Inside Twitter’s Long, Slow Struggle to Police Bad Actors
wsj.com
wsj.com
Wow, did not know it was CNN that flagged the Jones post which got him suspended for 7 days.
Someone at the hearing should ask did someone at Twitter make an editorial decision based on CNNs reporting?
Bay of Pigs on the internet.
I’ve seen some highly toxic accounts on Twitter promoting hate, rape and death, and despite being reported, they continue to spread their vitriol.
It’s saddening to think of what could have been; if frequently-visited places with organic subcultures like YouTube or 4chan had implemented some basic, sane moderation from the beginning, they could have far exceeded any of the popular social networks of today.
Because everyone that tweets more than once a week would be banned. Twitter's KPIs are tied to keeping the eternal flamewar alive. They need people emotionally engaged and saying thing they would decide against posting if forced into a 10-minute cool down period.
Their moderation problem isn't that they're fighting a wildfire. They're trying to protect a few acres while torching the rest.
I don’t think this is an accurate framing of the problem. What people want is consistency. If you want to ban people for being fringe, obnoxious or worse, you need to do it regardless of who they are.
What happens is one side of the political spectrum gets their worst actors banned while caustic tweeters on the other side of the isle can often be found with blue verification checkmarks (and unchecked aggressive tweets).
Imho Dorsey was correct in not wanting to ban Jones and Spencer because that’s more consistent with how the far-left is treated.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/10254378067752...
In fact someone changed those tweets from “white males” to something else and got banned from Twitter.
That legal system deliberately doesn't place restrictions on platforms like twitter - might I similarly suggest that you should consider that there was a great deal of thought put into that deliberate omission. If a platform like twitter supports free speech as thoughtfully considered by the American legal system, they are acting consistently with that if they deplatform people like Alex Jones. An example of them not acting consistently with that would be taking government direction on silencing users.
>And after that "massive amount of thought" there was no legal restriction put on companies that "deplatform" users like Alex Jones. Go figure.
Its vile and stupid but how is it harmful?
Really hard to google for this due to so much media coverage. Do you have a citation?
I am not defending A.Jones but ppl say this but I've never found any evidence to this.
> He was arrested on May 30, and the signs were found in his home.[59] Truelove was convicted of the theft and sentenced to 12 months in prison.[60]
> Mills entered an Alford plea and was thus found guilty; he was given a suspended sentence of one year in jail and two years' probation.
> Lucy Richards, a 57-year-old woman from Tampa, was charged with four counts of transmitting threats in interstate commerce for sending death threats to Lenny Pozner,
So system is working as designed. no?
Is this not enough deterrent for people to not harass people ?
Do you think these three incidents from 4 years ago warrant killing free speech. Do you think these are instances serious enough to sacrifice free speech? They don't even look that much of a big deal based on the sentences given out.
Even if you do think this is all the harassment that has happened, the continued coverage means more harassment is likely. Next time the death threats may not be caught in time.
Thats some strange logic. You have to weigh pros and cons.
We allow people to drink, a recreational activity and thousands of people die( actual harm) every year from DUIs.
Shouldn't we go ban alcohol consumption/bars then. Surely a recreational activity is less important than something fundamental like free speech.
Your argument was that "these incidents don't seem like that big of a deal." So in your fictional world where those three incidents are the only harassment that has happened, it's still a big deal as the system may fail the next time. In reality, there is already a mountain of harassment that the system failed to punish.
Free speech does not cover harassment.
Your argument is all over the place. From "no harm is being done" to "the harm is limited and already being punished" and now "harmful behavior should be tolerated."
Both examples should have been banned. One was just as bad as the other - one of them just had less reach. However, only one was suspended. The other was actually rewarded for her racist tweets, both with new followers among those who agreed with her racist views on her never-suspended Twitter account, and with a shiny new job at the NYT. On what planet is that a reasonable, unbiased outcome?
The bottom line is, nobody should be giving those that wish to spew hate speech a large platform with which to do it - regardless of who that hate is directed at.
Edit: The fact that a comment with this sentiment has been downvoted says everything one needs to know about how toxic HN has become.
And yes, if saying that nobody should be given a megaphone with which to spew hateful rhetoric gets downvotes, that is an indication of the toxicity of HN.
Ok, now imagine your child has been shot and then someone says you're a liar, and that since their death people keep showing up at your house and church calling you a liar. Do you think you'd be more or less upset by this?
