[6cd6beb]

>We're not going to delete it but we're going to algorithmically prevent discovery

Tech monoliths like facebook, google, and twitter are starting to show very obvious political biases.

If we push them to be equitable to differing opinions, they basically get to continue enforcing their own political biases because we can only ever do blackbox testing. God knows what the backend is doing.

If we push them to own their biases try to get more platforms representing differing political opinions, we create admitted echo chambers and further polarize a political climate (in the USA) where we're already arguing whether communists or nazis are trying to destroy the country.

This is a complex problem without an easy solution but it's not unreasonable to bet twitter is going to abuse this new feature to either allow people they like to blatantly violate the rules (without actually algorithmically demoting the tweets, people will ignore the notice) or effectively shadowban people they don't like without explaining why a tweet doesn't follow the ToS until the subject matter is out of the news cycle.

[TheHypnotist]

On the other hand:

If your political stance violates the TOS that is enforced on non-public offical users, is it really "political bias"? Maybe you should rethink your politics if bullying, inciting violence, and inciting hate speech is part of your position.

[djrogers]

The problem will arise when twitter selectively enforces these rules on people with only one political stance.

Hypocrisy is a common human trait, and one that should be accounted for in such a process - it's hard to look at Twitter's past actions and assume they'll do this one perfectly.

[anigbrowl]

You seem to be assuming your conclusion as your premise.

[TheHypnotist]

Maybe, maybe not. In this case time will tell and considering the effect of their action seems relatively trivial, is this really worse than inaction?

[wanderer2323]

There is a great example in the thread below that might as well be surfaced here. When blue-checks on twitter post 'kill white people' it is magically not bullying, not inciting violence and not hate speech.

https://www.label56.com/wp-content/uploads/verified-hate-1.j...

What is worse is the secondary effects when people point to twitter not taking action as a justification that posting 'kill <skin colour>' is somehow acceptable if <skin colour> == white. After all, twitter allows it so it must be OK.

[pgcj_poster]

- Teddy Wilson was mocking the "white genocide" conspiracy theory. He's also white.

- Dadito Calderone was making a joke about people who pretend to be concerned about crime in black neighborhoods when really they're trying to demonize black people as criminals.

- ka5sh, and possibly Brian Clevinger, is quoting the TV series Roots.

- Bobbie Oliver was talking about a movie in which a black man escapes slavery by killing his captors.

- Shay Stweart Bouley was sharing a story with an intentionally provocative title

- Tracy Bommeisha-Ann Clayton was ironically using a painfully exaggerated black accent.

- Yasser Lester is saying something similar to Nick Hanauer telling plutocrats to beware of pitchforks and torches.

None of these people were actually advocating for killing white people, nor or they making these jokes in a targeted way that would constitute bullying. Furthermore, many of these tweets are many years old, which indicates that they were found by scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[wanderer2323]

I am pretty sure that if one would take the approaches you have outlined - e.g. quoting some TV show, making a 'provocative title', speakig in an exagerrated accent -- but with the people <colour> swapped, they would be flagged in a relatively short order. No matter how bening the motive, the message is not OK. The fact that you think that it is OK and make excuses for it is the illustration of my GP post's last point.

[pgcj_poster]

I disagree. If you go looking, you can find verified accounts suggesting killing Hispanics [1], putting Jews in ovens [2], killing Indians [3], and otherwise committing genocide [4].

[1] https://twitter.com/KillerMike/status/612315197663940608.

[2] https://twitter.com/TheBillyProcida/status/62535136510415257...

[3] https://twitter.com/ZaidZamanHamid/status/505972865766658048

[4] https://twitter.com/AlexisGZall/status/604026752013230080

[mfatica]

I've seen far more on the left calling for bullying, inciting violence, and inciting hate than the right.

[taborj]

Oh good, I'm not alone in seeing this trend. The left seems to have a more "if you're not with us you're against us" stance.

[dEnigma]

Even if that's true, people on the right seem to be more likely to actually follow threats with physical violence. At least this is the case in Germany where the deaths caused by right-wing extremism since the beginning of the 90s number more than a hundred, while there have been only two deaths since 2001 caused by left-wing radicals. Unfortunately the article I read on this didn't have numbers for left-wing violence in the 90s, but I doubt they would make up for this significant difference.

[rmcrx]

Abortionists incite violence. In fact, they commit violence and murder. Let's start banning them? :-)

[dang]

We've banned this account for taking HN threads into ideological flamewar. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [e-mail] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules when posting here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[CiPHPerCoder]

What is an abortionist?

[rmcrx]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abortionist

Any of the 3 is cool.

[Kalium]

Whether or not it's political bias depends on what's in the TOS and who gets to define "bullying", "inciting violence", and "hate speech".

I can definitely think of ways any of those could be defined by Trumpists. Suffice to say those definitions are likely to differ substantially from those that a typical Pride attendee might offer.

[driverdan]

> Tech monoliths like facebook, google, and twitter are starting to show very obvious political biases.

How is this policy political bias? If one political group makes more calls to violence or for discrimination than another perhaps the problem is with the group, not Twitter.

[creaghpatr]

Because political advocacy groups consult Twitter on what constitutes violations: https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html

[sdinsn]

If not political advocacy groups, who would be a better consultant choice? Isn't the entire purpose of advocacy groups to encourage the safety of certain groups?

[mc32]

I think an apolitical philosophical framework would be better than _biased_ (however good their intentions) groups who have the mostly the well being of their interest group in mind. An advocacy group isn't a group which will take a balanced approach. Naturally, if they are advocates, they would represent their position _fully_ and uncompromised.

An apolitical (not advocating anything outside a framework) would be better and more neutral way to manage these differing opinions.

[sdinsn]

I disagree. Society is highly political, so why should Twitter be "apolitical" with their moderation? (if such a thing is even possible. I doubt the feasibility of apolitical moderation in general)

[anigbrowl]

Unicorn and Chimera, or the pursuit of virtue through sundry remarkable demesnes

[TheHypnotist]

Which specifically do you have a problem with?

[djrogers]

Nobody is saying this policy is political bias. The problem is with who gets to define things like discrimination.

As an example, there are those who believe any form of border security, or any enforcement of existing immigration law is discrimination and immoral. Which side defines the terms used is absolutely a form of bias.