5 ms·

That's very simplistic thinking. The rules could say absolutely no racism which sounds reasonable but then the definition might get blown wide open when a liber

That's very simplistic thinking. The rules could say absolutely no racism which sounds reasonable but then the definition might get blown wide open when a liberal Gov say they need to restrict immigration, if you don't agree with that person that said it you could easily spin that they broke the TOS. Why do I even have to try and explain this?

jacobolus 7y ago
“We should restrict immigration to limit labor supply so that the native born can earn better wages” is not the same type of message as “immigrants are cockroaches and we should shoot refugees as they cross the border.” “We should reject colonial oppression of our country” is not the same type of message as “we must wage religious war against our oppressors, and it is righteous to for young men to be suicide bombers”. “We should end affirmative action on the basis of race because it isn’t fair to individual members of the majority group” is not the same type of message as “all members of X minority are inherently worthless, and we should purge them”. “Rape accusations should be handled by law enforcement professionals rather than by school administrators, and the evidence should need to meet a high legal standard to be actionable” is not the same type of message as “X person claims they were raped but everyone knows they are a lying slut and were asking for it.” Etc. Why do I even have to try and explain this? > The rules could say absolutely no racism This is not what the rules do say. What they “could say” is not relevant here. The rules say: “Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.” This is elaborated here if you want to read about it https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-condu... Specifically disallowed are (1) violent threats, (2) wishing, hoping or calling for serious harm on a person or group of people, (3) references to mass murder, violent events, or specific means of violence where protected groups have been the primary targets or victims, (4) inciting fear about a protected category, (5) repeated and/or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone, (6) hateful imagery
- bendbro 7y ago
  Pessimistic view follows, but: All of your acceptable examples most definitely fall under "inciting fear about a protected category". Also, wouldn't "references to mass murder, violent events, or specific means of violence where protected groups have been the primary targets or victims" prohibit Jews from speaking about the holocaust?
  - mroche 7y ago
    The explainer part of the terms (actually reading then clarified a lot): > We prohibit targeting individuals with content that references forms of violence or violent events where a protected category was the primary target or victims, where the intent is to harass. This includes, but is not limited to sending someone: > media that depicts victims of the Holocaust; > media that depicts lynchings.
    - bendbro 7y ago
      Ah, then my earlier point is not correct. Thanks
- whiddershins 7y ago
  It’s very hard to see it, but these rules facilitate bias. When I listened to the interview on Joe Rogan with the Trust and Safety officer, one of the examples she gave was the Milo Youannopolis quote “the world would have been better off if your mother banged you on the rock as a baby” or something to that effect. This is gross, and offensive, but not a threat. It’s not a threat to talk hyperbolically about a hypothetical and ridiculous past event. Unless you already find a person scary. In which case it very very much sounds like a threat, or an incitement to violence. Language needs context and if you believe that people with certain characteristics (including political orientation) are more likely to be violently dangerous, it is absolutely natural to view things they say as more threatening than you might otherwise. It’s still bias. It’s bias if a policeman finds “I have a gun in the glove compartment, and a license for it” more threatening based on someone’s race. If it were based on some real or perceived fact about the world, still bias. Actually definitionally bias. Humans use bias (context) to make sense of the world. And that context (bias) is necessary for communication to makes any sense. Which means those rules can only be implemented in a way that reflects the bias of whomever is implementing them.

jacobolus 7y ago

“We should restrict immigration to limit labor supply so that the native born can earn better wages” is not the same type of message as “immigrants are cockroaches and we should shoot refugees as they cross the border.” “We should reject colonial oppression of our country” is not the same type of message as “we must wage religious war against our oppressors, and it is righteous to for young men to be suicide bombers”. “We should end affirmative action on the basis of race because it isn’t fair to individual members of the majority group” is not the same type of message as “all members of X minority are inherently worthless, and we should purge them”. “Rape accusations should be handled by law enforcement professionals rather than by school administrators, and the evidence should need to meet a high legal standard to be actionable” is not the same type of message as “X person claims they were raped but everyone knows they are a lying slut and were asking for it.” Etc. Why do I even have to try and explain this? > The rules could say absolutely no racism This is not what the rules do say. What they “could say” is not relevant here. The rules say: “Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.” This is elaborated here if you want to read about it https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-condu... Specifically disallowed are (1) violent threats, (2) wishing, hoping or calling for serious harm on a person or group of people, (3) references to mass murder, violent events, or specific means of violence where protected groups have been the primary targets or victims, (4) inciting fear about a protected category, (5) repeated and/or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone, (6) hateful imagery

bendbro 7y ago
Pessimistic view follows, but: All of your acceptable examples most definitely fall under "inciting fear about a protected category". Also, wouldn't "references to mass murder, violent events, or specific means of violence where protected groups have been the primary targets or victims" prohibit Jews from speaking about the holocaust?
- mroche 7y ago
  The explainer part of the terms (actually reading then clarified a lot): > We prohibit targeting individuals with content that references forms of violence or violent events where a protected category was the primary target or victims, where the intent is to harass. This includes, but is not limited to sending someone: > media that depicts victims of the Holocaust; > media that depicts lynchings.
  - bendbro 7y ago
    Ah, then my earlier point is not correct. Thanks
whiddershins 7y ago
It’s very hard to see it, but these rules facilitate bias. When I listened to the interview on Joe Rogan with the Trust and Safety officer, one of the examples she gave was the Milo Youannopolis quote “the world would have been better off if your mother banged you on the rock as a baby” or something to that effect. This is gross, and offensive, but not a threat. It’s not a threat to talk hyperbolically about a hypothetical and ridiculous past event. Unless you already find a person scary. In which case it very very much sounds like a threat, or an incitement to violence. Language needs context and if you believe that people with certain characteristics (including political orientation) are more likely to be violently dangerous, it is absolutely natural to view things they say as more threatening than you might otherwise. It’s still bias. It’s bias if a policeman finds “I have a gun in the glove compartment, and a license for it” more threatening based on someone’s race. If it were based on some real or perceived fact about the world, still bias. Actually definitionally bias. Humans use bias (context) to make sense of the world. And that context (bias) is necessary for communication to makes any sense. Which means those rules can only be implemented in a way that reflects the bias of whomever is implementing them.