5 ms·

I fully agree but it's getting increasingly hard to make this argument with a straight face given that the tech companies in question still host numerous other

I fully agree but it's getting increasingly hard to make this argument with a straight face given that the tech companies in question still host numerous other hate groups. Twitter still allows the leaders of the Taliban and the Nation of Islam to post. It's clear that the "line" we're talking about is arbitrarily set for different groups based on some unknown criteria, and that IMO is part of the problem.

michaericalribo 6y ago
I think the criterion is pretty clear: this stopped being a matter of speech or rhetoric, and started being a matter of real-world violence and unrest. For the record, I think all extremists should be banned, including the Taliban and Iran.
- tidepod12 6y ago
  Because the Taliban doesn't commit acts of real-world violence and unrest...?
  - mbreese 6y ago
    I'm guessing it's because they don't advertise^ plans for violence in public... or on Twitter. Edit: ^specific plans
    - tidepod12 6y ago
      https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1346373559812300800 https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1346373559812300800 This is the official spokesman of the Taliban posting a propaganda video of a militant bragging about waging jihad. https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1343458261459218432 https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1343458261459218432 This is another video (and also see part2 of the tweet, which is posted as a reply to this one) where militants holding guns talk about their plan to kill the government leaders of Afghanistan.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        These Silicon Valley-based corporations are no doubt highly ineffective at moderating content outside of a specific American, Anglophone context. Certainly the Rohingya know the fruits of their failure: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16574370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16574370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15296442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15296442
        megous 6y ago
        Hmm, that sounds a whole lot like the basis for banings of Parler. Inability/unwillingness to moderate such things effectively. In the end this is all about some virtue signaling towards their own employees (so that they don't start quitting and are not unhappy) and about money.
  - michaericalribo 6y ago
    My apologies, I edited my comment but you responded before my update... That said, a big difference is that the taliban are not actively inciting Americans to storm the capitol en masse.* And there’s not much domestic debate that they’re a problem. My belief is Twitter was pushed to this extent by the fact that it’s the president of the US, an inherently credible figure with huge sway among American citizens. *edit to add: by ‘actively’ I mean ‘successfully, across thousands of Americans.’ They both incite violence in the US, but so far only Trump et al have accomplished a riot in DC that killed police...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - michaericalribo 6y ago
    Also, I don’t think it’s unreasonable—or even controversial—that we would hold the _president of the United States_ to a higher standard of conduct than the taliban. Especially with respect to the impact he has on the day to day operations of the US and the actions of tens of millions of Americans...
    - tidepod12 6y ago
      In the current context, we aren't talking about the president of the united states, we're talking about a bunch of random people on Parler. But if your point is that government officials should be held to a higher standard than random, non-official peoples, I agree... which is why it seems like an arbitrary wrong to me that the official leaders of the Taliban are still able to post videos calling for the death of nonbelievers. If, rather, your point is that we don't care about the Taliban because the ongoing deaths of thousands of people in Afghanistan is something that our society cares less about than the death of a handful of Americans... well, I suppose you're right, but I'm not sure how I feel about agreeing with that.
      - michaericalribo 6y ago
        You’re very right on two points^: 1. I’m getting mixed up vis a vis Parler vs Trump vs Twitter vs AWS vs the rest...and you’re right that it _is_ wrong for Twitter to give the Taliban a platform to spew vile shit. That said, I think the conduct of American officials is of much greater proximate concern than the Taliban off in Afghanistan... 2. ...but that doesn’t excuse senseless deaths of foreign people. It’s not surprising that Twitter aws et al are more responsive to active threats to American lives than Afghani lives, though it is disappointing—if it’s the case. But I’m not under the impression the Taliban is actively and publicly and widespreadly planning murder and riots on Twitter. ^at least these two, I’m not passing judgement on others.
- chasd00 6y ago
  you may think they should but they haven't. if there's not a huge wave of bans of the next few weeks then the hypocrisy will be impossible to ignore.
mahastore 6y ago
The line is very clear. We are not those people and we hold ourselves to a higher bar than them. We don't want to descend to their level. Hate for them shouldn't turn us into them.
- tidepod12 6y ago
  I'm not sure who "we" is referring to, but if you're referring to America, the Nation of Islam is an American political/religious group based in Chicago that routinely calls for the death of Jewish people (they also advocate for the death of Asians, teach that all white people are satanic, and are anti-vaxxers). "We" already have descended to their level, and yet Twitter allows them to remain.
  - mahastore 6y ago
    Not "we" as in "all of us". Lets keep the psychos out.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AI_WAIFU 6y ago
The criteria is very clear. If you're part of the outgroup, you get banned, if you're part of the fargroup nobody cares, if you're part of the ingroup you get a signal boost. It's basic human tribal dynamics that we've understood for decades. It explains almost all of the data we've observed so far about which high profile figures do or do not get banned.
ghaff 6y ago
The criteria seem pretty clear. The reputational (and other) risks to their business passed a certain, admittedly ill-defined, threshold. If enough of the "right" people raise a public stink about other individuals or groups, those will get dropped too.

