Twitter Announces (More) Hate-Speech Fighting Tools (Again) (cnn.com) 341
Building on anti-harassment tools announced in November, Twitter is now "trying to shake its reputation as a haven for online harassment" with still more new internal algorithms and features, reports CNN. An anonymous reader quotes their report:
The changes include preventing serial abusers from creating new accounts, a new "safe search" function and blocking potentially abusive and "low-quality" tweets from appearing in conversations, Twitter's engineering chief Ed Ho said in a blog post. Twitter is working on identifying users that have been permanently suspended and prevent them from creating new accounts, Ho said. This new measure specifically targets "accounts that are created only to abuse and harass others," he said, a problem that has long plagued the platform.
The new safe search function prevents tweets that are abusive, or from blocked and muted accounts, from appearing in users' search results. Those tweets can still be found if people want to see them, but they "won't clutter search results any longer," Ho said. And Twitter will now collapse tweet replies that are potentially abusive or low quality -- like duplicate tweets or content that appears to be automated. But those tweets "will still be accessible to those who seek them out," Ho said.
The blog post announces Twitter's ultimate goal is "a significant impact that people can feel," arguing that freedom of speech for all viewpoints is "put in jeopardy when abuse and harassment stifle and silence those voices."
The new safe search function prevents tweets that are abusive, or from blocked and muted accounts, from appearing in users' search results. Those tweets can still be found if people want to see them, but they "won't clutter search results any longer," Ho said. And Twitter will now collapse tweet replies that are potentially abusive or low quality -- like duplicate tweets or content that appears to be automated. But those tweets "will still be accessible to those who seek them out," Ho said.
The blog post announces Twitter's ultimate goal is "a significant impact that people can feel," arguing that freedom of speech for all viewpoints is "put in jeopardy when abuse and harassment stifle and silence those voices."
lets look to the past (Score:5, Interesting)
âoePolitical correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.â
and
"Political Correctness is fascism pretending to be manners"
- George Carlin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've heard it referred to as "the tyranny of the politically correct."
I don't envy Twitter....they want to allow free speech, but they also want to suppress the pointless static and harassment that takes place. The problem is that one person's free expression of ideas is another person's harassment, and it's hard to be impartial.
Everything is fine until the trolls and griefers outnumber the normal users by 10 or 20 to 1... then it all becomes a shit show.
Re:limitations of the platform (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:lets look to the past (Score:5, Insightful)
âoePolitical correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination.
This isn't about restricting or controlling people's language or fighting discrimination, it's about stopping harassment.
Consider criminal law, assuming you don't care about safety or property or anything besides freedom, then what do you want for a set of laws?
The easy answer is anarchy, but that's wrong because under anarchy a strongman will come in and take your freedom. The laws that give you the most freedom are also going to protect your safety and property, because if others are free to threaten you then you don't have freedom.
The same applies to speech, giving people the freedom to harass gives them the power to silence.
Re: Left and further left (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If the government doesn't get to tell people what to do, why even have a government? Just let people do whatever they want and see what happens.
Re: (Score:3)
Liberal: "Hey, let's try this new thing!"
Conservative: [sound of door being slammed] "Sorry, we're closed now."
-- Steve Martin
Re: Left and further left (Score:4, Informative)
1791 - The Democratic-Republican Party is formed by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson against Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party. The Democratic-Republicans strongly opposed government overreach and expansion, the creation of a national bank, and corruption.
1804 - Andrew Jackson purchases the plantation that will become his primary source of wealth.
1824 - The Democratic-Republican Party split. The new Democrats were supported by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, and the National Republicans were supported by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay.
1828 - Andrew Jackson is elected President of the United States.
1830 - Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, whereby the Cherokee and other native tribes were to be forcibly removed from their lands.
1831 - Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, whereby the Supreme Court ruled that Cherokee Nation was sovereign and the U.S. had no jurisdiction over Cherokee lands. Andrew Jackson had already started to enforce the removal of the Choctaw.
1832-33 - The Whig Party is formed in opposition to Jackson’s government expansion and overreach in the Nullification Crisis and the establishment of a Second National Bank. The Whig Party successfully absorbs the National Republican Party.
