4 ms·

Interesting. So criticizing religious positions against abortion, against vaccines, against homosexuality, and in favor of the flat earth will now result in pos

Interesting. So criticizing religious positions against abortion, against vaccines, against homosexuality, and in favor of the flat earth will now result in post removal. Assuming this policy is going to be impartially and fairly applied as stated.

ARandomerDude 7y ago
How so? It seems like only if they say "those animals" (or similar) instead of "those people".
ceejayoz 7y ago
It's entirely possible to criticize without dehumanizing.
- Nuzzerino 7y ago
  The problem is that it's also possible to criticize in a way where it's simply not possible to determine if it was a good faith criticism or not. There's a wide population of people who even optimize for that, they're called trolls. Moderation mistakes are inevitable, and the consequences of a bad moderation decision can be as bad, or worse, than the effect of the message itself. IMO, people should learn to defend themselves against trolls rather than helplessly relying on a nanny from above to do it. Unfortunately, using those platforms doesn't give us much of a choice in the matter.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > The problem is that it's also possible to criticize in a way where it's simply not possible to determine if it was a good faith criticism or not. That's a problem in some generic sense perhaps, but not with the application of this policy, which does not rely on a determination of “good faith criticism”, but instead of dehumanization. Note that the examples of what is covered all are dehumanizing in a very narrow sense (stating directly that the target groups are vermin, viruses, etc.): https://blog.twitter.com/content/dam/blog-twitter/official/en_us/company/2019/dehumanizationreligion.png https://blog.twitter.com/content/dam/blog-twitter/official/e...
    - Nuzzerino 7y ago
      I'd rather see a random list of posts that are actually being deleted rather than examples that Twitter officially uses, before making the determination that the rule is applied fairly.
- notus 7y ago
  That depends entirely on their definition of dehumanizing.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    The examples given seem pretty clear - calling people rats, viruses, maggots, etc.
    - homonculus1 7y ago
      Examples given do not guarantee how a policy will actually be enforced. Motte and bailey rhetoric can be used punish a broad variety of behavior while insisting the policy only exists to curtail something abhorrent.
    - notus 7y ago
      Is calling someone an asshole dehumanizing?
drocer88 7y ago
Censorship is censorship. At least they admit it.
umvi 7y ago
> So criticizing religious positions against abortion, against vaccines, against homosexuality, and in favor of the flat earth will now result in post removal. Only if you "dehumanize" said religious people. All of the examples Twitter posted involved comparing the religious in question to animals (or viruses). So, I doubt a tweet like "I don't think it's right to let the mother die because of fetus complications" would be removed, but something like "Those Christian pigs think a clump of cells are worthy of having human rights?! What kind of monkeys are leading them!" probably would.
- Grue3 7y ago
  Some religious people think a human fetus is a fully formed human instead of a bunch of cells that it is. From their point of view, common pro-abortion arguments are "dehumanizing".
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cabaalis 7y ago
I am very certain that tweets criticizing these types of things (which are generally tweets against the beliefs of Christians, however misguided) will remain.
tareqak 7y ago
No, because positions are not people. If you can criticize an idea without dehumanizing the person who holds said idea, then your criticism doesn't fall into the "dehumanizing people" category.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> So criticizing religious positions against abortion, against vaccines, against homosexuality, and in favor of the flat earth will now result in post removal. I'm pretty sure you can criticize all of those positions without dehumanizing people on the basis of religion, so that conclusion seems unwarranted, and out of line with the examples of the kinds of posts that would be removed by the policy.

ARandomerDude 7y ago

How so? It seems like only if they say "those animals" (or similar) instead of "those people".

ceejayoz 7y ago

It's entirely possible to criticize without dehumanizing.

Nuzzerino 7y ago
The problem is that it's also possible to criticize in a way where it's simply not possible to determine if it was a good faith criticism or not. There's a wide population of people who even optimize for that, they're called trolls. Moderation mistakes are inevitable, and the consequences of a bad moderation decision can be as bad, or worse, than the effect of the message itself. IMO, people should learn to defend themselves against trolls rather than helplessly relying on a nanny from above to do it. Unfortunately, using those platforms doesn't give us much of a choice in the matter.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The problem is that it's also possible to criticize in a way where it's simply not possible to determine if it was a good faith criticism or not. That's a problem in some generic sense perhaps, but not with the application of this policy, which does not rely on a determination of “good faith criticism”, but instead of dehumanization. Note that the examples of what is covered all are dehumanizing in a very narrow sense (stating directly that the target groups are vermin, viruses, etc.): https://blog.twitter.com/content/dam/blog-twitter/official/en_us/company/2019/dehumanizationreligion.png https://blog.twitter.com/content/dam/blog-twitter/official/e...
  - Nuzzerino 7y ago
    I'd rather see a random list of posts that are actually being deleted rather than examples that Twitter officially uses, before making the determination that the rule is applied fairly.
notus 7y ago
That depends entirely on their definition of dehumanizing.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The examples given seem pretty clear - calling people rats, viruses, maggots, etc.
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    Examples given do not guarantee how a policy will actually be enforced. Motte and bailey rhetoric can be used punish a broad variety of behavior while insisting the policy only exists to curtail something abhorrent.
  - notus 7y ago
    Is calling someone an asshole dehumanizing?

drocer88 7y ago

Censorship is censorship. At least they admit it.

umvi 7y ago

> So criticizing religious positions against abortion, against vaccines, against homosexuality, and in favor of the flat earth will now result in post removal. Only if you "dehumanize" said religious people. All of the examples Twitter posted involved comparing the religious in question to animals (or viruses). So, I doubt a tweet like "I don't think it's right to let the mother die because of fetus complications" would be removed, but something like "Those Christian pigs think a clump of cells are worthy of having human rights?! What kind of monkeys are leading them!" probably would.

Grue3 7y ago
Some religious people think a human fetus is a fully formed human instead of a bunch of cells that it is. From their point of view, common pro-abortion arguments are "dehumanizing".

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

cabaalis 7y ago

I am very certain that tweets criticizing these types of things (which are generally tweets against the beliefs of Christians, however misguided) will remain.

tareqak 7y ago

No, because positions are not people. If you can criticize an idea without dehumanizing the person who holds said idea, then your criticism doesn't fall into the "dehumanizing people" category.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> So criticizing religious positions against abortion, against vaccines, against homosexuality, and in favor of the flat earth will now result in post removal. I'm pretty sure you can criticize all of those positions without dehumanizing people on the basis of religion, so that conclusion seems unwarranted, and out of line with the examples of the kinds of posts that would be removed by the policy.