017, @09:53AM
Let's not pretend that some of these words won't stick, just because the idea started in some dark and essentially unimportant corner of the internet. They just need to gain a critical mass, and to be more useful than the words they replace. Google's ensuring the latter condition nicely, well done google.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @02:12PM
Good luck with redefining google to be a synomym for a hate word.
That's not how language works. But the alt-nazis are, by definition, reductive, so its no surprise they would have a reductive understanding of language too.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 21 2017, @04:14PM
Lots of really stupid stuff has crept into the language because large numbers of ignorant people use it, and eventually it becomes unexceptional ("could care less" where "could not care less" is meant, "nonplussed" where "unphased" is meant, etc.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday February 25 2017, @02:51PM
God fucking dammit I hate when people say "phased." It's "fazed" dammit! Its in the fucking original Super Mario Brothers instruction booklet! Urrrrrrgghhh.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:49AM
At least offenders are notified. I can't think of a censorship tactic more chickenshit than true shadowbanning, like what Reddit got caught doing. The worst part about that was that of all the community nobody would be smart or vocal enough to figure it out and bring attention to it. At least with Twitter's rules, you can know what they consider offensive, and that in itself is important in studying your enemy.
Twitter serves a useful niche but will keep painting itself into a corner such that even the government and public intelligence agencies will cease their funding. One can only hope that an alternative will take its place, one with a sane censorship policy. It should be up to the people, not the system, to decide what they don't want to see; and a system of granular filters set by the individuals should be enough.
There was a situation I encountered frequently on Yahoo chat, which was that even if you ignored the assholes (okay, ignored me) you often don't want to ignore the people conversing with the assholes. To those I say, get a fucking spine. You can't see my slurs and other affronts to everything for which you stand, so perhaps you should adjust your worldview to accept that some people find the dark side of humanity to be enjoyable. You're an animal forced to live amongst other animals, and it is better for you to understand and work within this system rather than run from it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Bill Dimm on Tuesday February 21 2017, @04:34AM
There are some that claim that twitter throttles [youtube.com], which is similar to shadow banning but harder to detect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @10:11AM
From the summary, emphasis by me:
So no, they don't tell you what they consider offensive. You are only told that your account is "limited" (unlike a true shadowban, where you don't even know what's going on), but not based on which criteria.
(Score: 2) by https on Wednesday February 22 2017, @01:51AM
My spine is awesome. But my patience with assholes flying the false flag of "but free speech" is terribly thin - twitter ain't the government. I can't think of anything more chickenshit than refusing to man up and add something of value - viz, that doesn't merit censorship - to a discussion. Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam rape small children spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam kill small doggies spam spam spam spam
See how much fun that is? Can you imagine how illuminating we could make the discussions on twitter where you don't have threshold filters like SN or /. does? Can you imagine the mongolian clusterfuckness of adding slashcode to twitter?
Shadowbanning is a nifty trick to shut down mombasement mouthbreathers who wouldn't have been let out in public fifty years ago.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:51AM
All the examples in the article were in the English language. I wonder whether there's any significance to that.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by chromas on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:55AM
Learning other people's languages would be cultural appropriation.
(Score: 3, Funny) by linkdude64 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @04:14PM
"other people's"
Check your included-in-this-specific-example's-privilege. No-one is "other", just "unspecified."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Tuesday February 21 2017, @07:52PM
@ chromas-
during a tough day, that made me smile and a little gurgling, golem-like chuckle emerged...
*sigh*
this 'cultural appropriation' bullshit is just so silly, it makes me weak with frustration that ANYONE (oppressor or oppressee) could take more than a few minutes thought to realize how asinine and self-limiting the application of such a 'principle' is...
gets down to it, english is chock-full-o 'appropriated' words, a good percentage from romance languages, if not latin itself, a lot of other smatterings of words from here there and everywhere... not to mention the infinitude of technical terms, biology terms, computer terms/languages, chemical names, etc, etc, etc...
what, now we all have to make up a unique language to avoid some madeup 'appropriation' bogeyman ? ? ?
fuck, what do you do with an insane civilization ? ? ?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:52AM
As always, censorship is bad. Any agency or company that self-appoints itself as a gatekeeper for ideas is bad. Don't care how one parses the law, it's still bad.
The problem is, that people continue to use the services after discovering that the gatekeeper is censoring them. Half the people don't care, some of the rest are in agreement with the censorship, so they are happy, and the rest feel like they must conform to be pertinent.
