4 ms·

Everyone should read the examples so they have a clear understanding of what twitter is meaning when they say "dehumanize". It's not "hey I disagree with these

Everyone should read the examples so they have a clear understanding of what twitter is meaning when they say "dehumanize". It's not "hey I disagree with these people" it's "hey I want these people dead/injured/equated to shit". Religious and ethnic persecutions have often gone hand-in-hand. Religious minorities of all types will be helped by this, and we'll see less hate-speech on twitter. Seems to be a very reasonable step. Sidenote: any religion topic really brings out the "I have a problem with religion" types on HN.

drak0n1c 7y ago
Twitter would be better received if it were bold enough to also state specific examples of permissible religious satire/criticism. I think that would do a lot to address what people are worried about, and be a step in the direction of having more concrete rules and predictable enforcement.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  >Twitter would be better received if it were bold enough to also state specific examples of permissible religious satire/criticism Talk about a PR Minesweeper, expert mode.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
loudtieblahblah 7y ago
If experience is anything to go by, "things I don't like" or "things that offend me" get twisted into things far more severe than what is actually stated, words are now "violence" and make people feel "unsafe". This rule's application - like all rules like this - will be stretched and exaggerated to cover much more than intended and will be applied unevenly across demographics. Just like we see on Reddit when /r/ChapoTrapHouse and /r/Bad_cop_no_donut (both of which I sub to, genuinely) gets a pass, while right wing subs do not, when it comes to violent threats and comments. Atheists and Christians will get the short end of the stick on this. Mark my words.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  Well sure, because while there are Muslim and Jewish activist groups on Twitter's Trust and Safety Council there are no groups dedicated to defending Christians or Atheists. https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html

drak0n1c 7y ago

Twitter would be better received if it were bold enough to also state specific examples of permissible religious satire/criticism. I think that would do a lot to address what people are worried about, and be a step in the direction of having more concrete rules and predictable enforcement.

creaghpatr 7y ago
>Twitter would be better received if it were bold enough to also state specific examples of permissible religious satire/criticism Talk about a PR Minesweeper, expert mode.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

loudtieblahblah 7y ago

If experience is anything to go by, "things I don't like" or "things that offend me" get twisted into things far more severe than what is actually stated, words are now "violence" and make people feel "unsafe". This rule's application - like all rules like this - will be stretched and exaggerated to cover much more than intended and will be applied unevenly across demographics. Just like we see on Reddit when /r/ChapoTrapHouse and /r/Bad_cop_no_donut (both of which I sub to, genuinely) gets a pass, while right wing subs do not, when it comes to violent threats and comments. Atheists and Christians will get the short end of the stick on this. Mark my words.

creaghpatr 7y ago
Well sure, because while there are Muslim and Jewish activist groups on Twitter's Trust and Safety Council there are no groups dedicated to defending Christians or Atheists. https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html