8 ms·

I'm more interested in why it took them this long, while they're perfectly fine suspending accounts that are politically opposing to their worldview. How are po

I'm more interested in why it took them this long, while they're perfectly fine suspending accounts that are politically opposing to their worldview. How are political dissenters more dangerous than actual terrorists?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
traitormonkey 9y ago
and by dissenters you mean you nazi redneck scum - well there is no difference.
ceejayoz 9y ago
They've been suspending terror accounts for years.
icebraining 9y ago
It hasn't, it says clearly in the article that they've been suspending these accounts at least since 2015.
matt4077 9y ago
One man's political dissenter is another's terrorist :) More seriously, this is obviously a textbook example of a cognitive bias: There is absolutely no possibility that the number of specific people being blocked for hate speech in the US you are likely to read about come anywhere close to these 300,000.
grandalf 9y ago
The word "terrorism" is a PR word intended to marginalize whatever group it is applied to. As a tactic, terrorism describes the infliction of civilian casualties meant to create a disproportionate climate of fear. By this definition, drones used in warfare are a form of terrorism. In today's world we are not fighting wars in the traditional sense of defending ourselves against aggression. Since there is no obvious threat, the people will not support a pragmatic war of aggression meant to help install US hegemony in oil rich (or otherwise geopolitically important) regions of the world. So our planners are left with the need to create a moralistic crusade and to marginalize and dehumanize the adversary so that Americans will not care when we find out that many of them (and their civilians) were slaughtered or forced to live in poverty/squalor. It starts with the framing of the adversary as helpless against an illegitimate regime. The people are framed as victims of their own failure to end up with a better regime, and the moralistic idea of nation building and bringing in democracy is introduced. Then, the regime is asked to give up power. When it refuses, as all regimes would, the US pretends it has a moral justification to use force against people and infrastructure. There is the heavy implication that a greater purpose exists, such as democracy or women's rights, or stopping the torture policies of the regime, etc. But in fact no plan exists other than to remove the regime from power. Never before has there been a more hollow policy/intellectual movement than the idea of nation building. Meanwhile, the US has typically funded various militant groups that oppose the regime, and now those groups are no longer needed. Some decide to seek power in the newly existing power vacuum. They will be branded as terrorists arbitrarily to suit the needs of the US PR campaign. The word terrorism is used to characterize a person or a set of beliefs or an organization as unworthy of respect and unworthy of humane treatment. Yet in the US we fail to recognize our drone strikes as the same tactic as suicide bombings, while we create untold pain and suffering abroad. Both of our major political parties strongly support the endless war and the endless killing and destruction of the political adversaries abroad who dare to try to control their own destinies and the destinies of their region. Twitter clearly supports this too, and feels obligated to help eradicate the first amendment as much as possible in its own small way, even if it can't actually revoke the amendment.
- slg 9y ago
  You are missing the biggest differentiating factor of terrorism, the targeting of innocent civilians. Yes, US drone strikes do cause fear in a similar way to terrorism. Yes, civilians are being killed by US drone strikes. Yes, that fact is morally reprehensible. But no drone strike is launched with the sole intent of killing civilians. That is a world of difference.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    This is a fun discussion because you're both right and tomes have been written about the definition of terrorism. Some of the actions of the IRA or the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 82 are interesting events to consider in the civilian/military distinction. It's also worth noting that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terror under most definitions. This is a good definition, which IIRC was compiled from a lot of other academic sources: Alex Schmid and Albert Jongman: “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-)clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal, or political reasons, whereby—in contrast to assassination—the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators.” https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/51172_ch_1.pdf https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/511...
    - slg 9y ago
      That is a better definition than mine since I used the word civilian. You are right that terrorist attacks can be directed at military members. I would maybe challenge or tweak the state actors inclusion in potential perpetrators. The bombing of population centers like London, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. during WWII feels like a separate category. Those should still be war crimes, however the fact that they were carried out during an active war by the military would seem to make them a little different than traditional terrorist attacks.
  - grandalf 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
proofofstake 9y ago
> why it took them this long There is no direct business value in banning users from your platform. In fact, doing so is a short-term net negative. This is also why Twitter was so slow to ban bots: you gain a fraction of satisfaction for your users that interact with annoying bots, at the cost of dwindling user numbers. > suspending accounts that are politically opposing to their worldview Because highly visible users of their platform (verified celebrities) started DMing the CEO and threatened to leave if bullies were not dealt with. Creating a safe space for the social elite is very much adding business value to Twitter and makes investors happy. I think Twitter just awaited the US government reaction, and took as long as the law / future business prospects allowed them. That Twitter propaganda has become a major problem for the intelligence agencies and anti-terrorism units is evident. It takes a long time to properly deal with these problems, just like Twitter will probably take years to combat astro-turfing bots meddling with a foreign election (which seems to me, the logical next step in the evolution of mass automatic banning of problematic accounts).
- forgottenpass 9y ago
  Because highly visible users of their platform (verified celebrities) started DMing the CEO and threatened to leave if bullies were not dealt with. Creating a safe space for the social elite is very much adding business value to Twitter and makes investors happy. Really? I wish more people would have just come out and said that. Special treatment for the whales explains everything so much better. But I guess that doesn't sell well to the have-nots, and it needed to be recast as harassment problem at all levels. Which subjugated all of us to years of commentary and squabbling over how we're going to use computers to fix undesirable-but-totally-natural aspects of human behavior. Also explains why the highly-visible people seemed so cool with instituting a privately-controlled nanny state every step of the way.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

traitormonkey 9y ago

and by dissenters you mean you nazi redneck scum - well there is no difference.

