Twitter Prepares Curbs On Hate Speech

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Today's announcement: Twitter is preparing to put the smack down on hate speech and trolling. Tomorrow: Twitter accounts down by 50%. :D

Twitter is preparing to introduce new measures to reduce the visibility of “hate speech” or “trolling” on the site. Talking to the FT this week, Dick Costolo, Twitter’s chief executive, became visibly emotional as he described his frustration in tackling the problem of “horrifying” abuse while maintaining the company’s mantra that “tweets must flow”.
Click to expand...
 
It's a good thing no one really does anything useful with Twitter to begin with so that the massive reduction in tweets won't be missed.
 
SkribbelKat said:
It's a good thing no one really does anything useful with Twitter to begin with so that the massive reduction in tweets won't be missed.
Click to expand...

:mad::rolleyes:I hope that you are not trolling Twitter and the people on there. (although, you did say that it was a good thing) (I hope that I am not trolling you now):eek:
 
I can’t see what the problem is. Twitter is a wonderful service. All those who post, on there, are very wonderful and excellent people. Those who post the troll and hate messages, are even more wonderfuller and excellent. (The text police will probably get me for sexual harassment now):eek:
 
Jack Hammer said:
Right... what's their definition of hate speech?
Click to expand...

I hope they could start with or include pro-genocide rants? Like "all jews must die" or "all n-words should be whiped from the face of the earth"? "The world would be a better place if we just whiped out the [], etc etc."
 
You can state that you believe that a particular person should die because of some particular act that you believe that they may have committed. However, you cannot state that they should die because they are Jewish, simply because Jewish is not an act. Jewish is just a name.
The Universe is governed by actions or re-actions.
 
DW-UK said:
:mad::rolleyes:I hope that you are not trolling Twitter and the people on there. (although, you did say that it was a good thing) (I hope that I am not trolling you now):eek:
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that no one would really spend more than a few moments thinking to themselves, "Hmm, Twitter's gone. Oh well!" :D
 
It sounds reasonable now, but later on they will not hesitate to add more restrictions.

When Twitter went down recently, there were people who commented how their life "had no meaning anymore" . They get people addicted, and then they initialize restrictions. Because of the addiction, people will not care to surrender freedoms. Twitter are gently/softly entering Chinese style internet restrictions.
 
Ah yes . . . surpressing speech. Let's silence anything we don't like. That's how dictatorships get started.
 
SkribbelKat said:
Twitter's not quite in a position to dictate much of anything.
Click to expand...

But it's so much more fun to fly off the handle and talk about optional social networking services as if they are going to lobby to repeal the First Amendment.
 
It is surprising how many people, who post on Twitter, have ended up in prison. It is like every week in the UK on the TV news there is a story about it. It is either about racism or things that blow up.
 
Twitter Twitter Twitter. Screw Twitter.

You know, it's bad enough to have a 60" screen and the same viewing area I did in 1990 with a 27" CRT because of all the station identification, what you are watching (wtf ?), what's coming up next, and other overlays on the screen, and now we have frickin' twitter addresses taking up another corner.

Leave my fucking TV screen alone please!
 
Thanks DICK! :rolleyes:

So much for free speech if popular mediums of modern communication are either privately or publicly controlled and thus can dictate what people can and can't say.
 
Twitter being a private entity can censor what ever the hell they want. You first amendment rights do not extend to privately owned entities.

Jesus Christ it's amazing how those that scream the loudest about violation of rights are typically those that have no fucking clue what their rights really are.
 
zacrobmer said:
Jesus Christ it's amazing how those that scream the loudest about violation of rights are typically those that have no fucking clue what their rights really are.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the internet, which is now so easy to use, any screaming infant can get on board.
 
NKDietrich said:
But it's so much more fun to fly off the handle and talk about optional social networking services as if they are going to lobby to repeal the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
What good is the first amendment if you can't actually voice your opinion in a modern environment?

Sure, you can stand on a street corner in an approved location and speak at a reasonable volume, but you can't exactly get your voice out in any meaningful way in the information age where we communicate online.

Problem is, if all the modern forms of communication are heavily moderated, then you really don't have any means of free speech other than walking around wearing a sign or standing in an approved protest location.
 
