SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Life is not for everyone.
(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.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(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).