ceejayoz 9y ago

They've been suspending terror accounts for years.

icebraining 9y ago

It hasn't, it says clearly in the article that they've been suspending these accounts at least since 2015.

matt4077 9y ago

One man's political dissenter is another's terrorist :) More seriously, this is obviously a textbook example of a cognitive bias: There is absolutely no possibility that the number of specific people being blocked for hate speech in the US you are likely to read about come anywhere close to these 300,000.

grandalf 9y ago

The word "terrorism" is a PR word intended to marginalize whatever group it is applied to. As a tactic, terrorism describes the infliction of civilian casualties meant to create a disproportionate climate of fear. By this definition, drones used in warfare are a form of terrorism. In today's world we are not fighting wars in the traditional sense of defending ourselves against aggression. Since there is no obvious threat, the people will not support a pragmatic war of aggression meant to help install US hegemony in oil rich (or otherwise geopolitically important) regions of the world. So our planners are left with the need to create a moralistic crusade and to marginalize and dehumanize the adversary so that Americans will not care when we find out that many of them (and their civilians) were slaughtered or forced to live in poverty/squalor. It starts with the framing of the adversary as helpless against an illegitimate regime. The people are framed as victims of their own failure to end up with a better regime, and the moralistic idea of nation building and bringing in democracy is introduced. Then, the regime is asked to give up power. When it refuses, as all regimes would, the US pretends it has a moral justification to use force against people and infrastructure. There is the heavy implication that a greater purpose exists, such as democracy or women's rights, or stopping the torture policies of the regime, etc. But in fact no plan exists other than to remove the regime from power. Never before has there been a more hollow policy/intellectual movement than the idea of nation building. Meanwhile, the US has typically funded various militant groups that oppose the regime, and now those groups are no longer needed. Some decide to seek power in the newly existing power vacuum. They will be branded as terrorists arbitrarily to suit the needs of the US PR campaign. The word terrorism is used to characterize a person or a set of beliefs or an organization as unworthy of respect and unworthy of humane treatment. Yet in the US we fail to recognize our drone strikes as the same tactic as suicide bombings, while we create untold pain and suffering abroad. Both of our major political parties strongly support the endless war and the endless killing and destruction of the political adversaries abroad who dare to try to control their own destinies and the destinies of their region. Twitter clearly supports this too, and feels obligated to help eradicate the first amendment as much as possible in its own small way, even if it can't actually revoke the amendment.

slg 9y ago
You are missing the biggest differentiating factor of terrorism, the targeting of innocent civilians. Yes, US drone strikes do cause fear in a similar way to terrorism. Yes, civilians are being killed by US drone strikes. Yes, that fact is morally reprehensible. But no drone strike is launched with the sole intent of killing civilians. That is a world of difference.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  This is a fun discussion because you're both right and tomes have been written about the definition of terrorism. Some of the actions of the IRA or the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 82 are interesting events to consider in the civilian/military distinction. It's also worth noting that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terror under most definitions. This is a good definition, which IIRC was compiled from a lot of other academic sources: Alex Schmid and Albert Jongman: “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-)clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal, or political reasons, whereby—in contrast to assassination—the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators.” https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/51172_ch_1.pdf https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/511...
  - slg 9y ago
    That is a better definition than mine since I used the word civilian. You are right that terrorist attacks can be directed at military members. I would maybe challenge or tweak the state actors inclusion in potential perpetrators. The bombing of population centers like London, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. during WWII feels like a separate category. Those should still be war crimes, however the fact that they were carried out during an active war by the military would seem to make them a little different than traditional terrorist attacks.
- grandalf 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

proofofstake 9y ago

> why it took them this long There is no direct business value in banning users from your platform. In fact, doing so is a short-term net negative. This is also why Twitter was so slow to ban bots: you gain a fraction of satisfaction for your users that interact with annoying bots, at the cost of dwindling user numbers. > suspending accounts that are politically opposing to their worldview Because highly visible users of their platform (verified celebrities) started DMing the CEO and threatened to leave if bullies were not dealt with. Creating a safe space for the social elite is very much adding business value to Twitter and makes investors happy. I think Twitter just awaited the US government reaction, and took as long as the law / future business prospects allowed them. That Twitter propaganda has become a major problem for the intelligence agencies and anti-terrorism units is evident. It takes a long time to properly deal with these problems, just like Twitter will probably take years to combat astro-turfing bots meddling with a foreign election (which seems to me, the logical next step in the evolution of mass automatic banning of problematic accounts).

forgottenpass 9y ago
Because highly visible users of their platform (verified celebrities) started DMing the CEO and threatened to leave if bullies were not dealt with. Creating a safe space for the social elite is very much adding business value to Twitter and makes investors happy. Really? I wish more people would have just come out and said that. Special treatment for the whales explains everything so much better. But I guess that doesn't sell well to the have-nots, and it needed to be recast as harassment problem at all levels. Which subjugated all of us to years of commentary and squabbling over how we're going to use computers to fix undesirable-but-totally-natural aspects of human behavior. Also explains why the highly-visible people seemed so cool with instituting a privately-controlled nanny state every step of the way.