Hopefully those nitpicking the wording, timing, and implementation of these rules realize just how deep harassment and hate run on social media platforms like Twitter.
Certainly the rules are imperfect, but the amount of anonymous toxicity currently allowed is IMO much worse than some clunky standards. There's a lot of space between defending free speech and standing idly by while people use your service to attack others.
> Yes, we comply with the law. We also defend free speech. You may be happy to know we are reviewing our principles—good to do so regularly.
Now, maybe Twitter are more interested in proclaiming an interest in defending free speech than they are actually defending it, but you sure are making a lot of claims in these comments that don't pass basic scrutiny.
Thats okay. You're just not a proponent of free speech. Free speech is the deplorable and socially unacceptable.
It was once unacceptable to suggest black people had rights or that women should vote. To think we are at the apex of morality is hubris. Thus, I feel freedom of expression remains a vital component in modernity.
As the saying goes, "I don't agree with a word you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Indeed, I find that these sorts of rule changes, "codes of conduct", "safe spaces", etc. deeply troubling --- a sign of a society that has abandoned freedom, personal responsibility, and independent thought. People are letting governments and companies dictate (and increasingly, automate away the decisions in) their lives for them.
Consider that the vast majority of communications between people now happens online, through channels controlled by companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter. The power to control what people can say, think or do falls in the hands of a tiny number of groups who can manipulate, censor, and divert the masses in the direction they want. That is really, really scary.
Damned right. It is very scary. Fortunately, more people are starting to fight back. I've got a ready army of supporters, but they are Nazis and I'm not sure how helpful they will be.
The ACLU and EFF are busy right now. But they are on my side. They put up announcements but aren't able to do much. So, I keep doing what I have been doing.
I get two or three converts each time. I watch the karma change. I see the replies.
If you're not supporting free speech, stand over there and let us do it. When it finally clicks in, come join us - but you will be defending horrible speech. Horrible...
I go and immerse myself in this speech. I make it know on that I am not one of them. I go to voat and tell them my race and political views. I tell them that I'm there to fight for free speech. They actually accept me. Mostly... I've got a few to move out of their white nationalist gangs and one is getting a tattoo removed. So, it's a start.
"As the saying goes, "I don't agree with a word you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.""
The topic was racial slurs and rape threats. Are those things you want to defend, and is it honestly troubling to you that there are rules put up saying they are not allowed?
You are not a proponent of free speech. You're a proponent of speech that you don't find offensive. It is, in my opinion, okay to hold those views.
You're absolutely entitled to have those views. However, you're not a proponent of free speech. Free speech allows people to say all lawful things.
Threats and slander are unlawful and aren't protected speech. Child pornography is illegal. There are many things freedom of speech doesn't protect.
I have no major complaints about the legislation aspect as it currently is.
I did not assert that rape threats were civil rights. No, those are illegal. Well, they are actually only illegal of they are credible threats.
Slander is illegal. Credible threats of violence are illegal. Disclosure of classified data is illegal. Certain kinds of pornography are illegal. Inciting a riot is illegal. Credibly suggesting someone harm another is illegal.
There are more but that's the gist. Those acts are illegal.
What is not illegal is when some jerk comes and says, "I think all women should be raped." I think we can all agree that it is deplorable, but it is not illegal.
'It would be great if all those n&ggers were strung up.' is not illegal. But, "I'm going to get a truckload of us, come back, and string up them n&ggers!' is illegal.
That last one is illegal because it has become a credible threat.
When the neo-Nazi marches go on, complete with their fancy clothes, and shouting how they hate K&kes, N&ggers, Sp&cks, etc... and throwing up their Nazi solute - that's legal.
It's deplorable, but legal. And I support free speech. That means I support their right to express themselves within the legal framework.
The right to express yourself as you see fit is very much a basic human right. There are already limits.
So, I support all lawful speech. That is what it means when you defend the freedom of speech. Anything else is not defending it. Anything else doesn't need to be defended.
