5 ms·

"We"? Are you the queen?

coldpie 11y ago
Which of Twitter's unacceptable content policies do you find objectionable? I agree with all of them, and I think the vast majority of Twitter users do as well. https://twitter.com/rules https://twitter.com/rules
- elcapitan 11y ago
  That's why basic rights like freedom of speech exist, to protect us from such "well-intended" attacks in favor of an alleged "vast majority". "Harassment" as in that policy or other "codes of conduct" can be pretty much anything, in particular now that it has become standard mode of operation to claim victimhood for just about anything to silence other people.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    The constitutional right to freedom of speech applies to public (government) institutions, not to private (non-government) institutions like Twitter. Twitter is exercising their constitutional right to freedom of speech to disallow certain kinds of content on their platform. There is no violation of anyone's constitutional freedom of speech. If you think it's a poor business decision, that's your call, and time will tell. But it has precisely nothing to do with "freedom of speech."
    - mason240 11y ago
      Freedom of speech and the First Amendment are two different things, but I suspect you already know this.
      - elcapitan 11y ago
        No, that's just how he brushes off inconvenient problems.
- dayon 11y ago
  Instead of rules, look at what's being censored and tell us if you agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/censoring-twitter http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/censoring-... And so on.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    I do not have any problems with Twitter's actions in the New Yorker article. I don't find "slippery slope" arguments persuasive when there is real harassment being committed right now. I don't think the wikipedia link is relevant to this conversation; it seems to be about state censorship. The "Controversy" section as it's written now is obviously not NPOV and cites no sources.
  - elcapitan 11y ago
    Exactly. Give them the tools and they'll censor whatever the fashion of the day calls offensive.
    - coldpie 11y ago
      I know! It starts when you can't call a woman a slut, threaten her life, and post her private details and nude pictures on Twitter, and then before you know it you can't print out her picture, ejaculate onto it, and mail the soiled photo to her family[1]. What a crazy world we're headed towards. [1] Why yes, this does actually happen. Harassment on the Internet is no joke. http://blog.unburntwitch.com/post/139084743809/why-i-just-dropped-the-harassment-charges-the-man http://blog.unburntwitch.com/post/139084743809/why-i-just-dr...
      - elcapitan 11y ago
        Exactly! So let's just pick that one thing, and then invent some "guidelines" that totally won't prevent anything like that ever, but allow you to arbitrarily censor people with the wrong opinions. Awesome! War against "harrassment", mission accomplished!

Which of Twitter's unacceptable content policies do you find objectionable? I agree with all of them, and I think the vast majority of Twitter users do as well. https://twitter.com/rules https://twitter.com/rules

elcapitan 11y ago
That's why basic rights like freedom of speech exist, to protect us from such "well-intended" attacks in favor of an alleged "vast majority". "Harassment" as in that policy or other "codes of conduct" can be pretty much anything, in particular now that it has become standard mode of operation to claim victimhood for just about anything to silence other people.
- coldpie 11y ago
  The constitutional right to freedom of speech applies to public (government) institutions, not to private (non-government) institutions like Twitter. Twitter is exercising their constitutional right to freedom of speech to disallow certain kinds of content on their platform. There is no violation of anyone's constitutional freedom of speech. If you think it's a poor business decision, that's your call, and time will tell. But it has precisely nothing to do with "freedom of speech."
  - mason240 11y ago
    Freedom of speech and the First Amendment are two different things, but I suspect you already know this.
    - elcapitan 11y ago
      No, that's just how he brushes off inconvenient problems.
dayon 11y ago
Instead of rules, look at what's being censored and tell us if you agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/censoring-twitter http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/censoring-... And so on.
- coldpie 11y ago
  I do not have any problems with Twitter's actions in the New Yorker article. I don't find "slippery slope" arguments persuasive when there is real harassment being committed right now. I don't think the wikipedia link is relevant to this conversation; it seems to be about state censorship. The "Controversy" section as it's written now is obviously not NPOV and cites no sources.
- elcapitan 11y ago
  Exactly. Give them the tools and they'll censor whatever the fashion of the day calls offensive.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    I know! It starts when you can't call a woman a slut, threaten her life, and post her private details and nude pictures on Twitter, and then before you know it you can't print out her picture, ejaculate onto it, and mail the soiled photo to her family[1]. What a crazy world we're headed towards. [1] Why yes, this does actually happen. Harassment on the Internet is no joke. http://blog.unburntwitch.com/post/139084743809/why-i-just-dropped-the-harassment-charges-the-man http://blog.unburntwitch.com/post/139084743809/why-i-just-dr...
    - elcapitan 11y ago
      Exactly! So let's just pick that one thing, and then invent some "guidelines" that totally won't prevent anything like that ever, but allow you to arbitrarily censor people with the wrong opinions. Awesome! War against "harrassment", mission accomplished!