Twitter has announced a new trust and safety council to stamp out bullying and trolling on the microblogging site. The Twitter Trust & Safety Council will initially be formed of around 40 bodies, including the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, ICT Watch, NetSafe, and Samaritans. These organisations, along with safety experts, academics and security researchers, will work to ensure a safe and secure platform for users to express themselves freely and safely. The Council's main focus will be to protect minors, encourage 'greater compassion and empathy on the internet,' and promote efforts in media literacy and digital citizenship. Community groups will also participate to help prevent online 'abuse, harassment, and bullying,' as well as mental health problems and suicide.
Related Stories
Cyberbullying is now a crime in Michigan punishable by jail time
On Thursday, Gov. Rick Snyder signed into law a bill sponsored by Rep. Pete Lucido, R-Shelby Township that formally defines cyberbullying as a misdemeanor. Public Act 457 of 2018 will take effect in March.
The law states cyberbullying is a crime punishable by 93 days in jail and a $500 fine. A "pattern of repeated harassment" is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Meanwhile, cyberbullying that is found to cause a victim's death is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
According to Lucido's bill, "cyberbullying" is defined by "posting a message or statement in a public media forum about any other person" if both "the message or statement is intended to place a person in fear of bodily harm or death and expresses an intent to commit violence against the person" and "the message or statement is posted with the intent to communicate a threat or with knowledge that it will be viewed as a threat."
A "pattern of harassing or intimidating behavior" means a series of two or more separate noncontinuous acts of harassing or intimidating behavior. And a "public media forum" refers to "the internet or any other medium designed or intended to be used to convey information to other individuals, regardless of whether a membership or password is required to view the information."
ENROLLED HOUSE BILL No. 5017 (other docs).
Related: Twitter Launches Trust And Safety Council To Help Put End To Trolling
'One in Two' Young Online Gamers Bullied, Report Finds
Aussie Parents Fear Social Media More Than Drugs, Alcohol or Smoking
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:23AM
Isn't censorship wonderful? Think of the children. Think of the mentally unstable. Think of the money to be generated. Let's censor the internet!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:25AM
Twitter sucks the shit off pig cocks. How's that for troling?
(Score: 4, Touché) by dyingtolive on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:36AM
It's not trolling if it's true.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:18PM
This piece uses a minimalist presentation with influences from early impressionalism, possibly abstract cubism. While the artist is blunt and to the point, this piece does little to encourage replies contrary to its core message.
(I guess just responses from trolll critics like me!)
Oh yeah, trolling has come to mean just being an oalf these days. Oh well.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:45PM
To be fair, when twitter trolling, you don't really have enough space to line up a classy troll.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 1, Touché) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:54AM
Think of the mentally unstable.
We all remember you in our prayers, Runaway!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @07:22PM
Think of the mentally unstable.
We all remember you in our prayers, Runaway!
I don't! I constantly forget him, and forget to pray. I often forget god. Forgotten Gods, they probably are asleep.
"In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming".
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday February 10 2016, @12:59PM
Twitter deciding to bow to the drama queens censorship does not make. I use Twitter as an on-again off-again RSS reader. Usually my feed is clogged with retweets of things I got from other posters, etc. Every retweet is a retweet retweet retweet!
Seriously, Twitter (and Tumblr) could close up shop tomorrow and the internet would be a better place for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:36AM
Your shares in twitter is worthless now. If you haven't sold them already, well...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:01AM
They were freefalling in worth well before this. Twitter doesn't look like it will last the year at this rate.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:15AM
Can we buy shares in Twitter trolling? I expect it to have a strong 3rd quarter.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:37AM
I mean... I'd take money for some, if you really want.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:36AM
express themselves freely and safely
... apparently only if they agree with the chosen dialogue. Isn't "trolling" just people expressing themselves, albeit with little value other than perhaps a little humour? This just sounds like censorship, or whatever you call it when it's a private company doing it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:53AM
That's perfectly correct. Tolerance, inclusiveness, and all that other crap are fine - IF you happen to be "politically correct". If you are not PC, you'll be confined, and your activities will be confined to crayolas and coloring books.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:59AM
That's perfectly correct. Tolerance, inclusiveness, and all that other crap are fine - IF you happen to be "politically correct". If you are not PC, you'll be confined, and your activities will be confined to crayolas and coloring books.
Let's see if I understand: Your intolerance of a group of people led to someone being intolerant to your behavior towards the aforementioned group, so in addition to original intolerance you're also intolerant of these people, too, and you're hoping to paint the picture that these people are somehow more intolerant than you.
