Free speech on Twitter?

[LisztesFerenc]

Also, I point out that Oniya posted the link (as opposed to the regular picture) because she was unable to ascertain the age of Bieber (hiss!) in that particular image, and E has a voluntarily-agreed upon rule not to depict children under the age of 16.

  Agreed on by who? I'm pretty sure that would be Vekseid, the private owner of E. I certainly wasn't consulted on the decision. I don't object to it, but I was never asked, as is the case with the majority of E's userbase,

  Likewise, the private owners of Twitter are free to say you cannot use hurtful speech on their sight. That's not against the Constiution

[ReijiTabibito]

By anyone who uses the site.  We might not have been part of the decision making process, but part of the joining process says that we will abide by the established rules of E.  In each of our memberships is inherently understood that we agreed not to break the rules.

And no, it's not, but people don't see it that way, which is why they're leaving the site.

Also...

I think I'm done.

Ditto.  I'm going to go stick to calling Trump a fascist.

[TheGlyphstone]

Ditto.  I'm going to go stick to calling Trump a fascist.

That, at least, is something we can agree on.

[Blythe]

How do you all feel about the Trust and Safety Council now present on Twitter to monitor offensive and harmful speech?

https://blog.twitter.com/2016/announcing-the-twitter-trust-safety-council

My opinion is neutral. There hasn't been enough time of the Council in action for me to make an informed decision whether it's helping or hurting Twitter and its users.

My first impression is there seems to be nothing detailed out about any ability to actually enforce any type of discipline or sanction against offensive/harmful speech. It mostly just looks like groups that Twitter will talk to when gauging some stuff on their site, which doesn't seem to be inherently helpful or hurtful at the moment. My other impression is that their 2nd organization bulletpoint of "Grassroots advocacy organizations that rely on Twitter to build movements and momentum" seems like it's too broad and a bit ill-thought out.

Anyways, prefer to wait to see this in actual action for a while first. I think they mean well, but I think in practice it would be incredibly hard to implement successfully.

[LisztesFerenc]

By anyone who uses the site.  We might not have been part of the decision making process, but part of the joining process says that we will abide by the established rules of E.  In each of our memberships is inherently understood that we agreed not to break the rules.

And no, it's not, but people don't see it that way, which is why they're leaving the site.

  So just checking, are you still sticking to websites regulating what you can and cannot say on them as being against the Constitution, or do you just disprove of it but accept that since the first amendment begins "Congress shall" the scope does not extend to non-governmental websites?

[Nachtmahr]

And no, it's not, but people don't see it that way, which is why they're leaving the site.

I'd like to call for some facts here and see a real statistic showing the impact this change has had on Twitter's actual user base. If not, this is purely speculation and kind of a mute, overly generalizing argument. I actually have no doubt that if Twitter took some real steps to eliminating hatespeech and threatening behavior on Twitter, at least as many people would be streaming towards it for the added security it would provided compared to other social media as people would apparently be leaving because their toxic behavior is being "Censored".

[ReijiTabibito]

  So just checking, are you still sticking to websites regulating what you can and cannot say on them as being against the Constitution, or do you just disprove of it but accept that since the first amendment begins "Congress shall" the scope does not extend to non-governmental websites?

To elaborate - and this is my last statement:

A private organization may restrict speech, on the basis that it is a private organization and therefore not subject to the First.  I may disapprove of this behavior, but since, for example, E is not the government, it doesn't fall under the Amendment's provisions.

A government organization, however, may not restrict free speech, as it is part of the government, and the government is not allowed to inhibit free speech.  To use a short example: if a university receives federal funding, or has any federal oversight attached to it, then speech codes are - according to the letter of the law - illegal.

[LisztesFerenc]

To elaborate - and this is my last statement:

A private organization may restrict speech, on the basis that it is a private organization and therefore not subject to the First.  I may disapprove of this behavior, but since, for example, E is not the government, it doesn't fall under the Amendment's provisions.

A government organization, however, may not restrict free speech, as it is part of the government, and the government is not allowed to inhibit free speech.  To use a short example: if a university receives federal funding, or has any federal oversight attached to it, then speech codes are - according to the letter of the law - illegal.

  Okay weird, you do get freedom of speech. Your previous statements made it seem like you didn't, as you kept bringing it up when talking about Twitter, which is a private organization and thus, as you noted, allowed to do this.