1838 - Many Indian tribes had been forcibly removed. Under Jackson, General Winfield Scott and 7,000 soldiers forced the Cherokee from their land at bayonet point while their homes were pillaged. They marched the Cherokee more than 1,200 miles to the allocated Indian territory. About 5,000 Cherokee died on the journey due to starvation and disease.
1854 - The Whig Party dissolves over the question of the expansion of slavery. Anti-slavery Whigs and anti-slavery democrats form the Republican Party with their sole goal being to end slavery.
1861 -The election of President Lincoln spurs the beginning of the Civil War.
1862 - Lincoln writes a letter where he declares he wishes to preserve the union regardless of the morals on slavery. He issues the Emancipation Proclamation, whereby all slaves in Union territories had to be freed. As states came under Union control, those slaves too had to be freed.
1863 - Frederick Douglass, former slave and famous Republican abolitionist, meets with Lincoln on the suffrage of emancipated slaves.
1864 - Lincoln revised his position on slavery in a letter to Albert G. Hodges stating “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”
1865 - Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrenders at the Appomattox Courthouse to Union victory. After Lincoln’s Assassination, Democrat President Johnson issues amnesty to rebels and pardons the slave owners of their crimes.
1865 - The 13th Amendment which ended slavery passed with 100% Republican support and 63% Democrat support in congress.
1866 - The Klu Klux Klan is formed by Confederate veterans to intimidate black and Republicans through violence, lynching, and public floggings. They gave open support to the Democrat Party.
1866 - The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is vetoed by Democratic President Andrew Johnson. Every single Republican voted and overturned the veto.
1868 - The 14th Amendment which gave citizenship to freed slaves passed with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The first grand wizard of the KKK, Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest is honored at the
1968 Democratic National Convention.
1868 - Representative James Hinds who taught newly freedmen of their rights is murdered by the KKK.
1870 - The 15th Amendment which gave freed slaves the right to vote passed with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
1871 - The violence of the KKK grew so savage that congress passed the Enforcement Acts to repress their influence.
1875 - Democrat Senator William Saulsbury speaks out against the Civil RIghts Act of 1875, claiming it will allow “colored men shall sit at the same table beside the white guest; that he shall enter the same parlor and take his seat beside the wife and daughter of the white man, whether
Re: Left and further left (Score:5, Informative)
You seemed to have left out the Southern Strategy and the War on Drugs, which went a long way towards splitting the parties.
Conveniently towards the end of your timeline, Nixon during his 1968 campaign appealed to many dixiecrats who were upset about the passage of the civil rights act, stating it was a form of government encroachment on their lives. This in turn led to a party shift where former dixiecrats turned republicans and in time, the former republicans turned progressive. Once the parties flipped, you've got the War on Drugs for the 1970s and 1980s that heavily criminalized communities of color and anti-war liberals. Or as John Erlichman said it "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news,"
Blacks, who were outright demonized by the right, turned to the left, which accepted them because who would not turn down the free vote. The left still treats black voters in a passive-agressive manner, knowing they can reliably count on the black vote, but the relationship is not as antagonistic as what is seen on the right.
So many right wing people love to crow about how Republicans freed the slaves and were responsible for most progressive legislation early on in this country. All that is true, but the conveniently leave out the part where Nixon and Lee Atwater flipped the parties, and when both Reagan and Bush used race based fear mongering to further drive the republican base whiter and more conservative.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/... [cnn.com]
Re: Left and further left (Score:4, Interesting)
Right means conservative. Left means liberal. Conservative means "let's do the things we have always done." Liberal means "let's change how we do everything"
That has never really been true, and it certainly isn't true today, when many liberals want go back to the social policies of the 1960s and the economic policies of the 1950s.
I think the main difference between right and left is not the policies, but the justification for the policies. The right justifies their policies by saying they are good for the country, while the left says their policies are good for the citizens. The actual policies are not that different. Donald and Bernie have much more in common with each other than either has with moderates.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Donald and Bernie have much more in common with each other than either has with moderates.
If you truly believe that, then you have your head up your ass.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone has a colour, though. Except Goths.
Technically, [whiteface] goths have all colours. But the rest of your point stands.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which group is asking for 'safe spaces'. Which group is trying to silence the other? If you think it is what you call 'conservatives' you are willfully blind or have not been paying attention for the past year or deliberately trying to be a fool.
You assume I do not want to debate you. On the contrary. I just use your own words against you. You can not pick a stance that is logically defensible. I have a *large* library of so called liberal people saying things that bolster my conservative positions.
