8 ms·
Enforcing New Rules to Reduce Hateful Conduct and Abusive Behavior
- lazugod 9y agoHow does this differ from their previous policies?
- tsunamifury 9y agoMeaningless until they enforce this with their star contributors. Otherwise it's just further enforcing a set of rules for stars and another for everyone else.
- vorotato 9y agoYep the verified check was simply a way to impose class distinction. You should hit up Mastodon/GnuSocial.
- anonbanker 9y agoBe wary of Mastodon for their Embrace/Extend of GNU Social, as well as their banning of entire chunks of the federated network. Find a good GNU Social site, and bask in the freedom. it feels like Twitter when it first started.
- tscs37 9y agoAtleast, unlike on Twitter, you have a choice about this. If you don't like the rules of the red team (Mastodon) you can check out the blue team (GNU Social) or start your own team (or join the Japanese team)
- detaro 9y agoDoes Mastodon roll out these bans coordinated across the federated instances?
- RunningDroid 9y agoThe bans don't appear to be copied from one instance to another by the software, if that's what you're asking. What the previous poster was likely referring to is the 5-10¹ instances that are banned by most other instances with the reason "allows controversial content" or "Free speech zone"². ¹: the number banned varies from instance to instance, but it tends to be the same ones. ²: this one was used by an "anarchist" instance that appears to have more rules than most other instances.
- TheDong 9y agoThe administrators of popular mastodon instances share "block lists" manually. That's the level of coordination. Shared lists: https://github.com/tootcafe/blocked-instances https://github.com/tootcafe/blocked-instances https://github.com/MastodonBlocklist/blocklist https://github.com/MastodonBlocklist/blocklist https://github.com/ticki/mastodon-blacklist https://github.com/ticki/mastodon-blacklist and others
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- vorotato 9y agoNo, it's instance by instance. You will see some amount of cooperation, but it's not enforced by any means just a cultural norm created by the twitter refugees to mastodon. GnuSocial has a bit of a libertarian bent, Mastodon instances have a bit of a leftist bent, and of course there's the instances which are both, so it's not really a binary but rather a spectrum. Yes Libertarian and left surprisingly to many are not mutually exclusive.
- xena 9y agoHonestly a lot of that happened because of the people that caused the twitter rules changes tried to shit up ostatus.
- vorotato 9y agoYou can call it freedom, others call it chaos. The important thing is that you have a choice. Some servers are judicious with who they federate with, others are very open, and I think it's good that you can choose.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago"Content that glorifies violence or the perpetrators of a violent act. This includes celebrating any violent act in a manner that may inspire others to replicate it" Does this apply to videos of NFL tackles? Videos of NFL tackles glorify violence and glorify the tackler (the perpetrator of a violent act).
- thanatropism 9y agoI'm quite circular-shaped and sedentary, but I love powerlifting motivation videos. They get me so pumped to do whatever I'm getting ready to do. (E.g: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWfmFLYxcQw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWfmFLYxcQw )
- robbrown451 9y agoPretty sure the common definition of "violence" excludes such things.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y agoYou mean it's not violence to hit somebody with your body so hard they fall to the ground and can result in bone and ligament injuries, or even brain injuries with permanent neurological issues?
- prepend 9y agoNot if it’s consensual.
- fapjacks 9y agoThat's why you can still duel with someone you dislike. /s
- scrumper 9y agoYou absolutely can, in a boxing ring for example. It's not unconstrained violence if it takes place within a framework of rules - i.e. it's a sport. NFL tackles being the same thing. A Twitter feed showing _only_ illegal violent NFL tackles? Well, that might just get banned now.
- isopod 9y agoThe proof will be if these rules ever apply to Trump or not.
- waterphone 9y ago> This policy does not apply to military or government entities
- lallysingh 9y agoTrump's the cause of half of their readers at this point. They're not getting rid of that, just the uglier (and less likely to bring in advertiser dollars) parts of their userbase. (Note: I have no data to back this up).
- minimaxir 9y agoSpecifically, there's a this policy does not apply to military or government entities loophole to these new rules, which many believe to be a workaround for these rules not applying to Trump.
- dragonwriter 9y agoThat only applies to a subset of the rules, the ”Accounts that affiliate with organizations that use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes” part. (And seems to mean that merrely supporting an existing government or military isn't prohibited conduct, even though governments and their militaries sre groups that do, routinely, use violence and the implicit and explicit threat of violence as core operational methods, including against civilians.) It does not (as stated) apply to the “Content that glorifies violence or the perpetrators of a violent act.” Nor does it apply to the preexisting hateful conduct policy, “You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. ” Of course, they have been inconsistent in enforcing the existing policy and given certain high-profile Twitter users a pass on it without an explicit exception, so one would expect that to continue with the new policies even where no explicit exception applies.