I've gotta be honest, I've never understood how this line of reasoning was supposed to resonate with anybody but like-minded people and possibly those that are bad at math.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:59AM
You obviously do not understand then. It works like this: SJWs can say and do anything, up to and including being a pedophile [change.org], and they will be defended as long as they toe the narrative line. Anyone responding to disagree with them, no matter how civilly, gets blocked, reported, and banned (either shadow or outright). The SJWs then proceed to shit talk all over the person they just fucked's mentions knowing that they can say nothing to defend themselves.
It's about the narrative and controlling it at any cost. Welcome to 1984.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:35AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:25AM
You engage when you disagree. This excludes you from the core membership of the SJW hugbox. Now you might be one of the beta male hangers-on that think white-knighting for the poor, harassed SJWs will get you laid (it doesn't, even SJW women want alpha males if they're into men at all) but that's another kettle of fish entirely and I couldn't say one way or the other.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:35PM
The ill-termed SJW is a mindset, and reactionaries who hold racist and sexist views seem to have joined the wave of people like Buzzard and I who hate SJWs and are certainly not sexist or racist. Thus, the equally ill-termed "anti-SJW" movement (which I am proud to be part of if not for guilt by association to said racists wnd sexists). You can spot a reactionary bigot who is merely using the mantle of anti-SJWs easily by how easily they pretend that progressives and "SJWs" mean to give extradanory privilege to trans women. At least that's my litmus test.
I mean, I've been called an SJW before, too! I'd like to officially deprecate the term in favor of SJB, social justice bully.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:29PM
Yay, Libel! We'll see what happens when you end up getting our website sued....
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:17PM
I'm sorry, did you miss the acres and acres of self-confession?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:23AM
We dont take kindly to people that dont take kindly to people round here! Now, calm down, Skeeter, they ain't hurtin nobody.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:11PM
Well, you're talking about the intolerance of intolerance dilemma.
To illustrate Buzzard's point, consider the vitriol I used to spew against "feminsm" on my old UID on both sites (velex). Nobody was able to successfully shake me of my delusion that the TERFs I had encountered were representative of feminism. They're not; I was attacking a strawman (and quite well if I can be so self-congratulatory!)
There was one experience IRL that made me realize that I may have had been completely wrong (see velex's last diary on this site). Yet, I was still not fully shaken in my delusion, despite the help from BarbaraHudson on the other site (and AmiMoJo, although that one has proven to be a sexist) by giving me the correct name of my target (which I had been missing with almost SJW-like proficiency at missing the target, say sorry): TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminism).
Then several recent experiences IRL proved to me that, yes, I actually had been wrong about feminism this whole time (iow disregard many comments made by the "velex" user, I suck cocks lol). I may never call myself a feminist (except in the sense of Amazon feminism, apparently such a thing exists, google, etc) because of all the traumatic memories of having been targeted by and materially impacted by TERFs calling themselves "feminists" I have, but I suppose one could consider me an ally at this point.
Anyway, my point is that if it weren't for people like BarbaraHudson and any others that had been dropping hints all along that I was attacking a strawman, I might not have connected the term TERF to the sexists who have injured me (materially and emotionally) even after recent events. WRT recent events, I might have conlcuded that the individuals involved were actually anti-feminists and happily gone along blaming "feminism" for the TERF hatred I've encounterd.
What these groups propose Twitter do is search down and delete comments like the ones I used to make railing against "feminism." BarbaraHudson may never have had the chance to give me the correct term for the ideology that had aggrerevied me so. These proposals to make social media "safe spaces" are proposals to shut down dialog and the free exchange of ideas. I hope I've illustrated that we must carefully define what constitutes "hate speech" and "bulling" and very carefully proceeed with any attempt to shut down either.
At any rate, it's Twitter. I don't give a crap what they do or don't do. It's their website. Nothing of value will be lost.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:52PM
TERF? Is that the proper noun to use for those old hags who are trying so hard to shame younger women into voting for Hillary? "There's a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hillary!" I honestly don't know what they are, but they've tried to wear that "feminist" moniker for decades. They don't really come across as "feminazis", nor do they fit into my conception of the SJW crowd. I'm talking about the old hags, my age or older. Younger women who are militant feminists do NOT fit into the same mold that these creatures came from.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/08/health/hillary-clinton-women-voters-generational-divide/ [cnn.com]
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:28PM
TERF = Trans-exclusionary Radical Feminist
They're a controversial sub-group of feminist that don't believe male to female trans people count as women and shouldn't be allowed to speak on behalf of women. I can sort of see their point on some topics. I don't have an issue with trans people, but someone that spent the majority of their life as a male then transitioned to a female likely doesn't have the experience to accurately reflect issues women deal with. Not to say trans people don't have relevant points and experience, about being trans, but I can see where a fish complaining about life as a bird might not be taken seriously by some birds.
