5 ms·

I am not on Twitter, but wasn't #HangMikePence trending a few days ago? Isn't it a bit hypocritical when one of the biggest social network is allowed to do the

I am not on Twitter, but wasn't #HangMikePence trending a few days ago? Isn't it a bit hypocritical when one of the biggest social network is allowed to do the same thing?

arenaninja 6y ago
It was a hashtag about a video of the DC rioters chanting it. Context matters, and in this context it wasn't hypocritical at all Source: not on twitter but am familiar with the video
- nromiun 6y ago
  It seems like there were some death threats on Twitter as well. Most of them were removed so I can't find any direct source. > When the rioters could not find and fulfil their ill-formed dreams in the real life, they took to Twitter to express their wish to hang Mike Pence, and soon the phrase started trending on Twitter. [0] 0. https://www.wionews.com/world/twitter-blocks-phrase-hang-mike-pence-as-trump-supporters-turn-against-him-355959?&ampcf=1 https://www.wionews.com/world/twitter-blocks-phrase-hang-mik...
- finikytou 6y ago
  I dont understand your point... Couldn't people watch this video and think that they were right? Hence twitter was doing exactly the same thing than parler. It is not because you are under the impression that twitter is a democrat tool that people not thinking like you are using the platform to commit crime, promote violence, learn how to be violent and racist
  - arenaninja 6y ago
    What I mean is originally the hashtag was being used to spread the video. You're right, people took it out of context and started making actual threats. But that's when Twitter removed it all and banned the tag. This seems different from Parler which AWS asserts still hadn't addressed content they had flagged as violations before
yoav 6y ago
Ya but they deleted that trend and those tweets and users violated the guidelines and were warned, suspended, etc. Parler refused to do anything about it and built their whole business on being a safe space for people wanting to incite and plan violence. That’s the difference.
api 6y ago
I've come down to a "both things are true" position on this. Parler is absolutely guilty of violating TOS because as near as I can tell the entire purpose of Parler was to facilitate this kind of discussion. That being said, there is a double standard at work as well. The fascist movement we're discussing here probably would not exist were it not for the YouTube recommendation algorithm, which in an effort to keep people on the site has a powerful "rabbit hole" effect. Twitter has also been full of propaganda for years, and only recently have they put forth much effort to do anything about it... because they were making money off the attention it brought to the platform. Nothing happens to these companies because they are bigger, have more money, and own their own infrastructure.
kordlessagain 6y ago
Being hypocritical requires an individual to be in that state, but here you mention a vague group being in that state, which isn't a thing.
yashap 6y ago
Amazon’s main argument seems to be that they’ve been asking Parler to remove overt calls to violence since mid/late November, but Parler have refused. While Twitter does moderate this sort of thing, especially when asked to do so. I believe Twitter has been deleting #KillMikePence Tweets that are actually calling for violence, but haven’t been moderating Tweets that aren’t overt threats, like “OMG #KillMikePence was trending on Twitter”, or “Capitol rioters were chanting #KillMikePence” type Tweets. If that’s all true, then to me it seems reasonable. I’d liken it to DCMA Takedowns - if you respond to them in a timely manner, and your site’s primary purpose isn’t sharing copyrighted content, you’re fine. You’re in trouble though if you refuse to take down the copyrighted content, despite receiving DCMA Takedowns.
- gfodor 6y ago
  DMCA takedowns are defined by the legal system. The system you are describing here is completely defined by these companies. They are in their right to do so, but we ought to ask the question if we should introduce a legal structure like the DMCA to standardize it from a legal standpoint. This would cut both ways: if they de-platformed people complying with the standard, they would be in the wrong. As it is right now, AWS can just arbitrarily decide the standard. The only incentive they have to make it a reasonable one is public outcry, which is not the kind of backstop you want when it comes to possibly harming fundamental freedoms.
  - yashap 6y ago
    Yeah, at the moment companies are pretty free to refuse service like this, based on their own policies, but I think there’s a decent argument for a legal framework. The biggest tech companies are indeed a core place that communication happens, I believe formalizing what types of content should and shouldn’t be moderated could be a good idea. This would be very contentious, though. Many, many Americans would be strongly against the government telling private companies how to moderate speech on their platforms. It may even be unconstitutional - would a formal, legal framework represent the government restricting free speech?
    - 6y ago
JamesBarney 6y ago
This was addressed in the document. The basic answer is AWS doesn't host Twitter(so it's not hypocritical), and Twitter blocked this phrase.
- hnburnsy 6y ago
  This was a finely worded, AWS does not host Twitter Feeds, but they are in contract to host Twitter timelines... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Aws+to+deliver+Twitter+contract+timeline&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Aws+to+deliver+Twitter+contract+ti...