Monkey God said:
Welcome to the internet, which is now so easy to use, any screaming infant can get on board.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Ducman69 said:
What good is the first amendment if you can't actually voice your opinion in a modern environment?

Sure, you can stand on a street corner in an approved location and speak at a reasonable volume, but you can't exactly get your voice out in any meaningful way in the information age where we communicate online.

Problem is, if all the modern forms of communication are heavily moderated, then you really don't have any means of free speech other than walking around wearing a sign or standing in an approved protest location.
Click to expand...

So your saying that Twitter should not be able to control a product that they own? Would you also then say that Kyle or Steve have no business moderating or deleting posts on these forums?

The first amendment only protects you from government or government backed censorship, now if the FCC had told Twitter to take these steps then you would have a valid argument.

I'd recommend you get together some like minded individuals and make your social media site. You could call it Ductter.
 
TechLarry said:
Twitter Twitter Twitter. Screw Twitter.

You know, it's bad enough to have a 60" screen and the same viewing area I did in 1990 with a 27" CRT because of all the station identification, what you are watching (wtf ?), what's coming up next, and other overlays on the screen, and now we have frickin' twitter addresses taking up another corner.

Leave my fucking TV screen alone please!
Click to expand...

People still watch TV?
 
zacrobmer said:
Twitter being a private entity can censor what ever the hell they want. You first amendment rights do not extend to privately owned entities.

Jesus Christ it's amazing how those that scream the loudest about violation of rights are typically those that have no fucking clue what their rights really are.
Click to expand...
Please, just call me Jesus.

And no, we aren't ignorant, and yes that is the entire point that you get censored in any popular medium of modern communication, making the first amendment rights intended protection entirely moot.

You are censored on television, on the radio, and online, leaving no true avenue left in 2012 to practice free speech without serious legal or other ramifications if not outright preemptive or quickly reactive censorship.

That's not free speech. And if its not free speech, then it sounds like the law needs to be updated to provide the intended protection in a modern climate. And who do you imagine would need to push back for such a thing.

That's "the people", the people you think you're somehow smarter than. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
zacrobmer said:
So your saying that Twitter should not be able to control a product that they own?
Click to expand...
We already have such limitations on private industry. For example, I could open a restaurant tomorrow and put a sign on the front door that says "no native americans" or I could decide not to install a ramp for wheelchairs.

Its MY private property, so I can do whatever I want with it, correct? Nope, because it services the public and the public has protections in place requiring handicap parking spaces, ramps, anti-discrimination in who it services, and even employs.
 
Fail said:
Ah yes . . . surpressing speech. Let's silence anything we don't like. That's how dictatorships get started.
Click to expand...

You mean like how Kyle can smack you in the balls with his banhammer without as much as a by-your-leave? That dictatorship?

Sometimes you dislike for liberalism goes a little too far, methinks.

On topic, I think it's good that Twitter's weeding out hate speech. Racism and the likes have no place in our modern world.
 
Azhar said:
On topic, I think it's good that Twitter's weeding out hate speech. Racism and the likes have no place in our modern world.
Click to expand...
The nonsense though is who gets to define what "hate speech" is and who and what you are and are not allowed to show animosity or disapproval toward.

If I say something against Scientology, is that hate speech since they are recognized as a religion in the United States?
 
Ducman69 said:
We already have such limitations on private industry. For example, I could open a restaurant tomorrow and put a sign on the front door that says "no native americans" or I could decide not to install a ramp for wheelchairs.

Its MY private property, so I can do whatever I want with it, correct? Nope, because it services the public and the public has protections in place requiring handicap parking spaces, ramps, anti-discrimination in who it services, and even employs.
Click to expand...

If Twitter stated that they were no longer allowing "blacks" to post tweets then your point is valid, however it is not. The civil rights act of 1964 made it against the law to discriminate based on race, color, religion or national origin.

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Click to expand...

However, if you decided to open your restaurant and scream "I hate all Black, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, Arabs and Asians and hope they all die in a fire" every 15 minutes and be within your rights. You cannot however bar them entering or service based on the above mentioned criteria.

