8 ms·
Eh? Do you have any examples? This is nothing new, Twitter has been applying this standard to tweets for a very long time (it's part of their ToS!). It usually
by phailhaus 6y ago
Eh? Do you have any examples? This is nothing new, Twitter has been applying this standard to tweets for a very long time (it's part of their ToS!). It usually results in deleting your tweet or an outright ban. The only difference here is that they've kept the tweet up since they deem it to be in the public's interest.
- formalsystem 6y agohttps://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1266340243134963712 https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1266340243134963712 EDIT: Scroll down a bit, the original poster made their account private a few moments ago
- geofft 6y agoIt's been a couple of hours - in general, saying stuff like that actually does in fact get Twitter's content moderation to kick in and force you to delete the tweet, and I regularly see folks who aren't conservative get temporary suspensions for it.
- dunkelheit 6y ago> It's been a couple of hours She posted that tweet more like 11 hours ago. Since that time it has become somewhat infamous - I've seen it in my deliberately not-politicized timeline and separately here on HN. What is the chance their content moderation team hasn't seen it?
- augustt 6y agoDamaging property is not violence.
- dnissley 6y agoBy pretty much every definition it is violence.
- Avicebron 6y agoThis is not quite true, losing property can cause real material harm to someone. If my house burns down and I'm on the streets, there is a real chance of harm to my person. Also now apparently words can be violence and cause the cancellation of someone..pretty sure it's all up for grabs now.
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoIt literally is part of the definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence
- adrianmonk 6y agoIn this case, doesn't Twitter's definition of violence matter more than the dictionary's definition? Here it is: > Glorification of violence policy ... > You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence. (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification-of-violence https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification...)
- Simulacra 6y agoWhat if a person said it as opinion: Looting has the potential to initiate shootings. Are we looking at an opinion, an observation, or glorying violence.
- joshuamorton 6y agoIf I said that, it's an observation. If the chief of police said that, it's an implied threat. This is because I don't have the power to initiate shootings, while the chief of police does. There is a power differential, and statements can be viewed in the context of the person making them. This is why phrases like "we should nuke them from orbit", which might be calls to violence if made by a head of state, are generally seen as satire, because there's no chance of me actually nuking someone from orbit. Context matters.
- adrianmonk 6y agoIf some hypothetical person said it as an opinion or an observation, you'd have to look at Twitter's policy and try to understand the spirit of the law. Threats are a direct form of pro-violence speech, and glorifying violence is an indirect form of pro-violence speech, so it seem to cover a spectrum to me. But whichever way they interpret it, all that really matters when it comes to fairness is that they are consistent. If we look at a very non-hypothetical person named Donald Trump, he wrote "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" immediately after "I won't let that happen" and "the Military" and "we will assume control". Without context, the words could be just an opinion or observation, but in the context he used them, that's not a reasonable interpretation. You don't mention sending in the military (who have guns, obviously) and then mention shooting as a total non sequitur in the next sentence. If somehow improbably he meant it to be an opinion or observation, he phrased it terribly, and Twitter is within their rights to interpret it how he wrote it.
- Nasrudith 6y agoI am pretty sure you would disagree if someone started smashing your front door or car. It is at best technically true in a deeply misleading way like calling a surgeon "a professional cutter and organ remover from the helpless".
- augustt 6y agoI wouldn't be too happy, but to me violence is damaging a living thing. Not property.
- Nasrudith 6y agoThere is an implied threat and cohersion to it of "do it or else" or "I can break you too". That is the violence against the person. Smashing your own car in front of somebody's house wouldn't include that threat as it is their property to what they wish although it would make you look crazy.
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoI have a cane that I need to use to walk. Somebody breaks my cane. What is that?
- Rychard 6y agoSuch a scenario would be unfortunate. The lack of context makes it impossible to determine with any certainty.
- vkou 6y agoIt's something similar to buying up the rights for, and increasing the price of a life-necessarry drug by 2000%. Is that also violence?
- wtetzner 6y agoI can see an argument that it is.
- 6y ago
- phailhaus 6y agoWhatever tweet he retweeted, it's now unavailable. Looks like Twitter's moderation policies are working as expected.
- ImprobableTruth 6y agoThey protected their tweets.
- Y_Y 6y ago@oliviagatwood helpfully lists her pronouns in her twitter bio as "she/her".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dnissley 6y agoShe just made her tweets private is why that's happening
- Y_Y 6y ago"burn it down. fuck property. fuck cops." That's what the tweet says, there are screenshots in the replies.
- Simulacra 6y agoLet's compare that to "when the looting starts the shooting begins". Which is an observation, and which is a directive? I think that is the key question that Twitter is dodging. They want to editorialize with their opinion as to which is which, but not for everyone.
