[nathanaldensr]

Can this be summarized as "Twitter, implement censorship because people are saying things we don't like?" I fully understand that Twitter is a company offering a service and they are intrinsically allowed to police content being posted on their platform.

The whole point of democratic society in the United States is to allow people freedom of speech and thought. If we limit the discussion of ideas to only popular/accepted/politically-correct ones, then there is no chance to analyze ideas from a relative perspective; there is nothing to compare those ideas to. We must allow discourse, even at the extremes of the spectrum.

To quote various sources, "There can be no light without dark."

[blfr]

Can this be summarized as "Twitter, implement censorship because people are saying things we don't like?"

Yes, basically. OP apparently also thinks that what constitutes community is a central authority handing out badges.

the company should issue badges of status or of shame based on signals about how people actually use, or abuse, Twitter. In other words, Twitter should begin to think of itself, and its users, as a community

And believes that Facebook or Linkedin profiles are markers of online reputation.

These people (he's not alone) are watching their authority eroding and believe that it could be stopped with another status symbol. Doubtful.

Aside, which online communities has Anil Dash created?

[pjc50]

There was an entire startup built around social media profile reputation, called Klout. It's possible for some people to earn decent lifestyle incomes from social media, although this usually means Instagram.

> Aside, which online communities has Anil Dash created?

Stackoverflow? https://stackoverflow.com/company/management

[dillera]

He joined way after that was created.

[nxsynonym]

I agree with you. The only thing that censorship brings in this particular case is a safe space for advertisers. I see exactly 0 harm in sharing a platform with people with alternate views than me.

If you don't like the way a social platform is heading, then leave it. You are not entitled to a safe space.

At the end of the day twitter is going to cater to its biggest and most influential users.

It costs you nothing to ignore the users who are saying things you don't like.

[GVIrish]

> The only thing that censorship brings in this particular case is a safe space for advertisers.

What??? There are people out there getting death threats, getting doxxed, being attacked with all manner of epithets on Twitter. It stands to reason that maybe the experience would be better for those people without that sort of content directed at them.

> If you don't like the way a social platform is heading, then leave it. You are not entitled to a safe space.

Yes. And as a business, Twitter has a vested interest in not letting their platform drive away swaths of users due to toxicity. Indeed, one of the key reasons Facebook was successful is that users have the ability to restrict communications to the people they want to.

[pjc50]

> I see exactly 0 harm in sharing a platform with people with alternate views than me.

Spoken like someone who's never been the victim of a targeted harassment campaign. It's a little hard to take that view when people are posting pictures of your children's school along with their death threats.

[nprz]

Since when is sharing a platform with people whose political views differ from yours equal to allowing targeted harassment? I don't think many would disagree that someone who threatens real life violence on someone should result in a banning from that platform. But an automatic ban based on political affiliation seems undemocratic.

[pjc50]

The original article doesn't mention anything like "an automatic ban based on political affiliation". The de-verification of white supremacists argument hinges around both verification as endorsement, and the possibility that some political beliefs (white supremacy) are in themselves a threat of violence.

[nxsynonym]

Meh, these threats exist in the real world as well. You can't silence everybody who might possibly be a threat at some point.

Those who actually make the threats should be dealt with, but last time I checked it's "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty until proven liberal".

[jff]

Yeah, it's pretty fucked up when an internet lynch mob gets you fired because you said "dongle" or something similarly bad.

[staticassertion]

You can say and think whatever you like. Companies giving platforms to hate is not something that democracy requires.

It's less "that idea is popular" and more "these people are inciting hatred against other people".

I'm baffled that people still repeat this "free speech is important" thing when we're talking about a private service giving an audience to white supremacists.

[chmod775]

Yes. They are not legally required to provide service to anyone.

But indiscriminately providing services to everyone (within the laws of your country), without booting people based on a personal agenda, is the ABC of gaining the trust of your users.

[gfzfwizp]

But people aren't leaving twitter because they perceive it as favoring one side. People are leaving because they are being flooded with hateful, abusive comments from trolls and their bots. So it seems the key to gaining trust is creating a place where users don't experience rampant abuse.

[GVIrish]

It depends on what you mean by 'personal agenda'. If someone is directing hate speech at other users, would it be pursuing a personal agenda to ban or otherwise sanction that user?

