18 ms·

Hopefully those nitpicking the wording, timing, and implementation of these rules realize just how deep harassment and hate run on social media platforms like

by eqmvii 9y ago

Hopefully those nitpicking the wording, timing, and implementation of these rules realize just how deep harassment and hate run on social media platforms like Twitter. Certainly the rules are imperfect, but the amount of anonymous toxicity currently allowed is IMO much worse than some clunky standards. There's a lot of space between defending free speech and standing idly by while people use your service to attack others.

KGIII 9y ago
I don't think Twitter is actually interested in defending free speech? Free speech is defending the toxic speech. Acceptable speech needs no defense.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Then count me out. I have no interest whatsoever in defending racial slurs or rape threats.
  - nate_meurer 9y ago
    That's understandable. However, while threats of violence are not protected speech in the U.S., insults (e.g., racial slurs) absolutely are, and that protection is the reason you can't be punished for insulting cops, for example, or whatever else might hurt someone's feelings.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      Twitter is not just in the US, though.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Thats okay. You're just not a proponent of free speech. Free speech is the deplorable and socially unacceptable. It was once unacceptable to suggest black people had rights or that women should vote. To think we are at the apex of morality is hubris. Thus, I feel freedom of expression remains a vital component in modernity.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      No. To say that I'm not a proponent of free speech because I don't support those things is completely inane. And for you to equate civil rights struggles with sending women rape threats is quite mind boggling.
      - nate_meurer 9y ago
        By the same token, your insistence on lumping threats of violence in with racial slurs is similarly inane. I don't hear anyone defending rape threats here.
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        I do. The person I was responding to is saying that you have to defend those if you wish to be a proponent of free speech. I reject that absolutism in it's entirety.
        bobwaycott 9y ago
        Nobody said you have to defend rape threats. Credible threats of violence are illegal. I believe you are ignoring or misunderstanding the argument (and the detailed reply was posted an hour ago). It seems you’re conflating racial slurs (and other deplorable speech) with threats of rape (or other horrific actions) as being equal. They are not. There is a huge difference between these two: > Get fucked, bitch. > I have your address. I’m going to find you and rape you till you’re dead, bitch. The second statement is absolutely illegal, as it is a credible threat. The first is a disgusting statement from an asshole that shouldn’t have ever been said. Since 1998, I’ve been aware of a group of so-called christians who like to go to funerals and public events holding signs that say “god hates fags”. No doubt these people might be inclined to tweet, “We should round up all the fags and kill them.” Absolutely, without a doubt, deplorable as fuck. Still protected speech, as uncomfortable and disgusting as it is. These people nauseate me. They make me want to punch their teeth in. If I then reply to one of these assholes with, “Found your address. Coming for you. Better call your dentist.” I’ve wandered into credible threat territory, and illegal speech. I’m wholly unprotected by the First Amendment now. Defending free speech means defending the constitutional right to say deplorable, yet wholly legal things. And it’s exceedingly difficult. Intellectually, I know it’s protected speech. I can type these words and say it’s legal and protected. I don’t dispute it at all. Emotionally, and as a human who believes in trying to do no harm because the world is chaos and it’s better to be kind, I can’t stand it. I don’t want to see it. I don’t want to hear it. I don’t want to read it. I want it gone. I