It is okay, really. At least it is okay by me. You don't have to support free speech. There are probably a list of other rights you don't support. The rights I support are in the US Constitution. I'd like to keep them there, but I accept that it is a living document.
Wow, that's a reasonable description and stance. What do you think of "free speech" advocates like Milo and Jack Posobiec? And the people marching at the freedom of speech rallies?
Milo, for example, will go somewhere and they will drown him out, protest, and interrupt his speech. Sometimes, they even manage to get the invite rescinded.
Slowly but surely, more and more people are seeing that people are trying to limit free speech. They are noticing that the universities are favoring certain types of speech.
What they are doing is bringing attention to the attempts to silence people. Slowly but surely, we are winning this fight. More people notice, more people speak out, more people exchange their ideas.
Their horrible speech (and Milo isn't that bad, I've listened to him) is enough to make people try to silence him. Before, it was quiet and nobody really noticed. Now, it has started to go mainstream.
Now, those who weren't paying attention are seeing the changes that have been underway since the 80s. And they are starting to speak up. They are starting to say, 'No, let them speak.'
It means more people are starting to speak out about our right to freely express and that many of those people aren't, you know, Nazis. Nazis make terrible frontmen for political movements. Really, they are just horrible people.
We are getting more socially acceptable people speaking out, instead of the outlandish.
It is a bit like how you can't mention State's Rights without being assumed to be a racist. That has been changing recently, as the subject matter is now weed and immigration. Those are easier causes for people to get behind than the racism usually associated with it.
So, it's changing. I see speech values changing rapidly. I've been at this since the 80s. I'm not dead yet, so I might just as well keep fighting the good fight. On my side are people like EFF and the ACLU, so I am in good company.
Of course you can. However, if your protest is done in such a manner that it negates their ability to speak, you've taken away their rights.
Oh, Milo is just a trolling attention whore. He's harmless. You should go spend a day on voat.co. If you want to, let me know. I'll go guide you around. You will see horrible people. There are some good people but they are the minority.
Again, no. I reject your absolutism. To say that someone is not a proponent of free speech because they don't believe those things are part of it is completely inane.
We will never agree on this topic. In the example you give, I do not see why either is acceptable, and I don't see why both are not a threat of violence. Someone being bombarded with messages like that is not going to see much of a difference.
You're also ignoring the silencing effect the speech you're defending has on other groups. Few people are going to stick around somewhere that those things are commonplace. Thus, that community is censoring and silencing other groups.
You can reject it all you want. You're still wrong. Free speech isn't speech you like. That's limited speech.
This isn't complicated. You wish to limit speech. That means you don't support free speech. It's okay to hold that opinion, even though I don't agree with you. You'd probably be better served if you were honest with yourself and others.
Twitter is not obligated to provide a platform of free speech. Which is good, because they don't. They are the exact opposite of free speech. Somewhere like voat.co is actually interested in free speech and, truth be told, they are as terrible as you might imagine.
But, coming in and saying that you want to limit speech and be called a free speech advocate? Save that for someone else. It borders on insulting that you think I'm that naive.
> you want to limit speech and be called a free speech advocate
Everyone wants to limit some speech. Do you support limits on fraudulent speech? Defamatory speech? Incitement to imminent lawless action? Speech that violates confidentiality obligations? Perjury?
Everyone agrees that some speech is so harmful it needs to be prohibited. The dispute is whether we should allow or prohibit speech that causes harms of a lesser degree; it is a dispute about what is the right balance between the freedom to speak and the freedom not to be harmed by speech.
Everyone is a free speech advocate (in that everyone supports people having some freedom to speak), and everyone wants to limit speech (nobody wants that freedom to be unlimited.)
If you will do me a favor, you can read all the comments that I've made in this thread. I have already explained that and answered those questions.
I support all legal speech. That's the line. If it is illegal, don't do it. If it is legal, you can do it. Just because it is legal doesn't make the speaker a good person.