I used to be extremely opposed to TERF's, thinking they were extremely vocal assholes that didn't respect people's life choices and felt the need to attack others, but now I wonder if that's ever been the case and if it wasn't more like the situation with Jesse Singal where he wrote this article [archive.is] and is now under attack from accusations and smears [archive.is] for a relatively benign common sense opinion.
That said, I also find it hard to have sympathy for Jesse considering for the last year that's the group he was giving a platform to while they lied and smeared others. It's fun to be part of the mob, until the mob turns on you eh.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:01PM
While I'm unaware of his work, I'm saddened to see such a prominent CV get railroaded by social justice bullies. It sounds like his stance, that young transition may be necessary, is traditionally groundbreaking and rebellious against notions in psychology that "transsexuals" want transition only to fulfill sexual fantasies (see autogynephilia).
I can assure you of one thing, not knowing which lynch mob got him, it was NOT TERFs.
While I believe that transition should happen as early in life as possible for cosmetic reasons and, well, as the Heartland Institute pointed out, whether they realize how correct they are, growing up as the wrong gender is traumatic, people I respect IRL have debated my enthusiam. They have a point. There is apparently a trend among some adolescents to idolize feminity, even to the point of wanting transition (for all the wrong reasons). HRT causes permanent changes to the body, and it would be terrible if somebody who had transitioned at say 14, were to wake up one day and think, "Oh my god! What was I thinking?! I'm really a man after all. What have I done?"
I also concede some points to TERFs. No, I will never know what it's like to be coddled from birth, have intact genitals, menstruate, be given preferential treatment in school, and give birth to a child among other things. (The menstruation and childbirth things are a canard, since there are cisgendered women TERFs accept as such that do not menstruate and cannot have children. I would wish for a body that could do those things, but I have yet to locate a genie.) Otoh, TERFs and their shit are fucking responsible for delaying my transition by 14 years now and counting. That is the only fucking reason I have no experience in the workplace as a woman. Pardon the French; that fact just makes me livid, that I fell for their bullshit and thought they were mainstream.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:49PM
I didn't mean to say it was TERFs that went after him, it was the crowd people refer to as "SJWs", which Jesse has supported for quite awhile. I deplore the term SJW, but seems everyone knows who I'm talking about when it's used whether they also dislike the term or not.
For a number of years I was extremely anti-TERF, mainly because I believed they were bigoted assholes, not personally knowing anyone that identified as such myself. A lot of the time I saw them as I see 4Chan trolls who intentionally misgender people. I respect someone's opinion that you can't genetically change, so if you're born a man you will always have a man's genetics, which can be said without being an asshole. I also respect a persons decision to live how they want, if you're born a man, but want people to use "she/her/etc" when referring to you and you feel comfortable having surgery to make your outside match how you feel inside, that's your choice and it should be respected, no one should scream slurs or intentionally disrespect you or intentionally make you feel like less of a human for it.
What I was saying is my opinions on TERFs were largely shaped by what I read in the media. The last couple of years I've had to really question when I disagreed with a "group" if it was because they were actually awful or if it was because I was fed specific information that was intended to make me think that way. What I've come to find is I more often disagree with one person's opinions and less with a "group's" beliefs, which unless you speak with a lot of members of that group you can't really get a fix on what they collectively believe. NOW, I realize how easy it is for a relatively small group of people with a platform to paint another group they don't like with a broad brush, then associate anyone they don't like with that group to dismiss the whole group's arguments rather than just addressing the arguments the group was making.
MRAs are another group I've been really critical toward in the past, that as it turns out aren't all assholes.
On the flip side I use to actually be much more sympathetic to people that called themselves "feminist" in the past, knowing quite a few who identify as such personally. Now I realize just because someone says they identify as something, that I believe is a net good, doesn't mean their individual contribution is also a net good. It's even possible their individual contribution runs opposite to the overall group, which they're basically using as an argument from authority. I.E. "I'm a feminist, men should be put into interment camps." (paraphrase) -Julie Bindel
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:50PM
Just to be clear, just because I'm not extremely anti-TERF anymore doesn't mean I support them. I'm just realizing I don't personally know enough about it to really make a decision one way or the other.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:40PM
Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarifications. I read a few things that weren't there. Your position is remarkably rational (probably moreso than mine lol).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:42PM
I read more of the article you linked, and damn. Straight up libel and slander got Zucker shitcanned and publicly tarred and feathered, leaving a scientific question of great importance to the trans community unanswered. Cases like that make me wish I had Elliot's mad sk1llz from Mr. Robot. I could keep the interwebs safe from revenge pron scumbags, DDOS extortionists, Chinese cyber-espionage! They could call me The Traaaaans Ghost! *60s title theme fanfare* Tonight's episode: The Mad SJW.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:40PM
Hmm... that's an interesting question. They may just be hold-outs from 2nd wave feminism when trans exclusivity and homophobia were mainstream staples of feminism who are too single minded in getting the "female head of state" achievement unlock that they can't see what a wicked woman Clinton is. I mean dingbats like Steinem and Raymond (Janice Raymond being a shining TERF example with a quote of her work on Wikipedia that adequately summarizes the TERF mindset) are still around and kicking. That's not to say those individuals haven't done good work to better women, but they are a little nutter imho.