want it to never have been said. I want people to have ways to escape being the targets of such speech. People shouldn’t feel unsafe. They shouldn’t feel attacked for who they are. And yet, we shouldn’t take away anyone’s right to speak their mind, no matter how disgusting. In all these cases, the principles remain the same: - there is no end to the vile things humans think and say, yet saying them is a right we’ve granted is, in sum, a net good - anyone who veers outside mere speech and begins to incite, threaten, or engage in illegal action should be swiftly punished - where lines get crossed or blurred and clarity is needed, we establish laws to do so (and they should pass constitutional muster)
- albedoa 9y ago
  Two recent tweets from Biz Stone on 9/25 and 9/29 respectively: https://twitter.com/biz/status/912478891377172480 https://twitter.com/biz/status/912478891377172480 > You're wrong. Twitter is for all opinions, even those we disagree with—that is the point of free speech. Counterspeech is encouraged too. https://twitter.com/biz/status/913910519274151936 https://twitter.com/biz/status/913910519274151936 > Yes, we comply with the law. We also defend free speech. You may be happy to know we are reviewing our principles—good to do so regularly. Now, maybe Twitter are more interested in proclaiming an interest in defending free speech than they are actually defending it, but you sure are making a lot of claims in these comments that don't pass basic scrutiny.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    All that research and you couldn't Google, 'twitter free speech complaints.' There, just highlight and search. Tada!
adamrezich 9y ago
I have to ask though... what is the actual problem with all of this "harassment"? Yes, many people pseudonymously post a lot of hateful garbage on Twitter, but it's just words on the Internet—if you put yourself out there as a public figure, assholes are gonna be assholes. A few months ago, a VICE editor wrote a piece originally titled "Let's Blow Up Mount Rushmore" (the title was later changed)[0]. Being a South Dakotan, this was pretty offensive to me, and my reply got the most likes and retweets, putting it in the prominent "first reply" spot[1]. I got a lot of very nasty comments from various extremely angry people, including one who implied I was a Nazi or something by saying "I wonder if "rezich" [my surname] is supposed to be similar to "Reich" or it's just some amazing irony"[2] I just shrugged it all off as the vitriolic Internet being the vitriolic Internet. I engaged with a few of the replies, but I let many of them just be, because really, what is the use in getting worked up over rude and angry Internet comments, that take nearly zero effort to post? I understand that Twitter improving its harassment reduction systems will lead to better experiences for its users and overall make it a more attractive platform for people in general, but there's this idea that it is the "moral duty" of Twitter to prevent assholes on the Internet from being assholes on the Internet, and I just can't for the life of me understand it. Words only have as much power as you let them have, and for some reason (which I won't speculate on here), it seems like everyone these days seem to want to give "hate speech" as much power as possible. [0] https://twitter.com/VICE/status/898266524183662593 https://twitter.com/VICE/status/898266524183662593 [1] https://twitter.com/rezich/status/898268626511306752 https://twitter.com/rezich/status/898268626511306752 [2] https://twitter.com/DejaVerdin/status/898817028663816192 https://twitter.com/DejaVerdin/status/898817028663816192
- pjc50 9y ago
  You're lucky that you don't have to take any of the death threats seriously, and that you don't fear being fired because of what people are writing about you on the internet. Women generally have this worse. Sometimes the harassment escalates to things that are actually illegal, like bomb threats. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/31/bomb-threats-twitter-journalists https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/31/bomb-thre...
- sp332 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by eqmvii 9y ago

