3 ms·

They're not banning "right wing thinkers". They're banning people who are violating Twitter's longstanding policy forbidding hate speech on account of "race, et

They're not banning "right wing thinkers". They're banning people who are violating Twitter's longstanding policy forbidding hate speech on account of "race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease". Every forum I've ever participated in has had rules against this kind of behavior. If you're not promoting hate speech, you're fine. If you think someone can't be a "right wing thinker" without posting hate speech, then that's the kind of attitude that's poisoning the right and destabilizing the country. Bill Kristol is in no danger of being banned.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
Hate speech is subjective though. For example saying “men aren’t women” is hate speech and will get you banned from Twitter. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/hilltv/rising/420033-self-described-feminist-banned-from-twitter-says-platform-is-setting-a%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/hilltv/rising/42003...
- cabaalis 8y ago
  I've never understood the need to "ban" on twitter. The entire system is set up so that you see speech from people that you want to see. Put up a disclaimer "This account is known to promote speech that is antithetical to the values of Twitter, and the values espoused here solely belong to the individual(s) posting these messages." Put a checkbox for the user if they want to see these results in search or not. Let people decide for themselves who they want to follow.
  - teolandon 8y ago
    The fact that those tweets exist and are given a platform on which they can spread the influence is what's harmful. The words themselves can be hurtful, of course, but they're not as harmful as the power they have when they are tweeted out for the whole world to see. They are given value by being allowed on twitter. They are viewed as valid opinions that new people can adopt and spread. This is why I think twitter is doing the right thing by actually banning such accounts, and why simply giving an easier way to blanket "block" those accounts from your personal view might not be enough.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  Many harms are very subjective, the application of the law depends on many subjective factors, for instance, as does almost any account of justice. To say something is subjective (and imply therefore be discarded, or it is invalid) is rubbish thinking. Just as with many other phrases, "men aren't women" isn't simply a clear expression of fact, it has an ideological message or meaning behind it, just as 4chan's famous "it's OK to be white" wasn't merely an affirmation of a fact very few (if anyone) doubted, it was designed to provoke a response: if challenged, the proponent could reply with "so you're saying it's not OK?". To frame it as "look how silly these rules are!" without taking into account possible context(s) and intentions seems disingenuous - I have a very hard time believing that someone (even on HN) could make such a statement in good faith.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    I don’t think the rules are silly. I think they’re subjective. For what it’s worth, I think interventions to make Twitter feel safer for trans people are important. I’m sorry I said something that made you feel otherwise. I would prefer to do it in a way that women’s rights advocates can still do their work, but that’s probably impossible in the current climate. Safe spaces require a formal hierarchy of identities so you can resolve these issues. Either trans rights come first or uterus havers’s rights do. My preference would be that Twitter allows you to choose your mode of governance, so you can browse on “safe for trans people” mode or “safe for women” or “safe for conservatives” or whatever mode you prefer. We probably need multiple versions of each since there’s variation even within these categories. I don’t think there’s any way to do this within liberalism. It has to be an anarchist solution. It’s a mistake to think there’s a good universal answer.

erikpukinskis 8y ago

Hate speech is subjective though. For example saying “men aren’t women” is hate speech and will get you banned from Twitter. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/hilltv/rising/420033-self-described-feminist-banned-from-twitter-says-platform-is-setting-a%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/hilltv/rising/42003...

cabaalis 8y ago
I've never understood the need to "ban" on twitter. The entire system is set up so that you see speech from people that you want to see. Put up a disclaimer "This account is known to promote speech that is antithetical to the values of Twitter, and the values espoused here solely belong to the individual(s) posting these messages." Put a checkbox for the user if they want to see these results in search or not. Let people decide for themselves who they want to follow.
- teolandon 8y ago
  The fact that those tweets exist and are given a platform on which they can spread the influence is what's harmful. The words themselves can be hurtful, of course, but they're not as harmful as the power they have when they are tweeted out for the whole world to see. They are given value by being allowed on twitter. They are viewed as valid opinions that new people can adopt and spread. This is why I think twitter is doing the right thing by actually banning such accounts, and why simply giving an easier way to blanket "block" those accounts from your personal view might not be enough.
claudiawerner 8y ago
Many harms are very subjective, the application of the law depends on many subjective factors, for instance, as does almost any account of justice. To say something is subjective (and imply therefore be discarded, or it is invalid) is rubbish thinking. Just as with many other phrases, "men aren't women" isn't simply a clear expression of fact, it has an ideological message or meaning behind it, just as 4chan's famous "it's OK to be white" wasn't merely an affirmation of a fact very few (if anyone) doubted, it was designed to provoke a response: if challenged, the proponent could reply with "so you're saying it's not OK?". To frame it as "look how silly these rules are!" without taking into account possible context(s) and intentions seems disingenuous - I have a very hard time believing that someone (even on HN) could make such a statement in good faith.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  I don’t think the rules are silly. I think they’re subjective. For what it’s worth, I think interventions to make Twitter feel safer for trans people are important. I’m sorry I said something that made you feel otherwise. I would prefer to do it in a way that women’s rights advocates can still do their work, but that’s probably impossible in the current climate. Safe spaces require a formal hierarchy of identities so you can resolve these issues. Either trans rights come first or uterus havers’s rights do. My preference would be that Twitter allows you to choose your mode of governance, so you can browse on “safe for trans people” mode or “safe for women” or “safe for conservatives” or whatever mode you prefer. We probably need multiple versions of each since there’s variation even within these categories. I don’t think there’s any way to do this within liberalism. It has to be an anarchist solution. It’s a mistake to think there’s a good universal answer.