I suppose I'd need to be more involved in modern feminism to offer any real insight.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gman003 on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:57AM
Well, it depends. Some people classify "death threats" as "trolling" - from the puerile "I hope you die" to the legitimately terrifying "here's your street address, your license plate number, and a photo of a pistol target with your face painted on it, full of 9mm holes".
I'm sure someone is going to be stupid enough to say even that should be protected speech, but you know what? I think most civilized people will agree that such behavior serves only to stifle conversation - by giving power to whichever faction is most ruthless and bloodthirsty. Overall free speech is highest if people don't have to worry about being killed for what they say.
Incidentally, death threats are actually illegal in the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 875 (c). Unfortunately, with the sheer volume of such threats made online, and the cost of prosecution, police don't seem to be too interested in stopping these crimes. If Twitter's censorship is focused on speech that is a felony offense, with the rest of their effort being on promoting good speech over bad, they'll be doing things exactly the way I would.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:42AM
And that is why I am insanely glad you are not on staff here.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Marand on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:27PM
Well, it depends. Some people classify "death threats" as "trolling" - from the puerile "I hope you die" to the legitimately terrifying "here's your street address, your license plate number, and a photo of a pistol target with your face painted on it, full of 9mm holes".
I'm sure someone is going to be stupid enough to say even that should be protected speech
Well, yeah. If you want to say something stupid and blatantly illegal, you should be free to say it. And then you should have cops knocking on (or maybe down, given tendencies lately) your door for breaking actual laws. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from repercussion. If that sort of legitimate, "this person may be acting on it" kind of threat it found it should go to the authorities.
If Twitter's censorship is focused on speech that is a felony offense, with the rest of their effort being on promoting good speech over bad, they'll be doing things exactly the way I would.
There are already laws in place that either suggest or require people encountering illegal activity report such to the authorities. There's no need for an "anti bullying" council for that. Of course, this is all irrelevant and you're just bringing a strawman into the discussion, because your example isn't "bullying" or "trolling" it's flat-out illegal and not open to interpretation.
This is about stopping people from saying "mean things" on twitter, which is absolutely moronic. Here's the thing people seem to forget: Twitter is essentially like standing on a street corner and shouting for anybody to hear. If you use it to say something, anyone can read it and there's nothing stopping someone else from calling you an idiot or suggesting that you're a waste of oxygen. It's no different than if you decided to stand up in a restaurant and shout your opinions to everyone present. If you can't handle that, then why the fuck are you shouting your views at people in public?
We don't need anti-bullying bullshit to coddle morons that don't understand that concept, and we definitely don't need people like you trying to poison the well by conflating actual illegal activities with people being rude online.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:45AM
Isn't "trolling" just people expressing themselves, albeit with little value other than perhaps a little humour?
If it is, then why do people get so wound up about it?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:00AM
It's only you and your sort that get all twisted up.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Common Joe on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:55AM
If trolling is okay and acceptable behavior, then why do we have an option here at Soylent News to mark comments as "Troll"?
(Score: 2, Informative) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:33AM
If trolling is okay and acceptable behavior, then why do we have an option here at Soylent News to mark comments as "Troll"?
Recognition of skill and finesse? Or perhaps to weed out those so amateurish as to be easily detectable. Really, most people have no idea what trolling is all about. For them, I recommend a Norwegian movie "Trollhunter", very good despite its title. But that is not what trolling is! It is fishing, as in trolling for fish, and if you hook one, then they have been trolled. Now the point is, you have to be a very smart fish to detect trolling, and birds are almost as bad at this. Twitter has no chance. All they will end up doing is banning Runaway1956. Again.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Adamsjas on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:59AM
True, as far as it relates to the classical usenet troll, which is a bait, a wait, and reeling them in. Nobody has time for that these days and thats prolly why the kids around here wouldn't recognize a troll if they saw it.