Yes, I specifically was indeed very upset by Jeong's speech, as any other human should be (apparently you were not). Nobody should be saying those things about any race, period. Arguably, some of her tweets also called for violence. Her favorite hashtag - "#CancelWhitePeople" - calls for the elimination of white people from the planet.
You're going to try to stick to your argument, but there's no winning this one. Calling for the elimination of an entire race of people is just as bad if not worse than making some ridiculous assertions about a mass shooting being a hoax.
Apparently a lot of people weren't because she still has a job at the New York Times. Clearly your belief that humans should be upset isn't reflected in society or reality.
Your view that you'd be more upset at someone You and I never heard of before this outrage saying white people should be "Cancelled" (lol) than someone deliberately accusing you that you lied about the death of your child is, simply, ridiculous.
So, this discussion is over, since I refuse to engage with people that endorse racists or racist statements of any kind. Have a nice life.
I am not endorsing what she said, I simply don't care about it. I'm white. At least, by later definitions of white. By Huxley's original definition my Scottish ethnicity doesn't qualify :)
I have a lot of sympathy for the parents of dead children though.
I hope you learned something. Bye!
Fred Hampton also often talked about how no matter what race, white, brown, black, the proletariat must come together to overthrow the bourgeois in a proletarian revolution.
The point is that "white males" are no group protected by any anti-discriminatory law or fall under any "group" that is discriminable against under moral terms. You can legally and ethically flame against "white males" as you choose.
The reason is simple: as a collective in Western societies, white males occupy most of society's leading roles and (together with white women) form the majority of Western countries' populations. Discrimination, however, requires a power and numbers majority of the discriminators over those "discriminated"... which simply isn't the case, no matter where in the Western sphere you look.
Granted, the demographich statistics for the US show that whites may sooner or later no longer be the dominant ones by numbers... but as long as the representation of non-whites, especially black/brown people of color or people of latino and Asian origin, in ALL OF society is not representative of their numbers, whites simply cannot be discriminated against.
As a reason, there's no problem when Twitter bans people who post such stuff.
It is considered a communications medium (part of the “new media”). Media and internet are not mutually exclusive categories, and the media in the US (outside of broadcast media, where it is the broadcasting, rather than media, aspect that brings regulation) is generally unregulated and largely Constitutionally protected against regulation.
Click through this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_o...
Plenty of leftist terror groups there. And most of them are probably on twitter, too. I have very specific interests on twitter, so I know PKK is there. And they advocate for violence.
"They engage in violent protest tactics, which has included property damage and physical violence. They tend to be anti-capitalist and they are predominantly far-left and militant left, which includes anarchists, communists and socialists...
Scott Crow, described by CNN as 'a longtime Antifa organizer', argues that destroying property is not a form of violence. The groups have been associated with physical violence in public against police and against people whose political views its activists deem repugnant. Antifa activists used clubs and dyed liquids against the white supremacists in Charlottesville and caused property damage. In one incident, an apparent antifa supporter punched white supremacist Richard Spencer in the face as he was giving an impromptu street interview and on another occasion, in Berkeley, it was reported that some threw Molotov cocktails."
EDIT: And, if you're looking for individuals, these fine folks from the FBI most wanted domestic terrorists:
Is it really extremism to punch white supremacists/literal Nazi's though?
I personally reported many accounts, including an antifa group that called for killing cops and white peoples to no avail. At the same time twitter bans people for sharing news about job growth. Go figure.
The specific stats e.g. impressions, engagements, detail expands, clicks, replies, etc. are all measured. And that's just what's exposed to us. Twitter doubtless has more than that on hand.
Do you feel like the accounts mentioned, ranked from most influential to least, would have Alex Jones at the very top?
Legal arguments often include reference to a "reasonable person". Legal is subjective.
Why does the account that tweeted "Old. White. Men." deserve to be banned based on that tweet? That's something you are saying should be banned? (Just to be clear, that's one of the 'tweets' you are linking to in that screenshot)
> I personally reported many accounts, including an antifa group that called for killing cops and white peoples to no avail.
Citation needed. Actually quite interested in this one. This seems like something serious.
> At the same time twitter bans people for sharing news about job growth.
Citation needed. Please note, I'm looking specifically for proof that someone who shared job growth information got banned specifically for sharing that job growth information.
Until you provide the requested information, I'll feel comfortable in dismissing anything you say as bs.
But, that's 1 out of 3 you've "address", and your 1 isn't even compelling. You literally tell me flat out that Twitter is indeed responding to reports and acting on them.