Just dump twitter. They presume to know better than you - even if you agree with them today. Next year, though, some of YOUR ideas may be on the chopping block. You didn't stand up when they came for the Jews? Don't expect anyone to stand up for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @04:04AM
I think convenience is the true downfall of society. We value education pretty decently nowadays, we generally dislike dictatorships, but it will take quite a bit before the average person appreciates the value of doing things the correct way and sticking to certain principles.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday February 21 2017, @04:12AM
Agreed. Perhaps a World-War III with mandatory drafts including college students will give the special snowflakes a real taste of anguish. The handicapped also no longer have an excuse to skate out of duty, for there are plenty of military jobs which can accommodate them.
Their pampered lives are so devoid of real problems such that they have resorted to inventing their own.
But I may disagree with you about principles. Idealism is about what the world should be, pragmatism is about how the world actually is. And the sooner idealists see how it actually is, the sooner they deviate from their principles.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday February 21 2017, @04:57AM
I don't think Trump and his supporters are young enough to server in the military though.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:32AM
Their children and grandchildren are. Let them beon the front lines for "Operation Cannon Fodder."
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:50AM
Richard Bertrand Spencer is 38.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday February 21 2017, @06:22PM
I heard that Hillary is still only 29 years old, though... She could serve! :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @06:42AM
Perhaps a World-War III with mandatory drafts including college students will give the special snowflakes a real taste of anguish.
'
Perhaps, you particularly repugnant example of humanity! May you find you rectum prolapses in the near future! But even if your intended result occurs, and all those smart people encounter the grim and filth and degradation of your imagined (and I say this, because as someone who has experienced combat, I can quite definitively determine that you have never been in actual combat in your entire life, you wussy!) actual military situations, they will not in fact change their views at all. The reason for this is that they are correct, and you are wrong, you disgusting excuse for a human being.
Am I right in thinking that the only reason you have a job in the defense industry is that you are connected to someone in the chain of command? Oh, one of those! Well, we pass on. If only such "family benefits" were available to the general pubic! The purpose of the American military is to defend democracy, not practice it, and to defend capitalism, not practice it, either! Oh, the meritocracy and Ethanol_fueled. Perhaps he can justify himself?
And so my point is, it is very rarely that that average grunt, in experiencing war, realizes what has gone down, how he has been used and betrayed, and how the entire system is corrupt. I saw many career military realize this after the Iraq illegal invasion. Amazing how far you have to go to snap them out of their brainwashing. But you are right. It was the draft that put an end to the war in Algiers. Once ordinary citizens, instead of those who already sold their souls to the military-industrial complex, are brought into combat, it ends sooner instead of later. All hail the all volunteer Army serving in Afghanistan!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @11:08AM
Good morning, ikann!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday February 21 2017, @06:29PM
"The purpose of the American military is to defend democracy and to defend capitalism"
HAHAHAHA
For someone who says they have served, you really don't have a clue, do you? Just follow commands, like the Nazi lower command?
Defend democracy? Is that what they did in Iran/Iraq? And I thought that was about protecting the oil supply..... Silly me.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday March 03 2017, @02:57AM
I wouldn't call Boston Dynamics part of "The Military Industrial Complex." Anymore, at least.
They had their shot. Sure, their robots look cool and yet creepy enough for the military, but after the shock and awe dissipated amongst the present pentagon and DARPA officials during the demonstration Boston Dynamics' robots were found to be remarkably inefficient and too loud (they utilized gasoline motors and later all-electric power but still sound like all the action of a chainsaw without all the wood). The primary application the military was looking for, from us, was that of an all-terrain mule which could carry gear through mountainous regions without toppling over, quietly, on strictly-human missions. The only (well, one of the only) problem(s) is that good LIDAR has to spin, and mechanically-scanned sensors are a high point of failure at the points involved in the rotation of mechanical scan. It can see wisely, but when that one motor fails, its over. In contrast, modern phased arrays can fail gracefully on an element-by-element basis.
As cool as my employers' robots are, at this point they are most science for science' sake. In other words, a cost center for Alphabet.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:49PM
Idealism is about what the world should be, pragmatism is about how the world actually is. And the sooner idealists see how it actually is, the sooner they deviate from their principles.
Is that a good thing?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 21 2017, @07:14PM
For him it is. He has no principles, and doesn't understand why anyone else does either.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 21 2017, @07:13PM
You first, Eth. Sure, they might have to crane-lift you outta yer momma's basement, but you just said handicaps aren't an excuse anymore. Drop and give me 20, butterball!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @06:54AM
We value education pretty decently nowadays
Do you mean "decently" as in we value it more than in the past? Otherwise, I would have to disagree. Most of our schools - colleges and universities included - still make heavy use of rote learning in place of encouraging understanding of the material. Furthermore, most people view college and university as fancy trade schools where they can get a piece of paper that will give them a better chance of getting a higher-paying job; they do not value academic in principle like they should. Employers look at higher education as a filtering tool and little more. Our culture is mostly hostile to real education, but is probably better when compared to the past.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 21 2017, @04:47AM
Just dump twitter. They presume to know better than you - even if you agree with them today. Next year, though, some of YOUR ideas may be on the chopping block. You didn't stand up when they came for the Jews? Don't expect anyone to stand up for you.