[Lustful Bride]

*Thinks this has all gone off track, and wonders why I care about this even though I hate and don't use sites like twitter*


You know, I think one of the problems with this council, is that by what criteria do you judge a persons post? What constitutes offensive content? How do you prevent it from being abused? (Because if youtube has taught me anything, all these measures can be abused and it can be done so easily).

And how do you ensure that those running it actually have the best of intentions and don't start one day cutting down upon dissent and oppinions that are reasonable, but that they do not like?

[LisztesFerenc]

*Thinks this has all gone off track, and wonders why I care about this even though I hate and don't use sites like twitter*


You know, I think one of the problems with this council, is that by what criteria do you judge a persons post? What constitutes offensive content? How do you prevent it from being abused? (Because if youtube has taught me anything, all these measures can be abused and it can be done so easily).

And how do you ensure that those running it actually have the best of intentions and don't start one day cutting down upon dissent and oppinions that are reasonable, but that they do not like?

  I imagine the same way moderators, here or on any site, don't get to ban people who disagree with them: trust and peer accountability.

[Avis habilis]

You know, I think one of the problems with this council, is that by what criteria do you judge a persons post? What constitutes offensive content? How do you prevent it from being abused? (Because if youtube has taught me anything, all these measures can be abused and it can be done so easily).

And how do you ensure that those running it actually have the best of intentions and don't start one day cutting down upon dissent and oppinions that are reasonable, but that they do not like?

It doesn't matter, because that's not what they'll be doing. This group is being formed to consult on policies for dealing with harassment & intimidation. That's it. Claims of a PC inquisition policing posts for upsetting content are at wildly misinformed (at best).

[Lustful Bride]

It doesn't matter, because that's not what they'll be doing. This group is being formed to consult on policies for dealing with harassment & intimidation. That's it. Claims of a PC inquisition policing posts for upsetting content are at wildly misinformed (at best).

Meh *shrug* I guess this could be more of someone yelling "The Sky is falling" and it getting progressively worse as it turns into a game of
"He said, She said." :P

[Far eyes]

Meh *shrug* I guess this could be more of someone yelling "The Sky is falling" and it getting progressively worse as it turns into a game of
"He said, She said." :P

*Hums hell march*
*Walks out of the thread*

[Nachtmahr]

I just can't help but feel that anyone who actively opposes any rules, regulations or control of harassment, violent behavior, bigotry or abuse, even if "Just" in verbal format, are doing so because they feel targeted by such a move.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to say "He who smelt it, dealt it!" or anything. I just can't seem to wrap my mind around how any attempt at damming the often vile and cruel voices that all scream in hateful unison at others is a bad thing, nor do I see how it's censorship. A lot of the people who are arguing that any anti-harassment policy is censorship and a violation of our human rights are the same people who will quite happily admit that they will say almost anything to a person they don't like on, for example, Twitter to make them shut up or outright flee the platform. Is that not hypocrisy at it's finest?

Measures like these, to me at least, aren't meant to censor or take away our right to free speech, but rather the opposite: It's meant to encourage free speech in an environment where you won't be chewed up and spat out for voicing your opinion on controversial topics in a civilized manner. It's meant to protect those whose voices are drowned out in a sea of toxicity and cruelty.

They can be bigots, fascists or fundamentally religious for all I care, people have a right to their opinion, but all this is meant to do is ensure that you voice your opinion in a civilized manner, rather than charging at someone like a caveman, screaming profanities and trying to chase them out of what you have claimed as your own cave when in fact it was meant for everyone.

Maybe that's just my Danish definition of Freedom of Speech talking though, I don't know. Here you can definitely still say or do what you want, but you will also be held accountable. If I threaten someone with violence, or even death, then I could face fines or even jailtime. Why? Because it's absurd and wrong to do that. You're not allowed to kill someone, so why should you be allowed to tell them you're going to do it and just turn around and leave?

The reason why we see a police presence at demonstrations isn't because we aren't allowed our opinions (In most cases, at least) but because sometimes, in the heat of passion, otherwise intelligent individuals can devolve into bloodthirsty dogs and loose themselves, and that's not okay. So why should it be okay just because you're on Twitter or Facebook? Why should people be allowed to gather in angry, misinformed or ignorant mobs and try to chase out anyone and everyone they don't like, while the hosts just turn and look the other way, pretending they don't hear a thing?