- cryptoz 9y agoYeah, this is absolute doublespeak. Twitter's not 'enforcing' anything, and as others have pointed out, they are actually making the situation worse. Now it's clear that even Twitter says if you're rich and famous you can be abusive without the same consequences as someone who is not wealthy. Ridiculous. Nobody has ever held Trump accountable for anything. Hilariously, Twitter holds a lot of power over Trump due to controlling his popular account. They could hold him accountable. They choose not to. Insane.
- 21 9y ago> Nobody has ever held Trump accountable for anything. Hilariously, Twitter holds a lot of power over Trump due to controlling his popular account. They could hold him accountable. They choose not to. Insane. Trump is the elected president of USA, one of the most important country on Earth. The fact that you suggest a private company should police his speak is insane to me.
- sunsets_44 9y ago>We consider hateful imagery to be logos, symbols, or images whose purpose is to promote hostility and malice against others based on their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin. Let the endless game of whack-a-mole over what is or isn't a dogwhistle commence, I guess.
- junkscience2017 9y agoEnforcing New Rules to Reduce Right-Wing Conduct and Conservative Behavior (blog.twitter.com)
- YuriGrinshteyn 9y agoIf conservatives and the right wing are so worried about Nazi bans impacting them, they should perhaps stop being so much like Nazis as to make distinguishing between the two so difficult.
- revmoo 9y agoEverybody you disagree with is not a nazi buddy
- junkscience2017 9y agoBy forcing an equivalence with Nazism, you have proven my point, happy tweeting.
- 21 9y ago> Accounts that affiliate with organizations that use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes. Do you think twitter should ban antifa accounts because they are affiliated with an org which promotes violence against individuals?
- bduerst 9y agoThis discussion, and the replies to your comment, reminds me of this quote by Jean-Paul Sarte, which very much applies to the rebranded "alt-right" today: > 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.
- jsonne 9y agoI've gone through and reported a number of accounts that seem to violate this policy after the announcement and made note of the usernames and if they were a left wing or right wing organization. I'm curious to see if this will be enforced equally.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Spivak 9y agoThis is going to be fun. > Accounts that affiliate with organizations that use or promote violence against civilians > Content that glorifies violence or the perpetrators of a violent act. * "Support our troops" * "Punch a Nazi" * Basically any enthusiastic history account. * Mall ninjas. * Any action movie/tv property. * Star Wars. * UFC It seems almost puritan to try and deny humanity's love of violence. > If an account’s profile information includes a violent threat or multiple slurs, epithets, racist or sexist tropes, incites fear, or reduces someone to less than human, it will be permanently suspended. * A little confused about the 'multiple' requirement. So long as you only hate one thing your good? * Racist or sexist tropes is a bit hard to pin down. /r/bpt is full of examples of 'racist' tropes that are self-deprecating. I'm not the best at words but they probably want an exception for "laughing with you, not at you." > intimidates, or uses fear to silence another person’s voice I can't wait for this to not be applied against people who use public shaming as a silencing tactic. Also, there's a bit on irony that in that policy is itself a silencing tactic. This is going to cause people afraid of being banned to self-censor because a statement is politically unpopular.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- vkou 9y ago> Accounts that affiliate with organizations that use or promote violence against civilians So, every US federal agency's, and every local police force's twitter accounts will be shut down?
- aphextron 9y ago>Any account that abuses or threatens others through their profile information, including their username, display name, or profile bio. If an account’s profile information includes a violent threat or multiple slurs, epithets, racist or sexist tropes, incites fear, or reduces someone to less than human, it will be permanently suspended. We plan to develop internal tools to help us identify violating accounts to supplement user reports. How can they possibly enforce this hypocritical bullshit while our president violates these policies on a daily basis? Ham handed nonsense.
- staunch 9y agoThere's nothing wrong with Twitter operating a highly moderated platform. Hacker News is a successful example. In both cases though, it's a huge problem that there aren't alternatives that do off truly uncensored speech. At the very least, there needs to be a force that checks these organizations when they step over the line.
- root_axis 9y ago> there needs to be a force that checks these organizations when they step over the line. Why? Consumers are not paying twitter for a product or service and use of twitter is not a necessity.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago> use of twitter is not a necessity This is arguable. Our country is changing massively, and because of the network effect[1], social media platforms condense to only a few winners, currently mostly Facebook and Twitter I believe. This oligopoly[2] means that a handful of sites basically run what is considered the internet for most people. In America, we have a constitutional right to free speech. If in our country, most people speak solely on one of these sites, then why shouldn't our constitutional rights extend onto them? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly
- root_axis 9y agoIt is not arguable, it is an unequivocal fact that use of twitter is not necessary. > that a handful of sites basically run what is considered the internet for most people. That is the result of individual choices made by those people. That's like lamenting that a handful of musicians basically produce what is considered music for most people... So what?
