3 ms·
It matters whether the CCDH's accusation was true or false. US free speech law, in practice, does usually protect liars. That's generally a good thing, because
by jimrandomh 3y ago
It matters whether the CCDH's accusation was true or false.
US free speech law, in practice, does usually protect liars. That's generally a good thing, because there's a lot of grey area. But I think it's terrible if we, as outside observers, get caught up focusing on the legal wranglings and who we like and dislike, before seriously asking the question of what's true.
I don't have access to much in the way of data about Twitter. My own feed is healthy, but it's mostly composed of people I know who I've chosen carefully, so people who follow more indiscriminately might have a different experience. But I did check out the CCDH's recent blog posts, randomly clicked on one about LLMs, and it seemed pretty dishonest to me (they prompted it with jailbreaking prompts, then in the summary made it sound like it would say offensive things without jailbreaking.)
- jtsiskin 3y agoThe report: https://counterhate.com/research/twitter-fails-to-act-on-twitter-blue-accounts-tweeting-hate/ https://counterhate.com/research/twitter-fails-to-act-on-twi... It’s pretty terrible “study” - they found 100 offensive tweets, reported them, then 4 days later saw only one was taken down; then concluded “Twitter fails to act on 99% of hate” But these were random tweets, none of them had more then 10,000 views, some with less than 100. It could be Twitter reviews reports based on view count, or based on # of times reported. Maybe it effectively stops all hate speech that hits 10k views, and prevents 99% of hate speech view counts. But this study doesn’t consider this at all.
- elashri 3y ago> collected tweets promoting hate from 100 Twitter Blue subscribers They collected tweets from 100 blue subscribers that contain hate speech. I think you misread the report. Maybe there is other problems but I don't think you are right about what you are saying through.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- JohnFen 3y ago> US free speech law, in practice, does usually protect liars Except when it comes to defamation or slander/libel. If I say something that I know, or reasonably should have known, is untrue and it actually harms you, then there isn't a lot of law that will come down on my side. If what I said was true, or I reasonably believed it to be true, then I can say it no matter how much harm it causes.
- spott 3y agoI think the “in practice” is pretty important in that sentence. Because in practice it is pretty hard to prove that someone knew what they said was untrue.
- JohnFen 3y agoThis is true, which is why a lot of successful lawsuits prove their case by showing that a reasonable person would have known, rather than that a particular person did know.