It does not (as stated) apply to the “Content that glorifies violence or the perpetrators of a violent act.”
Nor does it apply to the preexisting hateful conduct policy, “You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. ”
Of course, they have been inconsistent in enforcing the existing policy and given certain high-profile Twitter users a pass on it without an explicit exception, so one would expect that to continue with the new policies even where no explicit exception applies.
Nobody has ever held Trump accountable for anything. Hilariously, Twitter holds a lot of power over Trump due to controlling his popular account. They could hold him accountable. They choose not to. Insane.
Trump is the elected president of USA, one of the most important country on Earth. The fact that you suggest a private company should police his speak is insane to me.
He is bringing them traffic and giving them more legitimacy than they have ever had before.
If they banned him he would just switch to another social network and spend the next year telling his supporters to boycott them and then find some creative ways to shaft them through the regulatory state.
Look at the situation with CNN and the ATT/Time Warner merger. Twitter is a very small fish compared to them.
I'm not sure what a protected group is, whether there's a list somewhere, of it's all relative (who holds more 'power' is less protected)?
You're being downvoted because people think you're pro-antifa, which is sort of sad. I had to undown your post because it was too difficult to parse initially. Thankfully, your other posts in this topic showed that my parsing was incorrect.
I'd love to hear them. Would probably make a great blog post in itself
Does this apply to videos of NFL tackles? Videos of NFL tackles glorify violence and glorify the tackler (the perpetrator of a violent act).
What about rap music and culture in general? So much glorification of violence.
I'm looking forward what they think of communist symbols, or is the rule about symbols purely swastika and symbols the 4chans stupid trolls use.
In both cases though, it's a huge problem that there aren't alternatives that do off truly uncensored speech. At the very least, there needs to be a force that checks these organizations when they step over the line.
Hacker News scaled from hundreds of users to hundreds of thousands of users and is still very high quality. Worse in some ways and better in others. Reddit scaled to tens of millions.
Just because Twitter is run by people that can't scale it doesn't mean it's not possible to scale it.
It's essentially an example of a benevolent dictator model.
Right now the people moderating are doing a great and largely unbiased job, but if you try to scale, you'll bring in new people, and gradually the quality of those moderators will vary with the larger group.
Why? Consumers are not paying twitter for a product or service and use of twitter is not a necessity.
This is arguable. Our country is changing massively, and because of the network effect[1], social media platforms condense to only a few winners, currently mostly Facebook and Twitter I believe. This oligopoly[2] means that a handful of sites basically run what is considered the internet for most people.
In America, we have a constitutional right to free speech. If in our country, most people speak solely on one of these sites, then why shouldn't our constitutional rights extend onto them?
> Accounts that affiliate with organizations that use or promote violence against civilians
> Content that glorifies violence or the perpetrators of a violent act.
* "Support our troops"
* "Punch a Nazi"
* Basically any enthusiastic history account.
* Mall ninjas.
* Any action movie/tv property.
* Star Wars.
* UFC
It seems almost puritan to try and deny humanity's love of violence.
> If an account’s profile information includes a violent threat or multiple slurs, epithets, racist or sexist tropes, incites fear, or reduces someone to less than human, it will be permanently suspended.
* A little confused about the 'multiple' requirement. So long as you only hate one thing your good?
* Racist or sexist tropes is a bit hard to pin down. /r/bpt is full of examples of 'racist' tropes that are self-deprecating. I'm not the best at words but they probably want an exception for "laughing with you, not at you."
> intimidates, or uses fear to silence another person’s voice
I can't wait for this to not be applied against people who use public shaming as a silencing tactic.
Also, there's a bit on irony that in that policy is itself a silencing tactic. This is going to cause people afraid of being banned to self-censor because a statement is politically unpopular.
If I'm a member of a visibly protected minority group (Black Muslim) and I tweet "Death to Zionist Sodomites occupying Holy Jerusalem" would I be suspended? Asking for a friend.
You can view Twitter's safety partners here to learn which groups have advisory over what counts as 'hate speech' : https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html
So, every US federal agency's, and every local police force's twitter accounts will be shut down?
> This policy does not apply to military or government entities and we will consider exceptions for groups that are currently engaging in (or have engaged in) peaceful resolution.
Indeed, I think a lot of people miss that the nature of public property and governments not being able to censor free speech did basically guarantee people an audience in the olden days. Did you have a message you wanted people to hear? Protest in a heavily trafficked area (like a town centre), and you had an audience of thousands or even millions, regardless of whether they wanted to hear what you had to say or not.
Imagine how much less useful political movements would be if corporations owned everything in the real world and the people protesting had to do so in their own homes/some private property away from the public. That's the situation these social media sites have set up.
But hey, I guess it's not a new thing, nor an issue exclusive to the internet. In some places, a shopping mall or other corporate property might be the 'heart of the local community', and like with Twitter and Facebook, they could ban those they don't like and de facto censor their speech too.
And what are the alternative services that these people should use? Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. simply don't have any alternatives that are widely used or credible.
Find a good GNU Social site, and bask in the freedom. it feels like Twitter when it first started.
Let the endless game of whack-a-mole over what is or isn't a dogwhistle commence, I guess.
[1]: http://blogs.faz.net/deus/2017/12/18/erdogans-mob-und-gruene... (in German)
[2]: https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...
Then again, I also don't want to keep seeing things like death threats, bullying, and general hate-laden vitriol. Seriously, look up some of the tweets aimed at August Ames and tell me that's OK in any forum.
Ultimately, I have to fall on the side of moderation in this case. A free-for-all forum has been tried, and it has failed us.
that's an interesting angle.
One rule for them, another rule for us. This sort of thing is how Trump was able to paint "the media" as being full of hypocrites, liars and crooks.
Edited to add: not a Trump supporter myself, by any stretch of the imagination. But this is exactly the sort of thing demagogues like to point to as examples of bias and unfairness. Although Trump himself might not, in this case, as he seems to be one of the beneficiaries.
How can they possibly enforce this hypocritical bullshit while our president violates these policies on a daily basis? Ham handed nonsense.