As soon as the Government adds an amendment to the constitution, or another act stating that a privately owned company, or service cannot censor statements as they see fit, Twitter, and any other privately owned media can censor or not censor as they see fit.

Again you do not even know what your rights are.
 
Ducman69 said:
The nonsense though is who gets to define what "hate speech" is and who and what you are and are not allowed to show animosity or disapproval toward.

If I say something against Scientology, is that hate speech since they are recognized as a religion in the United States?
Click to expand...

Hate speech in this case would be defined by Twitter, what they feel what hate speech is.

Hate speech is protected by the First amendment, assuming it does not violate certain sections of the Civil Rights act or established case law (incitement, fighting words).
 
Ducman69 said:
The nonsense though is who gets to define what "hate speech" is and who and what you are and are not allowed to show animosity or disapproval toward.

If I say something against Scientology, is that hate speech since they are recognized as a religion in the United States?
Click to expand...

I think you're being paranoid. You're going overboard with the definition of hate speech.

Ni**ers must die. That's hate speech.
Crucify the Jews. That's hate speech.
Send the undesirables to Auschwitz. That's hate speech.

I don't agree with the teachings of Scientology because I don't think religion has any place in the physical world. That's not hate speech.
 
Azhar said:
You mean like how Kyle can smack you in the balls with his banhammer without as much as a by-your-leave? That dictatorship?

Sometimes you dislike for liberalism goes a little too far, methinks.

On topic, I think it's good that Twitter's weeding out hate speech. Racism and the likes have no place in our modern world.
Click to expand...

I am glad to see twitter stepping up and doing something about this. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the loudest voices objecting to this are the same ones that like to utter the very crap that they are banning. Free speech has nothing to do with this decision, nobody's First Amendment rights are being violated by this. Twitter has the right to do this and it's about time they did.

Don't like it? Create your own messaging service for hate, call it Shitter. :D
 
zacrobmer said:
However, if you decided to open your restaurant and scream "I hate all Black, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, Arabs and Asians and hope they all die in a fire" every 15 minutes and be within your rights. You cannot however bar them entering or service based on the above mentioned criteria.

Again you do not even know what your rights are.
Click to expand...
Again, you do not even have basic reading comprehension.

Stop typing, go back a few posts, and realize that no one is saying that Twitter is legally obligated to protect free speech, which makes you look hilarious arguing with your fictitious straw man. Its that its a dumb policy for Twitter and that the first amendment should be updated to take modern communication channels into account. Huukt on fonix, yo.

And for someone trying to mock others for their understanding of the law, you just made yourself out to be quite the fool with your "I hate blacks and wish for them to die in a fire" comment as being perfectly legal.
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, disability[3], nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity,[4] or other characteristic.[5] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.
Click to expand...
DERRRRPP... :D
 
Fail said:
Ah yes . . . surpressing speech. Let's silence anything we don't like. That's how dictatorships get started.
Click to expand...

Ducman69 said:
Thanks DICK! :rolleyes:

So much for free speech if popular mediums of modern communication are either privately or publicly controlled and thus can dictate what people can and can't say.
Click to expand...

Ducman69 said:
What good is the first amendment if you can't actually voice your opinion in a modern environment?

Sure, you can stand on a street corner in an approved location and speak at a reasonable volume, but you can't exactly get your voice out in any meaningful way in the information age where we communicate online.

Problem is, if all the modern forms of communication are heavily moderated, then you really don't have any means of free speech other than walking around wearing a sign or standing in an approved protest location.
Click to expand...

Ducman69 said:
We already have such limitations on private industry. For example, I could open a restaurant tomorrow and put a sign on the front door that says "no native americans" or I could decide not to install a ramp for wheelchairs.

Its MY private property, so I can do whatever I want with it, correct? Nope, because it services the public and the public has protections in place requiring handicap parking spaces, ramps, anti-discrimination in who it services, and even employs.
Click to expand...

Derp?

You don't know what a "straw man argument" is.

Also if you are going to quote Wiki at least make sure you read and comprehend the entire content. Just a little down the same page...