I do not want to limit speech more than it already is. I'd like to expand it in a few areas. Specifically, they have been making use of free speech zones since the 1980s. This was done by the DNC. Yup. The DNC were the first to use free speech zones. Outside those zones, speech wasn't free.
Now, the front steps at the SCOTUS building are no longer a free speech zone. They moved the zone away from the public entrance. I want that fixed. I want all of them eliminated on property owned or paid for by the government. I want all public areas to be free speech zones.
I love me some speech. I really do.
I feel the same way about the government forcing me to house troops. I feel the same way about firearms. I can go on...
All lawful speech should be permitted. Nobody is obligated to provide a platform and nobody is objigated to listen.
Really, take five minutes and read my other comments. It will probably help. If you still have questions, I'll try to help.
I don't expect to change your mind, by the way. I just give you a point where you can pick a direction. These same rights I mention, they are also your rights. I am positive you say things that people think are offensive and hurtful. Well, you have that right. I aim to make sure you can keep that right.
> I support all legal speech. That's the line. If it is illegal, don't do it. If it is legal, you can do it.
Legal where? Speech that is legal in one jurisdiction is illegal in another. I live in Australia and you sound like you live in the US, and every country (and even states/provinces/etc within the same country) has different laws about what speech is allowed and what isn't.
The law is not fixed, it changes over time. (Even constitutionally entrenched laws, such as the US First Amendment, change, albeit more often by evolving interpretation than by textual amendment–however it is interpreted now, a future Supreme Court majority could always broaden or narrow that interpretation–and I'm certain that to some degree it will change.)
Part of the debate is not just what the law is (in whatever jurisdiction), but also what the law should be. Saying "I support all legal speech" doesn't do anything to answer the question of what the law should be.
In host country. Outside that, the user must follow their laws. The States don't have different speech laws. Not different enough to matter. Those get tossed when they get too SCOTUS.
If you read my posts, you'd see I already commented on what I felt about the current laws. They are right here in this big thread.
You just listed off a whole bunch of restrictions on speech that you support, so I'm not sure where you're standing here.
Is it your contention that the current collective US jurisprudence on free speech restrictions represents the platonic ideal of Free Speech, such that by defending it you are a "free speech absolutist"?
Some speech is considered unlawful and that I don't support. That is a longer subject, however.
I don't think we need 'free speech zones' at political rallies. The DNC started that. I don't like how SCOTUS moved the free speech zone away from the building. Things like that.
Lawful speech should be the default. Unlawful speech is afforded no such protections. I'm happy with those limits. Some speech is legitimately harmful.
Read the whoe thread. Even read the people I replied to.
I'm pointing out that your support of only speech that is currently considered lawful (and by implication, your support of restrictions on free speech that are currently codified into US law) means you are no more a free speech absolutist than the person you are arguing with.
It invalidates your entire argumentative posture throughout this thread IMO.
I don't think it's fair to claim KGIII's entire argument has been invalidated anymore than it's fair to characterize it as absolutist (b/c illegal speech was not supported in any of this thread by KGIII).
In the US, maximizing liberty is a priority, but minimizing violence is also a priority; so, these things both have to be considered. If Australia (or any other country) does not share this prioritization for liberty, that is up to their citizens. But, the US Constitution is still the law of the land here in the US, and no matter what those with authoritarian tendencies want for their countries, we will continue to prioritize liberty.
By the same token, your insistence on lumping threats of violence in with racial slurs is similarly inane. I don't hear anyone defending rape threats here.
I do. The person I was responding to is saying that you have to defend those if you wish to be a proponent of free speech. I reject that absolutism in it's entirety.
Nobody said you have to defend rape threats. Credible threats of violence are illegal. I believe you are ignoring or misunderstanding the argument (and the detailed reply was posted an hour ago). It seems you’re conflating racial slurs (and other deplorable speech) with threats of rape (or other horrific actions) as being equal. They are not.
There is a huge difference between these two:
> Get fucked, bitch.
> I have your address. I’m going to find you and rape you till you’re dead, bitch.
