5 ms·

I think being allowed to die on your own terms is a right that every human should have. And I think assisted suicide is a good thing. But I don’t understand wh

I think being allowed to die on your own terms is a right that every human should have. And I think assisted suicide is a good thing. But I don’t understand why Twitter would block the Bishop for saying what he said. And the reason they gave, that it “promotes self harm”.. that’s straight up Kafkaesque.

garmaine 6y ago
The simplest answer is that a bot at twitter initiated the ban, the the low-paid worker who managed the appeal didn't have enough of a grasp of academic English and/or catholic theology to understand that the tweet in question was actually against assisted suicide.
- hntrader 6y ago
  That's plausible, but he was also turned down on appeal, which was probably by a different pair of eyes.
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    Yeah: the first set of eyes. Before then, it's pure automation (afaik).
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - hntrader 6y ago
      Good point, the appeal may have been the first time a human reviewed the case, I was assuming otherwise.
- trasz 6y ago
  Of course it was against euthanasia, why would anyone get banned for being pro euthanasia?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > why would anyone get banned for being pro euthanasia? Because it's explicitly against the rules. "You may not promote or encourage suicide or self-harm." https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorifying-self-harm https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorifying-se...
    - trasz 6y ago
      Euthanasia is not self-harm, quite the contrary.
      - hntrader 6y ago
        It is suicide, though, and therefore seems to be against the rules as they're stated
        trasz 6y ago
        It could be argued that performing a surgical procedure is harm - after all it destroys various tissues using a knife. But there’s a difference, and it’s the same difference as between euthanasia and suicide.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        It could be argued that Twitter put "self" in front of "harm" for a reason.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        "or"
    - 4ggr0 6y ago
      Euthanasia is an official, assisted(!) suicide. We could technically label it as a plain suicide, but that's not what it is. It's an official procedure, assisted by doctors, and not allowed spontaneously for everyone. That would be like saying a limb amputation is illegal to talk about on Twitter, because amputating a limb equals to self-harm.
gadders 6y ago
A friend of mine got a warning from Twitter for promoting self-harming last week after he gave someone a link to some documents and said "There you go. Knock yourself out."
- throw0932439 6y ago
  I got a similar one for just replying in a joking manner about cutting off a limb (in context this was very clearly a joke). I appealed it, but nope, denied.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Yeah. Twitter's enforcement systems have a) an inability to handle clear sarcasm and b) a corresponding inability to handle coded language that's a clear violation of TOS to a human reviewer.
    - christophilus 6y ago
      To be fair, humans (at least those commenting on HN) appear to be terrible at handling sarcasm. Almost every sarcastic comment I’ve written has gotten an angry reply by a literalist.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Assume you are right, the way it is being implemented is by threatening doctors to pull the trigger. Humans are too stupid to implement this without horrifying consequences. In the Netherlands a ‘hilarious’ scene occurred when a doctor showed up and killed a patient who was screaming not wanting to die in front of their family. Apparently the patient was not in a mental state to decide not to die after previously being in the state wanting to. Ha
- flerchin 6y ago
  Link or GTFO
  - nark1337 6y ago
    I was interested as well so went looking. He is probably referencing this. It was the first article I could find on it. You have to read below the fold to get a decent sense of what happened. A key paragraph is included below. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49660525 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49660525 "After being diagnosed with Alzheimer's four years before she died, the patient wrote a statement saying that she wanted to be euthanized before entering a care home - but that she wanted to decide when the time was right. Before she was taken into care, a doctor decided that assisted suicide should be administered based on her prior statement. This was confirmed by two separate doctors independently and a date was set. When the day came to end the woman's life, a sedative was put in her coffee and she lost consciousness. But the woman then woke up and had to be held down by her daughter and husband while the process was finished."
  - mod 6y ago
    I spent about 10 seconds googling for you: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49660525 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49660525
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
nashashmi 6y ago
I feel like the words of the bishop could be perceive as encouraging suicide when framed in that context. As it was framed by the algorithm. The human reviewers just took that same context not knowing the politics of assisted suicide.

garmaine 6y ago

The simplest answer is that a bot at twitter initiated the ban, the the low-paid worker who managed the appeal didn't have enough of a grasp of academic English and/or catholic theology to understand that the tweet in question was actually against assisted suicide.

hntrader 6y ago
That's plausible, but he was also turned down on appeal, which was probably by a different pair of eyes.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  Yeah: the first set of eyes. Before then, it's pure automation (afaik).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - hntrader 6y ago
    Good point, the appeal may have been the first time a human reviewed the case, I was assuming otherwise.
trasz 6y ago
Of course it was against euthanasia, why would anyone get banned for being pro euthanasia?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > why would anyone get banned for being pro euthanasia? Because it's explicitly against the rules. "You may not promote or encourage suicide or self-harm." https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorifying-self-harm https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorifying-se...
  - trasz 6y ago
    Euthanasia is not self-harm, quite the contrary.
    - hntrader 6y ago
      It is suicide, though, and therefore seems to be against the rules as they're stated
      - trasz 6y ago
        It could be argued that performing a surgical procedure is harm - after all it destroys various tissues using a knife. But there’s a difference, and it’s the same difference as between euthanasia and suicide.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        It could be argued that Twitter put "self" in front of "harm" for a reason.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      "or"
  - 4ggr0 6y ago
    Euthanasia is an official, assisted(!) suicide. We could technically label it as a plain suicide, but that's not what it is. It's an official procedure, assisted by doctors, and not allowed spontaneously for everyone. That would be like saying a limb amputation is illegal to talk about on Twitter, because amputating a limb equals to self-harm.

gadders 6y ago

A friend of mine got a warning from Twitter for promoting self-harming last week after he gave someone a link to some documents and said "There you go. Knock yourself out."

throw0932439 6y ago
I got a similar one for just replying in a joking manner about cutting off a limb (in context this was very clearly a joke). I appealed it, but nope, denied.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Yeah. Twitter's enforcement systems have a) an inability to handle clear sarcasm and b) a corresponding inability to handle coded language that's a clear violation of TOS to a human reviewer.
  - christophilus 6y ago
    To be fair, humans (at least those commenting on HN) appear to be terrible at handling sarcasm. Almost every sarcastic comment I’ve written has gotten an angry reply by a literalist.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Assume you are right, the way it is being implemented is by threatening doctors to pull the trigger. Humans are too stupid to implement this without horrifying consequences. In the Netherlands a ‘hilarious’ scene occurred when a doctor showed up and killed a patient who was screaming not wanting to die in front of their family. Apparently the patient was not in a mental state to decide not to die after previously being in the state wanting to. Ha

flerchin 6y ago
Link or GTFO
- nark1337 6y ago
  I was interested as well so went looking. He is probably referencing this. It was the first article I could find on it. You have to read below the fold to get a decent sense of what happened. A key paragraph is included below. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49660525 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49660525 "After being diagnosed with Alzheimer's four years before she died, the patient wrote a statement saying that she wanted to be euthanized before entering a care home - but that she wanted to decide when the time was right. Before she was taken into care, a doctor decided that assisted suicide should be administered based on her prior statement. This was confirmed by two separate doctors independently and a date was set. When the day came to end the woman's life, a sedative was put in her coffee and she lost consciousness. But the woman then woke up and had to be held down by her daughter and husband while the process was finished."
- mod 6y ago
  I spent about 10 seconds googling for you: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49660525 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49660525
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

nashashmi 6y ago

I feel like the words of the bishop could be perceive as encouraging suicide when framed in that context. As it was framed by the algorithm. The human reviewers just took that same context not knowing the politics of assisted suicide.