There is a certain "jurisprudence" to this sort of thing. All laws are written ambiguously; that doesn't mean it's impossible to enforce them or that the laws are useless. Human interaction shouldn't be codified into computer code and in most cases can't be.
Whatever Twitter decides those things are, someone will be upset about it, and someone will contest the definition. That's fine. We already have this kind of thing in HN and Reddit and anywhere else on the internet where any kind of moderation happens. We had it in Usenet and in web forums.
The whole idea that ambiguity in the laws means that we should have absolute "free speech" including the demonstrably toxic and hateful place that Twitter has become is bonkers. Sure, you'll alienate some people who don't like your definitions. But that's kind of the point. To foster the community you want to have.
There's also a lot of dangerous precedent that could be set if they were to block the POTUS.
So do we just say "no violent speech unless you've somehow managed to get elected"?
What would that be? If anything I’d think that would be a good thing that no one would be above the rules.
It’s not like he doesn’t have other communication methods.
That is spectacular. Our current culture war is THE reason why the Left is losing.
Edit: By way of further clarification, I realize that private entities have no such burdens when writing policies, but I was responding to a comparison with jurisprudence. That's not just a matter of a board making a call, or a CEO, it's the process by which an entire judiciary, over time, interprets law.
This is really nothing like it, just a set of loosely worded edicts from people who don't actually have to issue them in the first place, except to pretend that they're doing something constructive.
I think you should see some examples of hate speech law, or things like the UK's maddeningly vague anti-terrorism laws.
(A concurring opinion is written by one or more justices who joined in the Court's (majority) opinion but wish to write separately to make some separate points or explain where they diverge from the majority opinion.)
These highly centralized, privatized means of communication have gone from amusing, to sickening.
I'm all for this, but I seriously doubt we'll see Twitter stand up to movie/television studios.
* All form of weapons enthusiasm.
* Pretty much all anime and 'adult' cartoons.
* A lot of tweets praising the military.
* "Punch a Nazi"
Right now and in the future they can censor people that few people care about and probably have a much bigger impact without any outrage outside of niche communities.
It’s perfectly possible to speak about politics without personal attacks or threats.
And even with actual law, people who may be satisfied with a particular law, may be very dissatisfied with a particular judge's interpretation and subsequent ruling, but that's how jurisdiction works.
"We'll know it when we see it"
Is it better to push extremists and other weirdos to the echo-chamber fringe, to forums where they only ever encounter those that agree with them, or is it better to allow them into the public forum, where they will clearly find a huge number of people who disagree and argue with them, to show that their views are not so widely agreed with as they might come to dangerously believe in an echo chamber?
The above is assuming we only ever censor those who "should be censored"; imagine if social media were around during the civil rights movement and apartheid, whom would we then have censored, if you care to guess?
I know there are nuances here I haven't covered, but you can see that there is more to this than is seen at first glance.
We need some kind of un-governed mode of digital communication, as with real speech. No group can realistically stop you from shouting what you want to shout in public when you want to shout it, though you can obviously become a pariah or a prisoner shortly after. The same should be true online, free to face the consequences of your own speech, rather than not to speak at all.
Witness the adherents to the flat earth society or those that stringently don't believe we landed on the moon, never the Googler's sexist manifesto. Anti-semitic screeds like "the Jews run the banks and this is why you're poor!" frequently leak into open comment sections of your local news' website, or YouTube comments.
They're called echo chambers for a reason - semi-public forums become echo chambers because people won't seek out forums where people stringently disagree with them, they'll find supportive or semi-supportive forums, but in some cases those forums are stormfront or 4chan (where copying and pasting n-gger a million times passes for insightful). See also: HN's poor response to the Googler's firing. Vice.com had an infographic on Twitter about this, courtesy of MIT's media lab - https://news2-images.vice.com//uploads/2016/12/TwitterData1-.... Or multiple reports that certain groups of people have Fox News as their exclusive news outlet.
Even without social media, we see the same patterns in the past as we do today. Fun fact: Rosa Parks not the first person to stay seated at the front of the bus, but she had the unimpeachable character to deflect ad hominem attacks. It took a pre-organized movement just waiting for someone like Rosa Parks to refuse to move in order to catalyze change; homeless people, prostitutes, and drug addicts arrested for sitting at the front of the bus need not apply. We see this today, with Colin Kaepernick protesting "wrong" and that we could support Occupy Wallstreet/Black Lives Matter/Antifa if only they weren't protesting wrong.
When Twitter pretends to be powerless to do anything about death/rape threats to women journalists, the light of civilization is dimmed, ever so slightly. When entire classes of people disengage from mainstream discourse because they are being threatened by bodily harm, maybe it is possible that it is disingenuous to pre-conclude that anything possibly resembling censorship will result in a dystopian police state where African Americans are still denied the right to vote.
And what consequence does someone who makes a lot of sock puppet accounts to send oven memes to Jewish people face? Pretty much none. Yet, those people are still faced with that constantly, and as a result, they choose not to engage. Now you've silenced their right to speech.
Create tiers of accounts, a verified account can @reply 100 times a day to people who aren't following them, an anonymous account: 0.
/s
Really, it's what I hoped FB would turn into. I.e. you had "themed" pages, and follow them for posts regarding that theme. However, it seems that what happens is if a page and it's admins start getting any non-negligible amount of followers, they decide that it's their "right" to use it as a platform for opinions on unrelated matters. It's quite frustrating.
What is the exact definition of a "violent group"?
What constitutes "hateful imagery"?
Where can I find their database of "hate symbols"?
What constitutes a "hateful display name"?
What constitutes "condoning and glorifying violence"? (I would argue that many if not most video games at least glorify violence, from my perspective!)
In our modern Internet-connected society, the meanings of terms and symbols are subject to rapid and unexpected change. The ADL lists "Pepe the Frog" as a "hate symbol"[0], and while it's basically undeniable that many people use the symbol in an intentionally inflammatory or hateful context, I'm left completely at a loss as to whether or not posting an image of Pepe—or any cartoon frog for that matter—will get me suspended. (I have no reason to do so of course; this is entirely hypothetical.)
From the perspective of many people, especially those who use Twitter, certain political figures are considered to be inherently "hateful", and showing support for them is considered to be an act of hate.
There's a lot of talk about lines being drawn here but no talk of where exactly they will be drawn.
[0] https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/pepe-t...