It's not always easy to draw a line on conduct, but I think there is plenty of behavior on Twitter that 99% of people could easily identify as toxic.

[mozumder]

Wrong. A respected editorial standard allows for even more trust.

Example: Do you trust Washington Post or Twitter more?

[rayiner]

Twitter and it’s not even close. A journalists synthesis of what he thinks the evidence is carries no weight. Twitter is like a mini trial. You hear the testimony from the horse’s mouth, people cite documentary evidence, and you weigh credibility to reach a conclusion.

[mozumder]

So you trust the Russian troll bots on Twitter?

[eitland]

That's absolutely not what rayiner wrote.

[SomeStupidPoint]

Comparing a centralized, unified group like a newspaper writing team with a diffuse, decentralized mob like Twitter makes me question your sincerity.

[mozumder]

Twitter is a single corporation. It can choose to limit the scope of its published tweets if it wishes, via stronger editorial rules.

[SomeStupidPoint]

It could also choose to open a steel factory and produce I beams -- why are we not criticizing its low steel output?

Twitter would immediately lose all utility to me if it transitioned out of the business of being a forum/socialization platform to a poorly sourced algorothmic newspaper. (They're flirting with it -- and frankly, it doesn't seem to be going well, because that's not what people want.)

It seems outright disingenuous to suggest that Twitter and the NYT are in the same business, and seems to be based entirely around a false equivalence about "publish". There are multiple kinds of businesses that publish things, and the solution to problems in one domain aren't just to be a differemt type of business.

[Amezarak]

I believe democratically elected governments should have more power than corporations. Right now, corporations have complete and utter control over the most common and important communications method of our time.

Think about what you're saying: corporations have the power to prevent you from saying anything online. Twitter and Facebook can ban you for your political opinions. Fine, you say: get your own website. Well, we've seen that your registrar, CDN, and hosting providers will also kick you off if they find your speech sufficiently offensive (or if enough pressure comes down on them to do so.) In the end, your ISP can do the same thing. Corporations own the commons we all use. Yes, the FA only protects you from government censorship, but the societal principle of free speech is not so limited. If you cannot speak because every commons is owned by a private corporation, or where any speech can be banned because a mob is threatening to protest you, you do not have free speech in any meaningful sense.

I don't believe the solution to our problems is to blithely conclude that corporations can do whatever they want, it's their platforms, and that anyway, it's about "hate" (who gets to define that?) We need to look very seriously about how communication has evolved since the 18th century and what "freedom of speech" means now, and how to settle it in a way that at least leads to democratically elected institutions having the power to restrict it, rather than corporate overlords.

I would also argue that repression of speech is a contributing factor to the rise of violence. As long as all speech is legitimized, there's a relief valve for despicable beliefs. The Nazi Party was born in an environment where political violence was already commonplace, and where nationalist rhetoric resulted in the nationalists being severely beaten. Consequently, only the most violent and committed people remained, who then organized their own violent mobs. Ultimately, the perception of being "repressed" by both mob violence and the state (the Nazi party was later banned) only lent support by people who felt for the "underdog" and radicalized supporters who felt that legitimate, nonviolent means would never be enough.

[eitland]

I hate nazism as much as everyone else.

Problem is they and other media companies (and often the users as well) has ridiculous problems to understand the diffence between racism (judging and treating people different depending on who their parents where etc) and scepticism towards a recent immigration wave (do we want to relocate all these humans right here, right now? Can we help more people by doing it differently?)

[staticassertion]

OK, but there are definitely plenty of clear cut cases and Twitter has historically had issues dealing even with these. This isn't an issue of media in general, we're talking about Twitter, that's what the article is about.

[rimliu]

Because free speech is important. That includes speech you do not like.

[staticassertion]

This is it - this is what baffles me, thank you for posting this.

[dominotw]

hate cannot be precisely defined though. Thats the crux of the argument.

[latch]

Plenty of countries have legal definitions which are well enforced (1) and which often rely on internationally agreed upon standards (2).

Slippery slopes is usually a fallacious argument, decidedly so in this case where plenty of successful examples exists.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Keegstra

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civi...

[croon]

Sure it can.

