4 ms·

Because every previous filter has worked so well. And what is it for this constant cry for censorship? Censorship doesn't work. People always find a way around

Because every previous filter has worked so well. And what is it for this constant cry for censorship? Censorship doesn't work. People always find a way around it, but now it's less obvious. That's why we said we'd stop censoring. Next time, before you ask for censorship, consider the wider ramifications. How is the filter going to work with jokes/sarcasm? E.g. do you know any people who've threatened the current US president (even in jest), and would the rules apply for them, too? Of course, "threatening" a state of head could just mean asking for his removal in other countries. Oops. Censorship is plain stupidity, and history shows this time and time again.

tzs 10y ago
Filtering has worked pretty well with email for spam. I don't see anything fundamentally different about harassment that would make it less responsive to filtering than spam, nor anything fundamentally different about an incoming social media stream than an email inbox. Spam filtering works because the spam email has characteristics such as word frequencies that differ significantly from your non-spam email. E.g., none of my friends, acquaintances, co-workers, or companies that I correspond with ever have occasion to discuss my penis size, and so it was easy for my spam filters to learn that mail about my penis is spam. I would expect that most people who get harassed on their social media feeds do not normally receive messages from friends or other wanted senders describing how they are going to rape them or kill their pets or children or things like that, so why can't a filter learn to block those?
pvaldes 10y ago
This is not censorship, is responsability. There is not a constitutional right to stealth and harass women and ruin their lives, or to emit sinister death menaces publicy while you hide under a mask. Try to cry loud in a street that you will cut the throat of somebody in the fair name of free speech and you'll end exactly in the same place. If you let someone to borrow your living-room for making a bomb, you are a cooperator. If you let someone to use your address to send letters with death menaces or to spread a racist message, you are a necessary cooperator. Is as simple like that. Twitter was repeatedly informed by the victims and it seems that they did nothing for months. Twitter is guilty here also. Filtering all messages directed to one single twitter account after the harassment started (and the victim asked for it) should be technically trivial. They can implement a "panic button" in a day. It seems that everybody can implement or had implemented yet such simple filter. Is twitter dumber than other companies in this sense? I seriously doubt it.

tzs 10y ago

Filtering has worked pretty well with email for spam. I don't see anything fundamentally different about harassment that would make it less responsive to filtering than spam, nor anything fundamentally different about an incoming social media stream than an email inbox. Spam filtering works because the spam email has characteristics such as word frequencies that differ significantly from your non-spam email. E.g., none of my friends, acquaintances, co-workers, or companies that I correspond with ever have occasion to discuss my penis size, and so it was easy for my spam filters to learn that mail about my penis is spam. I would expect that most people who get harassed on their social media feeds do not normally receive messages from friends or other wanted senders describing how they are going to rape them or kill their pets or children or things like that, so why can't a filter learn to block those?

pvaldes 10y ago

This is not censorship, is responsability. There is not a constitutional right to stealth and harass women and ruin their lives, or to emit sinister death menaces publicy while you hide under a mask. Try to cry loud in a street that you will cut the throat of somebody in the fair name of free speech and you'll end exactly in the same place. If you let someone to borrow your living-room for making a bomb, you are a cooperator. If you let someone to use your address to send letters with death menaces or to spread a racist message, you are a necessary cooperator. Is as simple like that. Twitter was repeatedly informed by the victims and it seems that they did nothing for months. Twitter is guilty here also. Filtering all messages directed to one single twitter account after the harassment started (and the victim asked for it) should be technically trivial. They can implement a "panic button" in a day. It seems that everybody can implement or had implemented yet such simple filter. Is twitter dumber than other companies in this sense? I seriously doubt it.