Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Scirra_Tom | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Scirra_Tom

So you're speaking out for the terrorists? I'm struggling to see the point of that quote.

View on HN

Are these users committing acts of terrorism 140 characters at a time via the Internet?

Yes.

They're attracting them to other forms of communication where they can be further radicalized.

Yes, I believe even terrorists should be able to say whatever they want.

I'd actually prefer them shitposting on twitter rather than killing people.

I disagree that everyone should have a platform to say anything. Allowing hatred and violence can normalise it.

Also, if someone got on a soapbox outside your house and starting preaching violence I don't think you'd be celebrating the exercising of their rights - you'd probably call the police.

> Also, if someone got on a soapbox outside your house and starting preaching violence I don't think you'd be celebrating the exercising of their rights - you'd probably call the police.

Sure, except

> The company is balancing a commitment to free speech against pressure from policymakers who want to see social media companies do more to fight extremism and hate speech.

> [...]

> Twitter last year signed a voluntary pledge in Europe to take action within 24 hours against reports of racist, xenophobic and violent content.

It seems the pressure is comming from policy makers, not the house owners.

> It seems the pressure is comming from policy makers, not the house owners.

I think you'll find that most people in society would support the motion to attempt to reduce extremism and hate speech. It's not a controversial issue nor do I in any way feel it's trampling on any rights I have.

I might disapprove of what they say but will fight to death for their right to say it.

So you'd support them doing it on your lawn?

But what about when the posts are being used as a tool to vet and recruit candidates to join their cause and kill people?

So you don't agree with laws about hate speech?

> So you don't agree with laws about hate speech?

In fact, no.

You think that if they can tweet they won't have to go out and murder. Let off a little steam on facebook??? Really??? Really??? Obviously they are doing both and by 'shitposting' you mean posting videos glorifying their victims being beheaded and burnt alive. I suppose you think pedophiles should be able to publish their rape vids too? Anything goes right? No rights more important than the precious!

Even if what they're saying is there to recruit others to commit acts of terrorism?

And do you not believe that Twitter has the right to Freedom of Speech and Association as well?

Yes? Are you afraid they can defeat you with tweets? The risk of normalizing suppressing speech is greater than the risk of terrorism.

I'm afraid allowing terrorists a free platform to preach will influence people and normalise what they are doing and be a detriment to wider society.

I'd argue we should let them post what they want and monitor them as they freely associate with their cohorts and note the patterns/relationships. This seems like such an obvious answer that I can only assume that I'm either way off, or this is some type of marketing to engender some type of patriotism response among those not yet signed up or active on Twitter.

There have no doubt been scores of security analysts doing this for years, but I'd imagine that this can only go so deep, as I doubt they're openly scheming on Twitter.

It does however provide a window into some of their recruitment behavior, as these types of outlets are the easiest places to lure vulnerable or impressionable people into deeper, darker corners of their propaganda networks. But I have to imagine that if you were to shut off their ability to lure people there in the first place it would do more to fight them than watching and following them.

'The pen is mightier than the sword'.

The tweets are valuable propaganda to ISIS.

They are consumed by billions of young impressionable minds all over the world, inducing them to 'take up the cause'.

ISIS does not have the right to 'free speech'.

Stopping ISIS from spreading their selfie vids of how they burned people alive and 'You can too!' - is not controversial.

Unbelievably, it looks like it is controversial.

Censoring terrorist groups isn't controversial.

The vague, shifting notion of what constitutes "terrorism" and how that definition may be abused in the future, is.

Consider, if you will, what a modern-day Sedition Act of 1918 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 ) would look like.

If posting murder vids and torture photos is an effective recruiting tool in your country, you country has problems it needs to address. Banning the tweets is attaching the symptom, not the cancer.

Banning the Tweets makes a big difference, so we do it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com