Mark this day in your calendar, folks. I actually agree with Runaway1956!
It isn't about ideology, nor is it about being offensive. i dislike assholes who spout hate-filled rude/racist/homophobic/elitist/religious/xenophobic/whatever blather as much or more than anyone else. However, censoring anyone is both ethically bankrupt and intellectually vapid.
Louis Brandeis [wikipedia.org] puts it quite eloquently:
Rather than attempting to silence those with whom we disagree, regardless of how evil/hateful/crude their utterances may be, we should use our own voices, wallets and feet to express ourselves instead. We should do so loudly too!
As for those who would censor *anyone*, the solution is to vote with your feet and your wallet. Twitter is censoring people? Don't tweet. Don't read tweets. Don't give them your attention, and let them know *why* you're not doing so. For Twitter, your attention is their profit.
If Twitter (or any other private entity) wants to censor speech, then let them do so without your support. If enough people speak (and more importantly, act) against censorship, the more effective such efforts will be. They need us much more than we need them.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:02AM
And just who is going to build that alternative to your whims? You can never have a guarantee that there will be a replacement of that niche with a freedom of your speech to your liking. We got lucky with Soylentnews, but there is never a guarantee of a viable alternative.
The problem is, that you are more often than not using a service that others are paying for, and are subject to their rules. In my ignorance I objected to being banned permanently from Slashdot, because they were all about free speech, right? Until they weren't.
Here, I'm pretty sure that the leadership wants to choke the living shit out of me. The tricky part about things like that is that, if you want to have an online forum espousing free speech, you might not get trolls who can say insightful things from time to time. You might just get total garbage. So how do you deal with that garbage? How much do you grow to dislike it before you enact more stringent measures?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:58AM
And just who is going to build that alternative to your whims? You can never have a guarantee that there will be a replacement of that niche with a freedom of your speech to your liking. We got lucky with Soylentnews, but there is never a guarantee of a viable alternative.
I'm quite capable of communicating with those with whom I wish to communicate without Twitter or Facebook or any other entity who profits off the creativity of others.
Have your wits been so dulled by booze and 140 character messages that I need to list the myriad methods by which that's accomplished?
The problem is, that you are more often than not using a service that others are paying for, and are subject to their rules. In my ignorance I objected to being banned permanently from Slashdot, because they were all about free speech, right? Until they weren't.
You're making my point for me, aren't you?
Here, I'm pretty sure that the leadership wants to choke the living shit out of me. The tricky part about things like that is that, if you want to have an online forum espousing free speech, you might not get trolls who can say insightful things from time to time. You might just get total garbage. So how do you deal with that garbage? How much do you grow to dislike it before you enact more stringent measures?
As I pointed out a while ago (I'm took lazy to go look it up and post a link to my comment, but perhaps it stuck in that pickled brain of yours) eth, you're a fucking asshole. But you're *our* fucking asshole. You say all sorts of offensive, nasty and ridiculous bullshit. Much of it I find to be somewhere between laughable and downright hateful. Now and again you say something worthwhile.
Then again, even if you never said anything worthwhile, you're certainly tolerated (and welcome here, at least by me) by most folks because anyone can have their say here, even if it's complete horseshit. Much of that comes from the management, and that's something I cherish about this place. As I'm sure, do you.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @02:39PM
"eth, you're a fucking asshole. But you're *our* fucking asshole."
Awwww, I just got a warm fuzzy feeling . . . . oh wait, I think I pissed my pants. Never mind.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22 2017, @12:19AM
Awwww, I just got a warm fuzzy feeling . . . . oh wait, I think I pissed my pants.
Well, that Depends®.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Tuesday February 21 2017, @06:41PM
I like Ethanol: he provides the ying to my yang. (Did that sound gay to you?) :)
He sometimes says VERY insightful things and often makes me think. At the least, he gives me a chuckle.
Two thumbs up to Ethanol.
"Our Ethanol": yuuuuuuup!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 21 2017, @01:24PM
Sometimes its just organic, you get a big enough pile of people on a big enough platform and just like antibiotic resistance doesn't "have to" form yet it always inevitably does eventually, here's gab.ai which like /pol/ is kinda echo-chamber-y but none the less entertaining.
trolls who can say insightful things from time to time.