- techntoke 6y agoHacker News frequently threatens censorship, prevents users from responding for several hours, etc. Do you think they should have that right since it is their platform?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Miner49er 6y ago"Violence" against property doesn't really compare to killing people, IMO. I don't really even think property damage should be included in the definition of "violence" and maybe Twitter agrees with me. She also didn't say what to burn down. Trump was very clear that looters are who he wanted shot. Burn it down is a common saying that can mean anything from literally burning stuff to just tearing down a system in order to rebuild.
- rayiner 6y ago> "Violence" against property doesn't really compare to killing people, IMO. That's the kind of thing that results in the insidious left-wing bias of sites like Twitter. Moderators who don't believe that property damage is a blatant violation of peoples' rights, but do believe peoples' rights are violated by mere words alone, and moderating in accordance with such views.
- Simulacra 6y agoProperty damage is absolutely a violation of people's rights, which is why property was added to the constitution. Outrage does not negate a business owners rights.
- geofft 6y agoLet me make sure I understand your position properly - are you saying that it is insidious left-sing bias to believe that people's rights can be violated by mere words alone? The entire purpose of Section 230 is to provide protection against civil liability for platforms who publish mere words from their users. Is your position, then, that if we remove the insidious left-wing bias from our political system, there's no need for Section 230 because platforms can never be liable for the mere words that they republish? Are all of the commentators who are asking for Twitter's Section 230 protections to be removed, including the president, part of an insidious left-wing conspiracy?
- kthxbye123 6y agoThere is no equivalence between property damage equivalent to killing, much as there is no equivalence between a random twitter user “calling for the guillotines” and the commander of the armed forces threatening to unleash a massacre. It is beyond bad faith to argue otherwise.
- misiti3780 6y agoHow about this one: https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1086927762634399744?lang=en https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1086927762634399744?...
- jrockway 6y agoThe Trump crowd sure hates Kathy Griffin today. Do you guys know that she is a comedian and not the President of the United States?
- misiti3780 6y agoim not the trump crowd
- jrockway 6y agoIf you read the replies to Trump's tweet on Twitter, half of them are whining about Kathy Griffin. She's their favorite example of how Twitter has a liberal bias today. Maybe you coincidentally picked the same example as them.
- misiti3780 6y agoI listen to both sides, and I don't pay attention to what people say on twitter too much (it's the not "real" world). again, I'm not saying this tweet is equal to what trump said, it's clearly not --- But if someone had harmed or killed one of these kids because of this dox, I'm not sure your objections would stand. And with 2.1M followers, that is in realm of possibilities Do you think twitter has a liberal bias?
- messick 6y agonah, but truth and reality does. Sorry your dude is having a sad because mean Jack won't let him tweet about gunning down American citizens.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Simulacra 6y agoWould the same happen if Theil owned Twitter, and fact checked, etc. Joe Biden? IMO we would see the opposite, and liberal politicians calling for Twitter to be taken down. One person's soap box is another's tabloid.
- phailhaus 6y agoDo you have any examples of liberal politicians calling for social media platforms to be taken down for fact checking or enforcing their terms of service? Simply saying "in my opinion they'd do the same thing" is not convincing.
- Simulacra 6y agoI'm not trying to convince you. I'm stating my opinion which you happen to disagree with. There are no liberal politicians that I can find calling for fact checking because, for now, Twitter is working in their favor.
- techntoke 6y agoLiberal politicians would be smart enough to call for decentralized syndicated social media solutions. Democrats aren't a party that needs constant media attention in order to polarize America.
- mschuster91 6y ago> Would the same happen if Theil owned Twitter, and fact checked, etc. Joe Biden? No, it would not, because generally left-wing people don't spread lies with the intention to dissuade people from voting (quite to the contrary, the left wing is fighting for people to have the right and means to vote) or call for storming the White House and start shooting.
- exclusiv 6y agoDifferent side of the coin. They often spread lies to persuade people to vote for them. Almost everyone in politics is full of it. If you believe your side is the good one and the other is bad, it's probably because it's part of your identity. And that prevents you from thinking about it honestly and results in more polarization. Once you accept they're all full of it, you will think more clearly. And you'll have better dialogue with opposing viewpoints.
- partiallypro 6y agoThere are tons of examples. Look in almost any thread and there are people calling for public hangings of politicians, assassinations. The "guillotine" crowd. People telling people to burn down the city. Some people saying anti-Semitic stuff...I've reported a lot of this. Twitter usually comes back and say they found it wasn't in violation of anything. There are other politicians, such as Chinese officials, Iranian officials the Twitter has not policed or marked as misleading despite them being outright anti-Semitic or propaganda.
- oska 6y agoIt wasn't explicitly calling for violence but Elon Musk's recent tweet [1] calling for "politicians & unelected bureaucrats" to be "tarred, feathered & thrown out of town" certainly was trending in that direction and could easily have been interpreted as a call for violence, or at least assault, by some sections of Musk's vast (35 million) collection of followers. Especially when the particular 'unelected bureaucrat' that Musk had been most vociferously complaining about and attacking, the Alameda County Health Officer, had been named in numerous news reports. [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1261100731378982912 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1261100731378982912