4 ms·

This is like the Apple photo scanning issue. Start with something all of society agrees is reprehensible and implement the tools of authoritarian censorship on

This is like the Apple photo scanning issue. Start with something all of society agrees is reprehensible and implement the tools of authoritarian censorship on that basis. "We will shortly be trialling the development of a new product feature that temporarily autoblocks accounts using harmful language" "We are also continuing to roll out our replies prompts, which encourage people to revise their replies to Tweets when it looks like the language they use could be harmful." "Everyone has a role to play - including the government" Who defines what's harmful? How long until merely unpopular views or any form of dissent is harmful language? Perhaps you think the current set of harmful-language-definers are infallible and on your side. What if that changes in 2024? What if these tools are in the hands of your enemy?

gtirloni 5y ago
What do you propose instead?
- hef19898 5y ago
  Regulation, ideally coming from an elected legislative branch of democratic governments. Like was done with mass media, e.g. radio and TV. Definitely not outsourcing that kind of stuff to companies having quasi monopolies on their services.
  - gtirloni 5y ago
    Laws against racism already exist.
- bedhead 5y ago
  Allow it. Let the racists be racist. Let them expose themselves so we all know who to ridicule and ignore. Not only has this wacky notion of free speech worked well for a long time, society has grown far less racist despite no official policing of speech. The insidiousness that comes from controlling speech is far greater than the insidiousness of a small group of assholes who say mean things. The short-sightedness of many continues to astonish me.
  - crazy_horse 5y ago
    What do you do when that leads directly to murder?
    - Trombone12 5y ago
      Say it's a great tragedy and if only people had more firearms at hand thins would be different?
    - zo1 5y ago
      Investigate and find the murderers so they can be punished?
    - jimbob45 5y ago
      You mean like the proliferation of BLM online leading to mass rioting, looting, and razing? I didn’t hear a peep from anyone that BLM should have been silenced back then. And I’m glad. BLM ran its course and that portion of society felt that they had exercised their free speech and calmed down instead of going guerilla underground.
    - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
      I struggle to understand how that could happen. Why would you choose to murder or not murder someone based on Twitter’s moderation policies?
  - iovrthoughtthis 5y ago
    reminds me of the parable of the man on the roof in a flood waiting for god to save him saying no to the people who pass by offering a lift. what if this is a part of the "ridiculing and ignoring of racists"?
  - dylan604 5y ago
    "Let them expose themselves so we all know who to charge and prosecute with criminal behavior". Fixed that for you. There are laws regarding this, so either use them or might as well eliminate them if they have no teeth. Ignoring them does not work, and only emboldens them. Ridiculing them online seems to act mostly like feeding a troll.
- dude187 5y ago
  That people ignore speech they don't like.
pyronik19 5y ago
Nailed it. No government shouldn't play a role in deciding what speech is acceptable.
- crazy_horse 5y ago
  Do you believe it has any role in this?
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    It’s likely government pressure played a role here, yes. The source doesn’t mention this, but it’s illegal to say racist things in the UK and people are being prosecuted for the incident in question. (https://apnews.com/article/euro-2020-soccer-sports-arrests-health-8741821389c53347067d2a5943858add https://apnews.com/article/euro-2020-soccer-sports-arrests-h...)
- ngcazz 5y ago
  This isn't about governments anyway, but if we're going to go that way, the government should protect its citizens, especially those from marginalized communities.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Those marginalized communities overwhelmingly don't want government or corporate regulation. No minority wants that because oppinions allowed would always need to conform to the current Zeitgeist, obviously. You are talking about fringe opinions being regulated.
- mountainb 5y ago
  There are many countries in which it is completely within the government's purview to regulate speech, including the United States. Companies like Twitter are finding themselves in an impossible situation in which their legal safe harbors are not sustainable because of the compliance overhead of operating in so many jurisdictions at the same time. Instead they just try to implement a one-size-fits-all global authoritarian standard on everyone to attempt to continue their liability dodges in each and every jurisdiction their service is available. In practice it means the entire network has to abide by the laws of the jurisdictions with the harshest speech codes. So, right, Twitter began with a perspective that the American constitutional principle of free speech is great, and that it should be spread everywhere. Now the imperial soft-power avenue of approach moves in reverse, in which Americans are going to be asked to comply with Continental standards of permissible speech.
mc32 5y ago
What Twitter really needs to do is give users better tools to ‘curate’ what they receive in their stream. Let me choose if I accept posts with foul language, hurtful language, posts with adult content, posts with NSFW pics, posts with political content, posts with inane topics (cat pics, memes, etc), posts from genZ, posts from boomers, sports, international, national, local, etc, etc. Give us the tools so we can decide what we want to receive. You [ought]1 not decide for us what we wish to consume. I want agency with regard what I consume and choose not to consume. Don't remove my agency and make me into a passive consumer of your product. [1]fixed for precision.
- dylan604 5y ago
  >You do not decide for us what we wish to consume. Except that they very much do. "You should not decide" would be better phrased.
dogleash 5y ago
"They're just getting rid of Alex Jones" the highbrow commentators said. "Why are you being so weird about protecting Alex Jones?" they wondered in the direction of anyone with even a shred of perception.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- read_if_gay_ 5y ago
  People will still unironically argue “the slippery slope is a fallacy”.

