4 ms·

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-poli

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...

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...