Yeah, that isn't correct.
They react when they see an issue rather than proactively restrict it.
They react when they see an issue rather than proactively restrict it.
Basically if you tell me the reason Twitter is better than Gab et al. is that you don't see hate speech on Twitter because that's their policy, yet a user logs in and sees the most blatant stereotypical hate speech possible trending right there at the top of the page, you're not really selling me on what you tell me is supposedly better about your service.
The replies to my previous comment including yours seem to be missing the point: of course Twitter doesn't remotely begin to deliver on any of these promises of "safety," yet Twitter is still presented as the "safe" alternative to Gab et al. Personally I don't mind seeing "hate speech" because a.) I see hate speech about my own race, sex, and religion on a nearly daily basis at this point and b.) I realize that "deplatforming hate" doesn't do anything but cause it to coalesce elsewhere.
By showing that Twitter isn't as "safe" as they claim to be, I'm questioning why we're continuing to use it instead of either a completely-free-speech or a better-curated actually-more-"safe" alternative.
Strange, I have the opposite perception. On Twitter, I am constantly confronted with "kill the jews" kind of hate speech. If you post something with a remotely controversial hashtag, you'll get frothing responses. Oh, and on some days searching for innocent terms gets you tons of NSFW nudes - if you are outraged by that kind of thing.
OTOH, Mastodon is advertized as "safe" alternative - or lets better say "comfy". Whether you feel comfy by being able to express radical free speech and not having to deal with identity politcs, political correctness, "SJWs" and so on. Or whether you are on the other side of that debate and don't want to be bothered by hate speech, misogynism, and other abhorrent things - a loosely federated network like Mastodon offers places for both groups.