Twitter Expands Safety Policy, Bans Posting Images of People Without Their Consent (techcrunch.com) 126
Twitter updated its private information safety policy this morning to ban sharing images or videos of private individuals without their consent. From a report: The platform already banned users from sharing others' personal information without permission, like their address or location, identity documents, non-public contact information, financial information or medical data. But this update makes these anti-harassment and anti-doxxing policies more robust. This doesn't mean that Twitter will require consent from all individuals in a photo or video before its posted. But if a person depicted wants the media taken down, Twitter will take it down.
well, this pretty much... (Score:5, Insightful)
not really a good look the day after the new CEO takes over IMO
Re:well, this pretty much... (Score:5, Informative)
“This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.”
From TFA.
Re:well, this pretty much... (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course, Twitter will determine what media is "valuable to public discourse".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even worse, now Twitter gets to decide WHO is "media".
Re: (Score:1)
are
Re: (Score:1)
'Who' is singular. Would you say "John are media!"
Re: (Score:2)
Johnny five are alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'Who' is singular. Would you say "John are media!"
There are at least 13 Doctor Whos, fool!
Re: well, this pretty much... (Score:2)
No. I would say "John is medium".
Media is the plural of medium.
Re: (Score:2)
No, "who" is both singular and plural, depending on what it is referring to. "Ten people came in who were looking for trouble" is perfectly grammatically correct; you would say "Ten people were looking for trouble." Here, "who" refers to "media", which is plural, and thus so is "who".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Their platform, their rules. As it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A. Calling someone a Nazi doesn't make it so.
B. Your political opponents certainly do know what censorship and fascism are.
I'm not going to devolve into using such loaded terms as "Libtard" as its childish and serves no purpose, but the reality is that a very vocal segment of the left these days is very much in favor of both censorship, fascism, and authoritarianism as long as it supports their viewpoint. The method itself doesn't bother them, just the ideals behind the method.
You dismiss all censorship su
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is property rights considered fascism? Would you like it if laws were passed saying that you couldn't stop some loudmouth with a bullhorn from standing in the middle of your living room spewing anti-semitic and racist garbage as loud as possible? Is throwing his ass out of your house "censorship" or exercising your rights as a property owner?
Re: (Score:3)
“This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.”
A lot depends on how you parse that sentence.
'This policy is not applicable to media featuring (public figures or individuals) when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.”
is quite different from:
This policy is not applicable to media featuring (public figures) or (individuals) when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.”
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.
So that would be the Twitter bias clause. Tweets not deemed in line with the progressive narrative will be flagged for not adding value to the public discourse.
Re: (Score:1)
but their track record shows what kinds of stories they will ban vs what ones they will deem worthy
Re: (Score:1)
I see you have spammed this on everyone questioning twitter about this. what you seem to ignore is who gets to make the decisions... oh right they do (and they should its their company) but their track record shows what kinds of stories they will ban vs what ones they will deem worthy
This is correct, at least until and unless the government at some point deems digital public squares worthy of 1A protection.
However people are also right to complain about this, because Twitter's new "safety rule" is a lie. They have no intention of restricting their political favorites from posting pictures of private individuals without permission. They will selectively use this "rule" to crack down on and censor messages they don't like. It's OK to call out and criticize liars, in this case the Marxist
Re: well, this pretty much... (Score:1)
The more platforms like Twitter, Facebook, etc. elect to filter/edit/control what users can post on their platform, the weaker their argument to keep so-called Section 230 protections from liability for content on their site.
Re: (Score:2)
I spammed it on the first few questions that were posted where the poster clearly did not read the article, and was reacting to the (poor) summary that doesn't mention this critical point. Literally all of the things people were questioning are very clearly issues of public interest, or involving public personas.
It's a legitimate point that Twitter is the decider of these things, but they are also in a position that if they abuse it, they are inviting congressional action to take it out of their hands. Sl
Re: (Score:2)
Their is basically no photo ever taken that only includes a public figure. A photo of a presidential inauguration will include some security guard or maybe just some audience member.