United States

In the United States, hate speech is widely protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[53] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[54][55][56][57]
The "reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."[58] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[59] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.[60]
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[61][62]
In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[63] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.[64] Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[65]
Click to expand...

Back on topic, the fact of the matter is that Twitter can censor posts as they see fit. Until such a time that the FCC or some other governing body steps in and decides that all media falls under the First Amendment and cannot be censored.
 
I am not a twitter user but I think this is a reasonable thing for them to do. There is no way to force totally unmoderated speech on private venues due to other legal requirements (libel, civil liability, etc). Regardless of how entrenched we perceive these internet based speech mediums to be, they are still private and bound by the restrictions of a private company. As such, it is the owners responsibility and right to maintain these venues, not the government's. For people who want to speak in an unmoderated forum there will always be something out there but we shouldn't force every provider like Google+, Facebook, or Twitter to abandon the control of their own private property (especially where there are financial brand elements at play).

If people want unmoderated wild west communication I think there are still forums like the old Usenet out there that will let anyone say anything about anybody. However, it would be irresponsible and a major power grab for the government to try and control the forums that are owned by private for profit entities. Let Twitter make their change and leave the government out of it. I am sure there are plenty of hate speech forums out there on other private servers so people will still be able to share their thoughts on those subjects with like minded individuals.

As to what criteria that Twitter should use to define hate speech, that is up to them. It is their brand and they will be able to determine what types of speech hurt that brand and what types don't. If they think that someone complaining about Mochacinos hurts their brand and they want to ban it, that is their call, not ours :)
 
kbrickley said:
If people want unmoderated wild west communication
Click to expand...
This is the mentality that I just don't understand.

Considering the interface of Twitter in this example, if you don't want to hear the person, you would simply not follow the person.

"Wild West" draws a picture of real inherent danger posed where everyman needs a gun to defend himself, but not only is it just words, but its words that you have to CHOOSE to even view in the first place. Its not something like the Westboro Baptists making a ruckus at a funeral that is clearly "in your face" disruptive, its people that have to OPT-IN to hear that person.

So what Twitter is saying is that they are censoring speech the audience is opting in to hear. How is that protecting anyone?
 
So what Twitter is saying is that they are censoring speech the audience is opting in to hear. How is that protecting anyone?
Click to expand...

Twitter isn't protected anyone, nor should they. Twitter is protecting Twitter (their financial brand). That is perfectly legal and within their rights and it shouldn't be up to the government or anyone else to tell them that they can't protect their brand.
 
Ducman69 said:
This is the mentality that I just don't understand.

Considering the interface of Twitter in this example, if you don't want to hear the person, you would simply not follow the person.

"Wild West" draws a picture of real inherent danger posed where everyman needs a gun to defend himself, but not only is it just words, but its words that you have to CHOOSE to even view in the first place. Its not something like the Westboro Baptists making a ruckus at a funeral that is clearly "in your face" disruptive, its people that have to OPT-IN to hear that person.

So what Twitter is saying is that they are censoring speech the audience is opting in to hear. How is that protecting anyone?
Click to expand...

It's literally no different than if you started posting NSFW images in this thread. Those posts would be deleted and you'd be banned. By having a forums account here I haven't chosen to view NSFW images just because you decided to post them. [H]ard|OCP is potentially protecting my job in that scenario. Similarly, I haven't chosen to view hate speech just because I have twitter account. That's not a first amendment issue. It's a rules of the house issue.

Twitter could ban talking about pinatas if they wanted to. Then one day it's your birthday and you want to tell everyone about smacking a paper-mache donkey in your backyard and you'll have to take it to facebook where the standards are lower. Deal with it.
 
kbrickley said:
Twitter isn't protected anyone, nor should they. Twitter is protecting Twitter (their financial brand). That is perfectly legal and within their rights and it shouldn't be up to the government or anyone else to tell them that they can't protect their brand.
Click to expand...
Its perfectly legal right now, correct, just as it was once perfectly legal for realtors to protect their financial investment by discriminating against minorities in their developed communities. Laws just like company policies change when there are enough vocal people that complain about it.

Hopefully zacrobmer will at some point realize that no one has ever implied that Twitter is breaking any laws, but I don't expect we'll see an apology on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top