4 ms·

I imagine "abuse" is whatever the moderator in question defines it to be. Look at Twitter's history of curbing "abuse" and you'll find that this nebulous defin

I imagine "abuse" is whatever the moderator in question defines it to be. Look at Twitter's history of curbing "abuse" and you'll find that this nebulous definition gives plenty of room for their subconscious and conscious biases to take over--a disproportionate number of the targets of censorship on Twitter are of a certain political influence. So I see no nobility in the original commenter's goal. Taking away the voice of people you don't agree with is not noble, and censorship of any kind is unfortunate.

fareesh 10y ago
I have a fairly fundamentalist view of free speech, so in my opinion the only reasonable standard where censorship would be an acceptable solution to any speech is either: a) content that violates an individual or entity's privacy; or b) direct incitement to physical harm to an individual, group or property; or c) to protect the platform from legal damages or other legal quandaries Unfortunately, most codes of conduct tend to be structured around public perception, which better serves a business' long-term interests over the "killer feature" of a truly open platform, which is seen by many as more trouble than it is worth, from the perspective of the platform owner.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
dj-wonk 10y ago
To define "abuse" we'll need to talk about expectations and norms around collective communication. Social communication platforms (implicitly or explicitly) embody certain communication goals. A. Striving for constructive conversation is one family of goals. These goals are valid even if fuzzy and imperfectly enforced. B. Striving for "(almost) anything goes, up to legal limits, such as libel" is another kind of goal. This may seem safer and more ideologically comfortable to some. However, in practice, it still has large complexity and uncertainty. Social media platforms are not necessarily responsible for promoting free speech in the same way that Democratic institutions are bound to protect individual rights. Many individuals have multiple channels for speech. They often can find a venue that works best for them. Speaking generally -- there may be exceptions in specific cases -- organizations are not required to give every viewpoint equal airtime. Organizations are free to choose how they want to structure their environments, up to the point at which they accept money or are subject to the purview of governmental bodies. Some people such the word "censorship" too loosely, in my view. Yes, governmental censorship is only justified with a very high and particular standard, subject to close scrutiny. However, private organizations are much freer to filter as they see fit, and I think this is justified. One church does not have to voice every viewpoint at a gathering. A magazine does not have to print every article submitted. Not every story gets to the top of Hacker News. The rules at play are, by definition, filters. I want an online platform for constructive conversation. This requires some kind of norms and probably some kind of message "shaping" for lack of a better word. Call it filtering or summarization or topic modeling. Whatever it is, people have limited time, and to be effective, a platform has to design around that constraint. Platforms need to demonstrate excellent collective user interface design. I think almost all "social" platforms are falling very short to the extent that they claim they are effective social communication tools. I wrote much more here: https://medium.com/@xpe/designing-effective-communication-67a87e052d3d https://medium.com/@xpe/designing-effective-communication-67...
apathy 10y ago
> a disproportionate number of the targets of censorship on Twitter are of a certain political influence. Yeah see I don't worry so much about this. I purposely follow people with whom I disagree (but who are well spoken) on Twitter to avoid ending up in an echo chamber. So I don't disagree with you about quashing diversity; the last thing I need in my life is to preach to the choir. But the fact remains that, 1st Amendment or not, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and then plead "but, but, my rights!" to evade responsibility. Credible threats are assault (look it up, it's in every state's legal code). I would not be surprised if doxxing was found to fall under similar statutes by an enlightened judge if done with malice aforethought. Furthermore, an individual's rights to free expression do not include a right to make Twitter spend money or lose opportunities due to their chosen expressions. Twitter != the government. If push comes to shove, their self-preservation must take precedence (legally, since they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders as a public company). It's a chestnut, to be sure, but freedom of the press applies to those who own a printing press. Until and unless Twitter is nationalized (heaven forfend), they're restricted (at worst) by common carrier provisions. They can do a good job if it's in the best interests of their shareholders (and recent events suggest that may be the case). It's really an issue of how (how to maximize shareholder value, how to improve public perception, how not to drive away ads...).
- makomk 10y ago
  Well, let me put it this way: banning people for threatening violence against other users in the name of social justice costs Twitter opportunities due to being unacceptable to a large chunk of the tech community (and I'm not even talking about them doing it to right-wing blowhards like Milo).
  - braythwayt 10y ago
    And yet, here you are on a platform that does not permit its users to threaten violence against other users. Is that costing Hacker News "opportunities?" Compared to what? The opportunities afforded by not driving away all the users for whom threats of violence make a site toxic even if you aren't on the receiving end? And what do you mean by a "large chunk of the tech community?" Do you mean a significant proportion relative to the "tech community?" Or a significant proportion relative to Twitter's user base as a whole? And how do you define "the tech community?" Do you mean this cosy little echo chamber we inhabit made up of startup hackers and like-minded individuals? Or do you mean everyone working in tech, including the kinds of people working for BigCo who never go near Hacker News and visit Reddit for affinity subreddits like /r/volvo? --- All design decisions are tradeoffs. If you make one choice, you alienate a certain set of users. But if you make a different choice, you'll alienate another set of users while placating some of the first set. So yes, there is some opportunity given up if Twitter goes around banning people who incite threats of violence (your example), but there is some other opportunity given up if it tolerates them.