That's part of the red pilling process which is precisely why the opfor wants censorship. We live in a heavily politically indoctrinated society, looking at media, the education system. Everyone who's not hopelessly bluepilled started by visiting /pol/ or whatever and was like 99% repulsed due to brainwashing but damn that one meme about "hillary voters going to the election polls / trump voters going to the polls" or some ben garrison political comic or whatever got them started thinking, and a month of open minded uncensored thinking later they're all 14/88. And that's exactly why the 1984-style people are desperate for censorship. Once a political philosophy is far past its "best by" date and hopelessly obsolete and unable to effectively model and predict the world, its only hope is to avoid scientific like openness and rely on censorship and oppression to stay in power just a little longer. It happens every time from left to right or right to left. All it ever really does is piss off the victims making for ... overreaction. Hopefully the inevitable overreaction to the death of progressivism will just be a lot of yelling and bad feelings and not the camps ovens after the end of Weimar Germany, but that would require introspection and historical perspective on the side thats instead doubling down with oppression, censorship, and violence, like happens every time in human history, so one guess how this is likely to turn out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @04:20PM
Or, the partisan labels "progressive" and "alt-right" are just red herrings. There is no real progressive policy happening any more, both "sides" just use rhetoric to polarize public opinion and allow bad policy to be passed with little opposition. The evil entities of the world hide behind d labels, the Gates foundation hides behind altruism of research and education in order to destroy our education system. I don't have a good conservative exams offhand but they hide behind religion and morality to push their agendas.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 21 2017, @08:51PM
I don't have a good conservative exams offhand but they hide behind religion and morality to push their agendas.
The neocons, yes aren't they an interesting self contained group.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 21 2017, @07:17PM
Hey VLM, you know that Matrix fan theory about Zion being just another level of the Matrix to catch clever folks who think they made it out? Hint: that's what these alt-right places are. Clever traps that flatter the egos of small-timers like you, who think seeing through one layer of bullshit means seeing through them all.
Wake up, Neo: the Matrix has you. Forever.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jmorris on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:41PM
And just who is going to build that alternative to your whims?
The Alt-Tech movement. The replacement for Twitter is Gab.ai. They are still scaling up and adding features but they even do video already. Twitter is pretty straightforward tech to replicate, it is the revenue model that is eluding Twitter. Gab for now is just asking for donations instead of spending most of their time working ways to sell the eyeballs they are collecting. They know exactly what they are fighting against and have already built in anti-SJW entryism as an explicit goal for management. On the service itself though, Speak freely is the motto and they mean it.... although Weev has already pushed it right to the line a few times. You can't actually break laws. Gab Guidelines [gab.ai] is about as open as you can expect.
I get the feeling things are starting to shift even here. Last month I suddenly found myself banned from moderating. No I don't abuse mods, I am often too lazy to actually moderate but that is a different thing. I will often moderate several posts then get distracted before I hit the bottom of the page and end up closing that tab instead of submitting.... no javascript has pluses and minuses.
Now I notice that the balance of power in moderation has shifted in general, where before there were at least as many up as down votes overall, now I only attract far more downmods, implying I wasn't the only one. Meaning it wasn't a random accident. Somebody has decided this place needs less diversity of ideas and found a more subtle way to 'fix' the problem than the banhammer or shadowbanning. That seems to be the general pattern across the Internet, the first gen was just point and shriek, then call in a strike on the heretics. That generated a backlash, like the creation of SolyentNews. The enemies of liberty do learn, if slowly.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @04:13PM
Occam's razor explanation: people caught on to your bullshit and now apply more critical filters when they see your name. I've been tricked into thinking you had a good point before, then retread the comment and saw it wasn't quite what I thought. There have been a few posts of hours I've liked, so far all technically oriented.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:14PM
Consider that you're getting downmodded because you're actually dangerously wrong about a lot of things, maybe? I've seen the same pattern; over the last 2-3 months I've noticed you and people like you are attracting a lot more (justified!) heat, and it does me good to see you getting what you deserve.
News flash, shitheel! When you use the term "dark enlightenment" unironically, everyone with half a brain is gonna call you on it! And now that you're getting the ridicule you so richly deserve, it's "whaa, whaa, poor persecuted me, why's DA MAN keepin' me down?!" Go cry in your safespace.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday February 21 2017, @06:52PM
Someone probably modded your comment as spam.
You need to bring it to the attention of the mods if you feel it is unwarranted.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday February 22 2017, @12:27AM
Doesn't sound right. I only got banned from moderating, being flagged as a spammer wouldn't do that while leaving the posting bonus intact, or at we should hope not.
