8 ms·

Hopefully Twitter actually defines a lot of these nebulous and highly-subjective terms going forward. What is the exact definition of a "violent group"? What

Hopefully Twitter actually defines a lot of these nebulous and highly-subjective terms going forward. What is the exact definition of a "violent group"? What constitutes "hateful imagery"? Where can I find their database of "hate symbols"? What constitutes a "hateful display name"? What constitutes "condoning and glorifying violence"? (I would argue that many if not most video games at least glorify violence, from my perspective!) In our modern Internet-connected society, the meanings of terms and symbols are subject to rapid and unexpected change. The ADL lists "Pepe the Frog" as a "hate symbol"[0], and while it's basically undeniable that many people use the symbol in an intentionally inflammatory or hateful context, I'm left completely at a loss as to whether or not posting an image of Pepe—or any cartoon frog for that matter—will get me suspended. (I have no reason to do so of course; this is entirely hypothetical.) From the perspective of many people, especially those who use Twitter, certain political figures are considered to be inherently "hateful", and showing support for them is considered to be an act of hate. There's a lot of talk about lines being drawn here but no talk of where exactly they will be drawn. [0] https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/pepe-the-frog https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/pepe-t...

bitshiffed 9y ago
Glorifying violence would also cover huge amounts of video media. I'm all for this, but I seriously doubt we'll see Twitter stand up to movie/television studios.
- zellyn 9y ago
  I think the big question here is our President's tweets…
  - adamrezich 9y ago
    And the mass of replies that each of his tweets garners, most of which I would personally consider to be unilaterally "hateful", especially the ones that seem to always float to the top...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    They aren't affected by Twitter's existing rules, and presumably won't be by any new rules, unless they are changing not only the written rules but the unwritten rules controlling whether or not they apply the written rules.
  - cisanti 9y ago
    What do you mean by that? Your president's idiotic tweets make Twitter millions, this is the only reason many people hear about Twitter...
    - balls187 9y ago
      It's why Twitter has allowed Trump's account to get away with clear rule violations.
      - nailer 9y ago
        My understanding is that the military and police, as representatives of an elected government, are legally allowed violence and should also be allowed to exist on Twitter.
    - sulam 9y ago
      There's not much evidence that Trump is making Twitter money. People are not joining Twitter to interact with Trump, or even to read his tweets.
  - notatoad 9y ago
    They have already responded to this, the rules are applied with some leeway to account for "newsworthiness". The president's tweets will not be taken down and his account won't be banned because of a blind application of the rules.
  - Amezarak 9y ago
    If Twitter starts censoring mainstream political speech by even the POTUS, I think that'd draw more attention than they want. Right now and in the future they can censor people that few people care about and probably have a much bigger impact without any outrage outside of niche communities.
    - MBCook 9y ago
      Where did they say they were censoring political speech? It’s perfectly possible to speak about politics without personal attacks or threats.
  - chippy 9y ago
    I live in the UK, we do not have a President here.
- cisanti 9y ago
  Waiting for the rap music ban in addition to majority of video games.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    * Every action movie or TV show. * All form of weapons enthusiasm. * Pretty much all anime and 'adult' cartoons. * A lot of tweets praising the military. * "Punch a Nazi"
    - studio_monolith 9y ago
      B-b-but it's okay to punch them because they are bad
- sneak 9y ago
  or the US military, with their claims to suspend groups that use violence to advance their cause.
  - userbinator 9y ago
    In fact any military, violence being their sole purpose for existing.
pron 9y ago
Many of these things don't have exact definition in actual laws, either. I assume that a more detailed description will be made available as those policies are put into effect. Law systems generally rely on individuals designated to exercise judgment on a case-by-case basis, and, I assume, this will be the case here, too. And even with actual law, people who may be satisfied with a particular law, may be very dissatisfied with a particular judge's interpretation and subsequent ruling, but that's how jurisdiction works.
ythn 9y ago
> "What constitutes ______?" "We'll know it when we see it"
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  What would be better? Putting down a concrete list of terms that can't be in a name? So, what happens when the hate groups come up with new dogwhistle terms to get around that? We now have to amend the list to add those? And then what happens to those who created their account with that name before it was against the rules?
  - cratermoon 9y ago
    I nominate the term 'criddler' for the list.
  - PostOnce 9y ago
    Perhaps instead of a censorship arms race, we could stop trying to police speech & thought? Is it better to push extremists and other weirdos to the echo-chamber fringe, to forums where they only ever encounter those that agree with them, or is it better to allow them into the public forum, where they will clearly find a huge number of people who disagree and argue with them, to show that their views are not so widely agreed with as they might come to dangerously believe in an echo chamber? The above is assuming we only ever censor those who "should be censored"; imagine if social media were around during the civil rights movement and apartheid, whom would we then have censored, if you care to guess? I know there are nuances here I haven't covered, but you can see that there is more to this than is seen at first glance. We need some kind of un-governed mode of digital communication, as with real speech. No group can realistically stop you from shouting what you want to shout in public when you want to shout it, though you can obviously become a pariah or a prisoner shortly after. The same should be true online, free to face the consequences of your own speech, rather than not to speak at all.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      But again, in the absolutism of free speech, you're ignoring things like violent threats and racial slurs. And when you do that, you end up with something like 4Chan. Most people don't go there, for good reason. And what consequence does someone who makes a lot of sock puppet accounts to send oven memes to Jewish people face? Pretty much none. Yet, those people are still faced with that constantly, and as a result, they choose not to engage. Now you've silenced their right to speech.
jordigh 9y ago
> Hopefully Twitter actually defines a lot of these nebulous and highly-subjective terms going forward. There is a certain "jurisprudence" to this sort of thing. All laws are written ambiguously; that doesn't mean it's impossible to enforce them or that the laws are useless. Human interaction shouldn't be codified into computer code and in most cases can't be. Whatever Twitter decides those things are, someone will be upset about it, and someone will contest the definition. That's fine. We already have this kind of thing in HN and Reddit and anywhere else on the internet where any kind of moderation happens. We had it in Usenet and in web forums. The whole idea that ambiguity in the laws means that we should have absolute "free speech" including the demonstrably toxic and hateful place that Twitter has become is bonkers. Sure, you'll alienate some people who don't like your definitions. But that's kind of the point. To foster the community you want to have.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  To be clear, if this were written as a law, it wouldn't survive the first challenge in court. Edit: By way of further clarification, I realize that private entities have no such burdens when writing policies, but I was responding to a comparison with jurisprudence. That's not just a matter of a board making a call, or a CEO, it's the process by which an entire judiciary, over time, interprets law. This is really nothing like it, just a set of loosely worded edicts from people who don't actually have to issue them in the first place, except to pretend that they're doing something constructive.
  - jordigh 9y ago
    And it doesn't need to be a law either, just like HN doesn't need to set up a court and a trial every time it bans a user. Rough, ambiguous guidelines are ok for most internet communities.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    > if this were written as a law, it wouldn't survive the first challenge in court I think you should see some examples of hate speech law, or things like the UK's maddeningly vague anti-terrorism laws.
QAPereo 9y ago
There seems to be an assumption here and elsewhere, that Twitter or any such company actually has the answers to these questions. I really doubt that they do, and they announce these measures periodically for PR, to crack down on something, or just to reiterate what's always been true: they own their platform and everything on it. These highly centralized, privatized means of communication have gone from amusing, to sickening.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
golangnews 9y ago
You’re right, your objections are entirely hypothetical.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Marazan 9y ago
Nazis.