- ufmace 9y agoWell there is gab.ai and the mastodon network to provide similar services with (allegedly) less censorship.
- Mc_Big_G 9y agoSo does my tweet @ Ajit Pai wishing that he burns to death slowly get me banned from Twitter or do I get grandfathered?
- patrickg_zill 9y agoTwitter is committing a slow suicide. Maybe @jack is just bored with it at this point...
- nikolay 9y agoI'm getting tired of the Marxification of America!
- colordrops 9y agoThat's how authoritarianism is and will be implemented in the US: by using the excuse that because a corporation is doing it, then it's not bound by the constitution. "Twitter is a private entity, so they don't have to follow the first amendment." But when the government has privatized and outsourced everything to corporations, then the corporations control the narrative, and censorship becomes de facto instead of by law. Corporations are a workaround to get around constitutional limitations.
- CM30 9y agoThis is one of the biggest issues the internet has in general, at least where freedom of speech is concerned. There is no such thing as public property online, and even with alternatives technically existing, this makes it all too easy to de facto censor speech by denying someone an audience. Indeed, I think a lot of people miss that the nature of public property and governments not being able to censor free speech did basically guarantee people an audience in the olden days. Did you have a message you wanted people to hear? Protest in a heavily trafficked area (like a town centre), and you had an audience of thousands or even millions, regardless of whether they wanted to hear what you had to say or not. Imagine how much less useful political movements would be if corporations owned everything in the real world and the people protesting had to do so in their own homes/some private property away from the public. That's the situation these social media sites have set up. But hey, I guess it's not a new thing, nor an issue exclusive to the internet. In some places, a shopping mall or other corporate property might be the 'heart of the local community', and like with Twitter and Facebook, they could ban those they don't like and de facto censor their speech too.
- tdb7893 9y agoIf you don't like how a corporations handles speech you don't need to use their services. The social media corporations are not being controlled at this point by the government and these issues of free speech are being implemented not because of the will of the government but because they are wanted by the consumers (even if it doesn't seem that way here). Consumers should be able to use the services they want and they want services without these types of speech
- hkon 9y agoWhat wicked webs they weave. Are they gonna ban the sjws and alt rights alike... Triggereds
- tannhaeuser 9y agoJust today there was this essay/blog on leading German newspaper FAZ showing where censorship-by-law of "hate speech" will lead to. [1]: http://blogs.faz.net/deus/2017/12/18/erdogans-mob-und-gruene-denunzianten-wem-das-spd-netzdg-nuetzt-4778/ http://blogs.faz.net/deus/2017/12/18/erdogans-mob-und-gruene... (in German) [2]: https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=de&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://blogs.faz.net/deus/2017/12/18/erdogans-mob-und-gruene-denunzianten-wem-das-spd-netzdg-nuetzt-4778/ https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...
- falcolas 9y agoI want to condemn this as too broad reaching, and as hard-to-justify censorship. Then again, I also don't want to keep seeing things like death threats, bullying, and general hate-laden vitriol. Seriously, look up some of the tweets aimed at August Ames and tell me that's OK in any forum. Ultimately, I have to fall on the side of moderation in this case. A free-for-all forum has been tried, and it has failed us.
- shiado 9y agoI wish companies would grow some character and tell those they don't want on their platform "Hey we don't like you, get the fuck out". Instead they always resort to incredibly weaselly lawyer-speak statements like "Our trust and safety initiative has concluded that these users have violated our content and user behavior acceptability inclusiveness policies on several occasions". Arbitrary enforcement of rules always sounds like bullshit no matter how you phrase it. Why not just say what you mean?
- taneq 9y agoYou mean like Cloudflare did when the cancelled Stormfront's hosting for being assholes? That copped a lot of backlash.
- guywaffle 9y agoThis is all BS. Twitter has to prove they will enforce their policies, which means banning Trump. Twitter doesn’t have the guts to do that. Yellow-bellies
- duncan_bayne 9y ago> this policy does not apply to military or government entities One rule for them, another rule for us. This sort of thing is how Trump was able to paint "the media" as being full of hypocrites, liars and crooks. Edited to add: not a Trump supporter myself, by any stretch of the imagination. But this is exactly the sort of thing demagogues like to point to as examples of bias and unfairness. Although Trump himself might not, in this case, as he seems to be one of the beneficiaries.
- mr_spothawk 9y ago> promote violence ... against civilians that's an interesting angle.