5 ms·

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

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.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      I am in agreement that there's a distinction. (I am also an advocate of legalizing euthanasia in a variety of scenarios.) In my experience, social media moderation doesn't make much room for this sort of nuance.

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.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    I am in agreement that there's a distinction. (I am also an advocate of legalizing euthanasia in a variety of scenarios.) In my experience, social media moderation doesn't make much room for this sort of nuance.