I am not on Twitter, but wasn't #HangMikePence trending a few days ago? Isn't it a bit hypocritical when one of the biggest social network is allowed to do the same thing?

arenaninja 6y ago

It was a hashtag about a video of the DC rioters chanting it. Context matters, and in this context it wasn't hypocritical at all Source: not on twitter but am familiar with the video

nromiun 6y ago
It seems like there were some death threats on Twitter as well. Most of them were removed so I can't find any direct source. > When the rioters could not find and fulfil their ill-formed dreams in the real life, they took to Twitter to express their wish to hang Mike Pence, and soon the phrase started trending on Twitter. [0] 0. https://www.wionews.com/world/twitter-blocks-phrase-hang-mike-pence-as-trump-supporters-turn-against-him-355959?&ampcf=1 https://www.wionews.com/world/twitter-blocks-phrase-hang-mik...
finikytou 6y ago
I dont understand your point... Couldn't people watch this video and think that they were right? Hence twitter was doing exactly the same thing than parler. It is not because you are under the impression that twitter is a democrat tool that people not thinking like you are using the platform to commit crime, promote violence, learn how to be violent and racist
- arenaninja 6y ago
  What I mean is originally the hashtag was being used to spread the video. You're right, people took it out of context and started making actual threats. But that's when Twitter removed it all and banned the tag. This seems different from Parler which AWS asserts still hadn't addressed content they had flagged as violations before

yoav 6y ago

Ya but they deleted that trend and those tweets and users violated the guidelines and were warned, suspended, etc. Parler refused to do anything about it and built their whole business on being a safe space for people wanting to incite and plan violence. That’s the difference.

api 6y ago

I've come down to a "both things are true" position on this. Parler is absolutely guilty of violating TOS because as near as I can tell the entire purpose of Parler was to facilitate this kind of discussion. That being said, there is a double standard at work as well. The fascist movement we're discussing here probably would not exist were it not for the YouTube recommendation algorithm, which in an effort to keep people on the site has a powerful "rabbit hole" effect. Twitter has also been full of propaganda for years, and only recently have they put forth much effort to do anything about it... because they were making money off the attention it brought to the platform. Nothing happens to these companies because they are bigger, have more money, and own their own infrastructure.

kordlessagain 6y ago

Being hypocritical requires an individual to be in that state, but here you mention a vague group being in that state, which isn't a thing.

yashap 6y ago

Amazon’s main argument seems to be that they’ve been asking Parler to remove overt calls to violence since mid/late November, but Parler have refused. While Twitter does moderate this sort of thing, especially when asked to do so. I believe Twitter has been deleting #KillMikePence Tweets that are actually calling for violence, but haven’t been moderating Tweets that aren’t overt threats, like “OMG #KillMikePence was trending on Twitter”, or “Capitol rioters were chanting #KillMikePence” type Tweets. If that’s all true, then to me it seems reasonable. I’d liken it to DCMA Takedowns - if you respond to them in a timely manner, and your site’s primary purpose isn’t sharing copyrighted content, you’re fine. You’re in trouble though if you refuse to take down the copyrighted content, despite receiving DCMA Takedowns.

gfodor 6y ago
DMCA takedowns are defined by the legal system. The system you are describing here is completely defined by these companies. They are in their right to do so, but we ought to ask the question if we should introduce a legal structure like the DMCA to standardize it from a legal standpoint. This would cut both ways: if they de-platformed people complying with the standard, they would be in the wrong. As it is right now, AWS can just arbitrarily decide the standard. The only incentive they have to make it a reasonable one is public outcry, which is not the kind of backstop you want when it comes to possibly harming fundamental freedoms.
- yashap 6y ago
  Yeah, at the moment companies are pretty free to refuse service like this, based on their own policies, but I think there’s a decent argument for a legal framework. The biggest tech companies are indeed a core place that communication happens, I believe formalizing what types of content should and shouldn’t be moderated could be a good idea. This would be very contentious, though. Many, many Americans would be strongly against the government telling private companies how to moderate speech on their platforms. It may even be unconstitutional - would a formal, legal framework represent the government restricting free speech?
  - 6y ago

JamesBarney 6y ago

This was addressed in the document. The basic answer is AWS doesn't host Twitter(so it's not hypocritical), and Twitter blocked this phrase.

hnburnsy 6y ago
This was a finely worded, AWS does not host Twitter Feeds, but they are in contract to host Twitter timelines... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Aws+to+deliver+Twitter+contract+timeline&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Aws+to+deliver+Twitter+contract+ti...