1A rights apply to GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE in your expression.
There is no "lack of free speech on Twitter," nor do they owe anyone unrestricted freedom to spread disinfo and hate speech.
No body is owed a platform.
I grew up in the 80s you had to be a news personality or famous to reach people.
Echo chambers weren't a thing because the chamber was your neighbors and some of them would probably laugh in your face at crazy things or slap you if it's offensive.
When you can join groups where you know it's safe to say whatever, you will, and you'll be emboldened and think that's how everyone thinks she it's dangerous to operate in the world with that level of group think, especially if the group values ignorance and conformity(fascism) over free thought, expression, and diversity.
I see leftists in my communities getting banned all the time.
Vast majority of these accounts were never banned and many of the tweets are still up today.
Some should be deleted. "End white people" is arguably a call to violence akin to what gets the right banned.
Some lack context. The first one, for instance, still exists but it's a reply to a tweet that doesn't. It's possible this is sarcasm.
Some are clearly in bounds, like, what's Jack May's tweet saying that should be against the rules? (Third column). Or Lena Dunham arguing that we're not causing the extinction of white men? Or someone saying, "can you cite a recent example of a figure expressing racism against white people?"
And then there are all the "I hate white people" comments. Personally we're likely to disagree about them. I think it's important to contextualize history and who has power when you moderate. Punching up is different than punching down, in my opinion. It's different to say "I hate the wealthy" and "I hate the poor". "I hate a minority" is different than "I hate the majority [who have a history of being oppressors]". I think it's really tacky for these folks to tweet this, and it's not something I'd tweet, so for me it falls into a grey area. I can reasonably see your argument that these are the same as, e.g., "I hate gay people" because it's expressing hate based on identity.
If Twitter went the way of saying "expressing hate towards an group based on traits they cannot control is against the rules" I'd say that I don't think that's nuanced enough, but I could live with it.
Thanks for sharing a source, it was interesting to dive in here.
Prejudice is the internal feeling that another group is inferior. Nearly all of the tweets above exhibited prejudice.
Discrimination is acting on that prejudice. Feeling someone is inferior is one thing, acting on it is a notable different thing. Again, nearly all the tweets there were discriminatory. No disagreements from me.
Here's where we'll disagree:
Racism is discrimination with social power. There's a clear difference between a weak, powerless group discriminating and a powerful group discriminating. In both cases, the discrimination is absolutely wrong. Discrimination against white folks is wrong. But it's clear there is some type of discrimination against a race where the powerful impact the minority disproportionally. Sentencing of criminals, for instance.
The phenomenon of disproportionate impact absolutely exists, but we can disagree whether that should be the definition of racism. That's fine. If you believe racism is "any discrimination based on race", then yes, these tweets would be racist. If you believe "racism is discrimination based on race with a systemic power imbalance", then no, most of these tweets are not racist.
I believe both definitions are valid and cultural. I'm happy to engage with your definition if it's different. Both definitions are in common use, and obviously clash, but I think it's useful to say, "which definition are we using, and using that definition, would these tweets be racist?"
There's no need for you to throw jabs or make sweeping generalizations. We, you and I, can chat politely about this.
What about sentencing for prison? Or discipline in school? Or rejection of job applications? All of which have favorable outcomes for white people.
The point is that white folks benefit from systemic advantages (usually).
Look no further than this same thread when people argue that twitter simply enforced their TOS and people get downvoted whereas others are publicly arguing that they should be able to make fun of minorities (read make shitty remarks and pass them off as jokes wink wink nudge nudge). It’s all a dog whistle.
Obviously (IMNSHO) Twitter must be a little less strict than a niche forum, but it would be a great start for Twitter if they were as balanced as HN is: here you get a talking to or a ban if you deserve it - regardless of what side you belong to.
On Twitter it seems you can get away with some amazing things (haven't I seen death wishes?) if you are clearly left leaning.
I mean left as in, not Democrat (which Americans seem to think is a lefty party), but actual leftists discussing socialism and anarchism theory. And not even the autocratic leftist stuff (which sucks. Leftist dictators suck), just like every day "we should tax more and build social housing and stop evictions" leftists.
I've not seen signs of this: on the contrary we have had to work hard to get Twitter to ban the worst of the worst (e.g. socialist accounts who argue openly for military attacks on Ukrainian civilians far from the front lines - or even worse).
It would be great if the same Twitter that finds it OK to throw out Babylon Bee for having fun with a government official would also be consistent enough to throw out tankies that more or less (you should see some of the things I have seen) argue for genocide of Ukrainians.
