6 ms·

Twitter says it will judge verified users’ offline behavior

29 points by neo4sure 9y ago

cgore 9y ago
This is just an insane level of censorship, I don't care if they are literally for-real Nazis. It's not the place of corporations to pick and choose who should have Freedom of Speech.
- therealmarv 9y ago
  a badge from a private corporation is not Freedom of Speech. Who cares about this verified badge? People who care should spent more time on LinkedIn ;)
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Corporations themselves (or the natural persons for which they are abstractions created to serve) have freedom of speech, and controlling what speech they relay, and how they present the speech they do relay, is an exercise of that freedom. Asserting that they should not be able to do so is, in fact, an argument against freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not an entitlement to have other people use their resources to further your speech irrespective of their own preferences.
  - lovich 9y ago
    I'm fine with corporations picking and choosing who can talk on their services but I feel like there needs to be more responsibility with it. You can either have an agnostic platform that only removes things with a legal order and the company is indemnified from legal consequences from it's users posts, or you decide to take specific actions but now you are responsible for the content. Getting the legal benefits of being a modern public square but then also being able to silence people to improve your profit margin is where this seems to be the problem
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- zerostar07 9y ago
  indeed its not the place of corporations, that s the job of a state, so far. so twitter is free to be as censorious as their marketing requires.
- ptyyy 9y ago
  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I don't see anything about Twitter in the 1st Amendment.
  - tortasaur 9y ago
    Who mentioned the first amendment?
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      You did. "Freedom of speech."
      - owlmirror 9y ago
        Freedom of speech is not synonymous with the first amendment.
        cgore 9y ago
        Yup. "Freedom of Speech" is something you have. "The First Amendment" is a bit of governance that says the US Federal Government has to at least pretend to give a shit about it. If the US Federal Government can't restrict my speech, why should your average butcher, baker, or candlestick maker be able to?
    - tortasaur 9y ago
      I'm not the parent commenter, and "freedom of speech" is not the same thing as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Crontab 9y ago
Twitter either needs to use verified status for its intended purpose, or get rid of it. I am not aware of anyone who thought that verified status was an endorsement from Twitter.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  How is anyone but Twitter the judge of the “intended purpose” of a Twitter-created and -assigned label?
  - Crontab 9y ago
    Because of the plain english meaning of the word verified. They should have chosen a different word or phrase if they were seeking for it to mean something else.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      You seem to not be using the word “intended” with it's plain English meaning, using it instead to mean what on more common use of the language might be described as “externally perceived”. Which is ironic, given the subject of your criticism.
  - ksk 9y ago
    Probably because "Hey! All you people ! Change your mind, you're wrong" doesn't seem to work when the group is sufficiently large.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
mankash666 9y ago
So puzzle me this - Twitter, FB, etc. are profitable because of user's data. Flexing power beyond the normal, even beyond government for that matter, to impose "morality" on users & the content they generate, which, mind you, is the source of their income, and existence is insanity. That said, we need to take back control from the big platforms & corporations - dominant channels of public discourse shouldn't be subject to random whims & fancies, regardless of public/private ownership. You don't want to see Nazi content on Twitter, don't follow Nazis. Or, request a content filter from Twitter, though that still doesn't eliminate Nazis from the world - it just puts you deeper in your echo chamber. But punitive action against people you disagree with is simply unacceptable!
- terminus 9y ago
  > But punitive action against people you disagree with is simply unacceptable! Where your argument falls down is in just reducing this to "people you disagree with." Nazis (even lately) have been responsible for more than just polite disagreements. For instance Jason Kessler one of the neo-Nazis/white-supremacists was involved in the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville which devolved into violence and one death. Free speech absolutism [1] is good, but I draw the line at speech leading to violence. [1] Sidepoint, but framing this as a free speech question is IMO disingenuous because nobody's speech is being taken away here. Just verification from twitter.
  - JungleGymSam 9y ago
    What is "speech leading to violence"? What's the statute of limitations on said such?
    - terminus 9y ago
      I'd say, speech leading to violence is like pornography; you know it when you see it. And I would refer you to the examples I have in the comment. Given the subjective nature of the test there will be cases when it's less clear cut. But I think that's better than status quo.
  - 9y ago
Simulacra 9y ago
I think this is wrong. There should be a divide between what you do online, and what you do offline, because that power to judge a person and deprive them of something is too easily abused
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
659087 9y ago
They're just testing the waters to see if they can eventually turn "verified users" into literal corporate drones without being questioned by the majority of their users.
zerostar07 9y ago
just cut the crap and call it "endorsed users" . otherwise they you're implying they are some sort of demented people who are "no longer themselves"
- CM30 9y ago
  Yeah. How is someone 'not the same' individual after they do something you consider 'morally questionable'? If someone's a sociopath or neo Nazi or what not, it'd probably be more helpful to tie them to their own words. That said, this may work a bit better than removing the checkmark for something they said on the actual site. In those cases, the affected person could simply say their account's been hacked and have no one really be any the wiser.
officemonkey 9y ago
If they used the "verified user" for it's intended purpose "This account/person is who they claim to be" then I'm fine with Neo-Nazis getting the verified user checkmark. The problem is Twitter doesn't "verify" people equally. There should be a process that is the same for "Donald Trump," "Kim Kardassian West," and "My child's fifth grade teacher." Since they can't or won't do that, becoming verified also involves a bit of Wikipedia's Notable policy. Except that it seems to favor high-traffic accounts. (So no checkmark for my kid's teacher, but yes checkmark for neo-Nazis.) So now they aren't really "verfiying" users, they're just rewarding high-traffic users that are notable.
terminus 9y ago
I see a lot of people arguing about free speech and censorship here. I'm not sure how anybody is being censored here -- given that we are only debating verification. People are not deprived off their speech. Second, for instance in the cases of people penalized after this new policy, some of them (Jason Kessler for instance) were responsible for real world violence. I personally think that this was a long overdue move for twitter. We've fought long and hard to discredit neo-Nazi ideas and ideals and to welcome them back in the town square as if anything they have to say is worth listening to is just absurd. I think Sartre said it best: "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti- Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
ipsocannibal 9y ago
Watch as losing or not being able to attain a verified badge becomes a mark of distinction for those attacking cultural norms. I also predict that some individuals will work to become verified only to perform actions that force Twitter's hand in de-verifing them in order to provide further evidence that Twitter punishes users for participating in 'wrong-think'.
- tortasaur 9y ago
  How, exactly, would one "force Twitter's hand"? Twitter sets their policies, there are no mystical forces at work here. Your tone implies you're doubtful, but isn't this Twitter punishing "wrongthink"?
floatingatoll 9y ago
Surprisingly, they’re not the first. I believe both Sony and Microsoft reserve the right to ban you from their online gaming networks for behavior out-of-network.