KGIII 9y ago

I don't think Twitter is actually interested in defending free speech? Free speech is defending the toxic speech. Acceptable speech needs no defense.

s73ver_ 9y ago
Then count me out. I have no interest whatsoever in defending racial slurs or rape threats.
- nate_meurer 9y ago
  That's understandable. However, while threats of violence are not protected speech in the U.S., insults (e.g., racial slurs) absolutely are, and that protection is the reason you can't be punished for insulting cops, for example, or whatever else might hurt someone's feelings.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Twitter is not just in the US, though.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Thats okay. You're just not a proponent of free speech. Free speech is the deplorable and socially unacceptable. It was once unacceptable to suggest black people had rights or that women should vote. To think we are at the apex of morality is hubris. Thus, I feel freedom of expression remains a vital component in modernity.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    No. To say that I'm not a proponent of free speech because I don't support those things is completely inane. And for you to equate civil rights struggles with sending women rape threats is quite mind boggling.
    - nate_meurer 9y ago
      By the same token, your insistence on lumping threats of violence in with racial slurs is similarly inane. I don't hear anyone defending rape threats here.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        I do. The person I was responding to is saying that you have to defend those if you wish to be a proponent of free speech. I reject that absolutism in it's entirety.
        bobwaycott 9y ago
        Nobody said you have to defend rape threats. Credible threats of violence are illegal. I believe you are ignoring or misunderstanding the argument (and the detailed reply was posted an hour ago). It seems you’re conflating racial slurs (and other deplorable speech) with threats of rape (or other horrific actions) as being equal. They are not. There is a huge difference between these two: > Get fucked, bitch. > I have your address. I’m going to find you and rape you till you’re dead, bitch. The second statement is absolutely illegal, as it is a credible threat. The first is a disgusting statement from an asshole that shouldn’t have ever been said. Since 1998, I’ve been aware of a group of so-called christians who like to go to funerals and public events holding signs that say “god hates fags”. No doubt these people might be inclined to tweet, “We should round up all the fags and kill them.” Absolutely, without a doubt, deplorable as fuck. Still protected speech, as uncomfortable and disgusting as it is. These people nauseate me. They make me want to punch their teeth in. If I then reply to one of these assholes with, “Found your address. Coming for you. Better call your dentist.” I’ve wandered into credible threat territory, and illegal speech. I’m wholly unprotected by the First Amendment now. Defending free speech means defending the constitutional right to say deplorable, yet wholly legal things. And it’s exceedingly difficult. Intellectually, I know it’s protected speech. I can type these words and say it’s legal and protected. I don’t dispute it at all. Emotionally, and as a human who believes in trying to do no harm because the world is chaos and it’s better to be kind, I can’t stand it. I don’t want to see it. I don’t want to hear it. I don’t want to read it. I want it gone. I want it to never have been said. I want people to have ways to escape being the targets of such speech. People shouldn’t feel unsafe. They shouldn’t feel attacked for who they are. And yet, we shouldn’t take away anyone’s right to speak their mind, no matter how disgusting. In all these cases, the principles remain the same: - there is no end to the vile things humans think and say, yet saying them is a right we’ve granted is, in sum, a net good - anyone who veers outside mere speech and begins to incite, threaten, or engage in illegal action should be swiftly punished - where lines get crossed or blurred and clarity is needed, we establish laws to do so (and they should pass constitutional muster)
albedoa 9y ago
Two recent tweets from Biz Stone on 9/25 and 9/29 respectively: https://twitter.com/biz/status/912478891377172480 https://twitter.com/biz/status/912478891377172480 > You're wrong. Twitter is for all opinions, even those we disagree with—that is the point of free speech. Counterspeech is encouraged too. https://twitter.com/biz/status/913910519274151936 https://twitter.com/biz/status/913910519274151936 > Yes, we comply with the law. We also defend free speech. You may be happy to know we are reviewing our principles—good to do so regularly. Now, maybe Twitter are more interested in proclaiming an interest in defending free speech than they are actually defending it, but you sure are making a lot of claims in these comments that don't pass basic scrutiny.
- KGIII 9y ago
  All that research and you couldn't Google, 'twitter free speech complaints.' There, just highlight and search. Tada!

adamrezich 9y ago

I have to ask though... what is the actual problem with all of this "harassment"? Yes, many people pseudonymously post a lot of hateful garbage on Twitter, but it's just words on the Internet—if you put yourself out there as a public figure, assholes are gonna be assholes. A few months ago, a VICE editor wrote a piece originally titled "Let's Blow Up Mount Rushmore" (the title was later changed)[0]. Being a South Dakotan, this was pretty offensive to me, and my reply got the most likes and retweets, putting it in the prominent "first reply" spot[1]. I got a lot of very nasty comments from various extremely angry people, including one who implied I was a Nazi or something by saying "I wonder if "rezich" [my surname] is supposed to be similar to "Reich" or it's just some amazing irony"[2] I just shrugged it all off as the vitriolic Internet being the vitriolic Internet. I engaged with a few of the replies, but I let many of them just be, because really, what is the use in getting worked up over rude and angry Internet comments, that take nearly zero effort to post? I understand that Twitter improving its harassment reduction systems will lead to better experiences for its users and overall make it a more attractive platform for people in general, but there's this idea that it is the "moral duty" of Twitter to prevent assholes on the Internet from being assholes on the Internet, and I just can't for the life of me understand it. Words only have as much power as you let them have, and for some reason (which I won't speculate on here), it seems like everyone these days seem to want to give "hate speech" as much power as possible. [0] https://twitter.com/VICE/status/898266524183662593 https://twitter.com/VICE/status/898266524183662593 [1] https://twitter.com/rezich/status/898268626511306752 https://twitter.com/rezich/status/898268626511306752 [2] https://twitter.com/DejaVerdin/status/898817028663816192 https://twitter.com/DejaVerdin/status/898817028663816192

pjc50 9y ago
You're lucky that you don't have to take any of the death threats seriously, and that you don't fear being fired because of what people are writing about you on the internet. Women generally have this worse. Sometimes the harassment escalates to things that are actually illegal, like bomb threats. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/31/bomb-threats-twitter-journalists https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/31/bomb-thre...
sp332 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]