Re:well, this pretty much... (Score:5, Insightful)
Release forms have been a thing in publishing for ages. The digital realm completely forgot about that. I like that twitter is instituting something similar.
"Newsworthy" photos are not counted in the policy, so your concern seems to be covered, too.
Of course, that raises the question who decides what is newsworthy?
Re: (Score:2)
no one has an expectation of privacy in a public setting here. Not saying whether or not this is a good thing or not, only that is how it is
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
False. For instance, in much of the USA, it is illegal to film police officers
I'm pretty sure that is not correct.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right - this is a clearly established law.
OTOH the police taking your device away, and deleting your recording, without any warrant, is insufficiently illegal to surpass the threshold of "qualified immunity" they enjoy and stop them from doing that. And you trying to stop them from doing that will be counted as "interference in their official duties."
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not, unless you're actively interfering in their official duties or, depending on state laws, recording surreptitiously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In my state, at least, you can't legally film someone inside their house without their permission, even if you can do it from the public street.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
cant speak for other countries, but in the USA, anything I can see from public, i can film. and im free to do what I wish with it.
You'd quickly find that is not the case, depending on what you filmed and how you published it.
Re: (Score:2)
In Japan it's standard practice to blur the faces of people in photographs will haven't given explicit permission. Even random blogs and social media posts get blurred, and Japanese phones often include software to do it automatically.
Re: (Score:2)
cant speak for other countries, but in the USA, anything I can see from public, i can film.
Sure, that wasn't a point of contention though.
and im free to do what I wish with it.
There's a difference between taking a photo, and publishing a photo. That distinction aside, no, in the US, you cannot. US law states that the publication of a photo without consent is permitted if it serves a "socially useful" purpose. So clearly, there are limitations.
no one has an expectation of privacy in a public setting here. Not saying whether or not this is a good thing or not, only that is how it is
That speaks to being photographed, not to having said photograph published.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Attacking a Karen is totally newsworthy in the Twitter-verse.
Re: (Score:1)
That's the whole idea. It's very damaging to see journalists reporting real news, day after day. The truth is the enemy. "The misuse of private media can affect everyone, but can have a disproportionate effect on women, activists, dissidents, and members of minority communities."
A good read: Will Twitter Become an Ocean of Suck? The resignation of Jack Dorsey is the latest plot point in the story of the Internet's transformation, from democratizing tool to instrument of elite control." [substack.com]
Remember back when
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No more protest videos, no more first amendment audits, no more of any of that.
From TFS:
This doesn't mean that Twitter will require consent from all individuals in a photo or video before its posted. But if a person depicted wants the media taken down, Twitter will take it down.
I know this is Slashdot, but TFS is four sentences long, ffs.
Re: (Score:2)
This is really a no-brainer. I'm not a corporation with deep pockets, but if someone asked me to take down their picture, I would do it just out of good manners.
Re: well, this pretty much... (Score:2)
So when cops say take down the protest videos which contain abuses by cops in it, you'll be OK with that?
If China asks, Twitter will take down videos of Hong Kong independence protests - that's OK with you?
Seems odd.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say that was OK with me. I was clarifying a factually incorrect post.
But it does beg the question - what if a police officer wants a video taken down, instead of the police department, for example? Where will they draw that line?
What if a bunch of counter-protesters show up to a protest for the sole purpose of having Twitter videos taken down?
I'm not saying I have the answers, but I don't think they've thought this through very well.
Re: (Score:2)
So it Kyle wants the video of him taken down, they will? Sure. That's gonna happen.
Re: (Score:2)
well this pretty much will end the independent journalists that share their videos on twitter.
It only affects the journalists or anybody else that Twitter disapproves of.
Hey I object to photographic evidence (Score:1)
of the crime I'm committing to be posted on teh internets.
Take it down or I'll do to you what I'm doing to the other guy in the picture.
Re: (Score:2)
of the crime I'm committing to be posted on teh internets.
Take it down or I'll do to you what I'm doing to the other guy in the picture.