29 points by neo4sure 9y ago

This is just an insane level of censorship, I don't care if they are literally for-real Nazis. It's not the place of corporations to pick and choose who should have Freedom of Speech.

therealmarv 9y ago
a badge from a private corporation is not Freedom of Speech. Who cares about this verified badge? People who care should spent more time on LinkedIn ;)
dragonwriter 9y ago
Corporations themselves (or the natural persons for which they are abstractions created to serve) have freedom of speech, and controlling what speech they relay, and how they present the speech they do relay, is an exercise of that freedom. Asserting that they should not be able to do so is, in fact, an argument against freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not an entitlement to have other people use their resources to further your speech irrespective of their own preferences.
- lovich 9y ago
  I'm fine with corporations picking and choosing who can talk on their services but I feel like there needs to be more responsibility with it. You can either have an agnostic platform that only removes things with a legal order and the company is indemnified from legal consequences from it's users posts, or you decide to take specific actions but now you are responsible for the content. Getting the legal benefits of being a modern public square but then also being able to silence people to improve your profit margin is where this seems to be the problem
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
zerostar07 9y ago
indeed its not the place of corporations, that s the job of a state, so far. so twitter is free to be as censorious as their marketing requires.
ptyyy 9y ago
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I don't see anything about Twitter in the 1st Amendment.
- tortasaur 9y ago
  Who mentioned the first amendment?
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    You did. "Freedom of speech."
    - owlmirror 9y ago
      Freedom of speech is not synonymous with the first amendment.
      - cgore 9y ago
        Yup. "Freedom of Speech" is something you have. "The First Amendment" is a bit of governance that says the US Federal Government has to at least pretend to give a shit about it. If the US Federal Government can't restrict my speech, why should your average butcher, baker, or candlestick maker be able to?
  - tortasaur 9y ago
    I'm not the parent commenter, and "freedom of speech" is not the same thing as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Crontab 9y ago

Twitter either needs to use verified status for its intended purpose, or get rid of it. I am not aware of anyone who thought that verified status was an endorsement from Twitter.