But around here, trolling includes anything the moderator doesn't like. If the moderator things your post is on the other side of the political spectrum, then all the more reason to mark it troll.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:36PM
I'm sure that is true. I look for opportunities to up-mod users who are my ideological nemeses when they say something insightful, informative, or funny. Geek > [conservative | liberal | libertarian], and for me that's worth the effort of creating reasoned discussion between them.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:44PM
Have an upmod! No truer words have been spoken. (I may have been trolling at points when this UID was a impromptu Ranma ½ fanfic lol!)
What sad times are these when passing ruffians saying "Ni!" at will to old ladies constitues trolling.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:41PM
Because of the traditional meaning [catb.org] of the term. It's essentially a way to say "This person is giving incorrect information to elicit response from others"
However, it should be note that modding someone Troll does not remove the comment. It's not removing the statement, it's labeling it, and there's no real punishment for the moderation. That makes the whole concept quite a bit different.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:03PM
I've been getting a lot of people it seems lately complaining about how mod points are spent as if mod points have some meaning beyond, "I found this insightful", "that's some good information", "This is a troll" or "I think this person is making a comment specifically to start a fight"
People need to learn that mod points don't mean anything beyond agree/disagree and vaguely why people feel that way. And they need to stop looking at them for validation of their opinions.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:38AM
Decentralization
(Score: 1) by Demose on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:57AM
Didn't large amounts of people in Spain defect to gnu/social a few years ago?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gman003 on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:14AM
Isn't it weird how, despite the summary making no mention of the word "censorship", or even explicitly describing any sort of censorship, the first several comments automatically jumped to "they're oppressing my free speech!".
It's almost like it's an automatic rehearsed response - white pawn went to e4, so black pawn must move to c5. It's almost like this whole thing is just a petty culture war between two tribes, and this whole comment section will be about scoring points for your particular team rather than, you know, actually thinking about what's going on.
I know almost nobody is actually going to read the fucking article, but I went ahead anyways. There's no mention of any sort of censorship in Twitter's announcement. There was actually only one sentence that could even potentially indicate removing posts - "Community groups with an acute need to prevent abuse, harassment, and bullying". And even that doesn't necessarily indicate any speech being stopped - it might be as simple as allowing users to block other users not just by username, but by IP, to prevent spamming of the same harassing message over and over despite blocking.
They certainly have some very questionable choices for members, but I suspect some of the more dubious ones might just be a shield from criticism from cargo-cult liberals. (Or to speak your own tribal dialect, "maybe they only put FemFreq on the board so the SJWs wouldn't bitch about how they didn't, and she won't be able to actually do anything"). I do note a very specific absence of any explicit description of what these board members can do, besides "advise". It's entirely possible there will be zero actual changes as a result of this board.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:33AM
I wouldn't expect Twitter to actively call it censorship. I would also expect them to downplay the removal of posts. I'm fairly sure sure that they've already done it in the past for various reasons as well, legal reasons in some cases. I think that them playing along with this bunch of 'advisors' will end badly for them. The 'abusive material' is likely to be anything that remotely offends any of these groups.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:07AM
That's a fair point - the lack of public plans for censorship does not indicate a lack of plans for censorship.
However, consider what we would see right now if there actually were no plans for anything you or I would consider censorship. It would be pretty much exactly what we are actually seeing right now. (In more formal terms, the observation does not prefer either hypothesis over the other.)
And I understand the need to fight censorship from the beginning. We should not give them a benefit-of-the-doubt that it would only be done for a few limited cases, against people we disagree with anyways.
But sounding the alarm *before* we have any indication of censorship is crying wolf. It will lead to news fatigue - people who barely keep track of this stuff may hear you sound this alarm, then a few months later when another cry is raised, say "nothing happened last time you whined about this, why should I be worried now?". This ultimately weakens the cause of free speech, not strengthens it.
So why do it? Well, it's exactly what I said in my first post. I don't think there's a single regular member of Soylent who disagrees with free speech. Arguing in favor of it here serves no purpose other than, once again, to raise your own status within the tribe by showing your allegiance to that tribe. The arguments are reflexive and rehearsed, but also not even aimed at the nominal opponents. It's aimed at your own fellow tribesmen.
And that's what I'm really getting tired of. Soylent makes itself out to be a bastion of free speech, but the speech here is actually quite limited - not by rule or law, but because anyone smart enough to think for themselves is likely to go elsewhere to find people who make interesting discussion, not hammer on the same speaking points over and over again. I've actually had more interesting discussion on the other site, of late.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:24AM
And that's what I'm really getting tired of. Soylent makes itself out to be a bastion of free speech, but the speech here is actually quite limited - not by rule or law, but because anyone smart enough to think for themselves is likely to go elsewhere to find people who make interesting discussion, not hammer on the same speaking points over and over again. I've actually had more interesting discussion on the other site, of late. [emphasis added]
I suppose that in this case there's some merit in saying "hold on a second, free speech posse! We don't know who to lynch yet."
