Twitter Begins Enforcement of Abusive Content Rules

DooKey

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
13,554
Last month Twitter announced they were going to tighten their rules on posting of content they judge abusive, violent, or posts of those supporting such. Starting today the new rules are going to be enforced. Furthermore, not only are they taking this on internally, but they are also accepting reports from users. Expect to see a wave of bannings/suspensions as profiles, posts and other actions that violate the new rules are found. The next few weeks should be really interesting in the Twitter world.

There is no specific list, however, of banned symbols or images. Rather, the company will review complaints individually to consider the context of the post or profile, including cultural and political considerations. It is also broadening existing policies intended to reduce threatening content, to include imagery that glorifies or celebrates violent acts. That content will be removed and repeat offenders will be banned. Beginning Monday, the company will ban accounts affiliated with “organizations that use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes.”
 
"the company will review complaints individually to consider the context of the post or profile, including cultural and political considerations"
see "profile and political considerations" - Twitter moderator x21 is sure to see both sides
 
rzozX2Q.png
 
Revenge complaints in 3 2 1...

Given how sensitive some folks are to things they might possibly find somewhat uncomfortable, even without revenge complaints, I see a lot of things forced to be labeled "Sensitive Media".
 
Anyone want to take bets that this will never affect the Donald? I mean, if they didn't kick him off for trying to start a nuclear war, what will they kick him off for?
 
If only they used this gif when banning people...

tenor.gif


BTW its produced "GIF" not "jiff" take it to twitter folks...take it to twitter ;).
 
Social media websites with as much control as Twitter should be treated as a public forum and thus the First amendment should apply. There are even politicians on there. Being banned from such a website is far more restrictive to free speech than being kicked off a shopping mall parking lot for handing out fliers.
 
variant said:
Social media websites with as much control as Twitter should be treated as a public forum and thus the First amendment should apply. There are even politicians on there. Being banned from such a website is far more restrictive to free speech than being kicked off a shopping mall parking lot for handing out flyers.
Click to expand...


Uh no. Repeat after me: The first amendment does not apply to private companies, citizens, websites et al. It only applies to the Government...

There is no way twitter can infringe upon your first amendment rights....
 
GoldenTiger said:
Last I checked it was north Korea trying to start a war. Are you joking?
Click to expand...

Note it's the same few who make every such comment and like every such comment. I would suggest just ignoring them entirely. Being an ex progressive, ex hardcore progressive, I can tell you that their echo chamber is incredibly powerful. But they do have to enforce it or facts may start to intrude upon their imaginary reality. Hence they must ban anyone who is good at stating facts that may influence progs.

I've also realized that the reason they harp on constantly about "faux news", aka fox news, is because on some level they do know that they exist entirely in a vast echo chamber and having never stepped outside of it they just assume that everyone else (the 'enemy' or other to them) does as well. Having no idea what actually exists outside their bubble but having heard of fox news they project this to all of the other.

It doesn't do any good to tell them that you've never watched fox news in your life. They just can't imagine anyone who doesn't exist entirely inside a false reality echo chamber. Oh and they know it's a false reality as well. They think they can make it real through having enough faith. Anyone who denies the false reality is a heretic, aka an ~ist (sexist, racist, global warming/coolingist, trannyist, etc), and must be purged lest the false reality not come true due to insufficient faith.

It's pretty crazy once you stop to think about it.
 
kju1 said:
Uh no. Repeat after me: The first amendment does not apply to private companies, citizens, websites et al. It only applies to the Government...

There is no way twitter can infringe upon your first amendment rights....
Click to expand...

"Technically" I agree. Philosophically I don't because the primary purpose of their changes can only be seen as politically motivated.

More importantly, the more they try and strangle the world to their ideas the more the very people they pushed out and go underground and become further entrenched in their ideologies. This strangling caused Brexit and Trump's election. What do you think will continue to happen if they keep it up?
 
Trepidati0n said:
"Technically" I agree. Philosophically I don't because the primary purpose of their changes can only be seen as politically motivated.

More importantly, the more they try and strangle the world to their ideas the more the very people they pushed out and go underground and become further entrenched in their ideologies. This strangling caused Brexit and Trump's election. What do you think will continue to happen if they keep it up?
Click to expand...

But there is no Constitutional violation here. No laws being broken. We can just stop using their service or setup a new twitter like alternative to compete with them.