dragonwriter 9y ago
How is anyone but Twitter the judge of the “intended purpose” of a Twitter-created and -assigned label?
- Crontab 9y ago
  Because of the plain english meaning of the word verified. They should have chosen a different word or phrase if they were seeking for it to mean something else.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    You seem to not be using the word “intended” with it's plain English meaning, using it instead to mean what on more common use of the language might be described as “externally perceived”. Which is ironic, given the subject of your criticism.
- ksk 9y ago
  Probably because "Hey! All you people ! Change your mind, you're wrong" doesn't seem to work when the group is sufficiently large.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

mankash666 9y ago

So puzzle me this - Twitter, FB, etc. are profitable because of user's data. Flexing power beyond the normal, even beyond government for that matter, to impose "morality" on users & the content they generate, which, mind you, is the source of their income, and existence is insanity. That said, we need to take back control from the big platforms & corporations - dominant channels of public discourse shouldn't be subject to random whims & fancies, regardless of public/private ownership. You don't want to see Nazi content on Twitter, don't follow Nazis. Or, request a content filter from Twitter, though that still doesn't eliminate Nazis from the world - it just puts you deeper in your echo chamber. But punitive action against people you disagree with is simply unacceptable!

terminus 9y ago
> But punitive action against people you disagree with is simply unacceptable! Where your argument falls down is in just reducing this to "people you disagree with." Nazis (even lately) have been responsible for more than just polite disagreements. For instance Jason Kessler one of the neo-Nazis/white-supremacists was involved in the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville which devolved into violence and one death. Free speech absolutism [1] is good, but I draw the line at speech leading to violence. [1] Sidepoint, but framing this as a free speech question is IMO disingenuous because nobody's speech is being taken away here. Just verification from twitter.
- JungleGymSam 9y ago
  What is "speech leading to violence"? What's the statute of limitations on said such?
  - terminus 9y ago
    I'd say, speech leading to violence is like pornography; you know it when you see it. And I would refer you to the examples I have in the comment. Given the subjective nature of the test there will be cases when it's less clear cut. But I think that's better than status quo.
- 9y ago

Simulacra 9y ago

I think this is wrong. There should be a divide between what you do online, and what you do offline, because that power to judge a person and deprive them of something is too easily abused

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

659087 9y ago

They're just testing the waters to see if they can eventually turn "verified users" into literal corporate drones without being questioned by the majority of their users.

zerostar07 9y ago

just cut the crap and call it "endorsed users" . otherwise they you're implying they are some sort of demented people who are "no longer themselves"

CM30 9y ago
Yeah. How is someone 'not the same' individual after they do something you consider 'morally questionable'? If someone's a sociopath or neo Nazi or what not, it'd probably be more helpful to tie them to their own words. That said, this may work a bit better than removing the checkmark for something they said on the actual site. In those cases, the affected person could simply say their account's been hacked and have no one really be any the wiser.

officemonkey 9y ago

If they used the "verified user" for it's intended purpose "This account/person is who they claim to be" then I'm fine with Neo-Nazis getting the verified user checkmark. The problem is Twitter doesn't "verify" people equally. There should be a process that is the same for "Donald Trump," "Kim Kardassian West," and "My child's fifth grade teacher." Since they can't or won't do that, becoming verified also involves a bit of Wikipedia's Notable policy. Except that it seems to favor high-traffic accounts. (So no checkmark for my kid's teacher, but yes checkmark for neo-Nazis.) So now they aren't really "verfiying" users, they're just rewarding high-traffic users that are notable.

terminus 9y ago

I see a lot of people arguing about free speech and censorship here. I'm not sure how anybody is being censored here -- given that we are only debating verification. People are not deprived off their speech. Second, for instance in the cases of people penalized after this new policy, some of them (Jason Kessler for instance) were responsible for real world violence. I personally think that this was a long overdue move for twitter. We've fought long and hard to discredit neo-Nazi ideas and ideals and to welcome them back in the town square as if anything they have to say is worth listening to is just absurd. I think Sartre said it best: "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti- Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."

ipsocannibal 9y ago

Watch as losing or not being able to attain a verified badge becomes a mark of distinction for those attacking cultural norms. I also predict that some individuals will work to become verified only to perform actions that force Twitter's hand in de-verifing them in order to provide further evidence that Twitter punishes users for participating in 'wrong-think'.

tortasaur 9y ago
How, exactly, would one "force Twitter's hand"? Twitter sets their policies, there are no mystical forces at work here. Your tone implies you're doubtful, but isn't this Twitter punishing "wrongthink"?

floatingatoll 9y ago

Surprisingly, they’re not the first. I believe both Sony and Microsoft reserve the right to ban you from their online gaming networks for behavior out-of-network.