6 ms·

I can see where he’s coming from, but Twitter is a media company. They are not directly responsible for anyone’s safety and have no reason to take down content

I can see where he’s coming from, but Twitter is a media company. They are not directly responsible for anyone’s safety and have no reason to take down content that isn’t a direct threat or clear defamation. That’s the police or justice system’s job. An unfortunate situation but he is barking at the wrong tree it seems.

waqasx 4y ago
there is clear defamation. they are claiming that i work for intel agencies of foreign countries, which is not true.
- ricardobeat 4y ago
  I sympathize with your situation but it doesn’t look that simple. How could Twitter verify that claim? Who should they trust? If someone was indeed hired by another foreign agency, they might as well deny it for that persons own safety. The same information war could be playing out on WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook or other networks, TV, radio, newspapers.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Defamation is a civil matter and harassment is civil or criminal depending where you live. You'd have better luck going through the police or courts. People deal with similar harassment or misinformation campaigns all the time. It isn't Twitter's job to step in unless you can point to some clear violation of their ToS.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    So Twitter provides a platform that actively facilitates defamation, then the individual and justice system has to spend lots of time and money addressing it, then Twitter gets to pocket all the ad revenue from the entire horrible ordeal? That is not fair or just, even if it is legal. And what about people in countries that don't have a functioning justice system. Twitter assists the defamer in screwing over the individual, making money in the process, and there is actually no path to justice? It's a worldview that's only possible to hold from a position of privilege.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      It isn't about privilege. You know in a lot of countries it would be considered harassment/defamation by totalitarian governments to speak out against government officials. Should Twitter be on the offense and ban people speaking out against their government in such countries merely because it may be considered harassment there? Twitter is a US company and therefore it makes sense that they would approach diplomacy from a US-worldview. It certainly is a shame that people can makeup lies about someone and create a targeted campaign against that individual, but to people on the outside it can be difficult to play referee. Elon Musk proved you can call someone a pedo without any repercussions. This is the guy that claims he is going to take over Twitter in support of free speech. The proper venue to resolve harassment and defamation campaigns is usually the courts, unless you are getting threats and I think that is a much clearer violation of the ToS that is actionable.
      - hackerlight 4y ago
        > The proper venue to resolve harassment and defamation campaigns is usually the courts This is why this perspective is so privileged. You're assuming people have access to a functioning legal system through which to correct the issue. In some rich countries, that'd cost a lot of time and money, which many people don't have. And in some poor countries without a functioning state, that's not even an option at all. It's also an inversion of morality. You're putting 100% of the onus onto the small time individual to correct the issue, and 0% of the onus onto the large corporation that actively facilitated the harassment in the first place by engineering viral mechanics that encourage mobbing. You're also placing the cost burden onto the taxpayers by burdening the judiciary, and allowing the corporation to internalize all of the gains. The victims and society pay the cost, and the corporation makes money off the victimization that it actively facilitated. It's perverse. > Twitter is a US company and therefore it makes sense that they would approach diplomacy from a US-worldview. This is just a made up excuse as to why social media companies should be allowed to actively facilitate a spectrum of outcomes ranging from harassment to populism to outright genocide. I don't care if they are a US company or not. What they're doing is wrong.
        4y ago
- nwienert 4y ago
  One thing that’s not clear. The tweet you show claims you are “appointed” to a position by a human rights org in India. But your denials all say you aren’t “working” for India, and you claim here for “intel agencies”. It would be good to be more clear on both sides. Did they appoint you or did you associate in any form? Are they an independent org or a government agency? Maybe there were multiple accusations you are rolling into one?
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    The International Human Rights Foundation (IHRF) seems to be an NGO based in New York, perhaps with offices in India as well, but they don't seem to be an organ of the Indian government. The author of this article quotes a tweet trying discredit the IHRF by claiming they are "registered in India" (might be true, but so what?)
    - kayodelycaon 4y ago
      Pakistan and India aren’t exactly on great terms.
Asooka 4y ago
Twitter has already booted former president of the USA Donald Trump due to similar conduct. As they say, with great power, comes great responsibility. Twitter have shown themselves willing to wield their power for the good of the USA, thus they should also accept their responsibility for the good of all mankind.
- ricardobeat 4y ago
  Trump was inciting civil unrest often, but I believe they set a terrible precedent by banning his account for the “I’m not attending the inauguration” tweet, based on a ton of very subtle inferences. One cannot reasonably expect them to act as a fact checker & censor for the entire world, nor would that be desirable from a private corporation. What we need is better, regulated moderation systems, and a justice system that can keep up with the pace of social media.
  - mypalmike 4y ago
    The pace of social media is insurmountable. More information is generated per second on social media than any justice system could process in a year.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      More information is generated in the material world per second than is generated on social media per year, but we haven't seen that as a reason to dismantle the justice system.
      - mypalmike 4y ago
        Nobody was advocating for dismantling the justice system. Social media specifically lends itself to widespread and high frequency libel, fraud, threats, and other illegal acts. What "material world" information manages to do so at a similar rate?
    - ricardobeat 4y ago
      What is the alternative?
hackerlight 4y ago
Nope, it isn't the police or justice system's job. That's a corporation externalizing the cost of their customer service division onto the taxpayer. Australia for example spends millions of dollars on online safety enforcement because these tech companies refuse to hire real people to remove revenge porn, impersonation, and so on.
- ricardobeat 4y ago
  That’s not right. The corporation’s job is to follow the law and abide to court orders. Identifying and prosecuting harassers is not “customer service”. If you take customer’s claims at face value what you get is people misusing the system to harass or silence even more people. They should immediately act on takedown notices, for example in the case of revenge porn, but are not a private replacement for law enforcement.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    The corporation's minimum burden is to follow the law and abide by court orders. That doesn't mean a corporation should be exempt from criticism when it does the wrong thing despite fulfilling that minimum burden. Laws are inadequate, and have loopholes. Example: A corporation could literally make it its mission to funnel all profits into buying dirty coal and burning it for no reason whatsoever. There's nothing illegal about this in many countries. "They should immediately act on takedown notices, for example in the case of revenge porn, but are not a private replacement for law enforcement." They don't immediately act on such notices. That's part of the problem. They've pushed their customer service division onto the taxpayers of rich countries. And they've outright screwed the people on poor countries (Myanmar?) that have no recourse.
indymike 4y ago
>They are not directly responsible for anyone’s safety and have no reason to take down content that isn’t a direct threat or clear defamation. From the article: the author is asking to have false, defamatory content removed. > That’s the police or justice system’s job. That is not an available option to the author of this article. The author is alleging that false posts are being made to lay the groundwork for the author being detained and tortured by the local justice system.
- fluoridation 4y ago
  >the author is asking to have false, defamatory content removed. The author is asking to have content that he says is false removed. >The author is alleging that false posts are being made to lay the groundwork for the author being detained and tortured by the local justice system. Since the tweets may be used as an excuse to have him detained, removing them will do nothing, because the government could just as easily use a different medium for the same purpose. Twitter can't prevent someone who can and wants to kidnap you from kidnapping you.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > Since the tweets may be used as an excuse to have him detained, removing them will do nothing, because the government could just as easily use a different medium for the same purpose. This is nonsense. That's like letting someone use your gun to shoot someone because they'd be able to find a gun somewhere.
    - fluoridation 4y ago
      You're right, Twitter is a gun and tweets are bullets that kill. It's a perfectly apt analogy. /s
  - indymike 4y ago
    So basically meh, they'll torture him anyway?
    - 4y ago

