Twitter Plans ‘Hate Speech’ Crackdown After Backlash From Upset Employees

[Swordsmyth]

Twitter is planning to accelerate changes to the company’s speech policies after a backlash from its own employees who want the company to ban right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, responding to a critical tweet from a Twitter engineer, said Wednesday he is “not happy” with Twitter’s current policies, which he said need to “evolve.”
Twitter vice president Del Harvey also sent a company-wide email (https://twitter.com/delbius/status/1027337799974809600) Wednesday pledging to accelerate Twitter’s efforts to crack down on “dehumanizing hate speech,” in the wake of internal “conversations” about Jones.
Harvey noted that Twitter also plans to evaluate whether the company needs to better police “off-platform behavior.”

More at: http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/08/twitter-jack-dorsey-hate-speech-policy/

[UWDude]

1/3 of East Germans were on the Stasi payroll.

One third.

Now, it is more focused. But the numbers are still massive.

Bunch of legal (Sep 2013) propagandists. Paid for by us.

Not a private company, a Deep State shell company.

War on them all.

[aGameOfThrones]

https://pics.me.me/hate-speech-is-just-free-speech-that-liberals-dont-like-5290951.png

[NickOdell]

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

[timosman]

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

Have you heard of company towns? What Happens to Free Speech in the Public Square When It's Owned by a Private Monopoly. www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?522387-What-Happens-to-Free-Speech-in-the-Public-Square-When-It-s-Owned-by-a-Private-Monopoly

For the record Twitter is a public company currently traded on NYSE under TWTR - https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TWTR

[Brian4Liberty]

“There is no honor in resisting ‘outside pressure’, just to pat ourselves on the back for being ‘impartial,'” Twitter engineer Marina Zhao replied, adding: “Twitter does not exist in a vacuum, and it is wrong to ignore the serious real-world harm, and to equate that with political viewpoints.”

She wants a left-wing safe space, and to destroy her perceived enemies.

[donnay]

Put 'em out of business!

[EBounding]

1026548500966793217

[Brian4Liberty]

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

From another thread:


Interesting question. A question that can not be easily answered with platitudes.

My opinion is best summed-up in my sig:

“Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex."

Big brother is a complex. It can not be defined by simple terms like “government” or “private business”.

There are several natural reasons for the complex to develop in this way. The first is graft and corruption. It is much more profitable to engage in graft via outsourcing government activities to corporations and businesses. It is relatively difficult for elected politicians and government bureaucrats to engage in money skimming while in office. But as a government contractor, the profits are almost endless.

Number two is the fact that outsourced government corporatism is a loophole to bypass constitutional restrictions on government. This would be the main point of the current controversy about various forms of internet censorship.

And finally, size and scope would be a limiting factor without a distributed structure. Government as a single, centrally controlled, hierarchical entity could not possibly effectively do what is being done now. It has to be decentralized, with some incentives to innovate and invent. New companies and technology can be absorbed when they reach a critical mass and join the complex via contracts and regulation.

[timosman]

She wants a left-wing safe space, and to destroy her perceived enemies.

A permanently offended commie nutcase. :D

[dannno]

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

In addition to what Brian said, there is this legal argument at 1:45


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBo9uRuTVYk


The idea is that the social media giants have escaped legal liability for the content of their platform by saying that they don't exercise editorial restrictions over their content. They have guidelines and rules, but that's it.

So a newspaper can be sued for slander if one of their writers slanders someone, but your niece can't sue facebook because your your grandma slandered her on facebook.

If you have a case like Sarah Jeong from the NYT who tweets out racist tweets against white people and doesn't get banned, her tweets don't get deleted, etc.. and then you have Candace Owens who makes the same tweets but replaces "white" with "black" and then gets banned, even though she specified she was just making the same tweets Jeong did (Candace Owens is black) and we have enough of these cases (we do) then we can surmise that these companies are banning people for their political content as opposed to banning them for breaking the rules. Thus they are maintaining editorial control over the content and under current law the courts would say they would be liable for what users post.. This makes owning a social media company untenable.