fareesh 10y ago

I have a fairly fundamentalist view of free speech, so in my opinion the only reasonable standard where censorship would be an acceptable solution to any speech is either: a) content that violates an individual or entity's privacy; or b) direct incitement to physical harm to an individual, group or property; or c) to protect the platform from legal damages or other legal quandaries Unfortunately, most codes of conduct tend to be structured around public perception, which better serves a business' long-term interests over the "killer feature" of a truly open platform, which is seen by many as more trouble than it is worth, from the perspective of the platform owner.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

dj-wonk 10y ago

To define "abuse" we'll need to talk about expectations and norms around collective communication. Social communication platforms (implicitly or explicitly) embody certain communication goals. A. Striving for constructive conversation is one family of goals. These goals are valid even if fuzzy and imperfectly enforced. B. Striving for "(almost) anything goes, up to legal limits, such as libel" is another kind of goal. This may seem safer and more ideologically comfortable to some. However, in practice, it still has large complexity and uncertainty. Social media platforms are not necessarily responsible for promoting free speech in the same way that Democratic institutions are bound to protect individual rights. Many individuals have multiple channels for speech. They often can find a venue that works best for them. Speaking generally -- there may be exceptions in specific cases -- organizations are not required to give every viewpoint equal airtime. Organizations are free to choose how they want to structure their environments, up to the point at which they accept money or are subject to the purview of governmental bodies. Some people such the word "censorship" too loosely, in my view. Yes, governmental censorship is only justified with a very high and particular standard, subject to close scrutiny. However, private organizations are much freer to filter as they see fit, and I think this is justified. One church does not have to voice every viewpoint at a gathering. A magazine does not have to print every article submitted. Not every story gets to the top of Hacker News. The rules at play are, by definition, filters. I want an online platform for constructive conversation. This requires some kind of norms and probably some kind of message "shaping" for lack of a better word. Call it filtering or summarization or topic modeling. Whatever it is, people have limited time, and to be effective, a platform has to design around that constraint. Platforms need to demonstrate excellent collective user interface design. I think almost all "social" platforms are falling very short to the extent that they claim they are effective social communication tools. I wrote much more here: https://medium.com/@xpe/designing-effective-communication-67a87e052d3d https://medium.com/@xpe/designing-effective-communication-67...

apathy 10y ago

> a disproportionate number of the targets of censorship on Twitter are of a certain political influence. Yeah see I don't worry so much about this. I purposely follow people with whom I disagree (but who are well spoken) on Twitter to avoid ending up in an echo chamber. So I don't disagree with you about quashing diversity; the last thing I need in my life is to preach to the choir. But the fact remains that, 1st Amendment or not, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and then plead "but, but, my rights!" to evade responsibility. Credible threats are assault (look it up, it's in every state's legal code). I would not be surprised if doxxing was found to fall under similar statutes by an enlightened judge if done with malice aforethought. Furthermore, an individual's rights to free expression do not include a right to make Twitter spend money or lose opportunities due to their chosen expressions. Twitter != the government. If push comes to shove, their self-preservation must take precedence (legally, since they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders as a public company). It's a chestnut, to be sure, but freedom of the press applies to those who own a printing press. Until and unless Twitter is nationalized (heaven forfend), they're restricted (at worst) by common carrier provisions. They can do a good job if it's in the best interests of their shareholders (and recent events suggest that may be the case). It's really an issue of how (how to maximize shareholder value, how to improve public perception, how not to drive away ads...).

makomk 10y ago
Well, let me put it this way: banning people for threatening violence against other users in the name of social justice costs Twitter opportunities due to being unacceptable to a large chunk of the tech community (and I'm not even talking about them doing it to right-wing blowhards like Milo).
- braythwayt 10y ago
  And yet, here you are on a platform that does not permit its users to threaten violence against other users. Is that costing Hacker News "opportunities?" Compared to what? The opportunities afforded by not driving away all the users for whom threats of violence make a site toxic even if you aren't on the receiving end? And what do you mean by a "large chunk of the tech community?" Do you mean a significant proportion relative to the "tech community?" Or a significant proportion relative to Twitter's user base as a whole? And how do you define "the tech community?" Do you mean this cosy little echo chamber we inhabit made up of startup hackers and like-minded individuals? Or do you mean everyone working in tech, including the kinds of people working for BigCo who never go near Hacker News and visit Reddit for affinity subreddits like /r/volvo? --- All design decisions are tradeoffs. If you make one choice, you alienate a certain set of users. But if you make a different choice, you'll alienate another set of users while placating some of the first set. So yes, there is some opportunity given up if Twitter goes around banning people who incite threats of violence (your example), but there is some other opportunity given up if it tolerates them.