Re: (Score:3)
But it isn't conservatives that decided to edit Huckleberry Finn.
They'd probably just burn it. Much easier than all that reading and writing stuff that would be needed to edit it.
As for silencing people, didn't Steve Bannon just tell the press to "keep its mouth shut"?
More to the point, your arguments are incomplete. Both sides are guilty wanting "safe spaces" because the other side is (at least a little) intolerant and is trying to silence the other side. Trump voters want safe spaces on college campus 'cause Liberals are "mean to them", and Liberals want them to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that is correct. My feeling is that the alt-right is more like the cowardly bully looking behind themselves and blathing "Right, guys!?" in an attempt to cast their broken, intolerant, stark terror of change as a strength and mob approved, rather than the pathetic weakness and fear that it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the kind of freeze peach that alt-right snowflakes want to protect. Their right to tip the punch bowl, molest the family dog, and shit on the floor without being told that they're not welcome at the party any more until they know how to behave.
And when someon
Re: The funny thing about protection... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: The funny thing about protection... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, it's protected. It's just not protected in my fucking house. Or in Twitter's fucking house.
And the person posting that does not have a right to demand there are no consequences. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Re: lets look to the past (Score:2)
The trouble is that the most of the speech that seems to be controlled on Twitter is that by white people and particularly by white men.
Re: (Score:3)
Good try, but no. Here's an article from a year ago about Twitter shutting down 120,000 ISIS accounts.
https://www.theatlantic.com/in... [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
alt-right nazi is quite ok right now, we got one running the president after all
Doomed (Score:5, Interesting)
Twitter wants to have it both ways: it wants to have a big room where they can put in all the liberals and conservatives, all the Islamists and Zionists, and have them talk about whatever is happening in their world... and then it wants them all to get along. It doesn't work that way.
To put it more technically, Twitter's problem is that, as a social network, it reflects a connected graph of hundreds of millions of people. A lot of those people aren't going to like each other very much. Now they're making themselves responsible for the safety of their users, and that does two really bad things:
1) It announces that Twitter is presently an unsafe platform, and
2) It puts them in the middle of whatever fight any two people might have, equipped with no tools to resolve the underlying conflicts that drive those fights, and only their own subjective morals (with all the attendant biases those bring) to resolve them.
Twitter is at war with itself here.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, it's hurting our brand. So now you're assigned to fix it. Have an action plan on my desk in a month or you're fired.
Fortunately it doesn't matter if you actually follow through on any of the crap in it, or if you do, that any of it is actually efficacious. I just need something to tell the board/shareholders. Ideally the users swallow it too.
This is much more important damage control that the effects of people seeing our quarterly earnings.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, it's hurting our brand. So now you're assigned to fix it. Have an action plan on my desk in a month or you're fired.
In other words, you're paying me for a month while I look for a new job.
Re:Doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitter wants to have it both ways: it wants to have a big room where they can put in all the liberals and conservatives, all the Islamists and Zionists, and have them talk about whatever is happening in their world... and then it wants them all to get along. It doesn't work that way.
If Twitter's actions of late are any indication, it would be more accurate to say that it wants to put everyone in a big room where only the SJW/liberal voices are allowed to talk and everyone else sits quietly out of fear of being banned like Milo.
There is no such thing as one-way freedom of speech. If you're telling someone else that their speech is hate speech and therefore not allowed, you're ultimately hurting your own freedom just as much as theirs. As Robespierre [wikipedia.org] could warn you, the rules and laws you make to oppress others today will be turned against you tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to argue that Twitter doesn't need to participate in a homosexual "wedding" if they don't want to?
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter has to allow homosexuals to make accounts. They'd have to bake a cake if homosexual customers came in and asked for a cake (and if twitter were a bakery). But they don't have to host the wedding on their site or be the maid of honor if they don't want to.
Now this is where you get to pretend you don't see the distinction. Proceed.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody controls the media. You are welcome to go over to Breitbart or Stormfront or gab.ai or whatever fetid underbelly of the Internet the alt-right is currently using.
Breitbart is media. They even have a White House correspondent. You are welcome there and have the same potential to be heard there as you would on twitter, except there's no character limit.