It means "intense dislike". If that is directed at an intrinsic property of a group of people, that's hate speech.

Example: black people as opposed to smokers.

[nileshtrivedi]

Very soon that leads to any speech criticizing, say, the capitalists or the politicians in power.

[croon]

> Very soon that leads to any speech criticizing, say, the capitalists or the politicians in power.

No, because that's not an intrinsic property.

Hating people who take too long at the register isn't the same as viewing all redheads as inferior.

[changchuming]

What is intrinsic? Is being poor intrinsic? Can I spew hate against the poor and the homeless then? The problem is these definitions are unclear, and policing hate against black people obliges you to police hate against the homeless, and pretty soon everything else. I have seen far more examples of slippery slopes happening than not, so forgive me if I'm skeptical.

[nileshtrivedi]

The whole point is that lines are not easy to draw. Religion is a belief system and is not an intrinsic property either. Are you going to allow speech like "Kill all muslims" which is not very different from "Kill all capitalists".

Free speech is so critical to a functioning free society that I'd rather err on the side of allowing bad speech rather than banning not-bad speech by mistake.

[SomeStupidPoint]

I'm terrified of people who use phrases like "inciting hatred" as an excuse for why we should start ostracizing entire swatches of people from social discourse. Hilariously, I'd say that if anyone is "inciting hatred", it's probably you at your strawmen.

In my experience, they're much more dangerous to the well-being of society than the people they're trying to silence, as they're generally authoritarians of the worst sort without a shred of remorse because they're doing it for The Right Reasons(TM) and are sure of it.

But if I tolerate you speaking, someone I view as an immediate and visceral threat to my society, I suppose I can tolerate just about anyone using words.

It's a shame we'll likely come to violence because you can't show the same tolerance, and use words not force on people you disagree with.

[tdees40]

No, how about users (me, at least) are leaving Twitter because it's a rotten cesspool of misogyny, racism and stupidity. Maybe users should get a choice to avoid some of this?

[nprz]

Doesn't twitter allow you the option to mute and block users you would rather not hear from?

[tdees40]

Sure, but there's like umpteen million terrible accounts...seems like a lot to ask of your users.

[throw2016]

Any public platform is going to have this. You have to first decide what you don't want in clear language and legislate it very specifically and clearly. Or you will destroy diversity and free speech.

Newspapers and TV are controlled so you don't see too much of it. But any public internet site cannot avoid this without heavy moderation which at Twitter, Youtube, Facebook scale are not easy problems to solve.

[rimliu]

But you have a choice and according to you, you are already using it: leaving Twitter.

[mysterydip]

To your point, say twitter existed when segregation was accepted as “normal society”, Or pre-lgbt general acceptance.

[nathanaldensr]

That's exactly my point. I myself am not racist, nor do I believe in segregation, but does that mean I or others should actively work to prevent the discussion of those ideas? Wouldn't we become just as bad as the people we decry if we tried to suppress their viewpoints?

[jkestner]

No, because we'd still be, you know, not racist.

But I think suppressing a viewpoint is counterproductive. Instead, the holders of those viewpoints should be held to the light, and it's a Twitter problem in that such people can be completely anonymous or even fake. Hard to have a public debate when some of the participating citizens are fictional.

[blfr]

The arguments for the US constitution in the Federalists Papers were presented pseudonymously. Debate doesn't require some silly real names policy.

[pjc50]

Yes, and no? Proposing racial segragation is something is highly offensive to non-white people, discriminatory in and of itself. If you're an employer, letting some guy talk about his beliefs in racial discrimination in your workplace is creating a hostile environment for your other employees. If you have any kind of position in a community, you shouldn't allow it there either.

[blatherard]

No, that's an insufficient summary. At the least, you should note harassment as a significant issue, since the author brings it up many times.

[craftyguy]

The 1st amendment only applies to the government, not to your peer citizens or to companies. They can censor whatever they want.

[Sir_Cmpwn]

I scrolled down until I found this comment just so that I could give you my canned response:

The government supports free speech because it's important and a Good Thing. Just because private companies aren't required to do the same doesn't make it any less important and a Good Thing.

[GVIrish]

No it is not a universally Good Thing, that is an extremely facile reading of free speech.