I agree if they want to maintain a neutral platform then this is probably a bad idea - though I think they pretty clearly do not want a neutral platform. It all comes down to their definition of abusive. To some Kyles posts are probably abusive but I think they are just fine and those people need some lube and/or an enema but lets not get off topic... So who is right? Here Kyle is right because he owns the platform. On twitter they are right. They get to define whats abusive vs not for their platform.
 
kju1 said:
Uh no. Repeat after me: The first amendment does not apply to private companies, citizens, websites et al. It only applies to the Government...

There is no way twitter can infringe upon your first amendment rights....
Click to expand...
Tell that to Masterpiece Cakeshop.
 
Armenius said:
Tell that to Masterpiece Cakeshop.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court hasnt decided that case yet and its not about the company refusing to sell. Its about if the government can FORCE them to sell or not. They claim they are "artists" and this is their expression and forcing them to bake the cake would be forcing their art. The couples claiming discrimination based on sexual preferences (which is a protected category).

Feel free to get banned from twitter and then sue them all the way to the supreme court to see if tweets are a protected form of expression and that you have been discriminated against because of an existing category...
 
kju1 said:
Uh no. Repeat after me: The first amendment does not apply to private companies, citizens, websites et al. It only applies to the Government...

There is no way twitter can infringe upon your first amendment rights....
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that black and white. The US Supreme Court ruled in Marsha v. Alabama that the Jehovah's Witness were allowed to hand out pamphlets on a sidewalk of a privately owned corporation town. The California Supreme Court ruled in Fashion Valley Mall v. National Labor Relations Board that protestors were allowed to hand out leaflets on a mall's private property since it's open to the public.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/501/case.html

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1287814.html
 
Last edited:
kju1 said:
But there is no Constitutional violation here. No laws being broken. We can just stop using their service or setup a new twitter like alternative to compete with them.

I agree if they want to maintain a neutral platform then this is probably a bad idea - though I think they pretty clearly do not want a neutral platform. It all comes down to their definition of abusive. To some Kyles posts are probably abusive but I think they are just fine and those people need some lube and/or an enema but lets not get off topic... So who is right? Here Kyle is right because he owns the platform. On twitter they are right. They get to define whats abusive vs not for their platform.
Click to expand...

What is the point of your post? I said technically I agree. This should be intuitive that this means there no legal violation. But yet you feel the need to post "but there is no constitutional violation here". So did you quote me mistakenly thinking I said there was? Or did you accidentally quote me in trying to make your point? Either way..I'm confused.
 
Trepidati0n said:
What is the point of your post? I said technically I agree. This should be intuitive that this means there no legal violation. But yet you feel the need to post "but there is no constitutional violation here". So did you quote me mistakenly thinking I said there was? Or did you accidentally quote me in trying to make your point? Either way..I'm confused.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your philosophical point that they should be required to maintain a neutral platform.
 
kju1 said:
I disagree with your philosophical point that they should be required to maintain a neutral platform.
Click to expand...

But that isn't what you stated. You can't use "a law" to moot a philosophical point. That isn't debate, that is a pointless use of a hammer to end a discussion. And we keep wondering why each think each other won't listen. *boggling*
 
Trepidati0n said:
But that isn't what you stated. You can't use "a law" to moot a philosophical point. That isn't debate, that is a pointless use of a hammer to end a discussion. And we keep wondering why each think each other won't listen. *boggling*
Click to expand...

If you read the entire post it is. I simply restarted part of my argument at the beginning - that I feel there is nothing wrong here because no laws are being broken. And moved on to illustrate that "abusive" on their platform is theirs to decide. I agreed that if they wanted to maintain neutral this is bad. But clearly they lack the desire to maintain neutral and I saw no issue with that.

But hey whatever.

variant said:
I don't think it's that black and white. The US Supreme Court ruled in Marsha v. Alabama that the Jehovah's Witness were allowed to hand out pamphlets on a sidewalk of a privately owned corporation town. The California Supreme Court ruled in Fashion Valley Mall v. National Labor Relations Board that protestors were allowed to hand out leaflets on a mall's private property since it's open to the public.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/501/case.html

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1287814.html
Click to expand...

The first case was the STATE trying to shut them down and is invalid in this context. The second is only a state court and their decision was that the Mall broke a state law. I don't see twitter breaking any laws here...unless your arguing that they cant do this in CA only but its fine in the other states?

Feel free to take it to the courts but I have a feeling you wont make it every far.
 
Never cared for that hug box anyway. It's turning into turbo Reddit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top