I was hoping mentioning it would bring out others to prove that it wasn't an isolated incident that could be put down to "sh*t happens" but that doesn't seem to be the case. So maybe I just have a stalker.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday February 22 2017, @06:40AM
Easy to have free speech when you make sure only the correct people are allowed to participate.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:12AM
However, censoring anyone is both ethically bankrupt and intellectually vapid.
Well, as with everything, it depends on context. I completely agree with you that if you dislike Twitter's policy, you should encourage people to stop using the service. But Twitter is also still a private company, so their rules are their rules. If you come into my house and start using offensive language in front of a kid or something, I may also ask you to censor your language, and if you don't do so, I may ask you to leave. I'm not trying "protect" my kid from offensive speech; I just still believe there can be such a thing as "decorum" and "appropriate time and place" for speech.
Anyhow, some people may prefer that Twitter is basically a "free-for-all"; others may actually prefer more policing. But I'm not going to declare that more policing is categorically evil or "ethically bankrupt."
Personally, I think Twitter is mostly nonsense itself, so I don't really care about it much one way or the other.
All of that said, if TFA is true, I heartily will agree with you that this policy seems to be complete nonsense and idiotic. If TFA is true, it seems they are making temporary bans for anyone who uses a word like "retarded" or "fag," even in an appropriate context. Within the past couple weeks, I actually uttered the sentence, "The bread dough should be retarded in the fridge overnight." That's a technical use of the term to describe slowing down yeast growth during fermentation. And English people still use the word "fag" as slang for cigarette. Let's all join in a rousing chorus of that classic WWI tune [youtu.be]:
Pack up your troubles in your old kit bag and smile, smile, smile,
While you've a lucifer to light your fag, smile boys that's the style...."
... And apparently get banned from Twitter??
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Tuesday February 21 2017, @06:20AM
That user was not banned, but was limited.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 21 2017, @06:48AM
That user was not banned, but was limited.
True, though without understanding dialectical meanings and context, one could easily see an escalation of such a policy that could result in outright banning.
For example, taking the word "fag," it's perfectly acceptable for a Brit to say "I could really murder a fag" or even "I could murder an Indian right now." Every Brit who is reading this post knows what those sentences mean, but in the U.S. those sentences would not only be offensive, but would likely be construed as hate speech (which Twitter has been known to outright ban).
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday February 21 2017, @07:14AM
"A fag smoking a fag" was what was actually written.
https://twitter.com/faggotfriday/status/831813645462097921/photo/1 [twitter.com]
The article says it's an instance of "using fag in the British sense, meaning cigarette" but, taking the accompanying photo into account, it also appears to be an instance of using the word in the American sense.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 21 2017, @07:28AM
My bad. I actually did RTFA, but took TFA at its word and didn't click through all the links. Now that we've found an apparent error, should we now have a debate over whether TFA is "fake news"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @12:26PM
Anyone remembers the Seven Dirty Words? George Carlin was 'every thing wrong with this world' apparently.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday February 21 2017, @04:50PM
Twitter is trying to sustain itself through advertising. That wasn't a concern for the station that broadcast Carlin's routine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Pacifica_Foundation [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday February 21 2017, @06:57AM
But Twitter is also still a private company, so their rules are their rules.
This always comes up, and it's almost always irrelevant. Who is saying that Twitter shouldn't be able to make these rules, exactly? If there are such people, then respond to them specifically. Criticizing Twitter's rules is not the same as saying they are not legally allowed to have them.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 21 2017, @07:25AM
The post I was replying to said that "censoring ANYONE is both ethically bankrupt and intellectually vapid." I do not believe that statement to be valid for all times and places. I wasn't debating legality, rather the parent's sweeping statement on morality. And whether or not I agree with Twitter's choices on how to censor, I don't necessarily consider it some sort of moral lapse if they choose to censor even in a minimal fashion. It'd a business choice. I may not like it, but that doesn't make it immoral.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 21 2017, @07:49AM
Well, as with everything, it depends on context. I completely agree with you that if you dislike Twitter's policy, you should encourage people to stop using the service. But Twitter is also still a private company, so their rules are their rules. If you come into my house and start using offensive language in front of a kid or something, I may also ask you to censor your language, and if you don't do so, I may ask you to leave. I'm not trying "protect" my kid from offensive speech; I just still believe there can be such a thing as "decorum" and "appropriate time and place" for speech.
Your point is well taken. However, just because I'm anti-censorship, that doesn't mean I ignore context or am disdainful of decorum. I am generally both polite and respectful to those around me, and will generally accede to any request you might make in your space (or even in a public space under most circumstances).