Same goes for hate speech against Jews, it is amazing what some people can get away with on Twitter.
Are we talking about the same website here? Because twitter has been full of this for many years. Maybe you just don't notice it because the content in question is politically agreeable to you.
That being said, Musk relies on government contracts and subsidy for almost every aspect of his empire, so I don't see any changes coming.
It's strange you would take the side that limiting bigotry, racism, homophobia, and transphobia is what creates toxicity.
I don't care what you practice, just don't shove it in my face and tell me to love it.
Then you better do the damn same.
The alt-right is specifically a hate group. They're defined by their racism and bigotry. This is a prime example of "you want to censor us because you disagree" being claimed in bad faith.
You're familiar with the Paradox of Tolerance, right? There's no way you're not, it gets brought up in every thread that talks about censorship.
> I don't care what you practice, just don't shove it in my face and tell me to love it.
Nobody is trying to tell you to love it.
What they ARE doing is trying to get homophobes and transphobes to stop accusing them of being groomers. Stop treating them like degenerates. Stop trying to restrict their rights. Stop trying to allow discrimination against LGBT.
They don't want you to LOVE it, they want you to merely ACCEPT it.
I think the last paragraph of the "What Popper actually Said" section is just as important to note:
> It makes sense, doesn't it? Free speech is all fine and dandy, but let's stretch that to the limit. A and B are promoting their ideologies. A-ism is based on reasoned arguments — they may not yield correct conclusions, or they may, but A is speaking in good faith. B-ism is based on calls to violence and insurrection. If both are afforded the right to speak freely, modelling things out, B will necessarily inflict violence, or threats of such, on A — but violence and violent threats have the effect of silencing others, which indirectly impedes their right to speak freely — you are not 'free' to speak if someone will hurt you for doing so! Thus, free will is replaced with coercion, and society suffers as a result.
A line in speech has to be drawn somewhere. There's a difference among "I hate $RACE", "I hate $RACIAL_SLUR", "Someone needs to deal with the $RACIAL_SLUR problem", and "I want to kill $RACIAL_SLUR".
The first two on their own are not violent, and they're not written to stoke violence, but a person that sees as a lot of that content who agrees with it may eventually decide to escalate to violence.
The latter two are easily considered calls to violence, which even most free speech advocates might not agree with. The most aggravating thing about the people that post that kind of content is the blindingly obvious bad faith claims that "Oh, I don't mean we should solve the problem by KILLING them!" or "Well, I'd never ACTUALLY kill someone".
It's extremely easy to say "Well until the murder happens, no crime has been committed" when you're not the target.
Namely (for this case); true threats, fighting words, soliciting crime and/or imminent lawless action. The last two are in clear violation of this principle (3. soliciting crime 4. imminent lawless action), and whether or not speech is in violation of that can be determined in court. When people advocate "free speech" they're really advocating freer speech, as circumscribed by exceptions to the first amendment.
For the first two, the "[not written to cause violence but may cause it by misinterpretation]" argument is a problem to me. Intent matters, the writer is not responsible for nut jobs. Calls to violence & coercion are already impermissible by the law. I absolutely support these rules in real life.
It gets difficult when you consider that anonymity online means people will behave worse, since they have no reputation to protect or real-life consequences (just look at 4chan). Social media is not a great platform for Popper's 'reasoned debate', yet >48% of Americans receive news from it. Persistent, non-anonymous comments raise other problems, since it's a new phenomenon that everyone can essentially know every view you've ever expressed and attempt to get you punished for it. It's tricky, and I see the censors' point somewhat. I'd err on the side of free speech with a mechanism like anonymous accounts can't interact with verified, real humans. This should reduce bigotry & hate to the level experienced in real life (or perhaps lower), which is protected speech, but not what a reputable person would ever say.
Social media to me, really has become a public square - where politicians campaign, news orgs post articles, people & activists have discussions. 500 million tweets are sent per day. Once most discourse moves to these platforms, it should be necessary to allow controversial views, even if it is a private company. As such, censorship of "possibly false" information shouldn't be permitted, especially when this has been at the request of government officials, and some of it has later been confirmed true.
And exactly what facts are you stating?
Usually when people complain that they're not allowed to just "state facts", it's statistics being used to justify racism. And of course, most of the time, those statistics are highly misleading.
This is incitement.
And nope, I'm not a Twitter user. I was, until about 4 years ago. Not a Facebook user either. I was, until about a decade ago. I don't think either are particularly healthy places.
Twitter is already a cesspit of toxicity because of the lack of free speech. This won't make it any worse.