bitshiffed 9y ago

Glorifying violence would also cover huge amounts of video media. I'm all for this, but I seriously doubt we'll see Twitter stand up to movie/television studios.

zellyn 9y ago
I think the big question here is our President's tweets…
- adamrezich 9y ago
  And the mass of replies that each of his tweets garners, most of which I would personally consider to be unilaterally "hateful", especially the ones that seem to always float to the top...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  They aren't affected by Twitter's existing rules, and presumably won't be by any new rules, unless they are changing not only the written rules but the unwritten rules controlling whether or not they apply the written rules.
- cisanti 9y ago
  What do you mean by that? Your president's idiotic tweets make Twitter millions, this is the only reason many people hear about Twitter...
  - balls187 9y ago
    It's why Twitter has allowed Trump's account to get away with clear rule violations.
    - nailer 9y ago
      My understanding is that the military and police, as representatives of an elected government, are legally allowed violence and should also be allowed to exist on Twitter.
  - sulam 9y ago
    There's not much evidence that Trump is making Twitter money. People are not joining Twitter to interact with Trump, or even to read his tweets.
- notatoad 9y ago
  They have already responded to this, the rules are applied with some leeway to account for "newsworthiness". The president's tweets will not be taken down and his account won't be banned because of a blind application of the rules.
- Amezarak 9y ago
  If Twitter starts censoring mainstream political speech by even the POTUS, I think that'd draw more attention than they want. Right now and in the future they can censor people that few people care about and probably have a much bigger impact without any outrage outside of niche communities.
  - MBCook 9y ago
    Where did they say they were censoring political speech? It’s perfectly possible to speak about politics without personal attacks or threats.
- chippy 9y ago
  I live in the UK, we do not have a President here.
cisanti 9y ago
Waiting for the rap music ban in addition to majority of video games.
- Spivak 9y ago
  * Every action movie or TV show. * All form of weapons enthusiasm. * Pretty much all anime and 'adult' cartoons. * A lot of tweets praising the military. * "Punch a Nazi"
  - studio_monolith 9y ago
    B-b-but it's okay to punch them because they are bad
sneak 9y ago
or the US military, with their claims to suspend groups that use violence to advance their cause.
- userbinator 9y ago
  In fact any military, violence being their sole purpose for existing.

