Twitter announces a plan to apply click-through "notices" to future tweets from politicians that violate Twitter rules but are "in the public interest"
It may be in the "public interest" but when does saying racist and bigoted lies outweigh the "public interest"? I assume the answer is whenever it starts to cost Twitter more money than having...
It may be in the "public interest" but when does saying racist and bigoted lies outweigh the "public interest"?
I assume the answer is whenever it starts to cost Twitter more money than having such high profile accounts gains them.
I don't quite see why this is a bad thing to be honest. Isn't it better to keep the stupid things that are being said on record? I mean what's said can't be unsaid and people will often have...
I don't quite see why this is a bad thing to be honest. Isn't it better to keep the stupid things that are being said on record? I mean what's said can't be unsaid and people will often have screen grabs/archive links of those negative things. I just don't see a point in deleting it. Am I wrong?
I suppose I like the idea of Trump talking to a wall... It's more the idea that words have power, and some people have shown they cannot act responsibly with that power.
I suppose I like the idea of Trump talking to a wall...
It's more the idea that words have power, and some people have shown they cannot act responsibly with that power.
I honestly don't understand the purpose of this decision at all. Can someone explain why they would want to "tag" the language of politicians with >100,000 followers? It's not like it changes...
I honestly don't understand the purpose of this decision at all. Can someone explain why they would want to "tag" the language of politicians with >100,000 followers?
It's not like it changes people's opinion, they can read the posts by themselves anyway.
It seems like there are stakeholders who demand such posts to be deleted? Which would be an even worse idea in my opinion, since politicians with this many followers would find an alternative communication channel and have their target audience that doesn't care about the language, or rather favors it. If anything, posts on twitter document their way of talking and can be referred to in the future.
The difference here is the context in which the Tweets appear. That makes a big difference. When you read something after a warning that states something to the effect of: "what you're about to...
The difference here is the context in which the Tweets appear.
That makes a big difference. When you read something after a warning that states something to the effect of: "what you're about to read is so bad it breaks with our site rules. The only reason we're showing you this is because an important political figure with power is saying this" clearly shows people that something has crossed a line.
An example I used recently that shows how crazy online discourse is, and what the consequences of things don't think twice about saying online, but are actually statements with severe legal ramifications is that a Norwegian was recently sentenced to time in prison (!) for calling a public figure a "cockroach" with slight added context.
A lot of online behavior breaks all sorts of speech laws throughout Europe and elsewhere. Laws against hate, against threats, against advocating violence. These are serious crimes with serious punishments, but a sentence on facebook, twitter or your preferred media platform online. Normalized, anonymous online behavior that's absolutely crazy.
In Europe and totalitarian regimes I can understand that. But since twitter is a US company I thought they value freedom of speech more, but apparently my view on the US on this regard is not...
In Europe and totalitarian regimes I can understand that. But since twitter is a US company I thought they value freedom of speech more, but apparently my view on the US on this regard is not entirely correct.
Edit: It seems like you didn’t consider my note on alternative communication channels and amount of followers an account has. This is not targeted on people who call politicians names, it only affects popular politicians.
The US is the only developed country in the world that doesn't have some form of Hate speech law on its books. The Brandenburg test used in the US where speech inducing violence, hate etc. isn't...
The US is the only developed country in the world that doesn't have some form of Hate speech law on its books.
The Brandenburg test used in the US where speech inducing violence, hate etc. isn't illegal unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" is crazy.
The standard is crazy because it so fundamentally undervalues the power of speech. Words change hearts and minds. Words affect others.
Every other developed country in the world has realized that the 18th century understanding of speech used in the US constitution is out of date.
Allowing more speech doesn't always result in a society with freer expression. In the US the law uniquely empowers those who wish to bully, intimidate and silence other points of view. Those bullies and extremists are favored at the direct expense of large groups of people scared into not speaking.
US speech law is worse at protecting and safe-guarding actual freedom of expression as too much hate is left to subjugate the rest of public discourse. The US has less free speech than Europe, not the other way around. That is the conclusion of research paper after research paper the last decades.
(As for your edit, I'm assuming the view of twitter is that the number of followers and political role combine to provide objective criteria to show "public interest". For all us others, this content is deleted. For politicians, they're arguing it's in the public interest to leave things up, but only with warnings and for people who're actually important, not random celebrities with a large following)
Interesting perspective, thanks. I guess it makes sense that they label something which they normally would delete. Seems like I was confused about that yesterday.
Interesting perspective, thanks.
I guess it makes sense that they label something which they normally would delete. Seems like I was confused about that yesterday.
Because they can't realistically ban the President of the United States of America from Twitter. Sure, they could show that his tweets break their rules to justify banning him, but the optics of...
Can someone explain why they would want to "tag" the language of politicians with >100,000 followers?
Because they can't realistically ban the President of the United States of America from Twitter.
Sure, they could show that his tweets break their rules to justify banning him, but the optics of banning a world leader would not go down well - especially considering the nature of many of his followers.
This way, Twitter can insert a disclaimer: "Look, we know he's breaking the rules, so here's us telling you that we know he's breaking the rules. Now go read his rule-breaking tweet."
It's nothing more than Twitter covering their own arse. He keeps breaking their rules, but they can't ban him, so this is their way of managing that dilemma.
i await, with eager anticipation, the recitation of the 14 words by donald trump specifically now that he is free from the confines of petty twitter moderation and can now afford to be quite blunt...
i await, with eager anticipation, the recitation of the 14 words by donald trump specifically now that he is free from the confines of petty twitter moderation and can now afford to be quite blunt about the dogwhistling since his base doesn't give a fuck, lol.
