3 ms·

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 complai

by 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.

by slg 7y ago

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.