Is it a good thing if someone at your job shouts racial epithets at you all day? Should woman have to tolerate being jeered and catcalled at every private business they patronize? Should a restaurant turn a blind eye to a belligerent customer that curses at the wait staff and everyone in ear shot?

Of course not. A private business has a vested interest in creating an environment where customers feel welcome. They could also choose to do nothing and let the chips fall where they may, but if enough bad actors make things bad for everyone else, that business will fail.

You have a right to not face retaliation from the government for speaking your mind. It doesn't mean everyone else has to accommodate whatever it is you have to say.

[Sir_Cmpwn]

>Is it a good thing if someone at your job shouts racial epithets at you all day? Should woman have to tolerate being jeered and catcalled at every private business they patronize? Should a restaurant turn a blind eye to a belligerent customer that curses at the wait staff and everyone in ear shot?

No. It's reasonable to fire someone who berates other employees. It's reasonable to kick patrons out of your store if they harass women. It's reasonable to kick out a belligerent customer.

But Twitter is none of these things. Twitter is a platform for discourse.

[GVIrish]

Twitter is a business, and they get to choose what sort of business they want to be.

If they want to be totally hands off, they can do that. But if they want to set a tone for how people use their service, they can do that too.

Reddit is a platform for discourse too, and they've decided to evict certain communities from their platform because they don't match Reddit's goals and values. HN is a platform for discourse and there is a reputation system that controls how people interact with it. Facebook is another platform where users can decide who they interact with, and how.

[Sir_Cmpwn]

>If they want to be totally hands off, they can do that. If they want to be totally hands off, they can do that. But if they want to set a tone for how people use their service, they can do that too.

Yes, they can. I'm just going to repost my canned response now:

>The government supports free speech because it's important and a Good Thing. Just because private companies aren't required to do the same doesn't make it any less important and a Good Thing.

[craftyguy]

The point your canned response misses entirely is that it is non always a 'Good Thing'

[mc32]

People on both sides pull this card out till it affects their PoV. Imagine the calls we'd witness from one side of the spectrum if Twitter went 4chan.

[GVIrish]

If Twitter went full 4chan it would implode. There's no way Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or even Reddit would have gotten to the size they have if they were curated in favor of trolls.

When subgroups of trolls have gotten booted from larger communities and tried to start their own social media enclaves, they've never gotten to a truly large scale because most people don't want to be part of that kind of community.

[mc32]

My point is people are okay with sites self governing till self government evolves into the loudspeaker for the other side and then they want regulation.

A better way, in my view would be for twitter to allow people to subscribe to groups and those groups have their own moderation. Obviously some things would be subject to regular laws like immediate threats of violence, doxxing, etc.

[nathanaldensr]

I didn't mention the First Amendment on purpose. I am quite aware--like most US-based readers here--that it does not apply to private discourse. My first paragraph should be interpreted as such.

[_bfhp]

No one believes they can't. But should they? https://theintercept.com/2014/08/21/twitter-facebook-executi...

[ChristianBundy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Tolerance is generally a useful tool for social discourse, but when your "peers" are actively working to recruit and organize a movement to silence/deport/kill your friends it's generally not useful to tolerate that behavior.

Tolerance only works when you have at least the smallest and most fundamental amount of social cohesion.

[mc32]

Is there any mainstream movement for reporting legal immigrants?

As for illegals, every major country in the world deports illegal immigrants, even good old Canada, to the chagrin of many who thought they'd walk over and be granted immigration status without any further effort.

[pjc50]

(I'm assuming "reporting" was a typo for "deporting")

Brexit?

Helpfully Brexit is a multi-faceted movement, so you can't pin down people as supporting or opposing any particular policy. But it seems a large part of it was driven by opposition to "eastern europeans" - who are in the UK legally under freedom of movement.

If Brexit happens without a new rule being introduced, suddenly millions of people who legally immigrated to the UK will become "illegal". (They can try the naturalisation process, which is long, expensive, not at all guaranteed to succeed, and closed to many categories of people)

[_bfhp]

And white supremacists say their enemies are against social cohesion and organizing to silence people (in the latter case there's a bit of truth, in terms of the anti-civil-liberties streak of my fellow progressives and leftists).

In the end it's still taking political sides.