pron 9y ago

Many of these things don't have exact definition in actual laws, either. I assume that a more detailed description will be made available as those policies are put into effect. Law systems generally rely on individuals designated to exercise judgment on a case-by-case basis, and, I assume, this will be the case here, too. And even with actual law, people who may be satisfied with a particular law, may be very dissatisfied with a particular judge's interpretation and subsequent ruling, but that's how jurisdiction works.

ythn 9y ago

> "What constitutes ______?" "We'll know it when we see it"

s73ver_ 9y ago
What would be better? Putting down a concrete list of terms that can't be in a name? So, what happens when the hate groups come up with new dogwhistle terms to get around that? We now have to amend the list to add those? And then what happens to those who created their account with that name before it was against the rules?
- cratermoon 9y ago
  I nominate the term 'criddler' for the list.
- PostOnce 9y ago
  Perhaps instead of a censorship arms race, we could stop trying to police speech & thought? Is it better to push extremists and other weirdos to the echo-chamber fringe, to forums where they only ever encounter those that agree with them, or is it better to allow them into the public forum, where they will clearly find a huge number of people who disagree and argue with them, to show that their views are not so widely agreed with as they might come to dangerously believe in an echo chamber? The above is assuming we only ever censor those who "should be censored"; imagine if social media were around during the civil rights movement and apartheid, whom would we then have censored, if you care to guess? I know there are nuances here I haven't covered, but you can see that there is more to this than is seen at first glance. We need some kind of un-governed mode of digital communication, as with real speech. No group can realistically stop you from shouting what you want to shout in public when you want to shout it, though you can obviously become a pariah or a prisoner shortly after. The same should be true online, free to face the consequences of your own speech, rather than not to speak at all.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    But again, in the absolutism of free speech, you're ignoring things like violent threats and racial slurs. And when you do that, you end up with something like 4Chan. Most people don't go there, for good reason. And what consequence does someone who makes a lot of sock puppet accounts to send oven memes to Jewish people face? Pretty much none. Yet, those people are still faced with that constantly, and as a result, they choose not to engage. Now you've silenced their right to speech.

jordigh 9y ago

> Hopefully Twitter actually defines a lot of these nebulous and highly-subjective terms going forward. There is a certain "jurisprudence" to this sort of thing. All laws are written ambiguously; that doesn't mean it's impossible to enforce them or that the laws are useless. Human interaction shouldn't be codified into computer code and in most cases can't be. Whatever Twitter decides those things are, someone will be upset about it, and someone will contest the definition. That's fine. We already have this kind of thing in HN and Reddit and anywhere else on the internet where any kind of moderation happens. We had it in Usenet and in web forums. The whole idea that ambiguity in the laws means that we should have absolute "free speech" including the demonstrably toxic and hateful place that Twitter has become is bonkers. Sure, you'll alienate some people who don't like your definitions. But that's kind of the point. To foster the community you want to have.

QAPereo 9y ago
To be clear, if this were written as a law, it wouldn't survive the first challenge in court. Edit: By way of further clarification, I realize that private entities have no such burdens when writing policies, but I was responding to a comparison with jurisprudence. That's not just a matter of a board making a call, or a CEO, it's the process by which an entire judiciary, over time, interprets law. This is really nothing like it, just a set of loosely worded edicts from people who don't actually have to issue them in the first place, except to pretend that they're doing something constructive.
- jordigh 9y ago
  And it doesn't need to be a law either, just like HN doesn't need to set up a court and a trial every time it bans a user. Rough, ambiguous guidelines are ok for most internet communities.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > if this were written as a law, it wouldn't survive the first challenge in court I think you should see some examples of hate speech law, or things like the UK's maddeningly vague anti-terrorism laws.

QAPereo 9y ago

There seems to be an assumption here and elsewhere, that Twitter or any such company actually has the answers to these questions. I really doubt that they do, and they announce these measures periodically for PR, to crack down on something, or just to reiterate what's always been true: they own their platform and everything on it. These highly centralized, privatized means of communication have gone from amusing, to sickening.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

golangnews 9y ago

You’re right, your objections are entirely hypothetical.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Marazan 9y ago

Nazis.