The second statement is absolutely illegal, as it is a credible threat. The first is a disgusting statement from an asshole that shouldn’t have ever been said.
Since 1998, I’ve been aware of a group of so-called christians who like to go to funerals and public events holding signs that say “god hates fags”. No doubt these people might be inclined to tweet, “We should round up all the fags and kill them.” Absolutely, without a doubt, deplorable as fuck. Still protected speech, as uncomfortable and disgusting as it is. These people nauseate me. They make me want to punch their teeth in. If I then reply to one of these assholes with, “Found your address. Coming for you. Better call your dentist.” I’ve wandered into credible threat territory, and illegal speech. I’m wholly unprotected by the First Amendment now.
Defending free speech means defending the constitutional right to say deplorable, yet wholly legal things. And it’s exceedingly difficult. Intellectually, I know it’s protected speech. I can type these words and say it’s legal and protected. I don’t dispute it at all. Emotionally, and as a human who believes in trying to do no harm because the world is chaos and it’s better to be kind, I can’t stand it. I don’t want to see it. I don’t want to hear it. I don’t want to read it. I want it gone. I want it to never have been said. I want people to have ways to escape being the targets of such speech. People shouldn’t feel unsafe. They shouldn’t feel attacked for who they are. And yet, we shouldn’t take away anyone’s right to speak their mind, no matter how disgusting.
In all these cases, the principles remain the same:
- there is no end to the vile things humans think and say, yet saying them is a right we’ve granted is, in sum, a net good
- anyone who veers outside mere speech and begins to incite, threaten, or engage in illegal action should be swiftly punished
- where lines get crossed or blurred and clarity is needed, we establish laws to do so (and they should pass constitutional muster)
What I find most difficult is having to defend from the assumption that my defense of speech means that I agree with the speech.
This is untrue and a non sequitur.
I can't stand Nazis. I'm not white and they'd harm me, if given opportunity to do so. They are truly horrible people.
As horrible as they are, they still deserve basic human rights up until they violate the law. We don't preemptively punish people. We don't take rights away without due process. We operate with the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Well, we used to...
So, when I stand up for the rights of the deplorable, I'm assumed to be a deplorable. Never mind that I'm standing up for the rights of all, I'm now counted as one of the deplorable.
And defending against that takes some time. To be fair, I didn't have anything better to do, most of the time. Still, I've had this conversation so many times that I could probably script it and automate it.
Seriously, a sibling post noticed that I have this verbiage figured out. They aren't the first to notice. I've been having this same conversation since before the Internet was world wide. Someone has to stand up for free speech while not actually being deplorable. It's more tasteful to hear it from me than to hear it from a KKK Grand Wizard. The reception is much better, put it that way. ;-)
Of course I'm willing to allow it. That's what defending free speech means. Free speech means allowing the deplorable, the horrible, the hateful, and the hurtful.
It does have limits, and those limits are already encoded in the laws. I've already been over those.
I like all of my rights, even if I'm not using them. I not only want them for myself, I want them for you.
I'm sorry, but we will never agree on this topic. Rape threats are not free speech, and saying I don't defend them does NOT mean that I am against free speech.
Just as you are allowed to say things considered insulting, oppressive, and intimidating by other (unfortunately large and growing) groups of people. Nobody complains about being marginalized more loudly than the nativists and white supremacists, and they use the exact same arguments as you do to demand that their critics be silenced.
That's understandable. However, while threats of violence are not protected speech in the U.S., insults (e.g., racial slurs) absolutely are, and that protection is the reason you can't be punished for insulting cops, for example, or whatever else might hurt someone's feelings.
I have to ask though... what is the actual problem with all of this "harassment"? Yes, many people pseudonymously post a lot of hateful garbage on Twitter, but it's just words on the Internet—if you put yourself out there as a public figure, assholes are gonna be assholes.
