5 ms·

>When a Tweet has this notice placed on it, it will feature less prominently on Twitter, and not appear in: >Safe search >Timeline when switched to Top Tweets

>When a Tweet has this notice placed on it, it will feature less prominently on Twitter, and not appear in: >Safe search >Timeline when switched to Top Tweets >Live events pages >Recommended Tweet push notifications >Notifications tab >Explore Getting out in front of the 2020 election, I see. Better conform to Twitter's code of conduct if you want to maximize reach! Edit: Good time to get to know who will be making the decisions on throttling exposure- do not cross these groups! https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html

neuronexmachina 7y ago
Which of Twitter's rules do you think are inappropriate? https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules
- malvosenior 7y ago
  It's not that they're inappropriate, it's that they will be enforced selectively.
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    I do think the impact of this will be overstated, in the big picture. The vast majority of Americans (and people) don't use Twitter. An editorial tag from twitter isn't really going to change the impact of a tweet in my opinion, other than limiting its exposure on Twitter itself. But it would be hilarious if news orgs use this as a cue to give trigger warnings when they quote a tagged tweet. "Warning: the tweet we are about to show you violates Twitter's trust and safety rules; hide your children before we reveal what [prominent public figure] tweeted!"
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      The words spoken on Twitter go far beyond the website's members. Tweets are plastered all over TV and news websites.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      The vast majority of Americans (and people) don't use Twitter. The vast majority of Americans hold little of the country's wealth, so the actions of rich people have little effect.
  - slg 7y ago
    So what is the alternative here? Allow everything from copyright infringement to threats of violence to child porn? That is what I don't get about the complaints of these companies censoring users. Every mature government has already agreed that completely unlimited free speech is not a good thing as speech can infringe on the rights of others. We are just debating about where exactly the line is now. You are free to complain about specific instances of Twitter censoring users, but the idea that they shouldn't be able to censor anyone is a lost cause.
    - creaghpatr 7y ago
      If a world leader with 100k+ followers tweets out child porn and Twitter just tags it with a warning instead of removing it I agree that would be extremely controversial!
      - slg 7y ago
        Twitter reserves the right to remove any Tweet. Those three examples were specifically used as a progression of severity and I would imagine we would all approve of Twitter removing the last example. However the change to the policy that Twitter is detailing here isn't really about deleting tweets. This policy creates a middle ground for tweets that break the rules but shouldn't be deleted. Someone could even make the argument that middle ground gives Twitter the flexibility to censor less.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      The alternative is to not selectively enforce the rules. I didn't even mention anything about censorship.
      - objectivetruth 7y ago
        Yes, but "selectively enforcing" the rules is a subjective thing, not an objective thing. There will always be some people who say that ANY removal of ANY post is censorship. So by definition there is no objectively "pure enforcement" possibility. And the other end of the spectrum, no enforcement whatsoever makes the site suck for lots of people so that's out of the question. So there's going to be "selective enforcement," as you call it. And if you were in charge of enforcement, I bet you'd think you were being 100% objective, not selective/subjective, but I bet more that somebody would disagree.
  - aphextim 7y ago
    I do agree with you on this. Especially this rule. Abuse/harassment: You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. This includes wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm. Obviously there is a gray area where people use 'groups' rather than individuals to claim they are not targeting people. I.E. I wish people would kill John Smith vs I wish all white people would die. Twitter Verified Hate - https://www.label56.com/wp-content/uploads/verified-hate-1.jpg https://www.label56.com/wp-content/uploads/verified-hate-1.j...
human20190310 7y ago
If I understand the new policy correctly, what Twitter is doing is taking an official step back from simply deferring to the Trust and Safety Council, by allowing public figures of sufficient stature to avoid having their posts removed, even if they do violate Twitter's rules.
simion314 7y ago
Do you have a better solution? I am honestly thinking on how would I solve the problem where I own a popular social network or forum/subreddit, I want to prevent it to become a shit place, so I would like to put some rules like HN and other communities have , how can I prevent the situation where people will call me as censoring them on my own community? My only solution would be to ban political discussion completely and implement some hard punishment for people that don't respect the community rules of conduct even banning the bad actors.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  I actually think it's a great compromise, but I do wish users could see which Trust and Safety partner determined each violation on a tweet by tweet basis. I.e. Twitter in partnership with [GLAAD; ADL; etc] determined this tweet contained [violation]. Then we could quantify, drill down and get some great insights.
  - taborj 7y ago
    That's an excellent idea, actually. Transparency is key in these situations.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
sterkekoffie 7y ago
I think your comment that politicians "better conform to Twitter's code of conduct!" if they want to use Twitter is a perfect summary of the underlying philosophy here. A system where you have bored teens posting alongside the POTUS, desirability aside, is very difficult to regulate. All this move amounts to is a statement that if you can't make your point without breaking the Twitter rules, it belongs somewhere other than Twitter. In my own opinion, it is hugely irresponsible for a business like Twitter to give politicians a platform in the first place. If this is a move away (*s/toward/away) from that, by hindering usefulness of Twitter as a campaign tool, I'm completely in favor of that. ps: TASC don't have any influence on which posts are considered rule-breaking, only on which are considered noteworthy enough to stay up. So they have no influence on "throttling" any tweets, only on saving ones which would otherwise be deleted.