gtirloni 5y ago

What do you propose instead?

hef19898 5y ago
Regulation, ideally coming from an elected legislative branch of democratic governments. Like was done with mass media, e.g. radio and TV. Definitely not outsourcing that kind of stuff to companies having quasi monopolies on their services.
- gtirloni 5y ago
  Laws against racism already exist.
bedhead 5y ago
Allow it. Let the racists be racist. Let them expose themselves so we all know who to ridicule and ignore. Not only has this wacky notion of free speech worked well for a long time, society has grown far less racist despite no official policing of speech. The insidiousness that comes from controlling speech is far greater than the insidiousness of a small group of assholes who say mean things. The short-sightedness of many continues to astonish me.
- crazy_horse 5y ago
  What do you do when that leads directly to murder?
  - Trombone12 5y ago
    Say it's a great tragedy and if only people had more firearms at hand thins would be different?
  - zo1 5y ago
    Investigate and find the murderers so they can be punished?
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    You mean like the proliferation of BLM online leading to mass rioting, looting, and razing? I didn’t hear a peep from anyone that BLM should have been silenced back then. And I’m glad. BLM ran its course and that portion of society felt that they had exercised their free speech and calmed down instead of going guerilla underground.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    I struggle to understand how that could happen. Why would you choose to murder or not murder someone based on Twitter’s moderation policies?
- iovrthoughtthis 5y ago
  reminds me of the parable of the man on the roof in a flood waiting for god to save him saying no to the people who pass by offering a lift. what if this is a part of the "ridiculing and ignoring of racists"?
- dylan604 5y ago
  "Let them expose themselves so we all know who to charge and prosecute with criminal behavior". Fixed that for you. There are laws regarding this, so either use them or might as well eliminate them if they have no teeth. Ignoring them does not work, and only emboldens them. Ridiculing them online seems to act mostly like feeding a troll.
dude187 5y ago
That people ignore speech they don't like.

pyronik19 5y ago

Nailed it. No government shouldn't play a role in deciding what speech is acceptable.

crazy_horse 5y ago
Do you believe it has any role in this?
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  It’s likely government pressure played a role here, yes. The source doesn’t mention this, but it’s illegal to say racist things in the UK and people are being prosecuted for the incident in question. (https://apnews.com/article/euro-2020-soccer-sports-arrests-health-8741821389c53347067d2a5943858add https://apnews.com/article/euro-2020-soccer-sports-arrests-h...)
ngcazz 5y ago
This isn't about governments anyway, but if we're going to go that way, the government should protect its citizens, especially those from marginalized communities.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Those marginalized communities overwhelmingly don't want government or corporate regulation. No minority wants that because oppinions allowed would always need to conform to the current Zeitgeist, obviously. You are talking about fringe opinions being regulated.
mountainb 5y ago
There are many countries in which it is completely within the government's purview to regulate speech, including the United States. Companies like Twitter are finding themselves in an impossible situation in which their legal safe harbors are not sustainable because of the compliance overhead of operating in so many jurisdictions at the same time. Instead they just try to implement a one-size-fits-all global authoritarian standard on everyone to attempt to continue their liability dodges in each and every jurisdiction their service is available. In practice it means the entire network has to abide by the laws of the jurisdictions with the harshest speech codes. So, right, Twitter began with a perspective that the American constitutional principle of free speech is great, and that it should be spread everywhere. Now the imperial soft-power avenue of approach moves in reverse, in which Americans are going to be asked to comply with Continental standards of permissible speech.

mc32 5y ago

What Twitter really needs to do is give users better tools to ‘curate’ what they receive in their stream. Let me choose if I accept posts with foul language, hurtful language, posts with adult content, posts with NSFW pics, posts with political content, posts with inane topics (cat pics, memes, etc), posts from genZ, posts from boomers, sports, international, national, local, etc, etc. Give us the tools so we can decide what we want to receive. You [ought]1 not decide for us what we wish to consume. I want agency with regard what I consume and choose not to consume. Don't remove my agency and make me into a passive consumer of your product. [1]fixed for precision.

dylan604 5y ago
>You do not decide for us what we wish to consume. Except that they very much do. "You should not decide" would be better phrased.

dogleash 5y ago

"They're just getting rid of Alex Jones" the highbrow commentators said. "Why are you being so weird about protecting Alex Jones?" they wondered in the direction of anyone with even a shred of perception.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
read_if_gay_ 5y ago
People will still unironically argue “the slippery slope is a fallacy”.