Re: (Score:2)
they'll prolly end up banning anything that doesnt go the way of the majority of twitter engineers/people with most followers/etc though.
basically, if you post child porn nobody will care, but if, oh god forbid, you say something bad about political candidate X all hell will break lose, perma banned, etc.
Hate Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me give you an example of "Hate Speech" that I have been harassed and attacked over saying, including on this very website.
"There are only two genders. Male and Female."
Which pretty much sums up the problem with fighting "hate speech." The regressive left has co-opted and twisted the meaning of the already meaningless term "hate speech" -- along with other terms like "racism" or "nazi" -- to the point that they've lost all semblance of meaning.
But "Twitter announces more [UnAmerican Political Censorship] tools (Again.)" doesn't have the same kick to it, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
"There are only two genders. Male and Female."
I'm not sure that without further context that would be considered hate speech.
You will certainly (and have in response to this post) get people trying to helpfully educate you, but that's not harassment. That's people trying to remove your ignorance.
But it's an interesting example; Twitter might ban you, and would almost certainly not ban people that actually did harass you for saying this. This is an inherent flaw in Twitter and why people are abandoning it as a platform.
Re: Hate Speech (Score:4, Informative)
Ars Technica recently banned over 30 users because they referred to Bradley Manning as "him". No trolling, insults, or even hostility. Just using the wrong word.
SJW is a mental illness and a plague. They are fascists in the literal meaning of the word.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people use 'him' to describe Chelsea Manning and their intentional use of the term is hostile and indeed trolling in itself.
Bradley Manning is more complex.. Technically he was representing as male, so I'd call him 'him'. Chelsea though is a no-brainer. Just use female pronouns with her.
That's a courtesy some people seem to find beyond them though. I can understand Ars Technica choosing to remove rude trolls from their site.
Point proven (Score:2, Informative)
"There are only two genders. Male and Female."
Disproved by genetics. Your own science disagrees with you. You must be some kind of ignorant idiot. Go educate yourself.
Ignoring your textbook SJW stupidity... (Genetically XX and XY are the two genders. Everything else is a birth defect.)
See everyone? Point proven.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty arbitrary definition of "birth defect".
I'm trying to think of other people who arbitrarily defined things as defects... I'm sure there was some group doing that in the 1930s.
Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Arbitrary? Really? [wikipedia.org]
You either have XX or XY chromosomes in every cell of your body if you are a normal human. Even if you go through hormone therapy and sexual re-assignment surgery your cells contain the same chromosomes.
Everything else is a birth defect and considered a syndrome. (Turner's syndrome, Klinefelter's syndrome, etc..)
Like you are doing, that group you mentioned in the 1930s didn't like science much either when it hurt their ideology. Your pathetic appeal to emotion does not counter facts.
Re: (Score:3)
Birth defect? Who decided what was a birth defect and not an evolutionary trait? I say you and your entire backwards good old boy conservative species is a birth defect. Do I win because you demonstrate yourself to be?
Every life form on the planet that reproduces sexually has two genders. Male and female.
Humans are a life form that reproduces sexually.
We have two genders.
Male.
Female.
No amount of semantics will change this fundamental fact of our species. You can argue what it means to be male and female -- that's healthy and everchanging -- but trying to make up stupid bullshit like "agender" or "thirdgender" is completely pointless.
Re: Point proven (Score:5, Funny)
Umm... your point being?
Yes, there are animals that can change their gender. In the end, you still have two distinct genders among them. They don't create a new gender that does ... what exactly during procreation? Watch and rate the act?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly because down syndrome is a defect on the 21st gene and not on the sexual genes. People with Klinefelter and Turner syndrome are usually way more affected and most of the time infertile.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, because they're not genders. Try to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to keep up with someone making no sense.
Are you claiming that humans with unusual chromosome combinations, chimerism, mosaic chimerism, androgen insensitivity and a whole bunch of other things simply have no gender? Butt them you've still got the same problem of choosing between "make, female and none". That's still three.
Here's a good rule for you, which has served me well in the small amount of actual punished biology research I've been involved in: if you think something biological related is
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, he can't read your answer because he got banned by twitter.
Now he will go elsewhere, spread his message around and then ten of those people will come and say the same thing.
What do words mean? (Score:2)
The social expression of ones sex (gender) is disproved by... genetics? Genes govern whether we wear trousers or skirts? If we like pink or blue? If we are tops or bottoms? Or did you mean sex? The physical expression of ones genes.
