4 ms·

> up to and including "vague" threats of violence. I'm no expert in Twitter, but I have heard many people of note complain about receiving death threats on Twi

> up to and including "vague" threats of violence. I'm no expert in Twitter, but I have heard many people of note complain about receiving death threats on Twitter. One example: https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-death-threats-video-twitter https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-dea... > Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has revealed that some mornings she starts her day by reading the death threats she has received from men on Twitter. Making a death threat, or a threat of violence, is not protected speech, it is a crime. Can you clarify why you think the new owners will look the other way at crimes being committed on their platform? Also, if it was already happening (up to and including "minor celebrity blames Twitter for their recent issue with a fan stalking them"), is this the trajectory you see regardless of ownership? And if not how will new ownership contribute to it?

notatoad 4y ago
The new owners have quite loudly and explicitly promised that there will be less content moderation than their was before. And specifically less moderation of conservatives. If Twitter, under the previous leadership was full of death threats to leftists, and the new leadership is promising less moderation actions taken against the sort of people who make those threats, it seems reasonable to assume that those threats will continue or get worse
- flanked-evergl 4y ago
  > The new owners have quite loudly and explicitly promised that there will be less content moderation than their was before. Less moderation to the point of not taking actions against content which is criminal, i.e. threatening violence? > new leadership is promising less moderation actions taken against the sort of people who make those threats I think there is some leap in logic here, which is that conservatives are more likely to be criminals, but if that holds then banning them from the platform for non criminal offences will reduce the amount of criminals on the platform, however you will also be banning people who are not criminals in the process, and this does not really seem like a terribly morally sound thing to be doing. How many steps from banning people from twitter for conservative views to reduce crime to jailing people who frequent bars because they are more likely to be criminals? If your only value is to reduce crime, then I'm not sure I see where the breaks are.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    > Less moderation to the point of not taking actions against content which is criminal, i.e. threatening violence? Yes, obviously. Because Musk sure isn't pushing for more of this oversight.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    > conservatives are more likely to be criminals The correlation runs the other way. Mass shooters and people who carry out acts of political violence in the US are overwhelmingly driven by conspiracy "logic" that has recently been embraced by the right; Qanon, pizza parlor conspiracies, racism, etc.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
eropple 4y ago
> Can you clarify why you think the new owners will look the other way at crimes being committed on their platform? Because, put plainly: I don't think there's much reason to expect Musk to take them seriously.The previous management had only minimal capability to curb this behavior, or claimed they did, because of scale. They'd deal with cases that rose to the top, but not a lot more. Musk, on the other hand, is ideologically congruent with much of it, and there are no indications that his yelling about "free speech, especially for the right wing" comes with consequences or even minor disapproval for that speech when you use it to threaten to kill somebody. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't think so, though.
- KingOfCoders 4y ago
  I always wonder why the management needs to deal with this. I believe in state run services of which one is the police. If someone threats you, go to the police (and then with proper procedures the company needs to be forced to help prosecution E.g. by a judge). I do understand the police is reluctant to do something (at least here in Germany, "Die Polizei ist nicht im Internet, oh wei oh wei!"), but privaticing crime management is not the future. And I did go to the police several times because of things that happened "on the internet" and was helped.
- flanked-evergl 4y ago
  > Musk, on the other hand, is ideologically congruent with much of it, and there are no indications that his yelling about "free speech, especially for the right wing" comes with consequences or even minor disapproval for that speech when you use it to threaten to kill somebody. Absence of indication is not indication of absence though. Another way to look at it that by having less strict moderation, and keeping moderation mainly focused on unprotected speech such as incitement or threats, you have more resources to go after unprotected speech. > Maybe I'm wrong. I don't think so, though. Fair enough.
Loughla 4y ago
Good questions! >Can you clarify why you think the new owners will look the other way at crimes being committed on their platform? The old owners only did what they had to when the threats floated to the surface of the lagoon. The new owner has explicitly said that free speech means free speech. I believe overt threats of violence (read: I will kill X on June 5, 2023) will be addressed, but anything that can be played off as "satire" or "joking" (Read: somebody should kill X. lol jk) will be ignored, if not promoted for the extra eyes and clicks. >is this the trajectory you see regardless of ownership? No. I believe with old ownership we would see what we currently have in perpetuity. There was no innovation from Twitter, but there was also no real negative change either. Status quo. >And if not how will new ownership contribute to it? From what I read/see, Elon Musk espouses the view that people who disagree with him are lesser than. I believe he genuinely thinks he is better than everyone else; smarter, stronger, faster, better. I believe he will see people who act and think the same way (read: toxic) on Twitter, and automatically defend them if not outright promote them. This group will include people who incite violence.
- bilvar 4y ago
  At some point I think there was a trending hashtag on Twitter #killallmen - a direct call to commit violence of the worst kind on a demographic. Did the previous ownership take it seriously? What was their response? Did they just dismiss it as a joke?

