Twitter to ban unlabelled parody accounts
bbc.com
bbc.com
A few days ago Elon posted "comedy is now legal on twitter". I guess this is a caveat to that.
Meanwhile I'm continuing to report the pretty explicit racism, homophobia, transphobia I'm seeing in replies to some people I follow and getting the "...we want to let you know that {user} hasn't broken our safety policies..." response. So, it seems the priorities for the (presumably substantially gutted) moderation team aren't hate speech, but rather protecting Musk's feelings
I guess that doesn't appear in the feed though?
[0] https://twitter.com/gerardkcohen/status/1588584459779321857
And I wouldn't complain too much about whatever is happening in the next few weeks. It's a transition period and not particularly meaningful - can't really tell if any one incident is due to deliberate policy, understaffing, work in progress or evolving goals.
They don't. Twitter reigned that back in many years ago.
In fact Dorsey's new BlueSky project is a return to the early days of Twitter where they provide an API and let anyone build clients.
It looks like they are moving to address this by making the blue check tied to a specific name, which makes a lot of sense. If someone wants to change their display name, they can go through reverification, which should also fix the preexisting issue of blue check accounts getting hacked and used for scams.
The tweet in question:
"Even though Jeffrey Epstein committed horrible crimes, I do still miss him on nights like this for his warmth and comradery. Rest In Peace old friend"
Parody is usually identifiable by its content, not because someone has to put a big "[WARNING: PARODY]" tag at the top.
With the Onion or the Babylon Bee, they are "reporting" crazy-sounding stories with their own name and account, and thus with their attached reputation as established satire sites. That's an important distinction, in my opinion.
Honestly this should have been the bannable offense. The checkmark was meant to guaranteed that you are who your claims to be (without having to check the @ on a side channel). If you intentionally use it for deceit then what is the point?
Personally I dislike both Musk and Twitter, but I hope (and also doubt) that Twitter keeps an adequate level of user verification for the checkmarks.
The easiest option in my opinion would be to force verified users to submit tickets for display name changes, or warn them that they will have to reapply for verification when they try to change their display name and remove it. Musk sounds like he is choosing the latter.
The point is that it's now possible to simply purchase a checkmark for $8.00/mo with no identity verification involved. So the checkmark is now unfit for any purpose besides impersonating other accounts. Which is why everyone is using it to shit on Elon Musk.
Some of the “jokes” they tried to pull off should probably get them cancelled from all platforms.
Musk seems unhinged as this point.
To be fair, that was several days ago. Elon has had plenty of time since to change what he wants to do in life and probably change his mind on whether or not to buy Twitter.
Someone else (with a blue tick!) being able to impersonate another verified account, goes obviously against this.
It's literally the same people first complaining about "anyone can buy blue tick" and then "why am I banned by impersonating" - I guess you got what you wanted, no?
for the record, I don't think impersonators should be banned, simply that impersonating name changes should be reversed and/or impossible.
edit: on second thought, name changes of verified accounts should be disabled and/or limited (pending re-verification)
In a few of the cases I've seen, it's been a litmus test. Like - ok if I follow the rules, mark myself as a "parody" (rolleyes) set my name to Elon Musk and fire off a tweet about how I miss Jeffrey Epstein then either one of two things will happen:
1. I am allowed to stay - fine, I don't love Elon but I can exist here. I'll probably go back to tweeting normally now.
2. I am banned - also fine, I now understand that Twitter is a place where Elon carves out little exceptions to please himself, so I don't wanna be here
It's looking like #2 is the case for many accounts. A number of the rest of us who had no interest in doing this are a bit saddened because some people we enjoyed following are gone and the rules/TOS are now almost unknowable, because you also have to append "... or if Elon doesn't like it" to them all. That last bit has a tinge of irony to it, given one of the things he was quite vocal about was making speech more free and open, not less.
I see now that it’s only become a verification of the fact that you’ve paid.
So gone is the "anything legal goes, free speech absolutism", now jokes need to be labeled as jokes because comedy is legal on Twitter but only within the guidelines of Elon Musk.
These people getting banned for making their name Elon Musk were not defrauding anybody, a well known comedian wasn't pretending to be Musk and making people send crypto or buy stocks.
They were making comedy or a performance art, they being banned is like going around and locking down people who impersonate other people for laughs or satire as if they were stealing identity to drain out the bank account of Musk.
Its very dystopian. As I said before, most "free speech absolutists" are actually free speech NIMBYs and Elon Musk seems to be no exception.
And it's nearly 180 degrees from what any reasonable person would call "free speech".
~ Elon Musk, 2022-10-28
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586104694421659648
Sounds like he forgot to label this one as a parody, eh?
That way, they automatically label their tweets as parody, and don't have to include such sentences as "this tweet was a parody" as implied in your post.