And this, in a nutshell, is a large part of the problem. The words sex and gender are used by different people to mean different things.
Yes, your particular subculture has decided to define gender to mean "whether we wear trousers or skirts. If we like pink or blue." This particular definition has not been adopted universally within the English language.
From Merriam Webster, you apparently think definition 2b is the only definition
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
Definition of gender
1
a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One thing we've noticed in the past few years is that there are sociopaths out there that use other people's empathy as a weapon.
Call someone the right kind of name -- racist, for example -- and they'll immediately suffer cognitive dissonance. The easiest way out is the one most people take -- apologizing and adjusting behavior. If you weaponize this effect, you can force people to give you special treatment.
If you fall for this enough times, or if you watch someone else fall for it, you become resistant.
Jack (Score:2)
Jack and Marissa should get together and compare notes on how to fuck a once prominent company.
"abusive" or "low-quality" stuff (Score:2)
They have no problem with censorship, as long as they're the ones doing the censoring.
Re: "abusive" or "low-quality" stuff (Score:2)
"They have no problem with censorship, as long as they're the ones doing the censoring."
You know how email has such a problem with censorship? Oh, wait, it's an interoperable protocol, not a platform.
You should have your choice of censorship - but until there's federated social networking you won't have freedom of expression (unless you happen to get lucky).
Well.. (Score:3)
Twitter allows you to follow and block people. That alone seems like "Free Speech" to me. I don't believe you gain much by 140 characters and links, and quite frankly never thought it would be as popular as it is. I thought it would be Nagios channels for everyone who needed it. That said, you don't have to read things you dislike and can sign up for things you like.
Twitter got into trouble by blocking Free Speech. Many people stopped using it or went on the offensive because of Twitter blocking people
Once again, @jack is an asshole who doesn't care (Score:2)
@jack doesn't care what someone says if they are on his side politically. However, if you happen to offend someone on @jack's side, twitter will shut someone down with no warning and little explanation.
What will SJW allow? (Score:5, Interesting)
Communist party officials don't like been reminded of any terms surrounding Tiananmen Square and the use of numbers like 1989?
Whats left on the site that teams of SJW approve of?
Celebrities posting about events or their new projects? Only happy movie reviews are allowed by teams of SJW?
Governments posting "fictional" accounts of tourism in their repressive nations?
No mention of human rights issues or import/export deals to support wars?
SJW approved officials promoting their city or town projects can be helped to trend?
People posting real news or comments about such policies are removed and reported to their own governments?
Everyone fun or interesting expecting freedom of speech and freedom after speech will just follow the fun people to real US sites offering real freedoms.
Been banned and reported on by gov workers from other nations, by SJW and other groups does not make interesting people want to stay with any brand offering social media.
Censorship by a SJW in the name of a faith, gov, political party is not a selling point that attracts users.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not what the SJW allow; it's what the management of what after all is a privately hosted service allows.
Twitter is dealing with the fact that it is long past the exponential growth phase, and it needs to hold on to users, particularly the most valuable users. And you're just not that valuable.
Women, on the other hand, control 85% of purchases made in the United States, and with that comes clout. It's more important to Twitter that women find its service congenial than some pack of alienated, juvenile
Re: (Score:2)
which is worse, you for posting a list of shit that has nothing to do with SJWs, or the 4 morons who modded you up?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How you got modded up is beyond me. Your lines of text are barely coherent and I cant make sense of most of them. Your post smells of someone who speaks English as a second language and thus lacks legitimacy in the context of the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Since "SJWs" have no control over the filter, the answer is that they will be forced to allow whatever Twitter deems acceptable.
By your reasoning, the ability to hide low scored posts on Slashdot is censorship, presumably by the dreaded SJWs since they seem to be responsible for everything in your world.
Note how it is targeted at new accounts. If someone creates a new account, and immediately starts screaming abuse at another established one, that's a pretty good sign that it's trolling. Even if it isn't, f
Death threats against Trump are fine (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there is still an #assassinatetrump tag.
Thousands of such threats are posted all the time.
On the hand, Twitter has recently disabled the account of a cartoonist, with 1.3 million followers, because he offended a feminist.
Any kind of anti-white hate is fine. Okay for Muslims to post hateful tweets against Jews, or anybody else, but it is not okay to offend Muslims.