Now, should it be that way? Probably not.. But what that means is that if I started a social media company with a clear conservative bias, my company could be sued if we maintained editorial control over the content. So it's important to treat these big leftist companies the way you would treat their smaller competition until the laws are changed.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

One of the interesting things about all of this hullabaloo is how the left has now gone totally pro-corporate. Corporations used to have an image of stodgy, conservative capitalists in suits. Now they bow to the progressive party line and are often run by progressives, social media conglomerates especially. Now big tech is leftoid approved! What a relief. I know I feel safer.

[William Tell]

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

They are taking it beyond their own website.

Harvey noted that Twitter also plans to evaluate whether the company needs to better police “off-platform behavior.”

[VIDEODROME]

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

Yeah I thought this place was all about the Free Market.

🤔

[specsaregood]

Yeah I thought this place was all about the Free Market.

��

please point out the many people here arguing for the govt to step in and stop them via laws?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Gavin McInnes was just banned from Twitter, so was the official Proud Boys account..

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

1028084261511999488
Interesting. And yet Spencer and the actual alt-right are still on Twitter....

[timosman]

Interesting. And yet Spencer and the actual alt-right are still on Twitter....

It seems pointing out hypocrisy of the left is a no-no. :cool:

[eleganz]

SJW millennials employees call this corporate democratization. Ultimately, they would like to vote in their own bosses and company policies, compensations, etc...

[timosman]

SJW millennials employees call this corporate democratization. Ultimately, they would like to vote in their own bosses and company policies, compensations, etc...

Whatever it takes to keep your job. You can't be too enthusiastic about the company policies. :cool:

[r3volution 3.0]

1. These are private enterprises. You are entirely free to not use them. Use them on their conditions, or don't. Stop bitching.

2. If you are dumb enough to use these advertising-data-gathering-services, and don't like the result, tough titty.

3. Read a book, jackass.

[timosman]

1. These are private enterprises. You are entirely free to not use them. Use them on their conditions, or don't. Stop bitching.

2. If you are dumb enough to use these advertising-data-gathering-services, and don't like the result, tough titty.

3. Read a book, jackass.

4. Invite somebody to your shelter under a bridge. :cool:

[r3volution 3.0]

4. Invite somebody to your shelter under a bridge. :cool:

I'll have you know, I have thousands of facebook friends bra...

Course, I never met any of them....

[Madison320]

1. These are private enterprises. You are entirely free to not use them. Use them on their conditions, or don't. Stop bitching.

2. If you are dumb enough to use these advertising-data-gathering-services, and don't like the result, tough titty.

3. Read a book, jackass.

But they're private enterprises being threatened by the government. Have you seen the video of the congressional hearing where Facebook is threatened? By the way Ron Paul was censored recently as well. Facebook is not the problem, government is. I seriously doubt Facebook would voluntarily do that much censoring.

I'm hoping that some of the people being censored will sue the government for 1st amendment violations.


30 second mark shows congressional threats:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2vVc4abqKI

[Madison320]

The idea is that the social media giants have escaped legal liability for the content of their platform by saying that they don't exercise editorial restrictions over their content. They have guidelines and rules, but that's it.

So a newspaper can be sued for slander if one of their writers slanders someone, but your niece can't sue facebook because your your grandma slandered her on facebook.

If you have a case like Sarah Jeong from the NYT who tweets out racist tweets against white people and doesn't get banned, her tweets don't get deleted, etc.. and then you have Candace Owens who makes the same tweets but replaces "white" with "black" and then gets banned, even though she specified she was just making the same tweets Jeong did (Candace Owens is black) and we have enough of these cases (we do) then we can surmise that these companies are banning people for their political content as opposed to banning them for breaking the rules. Thus they are maintaining editorial control over the content and under current law the courts would say they would be liable for what users post.. This makes owning a social media company untenable.