I just don't get it.

[Far eyes]

I just don't get it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMI_26oljqs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY

[Nachtmahr]

I really like that George Carling skit there, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it and how it relates to the point I was making. Would you mind elaborating on that? ^^'

[Far eyes]

Because this is largely not about safety, its its as much about safety as a police state is about safety. Its about "proper" language. Thats what the Carling skit link was relating to. And "proper" is defined by what ever the witch hunt of the flavor of the month is.

[LisztesFerenc]

Because this is largely not about safety, its its as much about safety as a police state is about safety. Its about "proper" language. Thats what the Carling skit link was relating to. And "proper" is defined by what ever the witch hunt of the flavor of the month is.

  But we have proper behavior too (its rude to ask how much someone ears, don't stare at someone, don't fist bump at a formal meeting). Proper behavior also varies from culture to culture (in some places burping after a meal its polite to burp, in others it an insult for a guest to eat all the food on their plate). What is proper also changes, as handshakes are being phased out in some parts of Asia. So if we manage to have proper behavior, can't we have proper speech?

  I'm not saying it won't be problematic, but twitter is full of such vileness that I don't think do nothing is a realistic option. "Educate others to not be rude" sounds good, but it basically means "being harassed daily? cheer up, in a couple of decades people will know better....maybe".

[Far eyes]

can't we have proper speech?

Fuck No
Adjusted: "And i mean Mellow greetings. Fellow citizen"

[LisztesFerenc]

Fuck No
Adjusted: "And i mean Mellow greetings. Fellow citizen"

  Okay, so slippery slope fallacy. Do you have anything else to contribute to the topic?

[Far eyes]

  Okay, so slippery slope fallacy. Do you have anything else to contribute to the topic?

No, i was thinking of maybe posting some cat pictures at this point.

[LisztesFerenc]

  This is PROC. Not sure where cat pictures fit in here, wait who am I kidding, all 3.

[Nachtmahr]

I have to admit that I don't think you're being particularly mature about this discussion right now, Far eyes. I also think you're doing a fairly poor job of communicating your point.

Are you trying to say that you think any attempt at enforcing proper conduct on social media is ineffective, or that it shouldn't be happening at all and people should be free to be as vile as they want to be, with a complete disregard for the safety and well-being of others?

I like to think of it like a smoking ban, as those have been getting increasingly popular in the last decade. There are places where smoking is rude, and it's not really fair to subject 10-20 people to something they find uncomfortable if none of them are participating, thus there's nothing wrong with having some rules as to where you can or can't smoke. I don't see that there is any harm in trying to make certain social media sites "Safe" in the sense that you can have a debate without it turning into a contest of who can be the most disgusting and cruel to the other party.

Or are you saying that being unreasonably rude is somehow the natural state of online communication, and thus people should just accept that that's the way it is or get off the internet? Because acting like lots of people do on the internet has never been the socially acceptable way to conduct oneself in any society. In many places, particularly in Europe, the behavior that Twitter seeks to keep an eye on is even outright illegal and thus should be monitored and prevented where possible. It's got nothing to do with a police state where hearts and minds are under constant government scrutiny, it's just about making Twitter a bit less uncomfortable to visit.

I like Twitter's format, but I don't think I can count how many times I have written something or replied to someone and then had the most vile stuff posted back at me. Hell, I've had people stalk me, harassing me in every reply-chain that I've been in until I spent a week or two being inactive, likely making them loose interest. Is that really not harassment, but just someone exercising their right to voice their opinion that they'd rather I wasn't alive? Because it kind of feels like harassment. And that's without going into the sort of thing that popular Twitter-users experience.

I'm just still looking for any real reason why an attempt at curbing toxic behavior is a bad thing.

[Far eyes]

You know what.

I actually started typing out a response i got about a decent half a page, you know what i realized i do not actually care. I dont care for this discussion its not going to go any place except the word toxic being used a few more times witch is rapidly turning into the modern equivalent of Godwin's law.

So peace out, take from what what you will.
*Leaves this time for real*

[Nachtmahr]

I'm not sure this is really the intended purpose of a debate forum, but alright I suppose.

I guess that's the end of it then. I think it's a great shame because it's an interesting topic.