Re: (Score:2)
Which cartoonist? I would assume you mean Scott Adams, but he didn't post about it on his blog.
That said, given his frequent complaints about shadowbanning, and the distrust that generates for the platform, I can see banning him for business reasons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you never post links to these incidents? Which cartoonist are you referring to? There was the fake news about that Trump-as-a-baby cartoon being banned, maybe that?
When you look at these cases in detail, they are never as simple as "Twitter banned someone for ideological reasons" or "because a feminist was offended". As usual, my .sig applies.
heh... (Score:2)
Funny how Twitter pretty much ignored complaints and requests from users to implement tools to stop harassment and hate speech for the longest time back when this all started, several years ago waaaay before everything that the election brought with it, but now that the company's ass is on the line with failing stock prices they finally decided to do something about it... I'm guessing too little too late. Just too many users lost because of the problems they refused to solve.
Re: (Score:2)
And I dare say by "solving" the problem, they're bound to lose even more.
Escalation of Terms to Justify Censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Mockery is now hate speech.
Offense is now trauma.
Criticism is now abuse.
Compelling criticism is now violence.
Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll.
Anyone at random is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc if they say so.
The use of this alarmist (and usually, simply wrong) language is ubiquitous and deliberate. It's all a pretense to justify a disproportionate censorial "response," especially when they know no response is warranted at all. It's also a brazenly transparent tactic, especially since Twitter/Reddit/etc rarely seem to use it against users that properly align with their politics.
This video is an excellent illustration of how the media lies about "online abuse" (and how even the crumbs that are true are exaggerated for false impact):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
P.S. It's also entertaining as Hell cuz Milo's a riot.
Re:Escalation of Terms to Justify Censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
He's so full of self hate now that he's even become homophobic?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, actually.... From Wikipedia:
"While Yiannopoulos is openly gay, he has stated that gay rights are detrimental to humanity, and that gay men should "get back in the closet".[96] He has described being gay as "aberrant" and "a lifestyle choice guaranteed to bring [gay people] pain and unhappiness".[97]"
Some black people worked with the people enslaving their kin. I've been accused of hating white people on Slashdot often enough. It happens.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't take Wikipedia's word for it, follow the links to the two references and read them yourself.
In fact, why not just ask Milo himself on Twi... Er, where ever she shitposts these days. He won't deny it, he's quite open about his views.
Re: (Score:2)
people who think fighting racist is racist
Fighting racism by being racist is racist. Calling that out is not racism. Twitter allows far too much anti-white racism, as proven by banning people that repost anti-white tweets but substitute 'white' for another ethnicity.
that tolerance requires tolerating bigots
Twitter believe this - it's the only possible reason they ban people that call out bigoted tweets by muslims and not the bigots that post them.
mocking people for calling out bigotry by moveing hte goalposts and totally ignore that the thing that just got called out was in fact bigoted.
What, like the criticism received by people like Milo? Whose racism includes a preference for getting fucked by black men, whose sexism includes
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, you just confirmed his point for him.
Note that your post is abusive, trolling and should thus warrant banning you from twitter.
It's also making a number of assumptions, demonstrating clear biases and also revealing an almost comical level of ignorance.
Get a fucking hobby, shitlord.
One of my hobbies is pointing out stupidity on the Internet. Thanks for playing.
Will Twitter be accountable for all tweets? (Score:2)
two suggestions (Score:2)
2. Delete anyone who uses all CAPS LOCK
Doesn't fix everything, but the volume would reduce dramatically.
Strange days. (Score:2)
I find it strange that some people believe that they have a right to be on a private website. What I find even stranger is that many of the people arguing that Twitter is somehow being unfair also support the idea of "my business, my rules" but persist on complaining anyway. If you don't like twitter, there are other sites you can visit. Secondly, you don't have the right to be read by other people. People are free to ignore you, regardless of your cause, just or otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, sorry. You already lost that argument when your side bankrupted a bakery that tried to implement "my business, my rules".
We've read Alinsky too, and we are perfectly happy mocking you for failing to live by your own rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, sorry. You already lost that argument when your side bankrupted a bakery that tried to implement "my business, my rules".
A) I don't have a "side" because I disagree with both parties.
B) "my business, my rules" doesn't prohibit people from refusing you business. Feel free to do the same to Twitter.