notatoad 4y ago

The new owners have quite loudly and explicitly promised that there will be less content moderation than their was before. And specifically less moderation of conservatives. If Twitter, under the previous leadership was full of death threats to leftists, and the new leadership is promising less moderation actions taken against the sort of people who make those threats, it seems reasonable to assume that those threats will continue or get worse

flanked-evergl 4y ago
> The new owners have quite loudly and explicitly promised that there will be less content moderation than their was before. Less moderation to the point of not taking actions against content which is criminal, i.e. threatening violence? > new leadership is promising less moderation actions taken against the sort of people who make those threats I think there is some leap in logic here, which is that conservatives are more likely to be criminals, but if that holds then banning them from the platform for non criminal offences will reduce the amount of criminals on the platform, however you will also be banning people who are not criminals in the process, and this does not really seem like a terribly morally sound thing to be doing. How many steps from banning people from twitter for conservative views to reduce crime to jailing people who frequent bars because they are more likely to be criminals? If your only value is to reduce crime, then I'm not sure I see where the breaks are.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  > Less moderation to the point of not taking actions against content which is criminal, i.e. threatening violence? Yes, obviously. Because Musk sure isn't pushing for more of this oversight.
- pjc50 4y ago
  > conservatives are more likely to be criminals The correlation runs the other way. Mass shooters and people who carry out acts of political violence in the US are overwhelmingly driven by conspiracy "logic" that has recently been embraced by the right; Qanon, pizza parlor conspiracies, racism, etc.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

eropple 4y ago

> Can you clarify why you think the new owners will look the other way at crimes being committed on their platform? Because, put plainly: I don't think there's much reason to expect Musk to take them seriously.The previous management had only minimal capability to curb this behavior, or claimed they did, because of scale. They'd deal with cases that rose to the top, but not a lot more. Musk, on the other hand, is ideologically congruent with much of it, and there are no indications that his yelling about "free speech, especially for the right wing" comes with consequences or even minor disapproval for that speech when you use it to threaten to kill somebody. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't think so, though.

KingOfCoders 4y ago
I always wonder why the management needs to deal with this. I believe in state run services of which one is the police. If someone threats you, go to the police (and then with proper procedures the company needs to be forced to help prosecution E.g. by a judge). I do understand the police is reluctant to do something (at least here in Germany, "Die Polizei ist nicht im Internet, oh wei oh wei!"), but privaticing crime management is not the future. And I did go to the police several times because of things that happened "on the internet" and was helped.
flanked-evergl 4y ago
> Musk, on the other hand, is ideologically congruent with much of it, and there are no indications that his yelling about "free speech, especially for the right wing" comes with consequences or even minor disapproval for that speech when you use it to threaten to kill somebody. Absence of indication is not indication of absence though. Another way to look at it that by having less strict moderation, and keeping moderation mainly focused on unprotected speech such as incitement or threats, you have more resources to go after unprotected speech. > Maybe I'm wrong. I don't think so, though. Fair enough.

Loughla 4y ago

Good questions! >Can you clarify why you think the new owners will look the other way at crimes being committed on their platform? The old owners only did what they had to when the threats floated to the surface of the lagoon. The new owner has explicitly said that free speech means free speech. I believe overt threats of violence (read: I will kill X on June 5, 2023) will be addressed, but anything that can be played off as "satire" or "joking" (Read: somebody should kill X. lol jk) will be ignored, if not promoted for the extra eyes and clicks. >is this the trajectory you see regardless of ownership? No. I believe with old ownership we would see what we currently have in perpetuity. There was no innovation from Twitter, but there was also no real negative change either. Status quo. >And if not how will new ownership contribute to it? From what I read/see, Elon Musk espouses the view that people who disagree with him are lesser than. I believe he genuinely thinks he is better than everyone else; smarter, stronger, faster, better. I believe he will see people who act and think the same way (read: toxic) on Twitter, and automatically defend them if not outright promote them. This group will include people who incite violence.

bilvar 4y ago
At some point I think there was a trending hashtag on Twitter #killallmen - a direct call to commit violence of the worst kind on a demographic. Did the previous ownership take it seriously? What was their response? Did they just dismiss it as a joke?