michaericalribo 6y ago

I think the criterion is pretty clear: this stopped being a matter of speech or rhetoric, and started being a matter of real-world violence and unrest. For the record, I think all extremists should be banned, including the Taliban and Iran.

tidepod12 6y ago
Because the Taliban doesn't commit acts of real-world violence and unrest...?
- mbreese 6y ago
  I'm guessing it's because they don't advertise^ plans for violence in public... or on Twitter. Edit: ^specific plans
  - tidepod12 6y ago
    https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1346373559812300800 https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1346373559812300800 This is the official spokesman of the Taliban posting a propaganda video of a militant bragging about waging jihad. https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1343458261459218432 https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1343458261459218432 This is another video (and also see part2 of the tweet, which is posted as a reply to this one) where militants holding guns talk about their plan to kill the government leaders of Afghanistan.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      These Silicon Valley-based corporations are no doubt highly ineffective at moderating content outside of a specific American, Anglophone context. Certainly the Rohingya know the fruits of their failure: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16574370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16574370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15296442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15296442
      - megous 6y ago
        Hmm, that sounds a whole lot like the basis for banings of Parler. Inability/unwillingness to moderate such things effectively. In the end this is all about some virtue signaling towards their own employees (so that they don't start quitting and are not unhappy) and about money.
- michaericalribo 6y ago
  My apologies, I edited my comment but you responded before my update... That said, a big difference is that the taliban are not actively inciting Americans to storm the capitol en masse.* And there’s not much domestic debate that they’re a problem. My belief is Twitter was pushed to this extent by the fact that it’s the president of the US, an inherently credible figure with huge sway among American citizens. *edit to add: by ‘actively’ I mean ‘successfully, across thousands of Americans.’ They both incite violence in the US, but so far only Trump et al have accomplished a riot in DC that killed police...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- michaericalribo 6y ago
  Also, I don’t think it’s unreasonable—or even controversial—that we would hold the _president of the United States_ to a higher standard of conduct than the taliban. Especially with respect to the impact he has on the day to day operations of the US and the actions of tens of millions of Americans...
  - tidepod12 6y ago
    In the current context, we aren't talking about the president of the united states, we're talking about a bunch of random people on Parler. But if your point is that government officials should be held to a higher standard than random, non-official peoples, I agree... which is why it seems like an arbitrary wrong to me that the official leaders of the Taliban are still able to post videos calling for the death of nonbelievers. If, rather, your point is that we don't care about the Taliban because the ongoing deaths of thousands of people in Afghanistan is something that our society cares less about than the death of a handful of Americans... well, I suppose you're right, but I'm not sure how I feel about agreeing with that.
    - michaericalribo 6y ago
      You’re very right on two points^: 1. I’m getting mixed up vis a vis Parler vs Trump vs Twitter vs AWS vs the rest...and you’re right that it _is_ wrong for Twitter to give the Taliban a platform to spew vile shit. That said, I think the conduct of American officials is of much greater proximate concern than the Taliban off in Afghanistan... 2. ...but that doesn’t excuse senseless deaths of foreign people. It’s not surprising that Twitter aws et al are more responsive to active threats to American lives than Afghani lives, though it is disappointing—if it’s the case. But I’m not under the impression the Taliban is actively and publicly and widespreadly planning murder and riots on Twitter. ^at least these two, I’m not passing judgement on others.
chasd00 6y ago
you may think they should but they haven't. if there's not a huge wave of bans of the next few weeks then the hypocrisy will be impossible to ignore.

mahastore 6y ago

The line is very clear. We are not those people and we hold ourselves to a higher bar than them. We don't want to descend to their level. Hate for them shouldn't turn us into them.

tidepod12 6y ago
I'm not sure who "we" is referring to, but if you're referring to America, the Nation of Islam is an American political/religious group based in Chicago that routinely calls for the death of Jewish people (they also advocate for the death of Asians, teach that all white people are satanic, and are anti-vaxxers). "We" already have descended to their level, and yet Twitter allows them to remain.
- mahastore 6y ago
  Not "we" as in "all of us". Lets keep the psychos out.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

AI_WAIFU 6y ago

The criteria is very clear. If you're part of the outgroup, you get banned, if you're part of the fargroup nobody cares, if you're part of the ingroup you get a signal boost. It's basic human tribal dynamics that we've understood for decades. It explains almost all of the data we've observed so far about which high profile figures do or do not get banned.

ghaff 6y ago

The criteria seem pretty clear. The reputational (and other) risks to their business passed a certain, admittedly ill-defined, threshold. If enough of the "right" people raise a public stink about other individuals or groups, those will get dropped too.