Now, should it be that way? Probably not.. But what that means is that if I started a social media company with a clear conservative bias, my company could be sued if we maintained editorial control over the content. So it's important to treat these big leftist companies the way you would treat their smaller competition until the laws are changed.

That's a good point however do you really think Facebook decided to implement "guidelines" on their own? We've already seen videos of Facebook being dragged in front of congress and threatened to take down "bad" content.

[AuH20]

1. These are private enterprises. You are entirely free to not use them. Use them on their conditions, or don't. Stop bitching.

2. If you are dumb enough to use these advertising-data-gathering-services, and don't like the result, tough titty.

3. Read a book, jackass.

A judge ruled that Twitter was a public domain. So which it is?

[timosman]

A judge ruled that Twitter was a public domain. So which it is?

It all depends on what matter is currently at hand. You are clearly not flexible enough to hold an executive position. :cool:

[dannno]

That's a good point however do you really think Facebook decided to implement "guidelines" on their own? We've already seen videos of Facebook being dragged in front of congress and threatened to take down "bad" content.

That would sorta make this a first amendment issue again then wouldn't it?

[Brian4Liberty]

In addition to what Brian said, there is this legal argument at 1:45


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBo9uRuTVYk

I’ve heard the public forum vs. “editorial control” in the form of censorship argument before. Not sure that it holds water though.

A media outlet certainly controls what it’s writer’s publish. But do they control or edit what people put in the comments section?

Likewise, a platform like Twitter does not create the content, it is all created by the users. Banning someone for something that is against the law is a pretty common and basic usage rule. Does that equal “editorial control”? It doesn’t seem like it.

Let’s go further. Suppose the platform is called “Democrats Unite”, and the content is created by users. Now suppose that Republicans go there and post press releases from all GOP members of Congress, and other assorted GOP politicians. Should that be allowed? Is it ”editorial control” to not only ban those who advocate illegal activities, but also ban those who are from the “competition”?

The biggest problem is that Twitter has never called itself “The Leftist Ideology Echo Chamber”. If they had done that from the beginning, would there be an issue right now? Instead, Twitter explicitly called itself an open public forum, and with that as the premise, fully took over that market niche. Nearly every politician, pundit, musician, business, celebrity, tv personality and newscaster created and promoted an account on the open, “free speech” Twitter platform.

Now they seem to have decided that they want to be “The Leftist Ideology Echo Chamber”. This is the root issue at hand. Should they do that? Is this a violation of any law? Should this be a violation of law?

Add to that the fact that the industry as a whole seems to be working to prevent competition, exemplified by Microsoft threatened to close down Twitter’s right wing competition “Gab”.

How involved is government? At that point, the applicability of the First Amendment does come into play.

[Madison320]

That would sorta make this a first amendment issue again then wouldn't it?

Of course. My point is that the complex argument Molyneux was making was unnecessary. Congress openly threatened Facebook to shutdown certain sites. Boom. That's a violation of the 1st. End of story.

[Madison320]

Now they seem to have decided that they want to be “The Leftist Ideology Echo Chamber”. This is the root issue at hand. Should they do that? Is this a violation of any law? Should this be a violation of law?

Add to that the fact that the industry as a whole seems to be working to prevent competition, exemplified by Microsoft threatened to close down Twitter’s right wing competition “Gab”.

How involved is government? At that point, the applicability of the First Amendment does come into play.


It would be a helluva stretch to think that all of those sites suddenly overnight decided to become leftist ideology echo chambers. They almost certainly started banning sites as a direct result of the public threats made by congress.

[Brian4Liberty]

It would be a helluva stretch to think that all of those sites suddenly overnight decided to become leftist ideology echo chambers. They almost certainly started banning sites as a direct result of the public threats made by congress.

Certainly government has something to do with this, probably in more ways than the public threats. The Atlantic Council, who is telling Facebook who to ban, is funded by governments and consists of ex-government officials.

