2 ms·

Is a whole bunch of people calling somebody a "fa***t" in DMs discourse? Lots of people have told me that this isn't illegal so Twitter should do nothing.

naasking 4y ago
Is a whole bunch of people calling someone a Nazi any different? It's a signal of social disapproval, even if it's distasteful. I think you can meaningfully distinguish individuals expressing distasteful speech from coordinated campaigns and harassment, and spam falls under the latter.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  We can have a discussion about what sort of speech is unacceptable on a social media platform. My concern is largely with the people who insist that we shouldn't even have the conversation about insulting messages because of free speech absolutism or whatever. The "oh but lefties are mean too" argument immediately retreats from the idea of free speech absolutism. I'm down for that.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > My concern is largely with the people who insist that we shouldn't even have the conversation about insulting messages because of free speech absolutism or whatever. That's not where I would draw the line against free speech absolutism. Insults or rudeness from individuals should be permitted, insults from groups/coordinated campaigns is where I would draw that line because that starts crossing into inciting a mob. Mobs of any political persuasion are undesirable. Uncoordinated-coordination seems like an emergent phenomenon of social media though, which is why this is a tough issue. It's almost like we need some kind of back pressure against virality to keep mobs in check.
jchw 4y ago
This is a good example of a question posed in bad faith. I shouldn't have to reply, but unfortunately in this situation if I don't address it, it looks like I'm simply unable to, which is not the case. I have a stunning revelation to make: I am not in favor of allowing all legal things on the principle that because they're legal, they should be allowed. In fact, given that the thing you're replying to is arguing in favor of moderating SPAM, I figured it would be apparent. Apparently, it is not. Furthermore... Like SPAM, harassing someone in the DMs by simply calling them homophobic or racial slurs is not "free expression." It's harassment. Harassment, libel, etc. are not things that everyone (hopefully not most) who believe in free expression as a principle are trying to defend. I'm mostly not going to address the "lots of people have told me" and disregard it, since it's probably made up for the bait. But if not, I mean... Good for all of those lunatics, I guess. I'm not associated with them, and I don't like Twitter or any social media platform to begin with.

naasking 4y ago

Is a whole bunch of people calling someone a Nazi any different? It's a signal of social disapproval, even if it's distasteful. I think you can meaningfully distinguish individuals expressing distasteful speech from coordinated campaigns and harassment, and spam falls under the latter.

UncleMeat 4y ago
We can have a discussion about what sort of speech is unacceptable on a social media platform. My concern is largely with the people who insist that we shouldn't even have the conversation about insulting messages because of free speech absolutism or whatever. The "oh but lefties are mean too" argument immediately retreats from the idea of free speech absolutism. I'm down for that.
- naasking 4y ago
  > My concern is largely with the people who insist that we shouldn't even have the conversation about insulting messages because of free speech absolutism or whatever. That's not where I would draw the line against free speech absolutism. Insults or rudeness from individuals should be permitted, insults from groups/coordinated campaigns is where I would draw that line because that starts crossing into inciting a mob. Mobs of any political persuasion are undesirable. Uncoordinated-coordination seems like an emergent phenomenon of social media though, which is why this is a tough issue. It's almost like we need some kind of back pressure against virality to keep mobs in check.

jchw 4y ago

This is a good example of a question posed in bad faith. I shouldn't have to reply, but unfortunately in this situation if I don't address it, it looks like I'm simply unable to, which is not the case. I have a stunning revelation to make: I am not in favor of allowing all legal things on the principle that because they're legal, they should be allowed. In fact, given that the thing you're replying to is arguing in favor of moderating SPAM, I figured it would be apparent. Apparently, it is not. Furthermore... Like SPAM, harassing someone in the DMs by simply calling them homophobic or racial slurs is not "free expression." It's harassment. Harassment, libel, etc. are not things that everyone (hopefully not most) who believe in free expression as a principle are trying to defend. I'm mostly not going to address the "lots of people have told me" and disregard it, since it's probably made up for the bait. But if not, I mean... Good for all of those lunatics, I guess. I'm not associated with them, and I don't like Twitter or any social media platform to begin with.