At the same time, what would you think is a reasonable discussion about this? I found your mention of potential user tools to block users/tweets that offend certain people interesting. It's also quite speculative, as is discussion of impending censorship.
While there are those here who are rather absolutist in their views (and not just with regard to free speech), which makes them somewhat inflexible on a number of topics. There's also a large group who aren't.
There are most certainly folks who have agendas, some of which I find to be distasteful to say the least. Arguing with them can be amusing on occasion, but for the most part I prefer to express myself and discuss the things that are important to me, rather than getting butthurt that some folks don't see the world in the same way I do.
I can't control what other people say or do. I can only do so for myself. And speaking for myself, I'd much prefer to hear your ideas about what specific issues (e.g., death threats) and potential remedies (user tools) you're focusing on, rather than a rant about narrow-mindedness.
So, by all means, tell us what you think. If there are those you think aren't constructively adding to the discussion, ignore them.
If that doesn't work for you, or you find the signal-to-noise ratio to be too low, you can work to increase it and help our community, or give up. The choice is yours.
I posit that bitching about how other people are just engaging in knee-jerk reactions because they aren't "smart enough to think for themselves" isn't such a great way to encourage productive discussion and likely lowers the signal-to-noise ratio. What say you?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:13PM
He makes a fair point. There are certain topics, certain huge sacred cows, on this site that you are not allowed to speak against, one of which we're discussing now. Another HUGE one is anything related to Snowden. He has cult leader-like status here. You are not allowed to be indifferent, heck, you're not even allowed to be mildly supportive. It isn't enough to say his shit doesn't stink, you have to advocate your desire to smell and bask in the glory essence that is his shit lest you get modded down. Browse at -1 in any story that has to do with Snowden or Assange or Bradley and see what I mean. It is "you are either with me or against me" in those discussions, and the mod points favor the "with me" crowd. If you're not "with me", then you obviously are a worthless piece of shit with no morals nor redeeming values. Most topics like "New device based upon X may be coming soon" are pretty tame until you get the inevitable "But wait and see what the NSA can do with that" comment that establishes the tribal boundaries, if I can borrow the metaphor used above.
Given the relatively smaller numbers of people who post, I presume that the Self Righteous can have a proportionally larger effect here than at other sites.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:09PM
Well if that's true, it shouldn't be. I see plenty of posts I disagree with, but I don't mod them down unless their arguments are obviously made in bad faith or illogical. (Or try not to, anyway.)
Be the change you want to see!(tm)
Oh right. You're an AC. nvm
"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) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:13PM
I do browse -1 here (and on the other site, but like my new UID there is ever going to get mod points!), and I try my best to correctly mod the occasional comment with -1, disagrees with groupthink status. That being said, I try not to blow through too many mod points handing out +1, agree mods! (So I may miss downmoding somebody with +5, agrees with groupthink, say true, but I don't like downmodding in the first place unless I'm absolutely sure the comment is in bad taste.) I would hope more mods would use this approach if quality posts disagreeing that Snowden is a hero are being modded to oblivion.
For exampe, were Cold Fjord to ever grace us with his presence (if there were ever a master shill and troll, it would be him!), I'd probably be rescuing many of his comments from the dreaded -1 score.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:14PM
Except you are actually allowed to, as you are talking about it in this very post. If you are so scared of down modding to speak your mind, maybe you should scoot over to the kiddie table.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Adamsjas on Wednesday February 10 2016, @07:08AM
Quote: "because anyone smart enough to think for themselves is likely to go elsewhere to find people who make interesting discussion, not hammer on the same speaking points over and over again."
Or is it that you can't see anyone else's viewpoint as a hammer blow, and you mistake every other opinion as an attempt to tear yours down?
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:32PM
I am a rationalist. As such, I must consider all new ideas presented to me. I constantly scrutinize myself for any signs of rejecting ideas for any reason other than their actual merit, as well as constantly test my own beliefs, assumptions and ideas.
Hell, I just spent an entire day slowly pondering an idea from someone I'm pretty sure is a naive idiot [soylentnews.org], whom I'd just spent an entire day arguing with already. I considered the idea, and found it withstood basic testing. So I tested it further. And it showed weakness, but did not yet fail. So I tested it still further, and a thousand words later I found where it broke.