A few months ago, a VICE editor wrote a piece originally titled "Let's Blow Up Mount Rushmore" (the title was later changed)[0]. Being a South Dakotan, this was pretty offensive to me, and my reply got the most likes and retweets, putting it in the prominent "first reply" spot[1]. I got a lot of very nasty comments from various extremely angry people, including one who implied I was a Nazi or something by saying "I wonder if "rezich" [my surname] is supposed to be similar to "Reich" or it's just some amazing irony"[2]
I just shrugged it all off as the vitriolic Internet being the vitriolic Internet. I engaged with a few of the replies, but I let many of them just be, because really, what is the use in getting worked up over rude and angry Internet comments, that take nearly zero effort to post?
I understand that Twitter improving its harassment reduction systems will lead to better experiences for its users and overall make it a more attractive platform for people in general, but there's this idea that it is the "moral duty" of Twitter to prevent assholes on the Internet from being assholes on the Internet, and I just can't for the life of me understand it.
Words only have as much power as you let them have, and for some reason (which I won't speculate on here), it seems like everyone these days seem to want to give "hate speech" as much power as possible.
You're lucky that you don't have to take any of the death threats seriously, and that you don't fear being fired because of what people are writing about you on the internet. Women generally have this worse. Sometimes the harassment escalates to things that are actually illegal, like bomb threats. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/31/bomb-thre...
If you hosted a party and someone got super drunk and started shouting racial slurs at everyone, would you tell them to leave? Or would you laugh it off and tell everyone else to chill because it's just words?
> I understand that Twitter improving its harassment reduction systems will lead to better experiences for its users and overall make it a more attractive platform for people in general
That’s not the same thing. It’s much easier to just disengage on the Internet than in person. Presumably if this person is at your house you’d know them, which would add an element of emotional drama that isn’t there when some random person on frog twitter is posting Pepe memes. Just, like, look away.
In this analogy, Twitter is the host, users are guests. If a racist asshole shows up at the party, everyone else can easily disengage, by just leaving. Should the host just leave the door open and sit in the back making sure the lights stay on, prioritizing absolute free speech over who is having a good time? Or should they kick out toxic guests, so the people they like will stay?
But if someone shows up wearing a black coat and jackboots because they think they look cool(or posting pepe memes because they think the images are funny), can you brand them as racist and kick them out?
You sure can, especially if they're making the party uncomfortable and unpleasant for the rest of your guests. Their crime is not so much dressing like a Nazi, but intentionally antagonizing other people for no reason. If it wasn't intentional, they should note the reactions, take other people into consideration, and either leave or correct their behavior. Why don't other people have to consider the Nazi-dresser's feelings? Well, they do. They'll consider them for 10 seconds, realize there is no legitimate reason to be dressed like that, and rightfully suspect bad intentions.
If you want to be accepted into a community, earn it. Other people have no obligation to tolerate your presence and listen to your speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to be heard.
This is such a dangerous path to go down, and it's really easy to see where we end up.
Let's say I'm vehemently anti-abortion, and have a YouTube channel where I discuss that topic. If some sufficient amount of users find my content "intentionally antagonizing" I could be de-platformed. YouTube is perfectly within their legal rights to do this, of course, at least currently. But these tech companies have all become critical infrastructure in how we communicate. Do you honestly think it's a good idea for these tech companies to start enforcing ideological conformity? What's perfectly normal speech for one is intentionally antagonizing to another.
No, I don't think tech companies should enforce ideological conformity, but they shouldn't enforce ideological equality either. A lot of people, especially on HN, seem to have this idea that if a rule or policy can't be exactly defined, it shouldn't be used. It's not possible to codify "no assholes allowed", so we should just abandon that idea.
Look, the reason we don't have a law against Nazi ideas in America is that it's too dangerous to give the government that power. If we did have such a law, and it were abused, there's no higher power to appeal to. We have nearly absolute free speech not because all speech deserves equal consideration, but simply because there is no practical legal alternative. But it is crucial to understand that since we can't give the government that power, society is obligated to pick up the slack. Nazis cannot be punished legally, so they must be punished socially. We all wish we lived in a world where any idea could be freely discussed, and "bad" ones would be naturally dismissed, but we don't. The world doesn't naturally improve, people force it to, and not just by hosting neutral discussion spaces.