In fact I'm pretty sure that's what is meant when the Twitter TOS states "To avoid confusing others about an account’s affiliation, parody, commentary, and fan accounts must distinguish themselves in BOTH their account name and bio."
Exercising their free speech by clumsily painting "pArOdY" in mspaint on their Twitter account banner picture, but not including "(Parody)" in their account name, is in breach of the TOS.
I'm in favour of freedom of speech because I believe it is important that ideas must be shared and debated freely and that no one should be beyond criticism. Being allowed to impersonate others simply doesn't seem to be an important part of that.
You forgot the "allowed to impersonate others to do parodies" part of it. I don't understand how you can be staunchly in favour of freedom of speech while holding the position that this kind of speech, blatant parody humour using impersonation as a delivery tool, is not protected under freedom of speech.
If I somehow managed to register the domain "gooogle.com" and use it for humour, to take jabs at Google by displaying loads of fake ads instead of search results, showing on purpose unrelated results to the search query, etc., should my website be banned?
Impersonation for scams and straight up deception are already punishable under other laws, why is that impersonation for parody and humour should be punished? I thought that was... Speech.
Your gooogle.com example doesn't seem to connect to the situation at hand, which is about whether it is against the principles of freedom of speech to place limits on impersonation even in such cases where no fraud is being committed.
My goal is that people should be allowed to express all views and criticise all people. If for whatever reason impersonation must be outlawed, so be it - it may in fact further the goals for which I support freedom of speech.
Amazing how quick they switch up
Ethan Klein's account wasn't noted as a parody in its name. Its name was Elon Musk.
Klein's account had Elon's account's profile picture and name, and had a verification badge. I think its totally sensible that the account got banned.
[0]https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/parody-accoun...
It is. And inline with Twitter's long standing position of banning people for violating their ToS.
I wonder if over time Musk will realise that maybe his utopic vision of limitless free speech is actually unworkable and harmful and maybe he should've left Twitter's moderation approach the same as when he bought it.
After all, Elon was just projecting when he complained about accounts getting unjustly banned due to hurting feelings of <INSERT BOGEYMAN>.
The entire point of the amicus brief is an argument that labeling a parody as a parody destroys the point of the parody. The four arguments:
I. Parody Functions By Tricking People Into Thinking That It Is Real
II. Because Parody Mimics "The Real Thing," It Has The Unique Capacity To Critique The Real Thing
III. A Reasonable Reader Does Not Need A Disclaimer To Know That Parody Is Parody
IV. It Should Be Obvious That Parodists Cannot Be Prosecuted For Telling A Joke With A Straight Face
It seemed a bit relevant to this. It's pending certiori and might go ignored, but the Supreme Court could rule that parody is protected under the first amendment, which would make Twitter an opponent of actual free speech (the legislative definition, not the new internet definition).
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
There. Here's the problem.
This is the opposite of what's true. Parody only functions because it's obviously NOT real, but real adjacent, a facsimile. How could it be a joke if you just think it's real and assimilate it into your world view?
The Onion files Supreme Court amicus brief defending the right to parody - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33481989 - Nov 2022 (53 comments)
Defending parody: the most important amicus brief yet - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33175057 - Oct 2022 (22 comments)
If PARODY between PARODY every PARODY word PARODY the PARODY text PARODY "PARODY" must PARODY be PARODY displayed PARODY that PARODY would PARODY be PARODY a PARODY really PARODY good PARODY way PARODY to PARODY ensure PARODY nobody PARODY was PARODY confused PARODY as PARODY to PARODY what PARODY was PARODY and PARODY what PARODY was PARODY real.
- Elon PARODY Musk PARODY
-- END PARODY SEGMENT --
There's naturally gonna be a lot of places parody isn't labeled parody in blinking lights. It's comedically necessary. Ultimately if it is trivially easy for an average person to realize an account is not authentic (like the twitter handle being different) I think that's a fair and reasonable burden for anyone who imagines Twitter as a place where "humor is legal".
No one profited or benefited from the endeavour and I don't think anyone seriously believed that this was Musk commenting.
Did you not say this? ^ Because it is literally what this says/implies.
You don’t seem to be interested in any actual conversation, but just trolling.
Back to the subject: Yoel being the lead here doesn't necessarily mean he could have done anything about it — in fact, based on what I hear through the grapevine (and trust me on this one, I have very good sources), many of these things are being done one-off by Musk himself — which is disheartening on its own.
Seems like Mastodon is more free speech friendly than Twitter now? Might it therefore suffer from hate in the future, once it's own September begins.
I wonder if @jesus will tag himself
I also suggest a <sarcasm> tag as is customary on reddit. it s time we accept that on internet humor will come with PG ratings from now on
By the way we dont need a new article every time elon posts a change on twitter. Wait a month and write an article about all of them
But advertisers do
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/comedian-kathy-griffin-...