And while his original proposal there was unworkable, it certainly had correct elements. By forcing myself to consider the matter, my position about the place bonds should hold in the economy changed. Before, I would have considered them suited only as a temporary measure. Now, based on an idea from someone I'd like to punch in the face should I ever see him, I consider them stable over the long term provided they are not a majority source of revenue for the government.
Elsewhere, I have actually changed my mind as a result of ideas from people I actively disliked. My position on Gamergate did... not quite a 180, but perhaps a 120, from deep in the negative to a low positive - again, based on evidence from a person who I can only imagine typing from his mother's basement with an MLP fedora. (I can't find the link at the moment, this was quite some time ago. If you're really interested, I can look harder).
I could go on, but those two events stick out in my mind as times rationalism forced me to do something hard, but right.
I am a bit new at this. I can still fail, by doing precisely what you suggest I may be doing. But I am aware of this, constantly aware, and I think in this case I am not failing.
I will end with this:
"Or is it that you can't see anyone else's viewpoint as a hammer blow, and you mistake every other opinion as an attempt to tear yours down?"
If someone else's viewpoint can tear mine down, my viewpoint deserved to be torn down. That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:07AM
That's ok. All are welcome here, including dumb ones like you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:43PM
But you have to appreciate the irony that any comments that argue "for" the need for a trust and safety council, aka "censorship", will be routinely modded down as unwelcome speech here by those who are most passionate "against" censorship.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:49AM
Twitter has been censoring news about politics and business for over a year [soylentnews.org] and now they announce a "trust and safety" council that includes known political operatives and censorship advocates, several of them state-funded and/or with ties to big business. These comments are complaining that Twitter is oppressing their free speech because Twitter has been oppressing their free speech with a clear bias toward protecting the reputations of certain powerful people and corporations.
If past conversations on this topic are any guide, next you are going to say that Prince William of England, Prince Alwaleed of Saudi Arabia, the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Swedish International Development Agency, the US State Department, and the European Commission are not "the government" so it's not really censorship. You must have looked into the situation and know who these "trust and safety" council members are to have such a strong opinion on the matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @12:42PM
I don't know about the others, but young Will most certainly isn't "government". The British royals - especially those in line for the big chair - are little more than ceremonial figureheads and gossip-fodder. The statue at the prow does not guide the ship.
Further, he's probably personally subject to more censorship and oversight (in order to keep his "job" as heir) than any of us will experience in our lives.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:51AM
I can't think of any government that has an Office of Censorship. Instead, they have informations services.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:44AM
I know almost nobody is actually going to read the fucking article, but I went ahead anyways. There's no mention of any sort of censorship in Twitter's announcement.
I've heard this before it seems...
“Such subtlety…” said Slartibartfast, “one has to admire it. How better to disguise their real natures, and how better to guide your thinking…"
Did you really think it would be spelled out for all to see...
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:56AM
It's because Zoe Quinn -- Self admitted Something Awful "Hell Dump" (doxing) addict, is on their anti-harassment consulting board. You know, the woman who doxed people then turned a new leaf and trolled the Internet into white knighting her during the #GamerGate scandal -- where she fucked journalists then had her dirty laundry aired (karma's a bitch, eh?), which demonstrated blatant corruption in games journalism and massive censorship across social media like facebook, twitter and reddit to silence the outrage that people who make shit games like "celebrity staring contest" and "depression quest" (text adventures) are fucking their way into good ratings while other games are not covered due to not liking anti-SJW things devs posted on twitter (blacklists are illegal, see: Game JournoPros mailing list).
Yes, so the SJW hypocrite who cried wolf, hacked herself, and espoused censorship, when partnered with Twitter's new SJW censorship program, does bring up discussion of how these SJWs will censor free speech, based on our extensive experience with them doing so in the past.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:42AM
I didn't realize she went as far back as SA. I don't doubt you, but for a good-natured drunk, link?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:52PM
Although I find Zoe already has plenty of faults, I think the evidence this is true is circumstantial at best. It's possible she was just joking about it and people took it seriously because it would be incredibly ironic someone who so "anti-harassment/abuse" would have at anytime advocated for harassment and abuse. In any case this is likely the link where this information comes from. [twimg.com]
I think there's some merit here when you consider there's a number of situations where her behaviour fits in with the accusations. There's a lot of nuance and history to read through, but she did lie to have a gag order placed on Eron Gjoni for nearly two years before trying to have it withdrawn to avoid her actions being questioned. If you don't want to just take my word for it here's the docket [archive.is] (note you have to scroll over to the right to see it, Zoe's real name, used in the docket, is Chelsea Van Valkerburg).