waqasx 4y ago

there is clear defamation. they are claiming that i work for intel agencies of foreign countries, which is not true.

ricardobeat 4y ago
I sympathize with your situation but it doesn’t look that simple. How could Twitter verify that claim? Who should they trust? If someone was indeed hired by another foreign agency, they might as well deny it for that persons own safety. The same information war could be playing out on WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook or other networks, TV, radio, newspapers.
encryptluks2 4y ago
Defamation is a civil matter and harassment is civil or criminal depending where you live. You'd have better luck going through the police or courts. People deal with similar harassment or misinformation campaigns all the time. It isn't Twitter's job to step in unless you can point to some clear violation of their ToS.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  So Twitter provides a platform that actively facilitates defamation, then the individual and justice system has to spend lots of time and money addressing it, then Twitter gets to pocket all the ad revenue from the entire horrible ordeal? That is not fair or just, even if it is legal. And what about people in countries that don't have a functioning justice system. Twitter assists the defamer in screwing over the individual, making money in the process, and there is actually no path to justice? It's a worldview that's only possible to hold from a position of privilege.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    It isn't about privilege. You know in a lot of countries it would be considered harassment/defamation by totalitarian governments to speak out against government officials. Should Twitter be on the offense and ban people speaking out against their government in such countries merely because it may be considered harassment there? Twitter is a US company and therefore it makes sense that they would approach diplomacy from a US-worldview. It certainly is a shame that people can makeup lies about someone and create a targeted campaign against that individual, but to people on the outside it can be difficult to play referee. Elon Musk proved you can call someone a pedo without any repercussions. This is the guy that claims he is going to take over Twitter in support of free speech. The proper venue to resolve harassment and defamation campaigns is usually the courts, unless you are getting threats and I think that is a much clearer violation of the ToS that is actionable.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      > The proper venue to resolve harassment and defamation campaigns is usually the courts This is why this perspective is so privileged. You're assuming people have access to a functioning legal system through which to correct the issue. In some rich countries, that'd cost a lot of time and money, which many people don't have. And in some poor countries without a functioning state, that's not even an option at all. It's also an inversion of morality. You're putting 100% of the onus onto the small time individual to correct the issue, and 0% of the onus onto the large corporation that actively facilitated the harassment in the first place by engineering viral mechanics that encourage mobbing. You're also placing the cost burden onto the taxpayers by burdening the judiciary, and allowing the corporation to internalize all of the gains. The victims and society pay the cost, and the corporation makes money off the victimization that it actively facilitated. It's perverse. > Twitter is a US company and therefore it makes sense that they would approach diplomacy from a US-worldview. This is just a made up excuse as to why social media companies should be allowed to actively facilitate a spectrum of outcomes ranging from harassment to populism to outright genocide. I don't care if they are a US company or not. What they're doing is wrong.
      - 4y ago
nwienert 4y ago
One thing that’s not clear. The tweet you show claims you are “appointed” to a position by a human rights org in India. But your denials all say you aren’t “working” for India, and you claim here for “intel agencies”. It would be good to be more clear on both sides. Did they appoint you or did you associate in any form? Are they an independent org or a government agency? Maybe there were multiple accusations you are rolling into one?
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  The International Human Rights Foundation (IHRF) seems to be an NGO based in New York, perhaps with offices in India as well, but they don't seem to be an organ of the Indian government. The author of this article quotes a tweet trying discredit the IHRF by claiming they are "registered in India" (might be true, but so what?)
  - kayodelycaon 4y ago
    Pakistan and India aren’t exactly on great terms.