However, I find your analogy to be flawed WRT Twitter. Twitter absolutely has the right to limit and/or censor speech as little or as much as they like. It is, after all, their infrastructure.
That said, their platform is specifically designed to allow the public dissemination of speech. By limiting/censoring that speech, they insult their users' intelligence and degrade the free flow of information and ideas. Given their willingness to do so, I want nothing to do with them and urge others to take a similar stance. If enough people do so, they will need to stop censoring or go out of business.
No one needs to use Twitter. Nor do I need to come to your house if I am unwilling to not to curse in front of your kids, put the toilet seat down after using your plumbing, or do anything else you might require of me when I am in your space.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @02:46PM
"they insult their users' intelligence and degrade the free flow of information and ideas."
Thank you. Additionally, it brings Twitter's staff's intelligence into question.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:10PM
However, I find your analogy to be flawed WRT Twitter. Twitter absolutely has the right to limit and/or censor speech as little or as much as they like. It is, after all, their infrastructure.
That said, their platform is specifically designed to allow the public dissemination of speech.
Actually, I'm pretty sure "their platform is specifically designed" to make them money. I have absolutely no faith that Twitter, Facebook, or any other big online platform is in any way committed to "public dissemination of speech." They are trying to MAKE MONEY. And if they decide censorship will be better at making them money (or allow them to lose less money due to scandals around bad stuff said on their platform of whatever), I'm absolutely certainly they'll eventually choose what will allow them to MAKE MONEY.
The reason to leave Twitter and Facebook and all the other crap isn't this new censorship policy -- it's that commercial platforms like this will ALWAYS be beholden to other goals. Arguing about the morality of their censorship policy ignores the elephant in the room, i.e., what's REALLY driving their decisions (and it certainly isn't detailed philosophical debates about the nature of free expression on the internet).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @07:20AM
Mark this day in your calendar, folks. I actually agree with Runaway1956!
Perhaps, but will rue the day! I once agreed with Runaway, and he tried to bugger me. Ungrateful bastard?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 21 2017, @08:00AM
Mark this day in your calendar, folks. I actually agree with Runaway1956!
Perhaps, but will rue the day! I once agreed with Runaway, and he tried to bugger me. Ungrateful bastard?
What do you expect when you go and booty bump [collinsdictionary.com] with Runaway?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by dry on Wednesday February 22 2017, @06:22AM
Seems Americans forget their history or, more likely, have so much propaganda shoved down their throats from birth that even a decent person such as Louis Brandeis makes fundamental mistakes.
The American Revolution depended heavily on silencing opposition. Popular means of silencing included tar and feathering, something likely to kill, letters of attainment from various colonial/State governments targeting those whose viewpoints were unpopular due to being anti-revolution to the extreme of some guy named Lynch hanging those that voiced opposition.
Once opposition has been silenced, it is easy to push free speech though in truth, all the Founding Fathers did was ban the Federal Legislature from banning speech. States were allowed. The Judiciary, in a time when the common law was much more important, were, and as Lincoln showed, the President wasn't denied the freedom to silence people, especially during insurrections such as the American revolution.
There has always been common law restrictions on the common law freedom of speech. Slander, libel, incitement are the obvious examples.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 22 2017, @07:58AM
Seems Americans forget their history or, more likely, have so much propaganda shoved down their throats from birth that even a decent person such as Louis Brandeis makes fundamental mistakes.
The American Revolution depended heavily on silencing opposition. Popular means of silencing included tar and feathering, something likely to kill, letters of attainment from various colonial/State governments targeting those whose viewpoints were unpopular due to being anti-revolution to the extreme of some guy named Lynch hanging those that voiced opposition.
Once opposition has been silenced, it is easy to push free speech though in truth, all the Founding Fathers did was ban the Federal Legislature from banning speech. States were allowed. The Judiciary, in a time when the common law was much more important, were, and as Lincoln showed, the President wasn't denied the freedom to silence people, especially during insurrections such as the American revolution.
There has always been common law restrictions on the common law freedom of speech. Slander, libel, incitement are the obvious examples.
Your thought process seems rather mangled, so I'll try to make some sense of it. The discussion at hand is about a *private* entity limiting speech. This is neither illegal nor uncommon in the United States. I used the Brandeis quote, as it makes clear why censorship is bad, and discussed how we might appropriately address speech that is hateful or nasty.
You're correct to say that the First Amendment restricts the Federal Government from restricting free expression. Making that work has been a centuries long odyssey, and we're still working on it. What's more, the Fourteenth Amendment [wikipedia.org] and the Incorporation Doctrine [wikipedia.org] ensure that it does, in fact, apply to the several states.