She lost, which has lead to further legal action against her from Eron that include some pretty high profile free speech lawyers.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:22PM
#pokegoons log [archive.is]
19:15.09 (Shavnir) you guys setting him up for ban evasion or getting the helldump thread ready
19:15.14 (@Eris) helldump
Twitter log [archive.is]
@TheQuinnspiracy - 2:03 AM - 13 Jul 2014
aaaa what the hell old IRC world colliding with new videogame world
Bill Zoeker @BillZoeker · Jul 13
@TheQuinnspiracy what was your handle?
gay the pray away @TheQuinnspiracy · Jul 13
@BillZoeker Eris.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:56PM
I think you're getting your professional victims mixed up. Feminist Frequency (Anita Sarkeesian) is on the list, not the CON (run by Quinn).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:29AM
Isn't it weird how, despite the summary making no mention of the word "censorship"...
Most of us have learned how to read NewSpeak out of sense of self preservation. This thing reeks of it.
"To ensure people can continue to express themselves freely and safely on Twitter, we must..." avoid putting anything but the minimal blocks to prevent outright criminality.
But of course they didn't finish the sentence that way. Oh no, they went on to explain how they needed all sorts of policies to ensure people CAN'T actually speak. Nothing proposed has the intended purpose of promoting speech, only 'making it a space space' for delicate snowflake who don't have the ability to handle actual people debating.
And isn't the whole 'safe space' concept an oxymoron anyway? I would certainly be 'triggered' by a coven of blue haired feminazis as much as they would be 'triggered' by my presence. Difference is I won't need a fainting couch and smelling salts, I'm used to encountering people who disagree with me and would find a world without such challenge a diminished one.
I know almost nobody is actually going to read the fucking article, but I went ahead anyways.
No, I didn't read that, I read the blog post from Twitter management the article is based on though. Don't need some unknown quantity trying to analyze the news for me, I prefer original sources. They list some forty initial members of their censorship committee. Care to guess how many are right of center? How many are instantly recognizable as left? About the only 'usual suspect' missing is $PLC.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:14PM
NewSpeak at it's finest [youtube.com]
"In fact, political correctness is expanding free speech. We're adding words to the dictionary every year in an effort to promote more respectful and inclusive speech." - from the video
-------------------------------
"It's a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn't only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word, which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well – better, because it's an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good,’ what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning or ‘doubleplusgood’ if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there'll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words – in reality, only one word. Don't you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.'s idea originally, of course," he added as an afterthought." - G. Orwell, 1984
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:04PM
How often does anybody ever self-describe what they're doing at censorship?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by guizzy on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:22PM
The problem is that there is no reason for it to exist other than censorship. Illegal speech, as in death threats and criminal harassment, is already illegal. They don't need a panel to know how to act on it.
There are only two possible explanations for this panel's existence. Either they are not satisfied with the amount of speech that is illegal and want that category expanded (which I would consider censorship), or they are just doing some knowingly empty posturing, in which case the side effect is endorsing people who actually have expressed a desire for censorship online.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:47AM
Easy to see how this will turn out. Let the witch hunt begin.
(Score: 2) by ticho on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:55AM
I will be over here on the side, watching the drama whilst munching popcorn. Perhaps there will be fireworks, as the whole social web 2.0 collapses onto itself.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:58AM
What did you expect, reasoned, intelligent discourse in 140 characters? Geez Louise!
Twitter was, is, and always will be a wonderful place for unintelligent and unintelligible bullshit. To expect those who are aggressive, obnoxious assholes IRL to be better behaved in a semi-anonymous, short-form medium is idiocy at best.
I won't say that Twitter and the twits that use it have lowered the quality of discourse in the world, as that would be hyperbole.
At the same time, I can pretty comfortably say that it hasn't improved it, that's for sure.
You're never going to stop idiots, jerks and ideologues from saying stupid, nasty and/or obnoxious things. Twitter is tailor-made for that.
I really don't care what Twitter says or does, as it's irrelevant to my life. I, for one, try to keep my interactions with the mentally, morally and ethically challenged to a minimum.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:16AM
I have never used twitter. I am so sick of hearing about it on TV, I'm glad their stock dropped 75% in the last year. Now this. I hope they go the way of SCO Unix, and if it weren't for Oculus Rift I'd say the same about Facebook.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:57AM
They really called it the "Trust & Safety Council"? Really?
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Marand on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:58PM
They really called it the "Trust & Safety Council"? Really?
Unfortunately, Ministry of Truth and Ministry of Love were already taken. :)
(I'm not implying anything about their purpose, that's just the vibe I get from names like that or others like it.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:14PM
I dream about all this bullshit being a subtle play at exposing what shit can be done by governments in order to get people aware of it and stop it before it becomes a problem. But that is probably wrong...