5 ms·
> Hopefully Twitter actually defines a lot of these nebulous and highly-subjective terms going forward. There is a certain "jurisprudence" to this sort of thin
by 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 agoTo 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 agoAnd 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 agoIt took decades of deprecating and degrading the entire judicial system in the US to get to this point, finally catalyzed by 9/11.
- pjc50 9y agoThe US literally had "I know it when I see it" as an obscenity definition long before then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
- GauntletWizard 9y agoAnd that standard was upheld by judges who were very clear that they were wearing blindfolds when it came to obscenity law. It is a huge step backwards - Rather, many many small ones by two irredeemable groups, both with good intentions and results that are comparable to serial killers - that we're even talking about "Hate Speech" as if it were a thing.
- QAPereo 9y ago...and it didn’t survive the lengthy process of legal challenges and revision. See: Miller Test
- gnicholas 9y agoTo be fair, that was not in the Court's opinion — it was in a concurrence by Justice Stewart. People like to quote it, but it wasn't actually the law. (A concurring opinion is written by one or more justices who joined in the Court's (majority) opinion but wish to write separately to make some separate points or explain where they diverge from the majority opinion.)
- shostack 9y agoThe problem is with situations like where our President tweets gifs promoting violence against people and news organizations, or attempts to instigate nuclear war via Tweet. Trump is obviously a gold mine for Twitter right now from both a growth and ad revenue standpoint (not even getting into the bot side of things), so they have a very vested interest in looking the other way. There's also a lot of dangerous precedent that could be set if they were to block the POTUS. So do we just say "no violent speech unless you've somehow managed to get elected"?
- MBCook 9y ago> There's also a lot of dangerous precedent that could be set if they were to block the POTUS. What would that be? If anything I’d think that would be a good thing that no one would be above the rules. It’s not like he doesn’t have other communication methods.
- te_chris 9y agoHe could go and join Gab with all the other scum.
- nailer 9y agoWould you support banning Obama for creating war with Assad, if he commented about it on Twitter?
- shostack 9y agoI don't deal in hypotheticals. However I think there is a big distinction between tweeting about a war vs. actively trying to instigate one via Tweet.
- nailer 9y agoObama instigated war with Assad. If he was more active on Twitter he'd have done so via Twitter. It's not a huge stretch to imagine this.