But if you pay attention to public statements by Twitter employees, and see some of the undercover video, there is no doubt that there are many SJW leftist types who do want to censor. The various departments at these companies dedicated to moderation and censorship didn’t spring up over night. And it isn’t freedom loving individuals that are hired and drawn towards those departments.

In the Molyneux video, his hypothesis is that the timing is directly related to upcoming elections. Maybe. Note that it is freedom caucus and anti-war types that are being effected by some of these bans. If Mitch McConnell and Chucky Schumer could agree on anything, it would be their desire to go after those groups. MIC approved.

[timosman]

But if you pay attention to public statements by Twitter employees, and see some of the undercover video, there is no doubt that there are many SJW leftist types who do want to censor. The various departments at these companies dedicated to moderation and censorship didn’t spring up over night. And it isn’t freedom loving individuals that are hired and drawn towards those departments.


Freedom loving individuals are not promoted within these companies ranks. Heavy SJW ideology on the other hand puts you on a fast track to career advancement so anybody able to figure out what's going on lines up on the SJW side in great numbers. The libertarians are portrayed as sore losers, unable to function in a modern workplace, as they lack the necessary flexibility to know when to abandon their principles and engage in heavy ass kissing as any normal person would. :cool:

[tod evans]

Gosh!

Wonder if I can profit by being butt-hurt when these fine city-folk refer to me or mine as backwoods, hillbillies, yokels etc....

It's not worth the headache and I could care less about their opinions of me or mine....

[DamianTV]

So now disobeying corporate policy and making a reasonable objection is Hate Speech? Just the way the title is phrased, but we know how corporations are... Hopefully they figure out the only people they are hurting is themselves.

[timosman]

So now disobeying corporate policy and making a reasonable objection is Hate Speech? Just the way the title is phrased, but we know how corporations are... Hopefully they figure out the only people they are hurting is themselves.

Look, dude. You were not hired to disobey our policies. It is true they keep on changing every few years and often do not make sense, but ...... this is not something you should be worrying about. And by the way, why the fuck are you so attached to the stupid policy anyway? Can't you just pretend like everybody else? It is going to be good for you, trust me. :cool:

[r3volution 3.0]

A judge ruled that Twitter was a public domain. So which it is?

The judge is a bolshevik, obviously.

Twitter is no more a "public domain" than my back porch is.

...where, I might add, Alex Jones is also not welcome.

[TheCount]

But do they control or edit what people put in the comments section?

Yes. They control the distribution of all of the information on their site. Sites have gotten in varying levels of legal trouble while attempting to claim that they were only hosting content and not producing it. Torrents, revenge porn, threats of violence, etc.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes. They control the distribution of all of the information on their site. Sites have gotten in varying levels of legal trouble while attempting to claim that they were only hosting content and not producing it. Torrents, revenge porn, threats of violence, etc.

They probably have. Is it fair? What can we all agree upon as being the standard?

So for a comments section, forum or social networking app, the only way for it to be completely controlled for "legal" jeopardy is to manually OK every single post. Is that realistic? How long would it take? How much money would it cost? Who would make the decisions? Would such a platform even be able to compete against some "rouge" platform that allowed real time and open usage?

If someone were to post a blatantly illegal comment on the New York Times website, would they be liable for that?

[TheCount]

They probably have. Is it fair? What can we all agree upon as being the standard?

If a newspaper allowed its readers to pay to print death threats or solicit murders in the classified section, do you think that they should be liable for that content?

[Pauls' Revere]

One of the interesting things about all of this hullabaloo is how the left has now gone totally pro-corporate. Corporations used to have an image of stodgy, conservative capitalists in suits. Now they bow to the progressive party line and are often run by progressives, social media conglomerates especially. Now big tech is leftoid approved! What a relief. I know I feel safer.

Summed up as "The Corporate Hippie"

[Anti Federalist]

Does prove one thing to me, once again:

Freedom is not popular.