While there are slander, libel and incitement laws in the US, proving such claims is quite difficult here. As I mentioned, wartime restrictions on civil liberties have been common everywhere, throughout history, and the US (to our shame) is no exception.
Throughout history (both in the United States and pretty much everywhere else) a variety of civil liberties have been curtailed, often quite significantly, usually with violence and often deadly force.
We do remember the vitriol, anger and violence against loyalists during and after the Revolutionary War. In British occupied areas, there were similar occurrences. What's more, the war broke families and turned father against son and brother against brother. Even after the war, those that were on the side of revolution were at each other's throats even before the war ended.
I'm not sure where you come from, but some of us do know our history. And it's filled with genocide (how many native americans are left?), mass enslavement and other atrocities. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus [wikipedia.org] during the Civil War. The Espionage Act of 1917 is still on the books.
It didn't stop there either, but you get the idea. As time has gone by, we strengthened civil liberties for everyone, although there have been disturbing signs of backsliding of late.
Brandeis was quite clear in his reasoning (and in my view, quite wrong) when it came to wartime censorship (cf.
Schenck v. United States [wikipedia.org]).
Brandeis' thinking matured as he did and famously expressed that in Whitney v. California [wikipedia.org] (where the quote in my initial post came from. Here's more, putting it in context):
Later courts have further strengthened the right to free expression.
All that said, the US Constitution does not apply to private entities. However, the ideals (however poorly implemented historically) ensconced in that document have created a tradton of free expression that's one of the nice things about this country. Don't like it? Just get 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of states to modify the constitution to be more to your liking.
As for your claim that Americans don't know their history, you're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too. I'm sure there are many (if not most) in whatever shithole^W country you hail from that are staggeringly ignorant of *your* history. Oh, and fuck you!
(Score: 2) by gidds on Wednesday February 22 2017, @02:25PM
Let's take some examples from meatspace.
At one extreme, if I'm standing on a soapbox in a public place — say, Speaker's Corner — then no-one should be able to stop me speaking. (With perhaps some very minor exceptions, such as inciting a riot.)
But at the other, if I'm visiting your home, then arguably you should be able to prevent me saying something really offensive to your family, or spoiling the results of a sports event you haven't watched yet.
There's a lot of middle ground, though. What about standing on the street just outside your house, and shouting in through an open door or window? Holding a private committee meeting in the back room of a public venue? Visiting a school? Attending a local council meeting? A cinema?
So even in meatspace, there are a variety of places which seem to fall somewhere in between the endpoints of purely 'public' and 'private' (even though I expect legally they'd be classified as one or other).
So what is Twitter? Is it a private space where people are invited to join in, but where the owners have control over who can attend (and hence what's acceptable)? Or it is a public space where people have a right to be and to say whatever they wish?
Legally and technically, it's clearly the former. They own it, so they can run it however they like. However, you don't have to use it. If you don't like how it's run, you can move elsewhere, or set up your own social networking site, and run that however you want.
Morally, however, it might be different. And your attitude will probably depend on whether it seems more like a public or a private space — which is ambiguous. (After all, in meatspace it's hard to have a public space where everyone is talking and can potentially hear what millions of other people are saying.)
Perhaps our notions and expectations of 'public' and 'private' need to develop further to cope with these new venues. Or perhaps we need further categories apart from both of those.
Meanwhile, a thought experiment. If (as I infer from your post) you think that Twitter should be prevented from withdrawing messages or banning people, then perhaps you might consider what would happen if you had a blog with comments, and it got infested by trolls? Would you want the ability to remove posts or ban users in order to allow your friends to use it? Or would you let something that's valuable to your and your friends die in a swamp on account of your principles?
[sig redacted]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 22 2017, @05:33PM
Meanwhile, a thought experiment. If (as I infer from your post) you think that Twitter should be prevented from withdrawing messages or banning people, then perhaps you might consider what would happen if you had a blog with comments, and it got infested by trolls? Would you want the ability to remove posts or ban users in order to allow your friends to use it? Or would you let something that's valuable to your and your friends die in a swamp on account of your principles? [emphasis added]
Your inference is incorrect, so much so that I wonder about your ability to comprehend English. Perhaps you're not a native English speaker? I said:
The implication is clear, at least to me: If you don't like censorship, don't support entities that engage in it. Twitter can do whatever it wants with its infrastructure.