What a great advertisement for Twitter. I usually avoid it, but now can't wait to go online to view the "rare" asinine reasoning (context and clarity) behind the tweets of our even more asinine...
What a great advertisement for Twitter. I usually avoid it, but now can't wait to go online to view the "rare" asinine reasoning (context and clarity) behind the tweets of our even more asinine leader.
It may be in the "public interest" but when does saying racist and bigoted lies outweigh the "public interest"?
I assume the answer is whenever it starts to cost Twitter more money than having such high profile accounts gains them.
I don't quite see why this is a bad thing to be honest. Isn't it better to keep the stupid things that are being said on record? I mean what's said can't be unsaid and people will often have screen grabs/archive links of those negative things. I just don't see a point in deleting it. Am I wrong?
Record it, sure. But maybe don't show it to anybody else. Like Reddit's shadowbanning.
But then how would people know? Maybe making it visible but not able to be interacted with is a good option?
I suppose I like the idea of Trump talking to a wall...
It's more the idea that words have power, and some people have shown they cannot act responsibly with that power.
I honestly don't understand the purpose of this decision at all. Can someone explain why they would want to "tag" the language of politicians with >100,000 followers?
It's not like it changes people's opinion, they can read the posts by themselves anyway.
It seems like there are stakeholders who demand such posts to be deleted? Which would be an even worse idea in my opinion, since politicians with this many followers would find an alternative communication channel and have their target audience that doesn't care about the language, or rather favors it. If anything, posts on twitter document their way of talking and can be referred to in the future.
The difference here is the context in which the Tweets appear.
That makes a big difference. When you read something after a warning that states something to the effect of: "what you're about to read is so bad it breaks with our site rules. The only reason we're showing you this is because an important political figure with power is saying this" clearly shows people that something has crossed a line.
An example I used recently that shows how crazy online discourse is, and what the consequences of things don't think twice about saying online, but are actually statements with severe legal ramifications is that a Norwegian was recently sentenced to time in prison (!) for calling a public figure a "cockroach" with slight added context.
A lot of online behavior breaks all sorts of speech laws throughout Europe and elsewhere. Laws against hate, against threats, against advocating violence. These are serious crimes with serious punishments, but a sentence on facebook, twitter or your preferred media platform online. Normalized, anonymous online behavior that's absolutely crazy.
In Europe and totalitarian regimes I can understand that. But since twitter is a US company I thought they value freedom of speech more, but apparently my view on the US on this regard is not entirely correct.
Edit: It seems like you didn’t consider my note on alternative communication channels and amount of followers an account has. This is not targeted on people who call politicians names, it only affects popular politicians.
The US is the only developed country in the world that doesn't have some form of Hate speech law on its books.
The Brandenburg test used in the US where speech inducing violence, hate etc. isn't illegal unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" is crazy.
The standard is crazy because it so fundamentally undervalues the power of speech. Words change hearts and minds. Words affect others.
Every other developed country in the world has realized that the 18th century understanding of speech used in the US constitution is out of date.
Allowing more speech doesn't always result in a society with freer expression. In the US the law uniquely empowers those who wish to bully, intimidate and silence other points of view. Those bullies and extremists are favored at the direct expense of large groups of people scared into not speaking.
US speech law is worse at protecting and safe-guarding actual freedom of expression as too much hate is left to subjugate the rest of public discourse. The US has less free speech than Europe, not the other way around. That is the conclusion of research paper after research paper the last decades.
(As for your edit, I'm assuming the view of twitter is that the number of followers and political role combine to provide objective criteria to show "public interest". For all us others, this content is deleted. For politicians, they're arguing it's in the public interest to leave things up, but only with warnings and for people who're actually important, not random celebrities with a large following)
Interesting perspective, thanks.
I guess it makes sense that they label something which they normally would delete. Seems like I was confused about that yesterday.
Because they can't realistically ban the President of the United States of America from Twitter.
Sure, they could show that his tweets break their rules to justify banning him, but the optics of banning a world leader would not go down well - especially considering the nature of many of his followers.
This way, Twitter can insert a disclaimer: "Look, we know he's breaking the rules, so here's us telling you that we know he's breaking the rules. Now go read his rule-breaking tweet."
It's nothing more than Twitter covering their own arse. He keeps breaking their rules, but they can't ban him, so this is their way of managing that dilemma.
"Look, we KNOW he's violating the rules, but he's the president! What are we gonna do? Grow a spine?"
i await, with eager anticipation, the recitation of the 14 words by donald trump specifically now that he is free from the confines of petty twitter moderation and can now afford to be quite blunt about the dogwhistling since his base doesn't give a fuck, lol.
DHS already dog whistled the 1488 thing last year.
What a great advertisement for Twitter. I usually avoid it, but now can't wait to go online to view the "rare" asinine reasoning (context and clarity) behind the tweets of our even more asinine leader.
Asinine:
adjective
extremely stupid or foolish.
"Twitter allowed his asinine remark"
synonyms: stupid, foolish, pointless, brainless, mindless, senseless, doltish, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, insane, lunatic, ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, preposterous, nonsensical, fatuous, silly, childish, infantile, puerile, immature, juvenile, inane, witless, half-baked, empty-headed, unintelligent, halfwitted, slow-witted, weak-minded
More
informalcrazy, dumb, cretinous, moronic, gormless, damfool; divvy, daftass, chowderheaded dotish
antonym: intelligent