[Brian4Liberty]

If a newspaper allowed its readers to pay to print death threats or solicit murders in the classified section, do you think that they should be liable for that content?

That’s a tangent. What do you think? Explain how that differs from other examples discussed so far.

[TheCount]

That’s a tangent. What do you think? Explain how that differs from other examples discussed so far.

It's not a tangent, and it doesn't differ from the examples discussed thus far. It provides an old media example to show that this is not a new phenomenon, it merely appears to be new. Newspapers also print letters to the editor; those letters were not written by them, but they are hosting and distributing that content, as well as profiting from it. The newspaper profits by hosting content, but that content was written by others, and not by them. And if the newspaper was to print an letter to the editor which incited the populace to violence, saying 'oh but we didn't write that, we only published it and profited from its publication' would not be an adequate defense.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's not a tangent, and it doesn't differ from the examples discussed thus far. It provides an old media example to show that this is not a new phenomenon, it merely appears to be new. Newspapers also print letters to the editor; those letters were not written by them, but they are hosting and distributing that content, as well as profiting from it. The newspaper profits by hosting content, but that content was written by others, and not by them. And if the newspaper was to print an letter to the editor which incited the populace to violence, saying 'oh but we didn't write that, we only published it and profited from its publication' would not be an adequate defense.

So why did you quote me and exclude the portion that exactly addressed that?


So for a comments section, forum or social networking app, the only way for it to be completely controlled for "legal" jeopardy is to manually OK every single post. Is that realistic? How long would it take? How much money would it cost? Who would make the decisions? Would such a platform even be able to compete against some "rouge" platform that allowed real time and open usage?

If someone were to post a blatantly illegal comment on the New York Times website, would they be liable for that?

Obviously, classifieds and letters to the editor are old tech examples of content that would be individually manually edited. It does not address the modern internet.

[Swordsmyth]

It's not a tangent, and it doesn't differ from the examples discussed thus far. It provides an old media example to show that this is not a new phenomenon, it merely appears to be new. Newspapers also print letters to the editor; those letters were not written by them, but they are hosting and distributing that content, as well as profiting from it. The newspaper profits by hosting content, but that content was written by others, and not by them. And if the newspaper was to print an letter to the editor which incited the populace to violence, saying 'oh but we didn't write that, we only published it and profited from its publication' would not be an adequate defense.

The newspaper had to read, select, and set the type for each letter, that doesn't happen online.

[timosman]

Does prove one thing to me, once again:

Freedom is not popular.

Being your own boss is an option for like 3% of the population. The rest needs to be a part of the machine.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qEsTCTuajE

[TheCount]

So why did you quote me and exclude the portion that exactly addressed that?

You asked what should be, and then you asked what is technically feasible. Since the second question is unanswerable, I decided to focus on the first.



The newspaper had to read, select, and set the type for each letter, that doesn't happen online.

So what?

[Swordsmyth]

So what?
So a website is not like a newspaper, the owner can't be expected to be strictly responsible for everything random users write in a comments section or on a communication platform like twitter.

[parocks]

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

Kind of like how the telephone companies, Ma Bell, were allowed to cut you off from service if, when they were spying on your conversations, they heard something they didn't like?

[parocks]

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

Kind of like how the telephone companies, Ma Bell, were allowed to cut you off from service if, when they were spying on your conversations, they heard something they didn't like? I don't remember that being ok.

[TheCount]

So a website is not like a newspaper, the owner can't be expected to be strictly responsible for everything random users write in a comments section or on a communication platform like twitter.
Why not?

[TheCount]

Kind of like how the telephone companies, Ma Bell, were allowed to cut you off from service if, when they were spying on your conversations, they heard something they didn't like? I don't remember that being ok.

Telephone companies were regulated as utilities delivering a public service and were not allowed to cut service.

Your ISP absolutely can cut off your service based upon what you do on it.