As for a blog being overrun by trolls, that's a somewhat different situation, given that a blog is a platform for giving a single person or a group a voice. Twitter gives voice (albeit in a limited and fairly useless way) to a myriad of people and groups. What's more, they profit from the "creativity" of their users. Perhaps you can see the difference?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:42AM
Twitter is a private company. They are allowed to censor as they please, whether you like it or not, just like Facebook, Google, and any other media company of any sort.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday February 21 2017, @06:16AM
Ya ya same old response. I don't hear anyone calling for legal action against them. Speaking out against bullshit is the least we can do.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @10:23AM
And we are private individuals. We are allowed to complain as we please, whether you like it or not.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @07:45AM
For those who may not have heard of it, the platform gab.ai [gab.ai] seems to be heading in the right direction. Their philisophy is exactly what some commenters here have called for: no censorship, but individual readers can set filters however they want. If you never want to see a message containing the word "retard", you can set a filter for that. However, you can also choose to live without filters. Similar to twitter, it is also entirely up to you to decide who you follow.
At the moment, the platform is (obviously) dominated by people that Twitter has chased off, i.e., the alt-right. However, as Twitter chases off more and more users, that will change.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @08:35AM
I bet that's not true. I bet the alt-right will repel and repulse the alt-left or moderates from going there.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bradley13 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @10:45AM
I bet the alt-right will repel and repulse the alt-left or moderates from going there.
I don't see why, since you can follow whoever you want. For any particular group, you just need critical mass, and maybe a couple of prominent people to follow.
Twitter seems determined to become a padded room, and people are leaving accordingly. While the reported number of accounts is stable, the number of tweets per day has dropped to around half of its peak value in 2014 [businessinsider.com]. Likely, many of the accounts Twitter claims have become inactive.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @10:34AM
Emphasis by me. ;-)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @02:51PM
Well, Bradley - I thought I'd take a look at the place. Your link brought me to a page with two choices - log in, or "let me in". I click the "let me in" button, and was asked for my email. Fill that box in, and I get this message: "Done! You're #466180 in the waiting list." Hmmmm. Almost half a million people in the waiting list ahead of me? I'll probably be dead, buried, and decomposed by the time they get around to me.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday February 21 2017, @07:00PM
466294
I was hoping for 666666 and it would invoke the devil.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:05PM
I don't mind seeing nazis and racists segregated from twitter. But it'll create an echo box environment for them which will only reinforce their own views.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @10:05PM
Have you tried gab.ai?
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday February 22 2017, @07:03AM
Well someone up the page said this about them,
and this thread mentions that they want an email address and then you get into a queue of almost 1/2 million that perhaps need vetting before letting you in to practice free speech. Sounds like a club where only their version of the politically correct are allowed to speak.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Wednesday February 22 2017, @02:34PM
That sounds quite promising, but I can't help wondering if it's ultimately suffering from the same problem.
I generally don't mind individual words; what I want to avoid is things like hatred, bigotry, prejudice, and suchlike — and you can't filter those with a regexp. Nor can you filter deliberate disruption and trolling. Nor deliberate lies, astroturfing, advertising, scamming, or a variety of other things that humans can recognise (unless done verysubtly) but machines can't. (At least, not currently with sufficient accuracy.)
A site which could filter that (at user choice) would be a serious improvement.
[sig redacted]
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday February 21 2017, @08:36AM
A comment above included the message Twitter sends if you're falling under the new regime (see here [twitter.com]):
...12 hours and 0 minutes. The countdown will begin once you continue to Twitter. <BUTTON: Continue to Twitter>
That's rather different than just "12 hours starting now".
On another note: Coolhand: congratulations on that byline! :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @10:30AM
The best response would be to click "continue to twitter", and then twitter that because of the limitation, you're going no no longer use twitter for at least the next half year, and suggest others to do likewise. And of course, act on that promise.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:17PM
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:02PM
This is happening because dumb algorithms are making these decisions. This appears as simple keyword-based assessment of posts.
It's cheaper than hiring actual humans to deal with the problem.
But humans are also not an ideal solution. Give someone moderation powers and they'll abuse it eventually to mute those they disagree with, e.g. people with different political viewpoints.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:10PM
Censorship is the wrong way to do this. Don't censor assholes; blast their message loud and clear in places where people can ridicule it as it deserves :D Sunlight is a disinfectant after all.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @06:02PM
I don't have any more mod points, but I would mod you up if I did.
This is the first non-hateful, non-personal-insult-laden post I've seen you make, and it's also absolutely correct.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 21 2017, @06:53PM
If you really think this is the first non-hateful, non-insult-laden post I've made, you're not following me closely, Mr. Erstwhile Stalker :)
This has ALWAYS been my position: one of the reasons I keep responding to assholes like J-Mo and Uzzard is so their loathsome fact-free memetic vandalism gets exposed for what it is to the maximum number of eyes. Their kind have a permanent persecution complex; what they can't stand is ridicule.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...