Asooka 4y ago

Twitter has already booted former president of the USA Donald Trump due to similar conduct. As they say, with great power, comes great responsibility. Twitter have shown themselves willing to wield their power for the good of the USA, thus they should also accept their responsibility for the good of all mankind.

ricardobeat 4y ago
Trump was inciting civil unrest often, but I believe they set a terrible precedent by banning his account for the “I’m not attending the inauguration” tweet, based on a ton of very subtle inferences. One cannot reasonably expect them to act as a fact checker & censor for the entire world, nor would that be desirable from a private corporation. What we need is better, regulated moderation systems, and a justice system that can keep up with the pace of social media.
- mypalmike 4y ago
  The pace of social media is insurmountable. More information is generated per second on social media than any justice system could process in a year.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    More information is generated in the material world per second than is generated on social media per year, but we haven't seen that as a reason to dismantle the justice system.
    - mypalmike 4y ago
      Nobody was advocating for dismantling the justice system. Social media specifically lends itself to widespread and high frequency libel, fraud, threats, and other illegal acts. What "material world" information manages to do so at a similar rate?
  - ricardobeat 4y ago
    What is the alternative?

hackerlight 4y ago

Nope, it isn't the police or justice system's job. That's a corporation externalizing the cost of their customer service division onto the taxpayer. Australia for example spends millions of dollars on online safety enforcement because these tech companies refuse to hire real people to remove revenge porn, impersonation, and so on.

ricardobeat 4y ago
That’s not right. The corporation’s job is to follow the law and abide to court orders. Identifying and prosecuting harassers is not “customer service”. If you take customer’s claims at face value what you get is people misusing the system to harass or silence even more people. They should immediately act on takedown notices, for example in the case of revenge porn, but are not a private replacement for law enforcement.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  The corporation's minimum burden is to follow the law and abide by court orders. That doesn't mean a corporation should be exempt from criticism when it does the wrong thing despite fulfilling that minimum burden. Laws are inadequate, and have loopholes. Example: A corporation could literally make it its mission to funnel all profits into buying dirty coal and burning it for no reason whatsoever. There's nothing illegal about this in many countries. "They should immediately act on takedown notices, for example in the case of revenge porn, but are not a private replacement for law enforcement." They don't immediately act on such notices. That's part of the problem. They've pushed their customer service division onto the taxpayers of rich countries. And they've outright screwed the people on poor countries (Myanmar?) that have no recourse.

indymike 4y ago

>They are not directly responsible for anyone’s safety and have no reason to take down content that isn’t a direct threat or clear defamation. From the article: the author is asking to have false, defamatory content removed. > That’s the police or justice system’s job. That is not an available option to the author of this article. The author is alleging that false posts are being made to lay the groundwork for the author being detained and tortured by the local justice system.

fluoridation 4y ago
>the author is asking to have false, defamatory content removed. The author is asking to have content that he says is false removed. >The author is alleging that false posts are being made to lay the groundwork for the author being detained and tortured by the local justice system. Since the tweets may be used as an excuse to have him detained, removing them will do nothing, because the government could just as easily use a different medium for the same purpose. Twitter can't prevent someone who can and wants to kidnap you from kidnapping you.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > Since the tweets may be used as an excuse to have him detained, removing them will do nothing, because the government could just as easily use a different medium for the same purpose. This is nonsense. That's like letting someone use your gun to shoot someone because they'd be able to find a gun somewhere.
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    You're right, Twitter is a gun and tweets are bullets that kill. It's a perfectly apt analogy. /s
- indymike 4y ago
  So basically meh, they'll torture him anyway?
  - 4y ago