Then stop posting your pictures and videos (likely of yourself) while committing crimes -- geesh.
[Thinking of all those Jan 6th insurrectionists posting pic/vids of themselves and/or while *in* the Capital Building.]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
you are thinking of the people filming jan 6th, while i am worried about the videos being taken of criminal acts such as the burning of kanosha or the chaz in portland being taken down.
No, those too. The Jan 6th ones were just the first thing that popped into my head, notably as the dummies who took them are getting nailed based on their own pics/vids. Dummies that get caught on film by others deserve to get their 15min of fame too... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
The election protesters may or may not be correct in their belief that election fraud happened, but they shouldn't be punished this sev
Re: (Score:2)
Those don't count. Obviously!
Re: (Score:1)
of the crime I'm committing to be posted on teh internets. Take it down or I'll do to you what I'm doing to the other guy in the picture.
Then stop posting your pictures and videos (likely of yourself) while committing crimes -- geesh.
[Thinking of all those Jan 6th insurrectionists posting pic/vids of themselves and/or while *in* the Capital Building.]
Your comment is a whoosh. The context here is Andy Ngo posting public booking photos (mugshots) of Antifa members, and posting pictures showing they were at crime scenes of riots. Antifa hates that their activity is being documented, and Twitter is helping them out here.
Re: Hey I object to photographic evidence (Score:2)
Would a homeowner be able to keep a video of a 'porch pirate' stealing packages off their porch if the 'pirate' asks Twitter to take it down?
Sounds reasonable, but... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
From Twitter:
So if people in public are doing something newsworthy (and therefore in the public interest), including but not limited to, say, protesting or committing a crime, then the policy doesn't apply.
Re:Sounds reasonable, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
You look for news there (Score:2)
you forget the part where they are the ones who decide what is and isnt newsworthy however.
The only moron in this equation is the one who uses twatter for NEWS. If you confuse that for a news source, even if said news sources are ON twatter, YOU would still be a moron.
Re: (Score:1)
remember when CNN claims that the riots in kenosha were mostly peaceful protests? but if you watched the videos on twitter by the folks actually on the ground live streaming you might have realized that was a lie.
can we find other ways? of course we can but its a shame we have to
Re:Sounds reasonable, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFA:
That means if the photo has been published elsewhere by some other news outlet, it's newsworthy. It also means that since the photo is available from other sources, the one from the tweet isn't doing anything that hasn't been done elsewhere.
Where did they claim they were unbiased? They're free to be as biased as they like. It's their platform. If you don't like it, don't use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They always have. Twitter started in 2006 and they started moderating in 2006.
Re: (Score:1)
Imagine jan 6th if twitter leaned in the opposite direction for example banning everyone from posting the videos and photos that were used to round up all the criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Hunter Biden thing was a mistake made during an election cycle, following massive amounts of interference and fake news being posted in the previous one.
Mistakes are always going to happen, either blocking stuff they shouldn't or allowing fake stories.
Given that the whole Hunter Biden story turned out to be nothing particularly interesting or relevant, they seem to have erred in the right side here.
Re: (Score:2)
it wasnt a mistake. it was a partisan coverup
Re:Sounds reasonable, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, I have no doubts that Andy Ngo's coverage of violent Antifa rioters would be censored under this new policy. Likewise, Project Veritas undercover exposes will also get banned.
This is not a privacy protection measure, this is attack on independent media.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, not Andy Ngo and Project Veritas!
No sympathy for fascists.
Re: (Score:1)
If it helps "Kyle the white supremacist" get acquittal, it's obviously not adding value to public discourse. If it helps "SUV attacked people" story, of course it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the same way it's possible in my country.
Here, you have the "right to your image". Which basically means that it's not legal for a photographer to publish a picture if you're the focus of it. And that's the key here: what is the focus, the subject, of the picture. If I take a picture of you in front of a cathedral, I cannot publish it. If I take a picture of the cathedral and you are in it because I can't really expect every tourist to get lost because I want to take a pic of the old church, I can
Hilarious (Score:1)
Criminals? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
“This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.”