[specsaregood]

Why not?
For many years these big websites have argued for and lobbied to be considered safe harbor, just like the ISPs.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Safe_harbor_(law)
https://infogalactic.com/info/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

[TheCount]

For many years these big websites have argued for and lobbied to be considered safe harbor, just like the ISPs.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Safe_harbor_(law)
https://infogalactic.com/info/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#MegaUpload_arrest_and_extradition_proce edings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom)

[Swordsmyth]

Why not?
Don't play stupid, the comments appear on their platforms without their control or specific consent.

[Swordsmyth]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#MegaUpload_arrest_and_extradition_proce edings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom)
One injustice doesn't justify others.

[Swordsmyth]

For many years these big websites have argued for and lobbied to be considered safe harbor, just like the ISPs.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Safe_harbor_(law)
https://infogalactic.com/info/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
They also advertised freedom of speech and are therefore required to provide it until they give public notice of a change in policy and stop advertising that way.

[specsaregood]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#MegaUpload_arrest_and_extradition_proce edings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom)

Doesn't apply because megaupload actively encouraged using their systems for illegal behavior.

[TheCount]

Doesn't apply because megaupload actively encouraged using their systems for illegal behavior.
Doesn't matter because the result is the same.

[TheCount]

Don't play stupid, the comments appear on their platforms without their control or specific consent.

The website owners cannot control if people comment on their sites? That seems like a problem.


One injustice doesn't justify others.
Are you talking about what should be or what is? With you, I can never tell.

[Swordsmyth]

The website owners cannot control if people comment on their sites? That seems like a problem.
Only to a statist like you



Are you talking about what should be or what is? With you, I can never tell.
Both, there are many cases of injustice that take place but do not affect other similar cases, they are just ignored because they are so blatantly wrong that they only happened due to special circumstances or corrupt influence.

Also your response to specs is quite wrong:


Doesn't apply because megaupload actively encouraged using their systems for illegal behavior.


Doesn't matter because the result is the same.

Results are not all that matter, behavior and intent are much more important.

[TheCount]

Only to a statist like you

LOL


Results are not all that matter, behavior and intent are much more important.
You mean like hate crimes?

[Swordsmyth]

LOL
LOL


You mean like hate crimes?
No, intent doesn't change the severity of the crime but it can determine whether a crime took place at all.

[TheCount]

No, intent doesn't change the severity of the crime but it can determine whether a crime took place at all.

What was the crime, then?

[Swordsmyth]

What was the crime, then?
Ask the government or specs.

[nikcers]

The website owners cannot control if people comment on their sites? That seems like a problem.


Are you talking about what should be or what is? With you, I can never tell.
I think its a problem but more of a social problem, there shouldn't be anyone who thinks there could be a government solution to this problem, The real solution is for people to vote with their wallet, when companies do abhorrent things they need to demand a better product or move on to using different services.

[DamianTV]

I think its a problem but more of a social problem, there shouldn't be anyone who thinks there could be a government solution to this problem, The real solution is for people to vote with their wallet, when companies do abhorrent things they need to demand a better product or move on to using different services.

True, but companies have figured out to how create the social problems that profit from them. For people to be able to vote with their wallets, but when there is no alternative to heavily controlled socialist social media platforms, they win, we lose.

[nikcers]

True, but companies have figured out to how create the social problems that profit from them. For people to be able to vote with their wallets, but when there is no alternative to heavily controlled socialist social media platforms, they win, we lose.

That's just it, their value is their brand's social value, if jiggery pokery were no longer profitable, if they were not trusted maybe we could have the do no evil google back.

[r3volution 3.0]

Well, after all that's been said, I for one am terribly sad that Twitter will no longer be a source of insightful analysis in 280 characters..

Books (!) might actually start being read, God forbid.

[TheCount]

Books (!) might actually start being read, God forbid.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

[r3volution 3.0]

I wouldn't hold your breath.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJIjoE27F-Q