Anyways, please address the other two, and I hope they actually demonstrate what you claim.
In contrast, Alex Jones made specific accusations about specific named people who were already dealing with harassment. The Pizzagate people had a potential mass shooting on their hands. The Sandy Hook parents, Brennan Gilmore, etc. all had credible claims for libel and concerns that his incitement would spur more dangerous activities. When Twitter suspended him for a week it was after a literal call to arms telling people “Now is time to act on the enemy before they do a false flag”.
As for your claim that Twitter is banning anyone for sharing job growth, you really need to cite credible sources for anyone to believe you. The conservative movement loves to loudly proclaim their victim status but the conspiracy theories inevitably turns out to be either misunderstanding how the services work or expecting special treatment.
Candace Owens was suspended for just two tweets copied from Sarah Jeong. Sarah Jeong made hundreds of such tweets without consequence...and the left defended her.
Plenty of people would see the editorial board of the NYT as "visible" and Jeong is certainly far-left (unless it's a moderate opinion to blast white men publicly for years on end).
You should try to stick to arguing the facts and leave the personal attack nonsense out of it. Calling other users "toddlers" doesn't help your argument.
Sarah Jeong is not 'far left', nor is writing silly tweets about white men. That's neither a left, nor a right nor a swift uppercut to the jaw.
> Sarah Jeong is not 'far left', nor is writing silly tweets about white men.
It sure sounds like it's you changing the meaning of words. Is it a right wing trait to attack men and white people or is it left wing? That statement seems straightforward and uncontroversial.
As to Jeong's tweets, I don't think they're attacks on men or white people. If you think they are and find them rude and offensive, fair enough, that's a matter of taste. What is not a matter of taste and what I am claiming is an obviously poopy argument is insisting that replacing 'white people' with 'Jews' produces statements of equivalent offensiveness and appallingness. That is not the same ballpark, league or even sport [1].
[1] [1994 V. Vega, J. Winnifield]
A lot of people will tell you that it actually is equivalent because attacking someone's gender or race is always bad. That seems to be the fundamental disagreement in both sides of this argument.
If your argument was that you find her tweets offensive and rude I'd try to convince you you might be misinterpreting them but at the end of the day, it's your feelings and your reaction and it doesn't require any great feats of empathy on my end to acknowledge some might find this stuff bothersome or to nod along at the suggestion that casual generalizations are fraught and the habit of them is to be avoided and is probably just not a great thing to begin with, in almost all contexts.
But that isn't the argument. The argument is that this is the same and deserves identical opprobrium as, say, anti-semitism. You know, anti-semitism, the prejudice with a long history of actual oppression that was also a fundamental tenet of an ideology that perpetrated the industrial extermination of millions of people for their ethnicity, that still exists, the effects of which still reverberate through our culture and society, etc. Compared to some people being miffed at some tweets. To call an argument drawing a parallel between these merely dumb and ignorant is bend-over-backwards polite and charitable.
But we are talking about racial slurs and not just "rude" language. I don't agree that there's some hierarchy of racism where changing the race moves you up and down the offensive scale. All racism is equally bad, yes even that pointed toward white people.
We'll see if the left can prescriptively redefine what "racism" means to align with their politics. I have serious doubts that it will pick up steam though.
It's not. This particular one is mostly manufactured twitter outrage.
I truly believe the dictionary definition of racism
You aren't using a 'dictionary definition of racism'. You're using one in which evoking literal Nazism is the same thing as being upset at someone's unfunny edgelordery. It's not a good look and you ought to reconsider.
> You aren't using a 'dictionary definition of racism'.
The dictionary definition or racism is this:
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
So I guess I am using the dictionary definition.
> caustic tweeters on the other side of the isle can often be found with blue verification checkmarks (and unchecked aggressive tweets).
She copied everything except the race/ethnicity the tweets were attacking.
And the number of left-wing media outlets that rose to defend her makes me think it's fair to describe this as an issue of bias based on side of the political spectrum, as the root comment said:
> What happens is one side of the political spectrum gets their worst actors banned while caustic tweeters on the other side of the isle can often be found with blue verification checkmarks (and unchecked aggressive tweets).
In short, much of the left-wing defends anti-white racism and Twitter allows it.
Our points of view simply do not intersect.
But when you say this isn't a left-wing issue, I think you fail to consider the number of people in the left wing who've argued that "racism against white people is impossible" and the support for Sarah Jeong in the left wing media.