We've read Alinsky too, and we are perfectly happy mocking you for failing to live by your own rules.
I'm not sure which rules you are talking about but you seem to think society is a game of "us versus them" which is very shortsighted. We may not agree all the time but we should be working together to make a better future for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confused. The ruling against the bakery is that they can't refuse to serve people based on their sexuality. If they had put a rule in place like "no political messages" and enforced it universally they would have been fine.
Re: (Score:2)
My problem with twitter's policies is that influential media organisations use it as a communication channel and also quote it in serious news.
E.g. the BBC "live" coverage of events in parliament is liberally sprinkled with twitter comments.
The BBC are already demonstrating a horrific lack of diversity in their reporting, letting twitter skew that further would be bad.
The criteria must be explicitly stated and equally (Score:2)
None of that "up to moderator discretion" BS.
For example, Kellyanne Conway is known for saying/writing things (including untruths) which results in a torrent of hostile and trolling tweets sent her way.
Other prominent figures such as journalists and activists are also known to say things (including untruths) that result in hostile tweet storms directed their way.
Would a barrage of calling someone dumb constitute abuse and harassment? We need clarity and transparency.
Creating new accounts? (Score:2)
So if not every ISP account gives out a static IP whats the next step in tracking banned users?
Linguistic analysis?
Expect the banned user to reuse some of the same details when creating a new account?
Seeing who quickly comments on a new account and see if they had a past connection with a banned user?
Ask governments globally to track banned users ISP logs and see if they create a new account
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i.e. the app or smart phone used is still unique to that banned account.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think it is about detecting people hopping accounts to evade bans? Just because they say so? Ha!
No, this is just pre-justification for banning anyone they want, for any reason, at any time. Post supporting President Trump? Banned! - you are obviously just a sock puppet of someone they already banned that said something similar. What are you going to do? Sue to get your account back?
Already solved (Score:2)
This could not possibly go wrong. (Score:2)
Given how wide "hate speech" can be defined with the political correctness fascists, there is no chance at all this will be used for censorship.
Free speech should be unalienable.
Well .... (Score:2)
It's dead, Jim.
The real brownshirts propagate on Twitter (Score:3, Insightful)
After banning (and shadowbanning [breitbart.com]) quite a lot of Trump supporters, it seems like the Brownshirt alliance of Anti-Trump fascists is now only allowed to persist, but to prosper [infowars.com].
Ask the people in Berkely who just wanted to hear Milo Yannopolis speak but were assaulted with flagpoles instead just who are the violent brownshirts [heatst.com] of today...
But I guess you consider it OK to beat women with flagpoles [youtube.com] because they are just Trump supporters, right?
Watch that video, I dare you to come back and say that Trump supporte
Re: (Score:2)
I did actually watch the video - Trump supporters are the brownshirts.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so we're judging ideologies by how a minority of supporters behave?
In that case the Tea Party and Alt-Right are racist as all hell.
It's great you can point to a protest that got out of hand but I'd rather have idiot SJW on my side than racists.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
FTFY (Score:3)
Unfortunately for you, a majority of SJWs are racists.
SJWs calling conservative black people "Uncle Tom" (Larry Elder, Ben Carson), calling Asian conservatives "Traitors to their race" and "Self hating $*&@" (Michelle Malkin), etc.. has been normalized by the left. They are a religion, and has become far more dangerous to the US than other Religions. Hell, the Westboro Baptist Church was 16 wackos yelling slurs at people and was demonized by Media and largely ignored. The Left has exponentially more people and the Media treats them like heroes.
A large enough minatorily matters (Score:3)
Oh, so we're judging ideologies by how a minority of supporters behave?
We do when the majority it does not condemn, and mostly cheers violent action... it was not a minority of people cheering on that "nazi punching" video. That's all great until people realize you are the Nazi... good luck with what you have normalized and deemed acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really some super secret shadowbanning scheme when they announce it publicly, is it? They have said it before, and are now saying it again, they will filter abuse from the victim's display and give them the tools to block it, and low quality content (i.e. lots of words like "faggot" and that n-word you can't post on Slashdot, brand new account) gets filtered too. Just like how Google does it for web sites.
Also, odd how you seem to confuse Twitter with real life, what's up with that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
its not bigotry to oppose bigotry