From TFA.
There's a pretty strong argument that posting video evidence of a crime in progress is in the public interest.
Re: Criminals? (Score:1)
I would suggest not, until you are convicted. Trial by media is already a thing.
If I happen to look like a guy that did something wrong or I happen to be in the area of a noteworthy crime, I donâ(TM)t want to become a public figure on the sole discretion of Twitter moderators.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect you of planning the end of civilization.
Good enough a reason to post your mug with impunity?
This is the way Twitter should have started. (Score:2)
Yes but the picture was taken in public blah blah, well just treat everyone's likeness as if it was already copyrighted. Done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Those events are all legitimately in the public interest, therefore the new policy doesn't apply, per the new policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, Twitter won't see BLM or ANTIFA as "newsworthy" and therefore will ban your video.
It's their site after all. Build your own Internet if you want freedom.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of the press just means the government can't tell you not to be a journalist. It doesn't mean CNN or Fox has to let you on their show.
Tweeting || blogging != Journalism (Score:2)
Journalists earn their trust. Sure some have agendas, but so does everyone. Being on twitter, or for that matter even having a dedicated blog does not make one a journalist.
Intended consequences (Score:2)
Record a politician not following their own laws/rules... Twitter bans you for posting it.
Is anyone under the mistaken impression that Twitter is doing this for us and not for their sponsored politicians?
Re: (Score:3)
“This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.”
From TFA.
Politicians are public figures. Hypocrite politicians being hypocritical is in the public interest. That's fair game (twice) under the new policy.
In other words (Score:1, Flamebait)
People committing criminal acts or in the public going about their daily lives can't be shared on social media. If it's a case of doxxing then that's one thing, but quite another if Andy Ngo posts a video of ANTIFA running around smashing up businesses which need to be shown.
Re: (Score:3)
“This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.”
From TFA.
Any of the things you just mentioned are squarely within the public interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter defining and protecting "public interest" is like leaving your 6mo baby alone with your pet python. I don't trust either.
The new Twitter CEO also had an interesting dialog on the 1st Amendment and Free Speech, you should listen to it. [youtube.com]
Pointless (Score:2)
So if someone posts a picture of me (which, by the way, would already be illegal in my country without my consent), I first of all have to find out that he did it, then tell Twitter to take it down, then hope they do it.
Given the way the internet works, by that time that picture has been reposted a billion time if it's good enough (read: sufficiently embarrassing).
Re: (Score:2)
It's not pointless though. It makes for a nice liability shield for Twitter.
"It's not our fault, we have this policy in place and they could have asked us to take that photo of them giving a donkey a tuggie down, but they didn't ever do that."
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, it's not pointless for Twitter. It's pointless for everyone else.
And I care about Twitter as much as they care about me. So my argument stands: It's pointless.
Dear Twitter (Score:2)
I do not ever want any pictures of me posted on your site. I do not give consent for any picture of myself to be used on your site. Remove any that may be posted (public or private) per your policy.
Also, same goes for Facebook.
MySpace, you are suffering from PTSD due to years of neglect. You can post whatever you like.
Love,
Me
Maybe now I'll get a Twitter account (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
More like shitting your pants then changing your shirt....
Re: Maybe now I'll get a Twitter account (Score:2)
+1 funny?
Nothing of Value was Lost (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter hasn't been a friend of free speech or liberty for years.
Social media was weaponized against free speech
Wish I had mod points. Entire parent's the most truthful thing I've read here in quite a while.
Orwell was warning us, not instructing us. The instruction happened almost a century ago. Are you people listening? Go read 1984 again. It's upon us now.
Minitruth is the legacy media. It spreads the lie.
Miniluv is "Social Media." It enforces the lie.
Recording the police? (Score:2)
Imagine what this would do to police oversight if cops can just get every video of them kicking or killing the shit out of someone for no reason taken down on a whim
Twitter has become the villain (Score:2)
Would the last person leaving Twitter please turn off the lights?