4 ms·

In my opinion it's the opposite. The smaller the ship, the sharper the turn.

by twohaibei 4y ago

briantakita 4y ago
Especially when the accessibility team acted as political speech commissars.
- tchaffee 4y ago
  Source?
  - briantakita 4y ago
    Project Veritas had some videos about Twitter employees declaring their politics & their willingness to censor political opponents. I don't think anyone on the accessibility team was interviewed but Twitter as a whole did have a political leaning. Banning people for political speech is an accessibility issue & for some reason it was allowed to continue.
    - tchaffee 4y ago
      > I don't think anyone on the accessibility team was interviewed So you don't have a source to back up your claim. > Banning people for political speech is an accessibility issue It is not. [1]. You don't get to widen the definition of things to make them so broad as to include your claim. Accessibility is the design of products, devices, services, vehicles, or environments so as to be usable by people with disabilities. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility
      - briantakita3 4y ago
        > So you don't have a source to back up your claim. I do. The stated political beliefs of the people being interviewed & their claim that many @ Twitter shared their beliefs. Also the actions of the company. > It is not. [1]. You don't get to widen the definition of things to make them so broad as to include your claim. It is. If someone is banned from the site, the site is not accessible to that person. If people are being banned for political speech, then it certainly violates any form of platform neutrality. This is the heart of accessibility. Banning someone for exercising their free speech is anti-accessibility. > Accessibility is the design of products, devices, services, vehicles, or environments so as to be usable by people with disabilities. The Twitter human rights & accessibility team also includes "human rights". Freedom of Speech is a human right which Twitter has been willfully violating. The "human rights & accessibility" team failed to do their job of upholding the human rights of those who were banned for political speech.
        tchaffee 4y ago
        > I do. The stated political beliefs of the people being interviewed & their claim that many @ Twitter shared their beliefs You do not have a source. Guilt by association is not a source. You're just making a guess and you should be called out for claiming a guess is an actual source. > If someone is banned from the site, the site is not accessible to that person. Sure, by definition you can't access a site you are banned from. But that's not what accessibility is and that is not what the accessibility department was working on. > If people are being banned for political speech, then it certainly violates any form of platform neutrality. Yes it does violate any form of platform neutrality. That still has nothing to do with the actual definition of what accessibility includes. > Banning someone for exercising their free speech is anti-accessibility. That's absurd. Accessibility already has a definition and it's quite specific: it's about disabled people. You are free to re-define words, but folks are also free to ignore your personal definitions. > Freedom of Speech is a human right which Twitter has been willfully violating. I don't agree with you that they have been violating anyone's free speech but what does this have to do with your original claim that "the accessibility team acted as political speech commissars"? Where is your actual evidence of the accessibility team doing that? Actual evidence would not include your guesses or guilt by association.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      Mentioned this elsewhere, but in general "Project Veritas had some videos of X" is negatively correlated with X having actually occurred. They have a long history of intentional manipulation in all of their reporting.

In my opinion it's the opposite. The smaller the ship, the sharper the turn.

briantakita 4y ago

Especially when the accessibility team acted as political speech commissars.

tchaffee 4y ago
Source?
- briantakita 4y ago
  Project Veritas had some videos about Twitter employees declaring their politics & their willingness to censor political opponents. I don't think anyone on the accessibility team was interviewed but Twitter as a whole did have a political leaning. Banning people for political speech is an accessibility issue & for some reason it was allowed to continue.
  - tchaffee 4y ago
    > I don't think anyone on the accessibility team was interviewed So you don't have a source to back up your claim. > Banning people for political speech is an accessibility issue It is not. [1]. You don't get to widen the definition of things to make them so broad as to include your claim. Accessibility is the design of products, devices, services, vehicles, or environments so as to be usable by people with disabilities. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility
    - briantakita3 4y ago
      > So you don't have a source to back up your claim. I do. The stated political beliefs of the people being interviewed & their claim that many @ Twitter shared their beliefs. Also the actions of the company. > It is not. [1]. You don't get to widen the definition of things to make them so broad as to include your claim. It is. If someone is banned from the site, the site is not accessible to that person. If people are being banned for political speech, then it certainly violates any form of platform neutrality. This is the heart of accessibility. Banning someone for exercising their free speech is anti-accessibility. > Accessibility is the design of products, devices, services, vehicles, or environments so as to be usable by people with disabilities. The Twitter human rights & accessibility team also includes "human rights". Freedom of Speech is a human right which Twitter has been willfully violating. The "human rights & accessibility" team failed to do their job of upholding the human rights of those who were banned for political speech.
      - tchaffee 4y ago
        > I do. The stated political beliefs of the people being interviewed & their claim that many @ Twitter shared their beliefs You do not have a source. Guilt by association is not a source. You're just making a guess and you should be called out for claiming a guess is an actual source. > If someone is banned from the site, the site is not accessible to that person. Sure, by definition you can't access a site you are banned from. But that's not what accessibility is and that is not what the accessibility department was working on. > If people are being banned for political speech, then it certainly violates any form of platform neutrality. Yes it does violate any form of platform neutrality. That still has nothing to do with the actual definition of what accessibility includes. > Banning someone for exercising their free speech is anti-accessibility. That's absurd. Accessibility already has a definition and it's quite specific: it's about disabled people. You are free to re-define words, but folks are also free to ignore your personal definitions. > Freedom of Speech is a human right which Twitter has been willfully violating. I don't agree with you that they have been violating anyone's free speech but what does this have to do with your original claim that "the accessibility team acted as political speech commissars"? Where is your actual evidence of the accessibility team doing that? Actual evidence would not include your guesses or guilt by association.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Mentioned this elsewhere, but in general "Project Veritas had some videos of X" is negatively correlated with X having actually occurred. They have a long history of intentional manipulation in all of their reporting.