For example the more left wing people don't call themselves that bc they know that banning hate speech means not having total free speech. Why do people like Elon and his fans argue that they can still vouch for total free speech while banning certain forms of expression?
EDIT: I'm rate limited so can't reply. Elon Musk has called himself a "free speech absolutist" multiple times
So it seems confusing when people talk about free speech absolutism as it’s a one sided argument.
My interpretation is that there’s a free speech principle and it’s always had limits (eg, threatening someone’s life, inciting immediate violence). But it’s about drawing the line of what speech is allowed or disallowed.
Musk claims he is: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/08/1127689351/elon-musk-calls-hi...
> But the latest twist in this ongoing saga has resurfaced questions about what the popular social media site will look like under the leadership of a so-called free speech absolutist.
I think he’s being labeled as one in this article but it doesn’t seem like Musk is claiming to be an absolutist.
I've seen more than a few people claim that verbatim, so no.
- don't allow hate speech
- don't allow harassment
- reduce spread of (likely intentionally created) misinformation
The think is a lot of the complains come from people doing one of the points above _intentionally and knowing_ and then complain "but free speech". In their mind it is okay to spread hate speech and harass or push harassment of certain groups of people because they _do not see them as people_. They often also come up with stupid argument why their harassment is supposedly no harassment, with nonsense like "we should be allowed to always remind a traumatized person of their trauma because thats just free speach and purely informative we don't insult them" often taking advantage of 3rd parties potentially not understanding why its harassment far worse then some childish insults.
EDIT: Or complains from people which intentional spread misinformation for other political and often market manipulation reasons and don't like when twitter labeled their tweet as misinformation.
"Starlink has been told by some governments (not Ukraine) to block Russian news sources. We will not do so unless at gunpoint.
Sorry to be a free speech absolutist." [1]
It comes from:
- people not understanding their own constitution
- people in privileged positions not understanding why we can't tolerate hate speech, harassment and similar
- a ton of modern fascists complaining that their posts where removed by moderation, or their accounts have been suspended, when spreading hate speech and misinformation. Some of this people are rather influential in conservative circles and/or wealthy.
You wouldn't steal a movie
You wouldn't steal an identity
Parody. It's a crime."
A comic strip artist that I follow constantly puts fake words into famous peoples' mouths in his newspaper sections, but even tough I know it's fake I can still partake in the momentary delusion and get a good laugh
If potential readers cannot differentiate between reality and parody they're either deep in a conspiracy rabbit hole, or reality has become too crazy. Both these cases would again be a valid reason for parody to point out this fact.
Jokes work by surprising the audience. Pretending to be someone else before revealing the truth is just one method of doing this, and requiring to label it as parody is like explaining the punchline before the joke. The Onion recently wrote an actual legal document on exactly this and how required labelling of parody violates free speech.
When a comedian "impersonates" a politicians we all partake in a temporary delusion aided by the comic's ability to mimick the politician. Everyone knows it's fake but we laugh nonetheless. Making a hyper-realistic deep fake video of a politician saying absurd stuff is not free speech without appropriate labelling.
Can you point to case law that makes this clear? Intent highly matters and I don't see anyone facing legal repercussions for impersonating someone for comic intent or even politically motivated intentions. Not to mention, Twitter already has a mechanism identifying verified accounts, doesn't it?
> Making a hyper-realistic deep fake video of a politician saying absurd stuff is not free speech without appropriate labelling.
Lying is mostly not against the law and is covered under free speech. In fact in 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that lying can be Constitutionally protected under free speech. [1] Whether or not such video would be ethically wrong is another matter. But I think you are wrong is in saying it is not free speech.
https://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147257716/is-a-lie-just-free-...
It's funny that you mention The Onion, because they are impersonating nobody since there is no legitimate news outlet named "The Onion". Their articles might mimick the writing style of legitimate ones, but they are not claiming to be CNN or Fox.
I'd appreciate hearing an argument for this being impersonation rather than hearing it repeatedly asserted, as if it weren't a fact in dispute.
Come on, everybody knows that: unlabeled parody is hate speech /s
Claiming “just a prank, bro” won’t cut it anymore. Good.
> Other accounts, including one parodying former US President Donald Trump by comedian Tim Heidecker, are yet to be suspended
Kind of says it all :P
I thought free speech was me saying what I want, not a free pass to mislead people to believe I said something I didn't.
And permitting lying or misleading speech is a pretty core part of free speech, it might be socially frowned upon or disincentivised by terms of service/moderation/other methods, but it's certainly not illegal
Anyway, break the ToS of a any service and you'll get suspended, I fail to see where the debate is right there.
The title of the article is misleading, the comedian account was not unlabeled: it was labeled as certified.