neuronexmachina 7y ago

Which of Twitter's rules do you think are inappropriate? https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules

malvosenior 7y ago
It's not that they're inappropriate, it's that they will be enforced selectively.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  I do think the impact of this will be overstated, in the big picture. The vast majority of Americans (and people) don't use Twitter. An editorial tag from twitter isn't really going to change the impact of a tweet in my opinion, other than limiting its exposure on Twitter itself. But it would be hilarious if news orgs use this as a cue to give trigger warnings when they quote a tagged tweet. "Warning: the tweet we are about to show you violates Twitter's trust and safety rules; hide your children before we reveal what [prominent public figure] tweeted!"
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    The words spoken on Twitter go far beyond the website's members. Tweets are plastered all over TV and news websites.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    The vast majority of Americans (and people) don't use Twitter. The vast majority of Americans hold little of the country's wealth, so the actions of rich people have little effect.
- slg 7y ago
  So what is the alternative here? Allow everything from copyright infringement to threats of violence to child porn? That is what I don't get about the complaints of these companies censoring users. Every mature government has already agreed that completely unlimited free speech is not a good thing as speech can infringe on the rights of others. We are just debating about where exactly the line is now. You are free to complain about specific instances of Twitter censoring users, but the idea that they shouldn't be able to censor anyone is a lost cause.
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    If a world leader with 100k+ followers tweets out child porn and Twitter just tags it with a warning instead of removing it I agree that would be extremely controversial!
    - slg 7y ago
      Twitter reserves the right to remove any Tweet. Those three examples were specifically used as a progression of severity and I would imagine we would all approve of Twitter removing the last example. However the change to the policy that Twitter is detailing here isn't really about deleting tweets. This policy creates a middle ground for tweets that break the rules but shouldn't be deleted. Someone could even make the argument that middle ground gives Twitter the flexibility to censor less.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    The alternative is to not selectively enforce the rules. I didn't even mention anything about censorship.
    - objectivetruth 7y ago
      Yes, but "selectively enforcing" the rules is a subjective thing, not an objective thing. There will always be some people who say that ANY removal of ANY post is censorship. So by definition there is no objectively "pure enforcement" possibility. And the other end of the spectrum, no enforcement whatsoever makes the site suck for lots of people so that's out of the question. So there's going to be "selective enforcement," as you call it. And if you were in charge of enforcement, I bet you'd think you were being 100% objective, not selective/subjective, but I bet more that somebody would disagree.
- aphextim 7y ago
  I do agree with you on this. Especially this rule. Abuse/harassment: You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. This includes wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm. Obviously there is a gray area where people use 'groups' rather than individuals to claim they are not targeting people. I.E. I wish people would kill John Smith vs I wish all white people would die. Twitter Verified Hate - https://www.label56.com/wp-content/uploads/verified-hate-1.jpg https://www.label56.com/wp-content/uploads/verified-hate-1.j...

human20190310 7y ago

If I understand the new policy correctly, what Twitter is doing is taking an official step back from simply deferring to the Trust and Safety Council, by allowing public figures of sufficient stature to avoid having their posts removed, even if they do violate Twitter's rules.

simion314 7y ago

Do you have a better solution? I am honestly thinking on how would I solve the problem where I own a popular social network or forum/subreddit, I want to prevent it to become a shit place, so I would like to put some rules like HN and other communities have , how can I prevent the situation where people will call me as censoring them on my own community? My only solution would be to ban political discussion completely and implement some hard punishment for people that don't respect the community rules of conduct even banning the bad actors.

creaghpatr 7y ago
I actually think it's a great compromise, but I do wish users could see which Trust and Safety partner determined each violation on a tweet by tweet basis. I.e. Twitter in partnership with [GLAAD; ADL; etc] determined this tweet contained [violation]. Then we could quantify, drill down and get some great insights.
- taborj 7y ago
  That's an excellent idea, actually. Transparency is key in these situations.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

sterkekoffie 7y ago

I think your comment that politicians "better conform to Twitter's code of conduct!" if they want to use Twitter is a perfect summary of the underlying philosophy here. A system where you have bored teens posting alongside the POTUS, desirability aside, is very difficult to regulate. All this move amounts to is a statement that if you can't make your point without breaking the Twitter rules, it belongs somewhere other than Twitter. In my own opinion, it is hugely irresponsible for a business like Twitter to give politicians a platform in the first place. If this is a move away (*s/toward/away) from that, by hindering usefulness of Twitter as a campaign tool, I'm completely in favor of that. ps: TASC don't have any influence on which posts are considered rule-breaking, only on which are considered noteworthy enough to stay up. So they have no influence on "throttling" any tweets, only on saving ones which would otherwise be deleted.