What I'm describing is basically majority rule, and I understand how dangerous it is. Frankly, over the course of history, it's usually gone poorly. But there is no alternative. If you decide to be neutral, you're just giving more power to those who aren't. If you don't like racism, so you decide to live your life "colorblind", you're helping racists, as they obviously won't join you. As a member of society, you have an obligation to not only avoid helping racists, but actively work against them by loudly arguing with them, depriving them of opportunities to promote or implement their ideas, and maybe kicking them out of a party if they try to start some shit.
Twitter can't be neutral, because everybody else isn't. In fact it's not really possible to be neutral, they can either endorse the status quo, or work against it. If they abuse their incredibly powerful position, there is a higher power we can appeal to who is required to be neutral in such cases.
No one is saying they should "enforce ideological equality". What I am saying is that it's dangerous for a tech company to tip the scales like this.
Under your majoritarian rule proposal we'd just end up with any idea sufficiently derided by the loudest groups and most influential twitter personalities effectively banned. Especially given that 140-characters isn't enough space to realistically make full throated arguments, the prospect of people being misinterpreted is resoundingly high.
>We all wish we lived in a world where any idea could be freely discussed, and "bad" ones would be naturally dismissed, but we don't. The world doesn't naturally improve, people force it to, and not just by hosting neutral discussion spaces.
This statement is just Neomarxism repackaged. Taken to its logical conclusion, these corporations should become essentially political entities that enforce whatever ideological consensus the majority deems palatable. Twitter thus becomes a tool for sociocultural engineering. Given how poorly the company operates today, they should probably stay away from trying to broaden their mandate.
>If you decide to be neutral, you're just giving more power to those who aren't...
What? No I'm not. No one is neutral and those who say they are are lying. It sounds like you're half trying to Kafkatrap me. Just because I don't endorse Twitter's rule-making in this context does not mean I'm "helping racists". Especially since the definition of who is a Nazi or a racist seems to be continually expanding, forgive me for being skeptical that if they abuse their power anything would be done. You'd be helping the Nazis, remember?
Sorry, I'm just using "you" because I need a subject for my examples. It's the colloquial "you", I'm not literally talking about you. I'll stop.
Anyway, I agree that no one is neutral, that's my point. Twitter already is a political entity, it already is a tool for sociocultural engineering. It can't not be. The policy of "any and all legal speech will be allowed" is a political choice and an endorsement of the status quo. Allowing Nazi speech is obviously not as bad as literally being a Nazi, but it is an acceptance of the way things are. Allowing speech is just as political as blocking speech.
There is no way to avoid making these decisions, and the more power one has, the more the choice matters. A free-for-all policy is equivalent to an individual staying silent when their friend makes a racist joke, but with much greater consequences. If the people in charge of Twitter didn't want this responsibility, they shouldn't have created the site.
Have you read about what happened to the original targets of gamer gate? Not only did tens of people just constantly synonym rape and death threats but people actually doxed them and went after them at their physical addresses. Those addresses got posted on Twitter, along with phone numbers and other things.
Internet hate mobs, no matter what site they use, can cause real psychological and physical damage. They can make it extremely difficult for someone to get a job or cause all their personal information to be stolen.
There’ve been so many examples over the years of things that of come off of Reddit or Twitter or other 4chan i’m surprised someone would say that this stuff isn’t something people need to worry about.
You realize the internet is real right? There are actual people getting work done and building relationships on Twitter. If someone posts information about you, others could show up at your house or lie to your boss about you. If your feed is full of gross descriptions of rape it's hard to get work done. If a mob of hundreds of people start wishing you harm, you might realize it's not just "words". And large groups are forming now to sway elections.
Certainly the rules are imperfect, but the amount of anonymous toxicity currently allowed is IMO much worse than some clunky standards. There's a lot of space between defending free speech and standing idly by while people use your service to attack others.