[notimetorelax]

I’m curious if X will manage to build up the moderation tools and automation without rehiring as many moderators as they used to have. Looking at the requirements, some of those challenging - preventing fast dissemination of illegal content.

[slim]

Having tried the "Added context" contributions, I think Twitter solved the moderation. It simply works. There's an abundance of free labor and it scales linearly with controversy/spread.

[pjc50]

But that doesn't remove the content. It just sticks a label underneath it. And it's only on the most popular tweets.

[kcplate]

There is a dude who lives a couple miles from me who flies a large confederate flag and has a statue of Robert E Lee in his yard. I am happy that authorities allow it because that way I know not to interact with him. I’d rather offensive people be loud and proud than secretive and using subterfuge to advance their cause.

[leadingthenet]

That’s a feature, not a bug.

[Hamuko]

>It simply works.

Does it? Because I've seen it used to spread all sorts of bullshit, including against Musk/X.

One case that comes to my mind when Musk wanted to make blocking to work the same as muting, and the false claim of it being against Apple's App Store rules was added as context.

[spookie]

In what way does blocking not work the same as muting?

[Hamuko]

If you mute a user, you will not see posts from that user but they can see and interact with your posts. If you block a user, you will not see posts from that user and they cannot see or interact with your posts.

[fabian2k]

If the recent leak about the moderation policies for Twitter is correct, they don't actually want to remove that kind of content. So it might not be a matter of not having enough moderators right now but also an intentional policy decision to not sanction posts like this.

I can't find an English source here and the original is paywalled, but from a German article (https://www.heise.de/news/Leak-Leugnung-des-Holocaust-und-me...) summarizing the original reporting comes the following example of a tweet that is allegedly allowed now:

> Next stop on our tour across Poland is Auschwitz. For Jews this is the last stop, please exit and take your luggage with you.

It also mentions that threats of physical are no longer a reason for suspending accounts.

[ajsnigrutin]

It's a pretty bad dark joke, but considering it illegal? Especially by an american company, freedom of speech and all that?

[andylynch]

There is no absolute right of free speech in the EU (and probably most countries); foreign companies operating there are subject to local laws when doing so. (In my non-EU country that tweet could be interpreted as a hate crime too, quite uncontroversially)

[ajsnigrutin]

Sure, but is this joke actually illegal?

[kypro]

I'm not as familiar with EU laws, but if I posted this joke online in the UK, then yes, it could easily be considered "grossly offensive" and therefore would be illegal.

I won't say it happens particularly often, but we do charge people in the UK for posting offensive jokes. Hell, you can be charged for saying something factually true if it's offensive in the UK.

[red_trumpet]

If they are operating in the EU, it doesn't matter if it is an american company or not.

[ajsnigrutin]

Sure, but can this joke itself be illegal? What law forbids a joke like this? It's not calling for violence, it's not denying the holocaust (just the opposite), it's just.. well.. a joke.

[andylynch]

It’s absolutely inciting violence, just using coded language.

[somenameforme]

Even the EU is going to have some legal standards around this sort of thing, or you could spin whatever you want into being some sort of coded language for something that is illegal. I'm unfamiliar with EU (or Germany as it may be?) standards, but using the US as an example, there's the Miller Test [1] for determining obscenity. It has three parts:

---

1) Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest

2) Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law

3) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

---

Something can only be deemed obscene if it meets all 3 criteria, which courts tend to interpret pretty rigidly. For instance, an average person is not the most sensitive or politically correct person. Of course it also somewhat amusingly emphasizes the cultural differences. Creative use of a nipple and some mayonnaise might be deemed as obscenity, while a graphic decapitation could not.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

[SiempreViernes]

The Germans are not famous for making jokes about killing Jews, and their market: their rules.

[ajsnigrutin]

Sure, but the germans did not outlaw jokes, even if they're germans.

It's not calling for violence, it's not denying the holocaust (quite the oposite), so why would it be illegal?

[rsynnott]

Bloody hell, that was an _example of a Tweet that they were okay with, in training material_?!

[wongarsu]

It isn't inciting violence, and despite what people say about Germans we haven't actually outlawed humor. The joke might be tasteless or insensitive, but I doubt it's illegal.

Of course many platforms wouldn't want such content on their platform, but there is also a vocal portion of people who have long called for platforms to behave more like town halls or public plazas, letting public discourse run uncensored as long as it isn't illegal. That's exactly what Musk seems to be doing

[rsynnott]

Oh, I’m not saying it’s illegal anywhere (maybe France? France is particularly aggressive on this sort of thing), but I would imagine that some Twitter salespeople will be having _interesting_ conversations with remaining large advertisers about this; it doesn’t really gel with previous positioning (at least to advertisers).

[wongarsu]

Musk didn't buy the company to make it gel with its previous positioning, for better or for worse. But I agree, it will be interesting if Twitter manages to retain any of the large advertisers, and if how they plan to become profitable again.

[kypro]

If you're critical of X allowing people to recite jokes about the holocaust, how do you feel about Netflix platforming similar jokes about genocides? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJurYs12ay4)

Do you feel some jokes are too offensive to be said? Do you feel the EU/UK are correct in their stance that offensive (aka hateful) jokes should be illegal?

[troupo]

"It was just a joke" isn't a legal defence when inciting hatred and violence. It's not legal even in the US (though IANAL).

Context matters.

[somenameforme]

The Supreme Court almost always judges in favor in free speech, including justices like Sotomayor. A place this frequently comes up is in rap where rappers frequently tend to rap about specific people and propose or fantasize about violent acts and even murder being committed against them. Eminem and his ex-wife Kim is a more or less well known example. And the Supreme Court has ruled, repeatedly, that it's 100% legal. A relevant court case is Elonis vs US [1]. He said some extremely explicit and provocative things, and the court ruled 8-1 in favor of throwing out his conviction. Interestingly enough, the sole dissenting vote was Clarence Thomas!

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States

[pseudo0]

It is legal in the US as long as you are not intending and likely to incite imminent lawless action. Eg. To give a recent example, it's completely legal to chant "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" despite some interpreting that chant to be calling for genocide.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/advocacy_of_illegal_action

[troupo]

Yeah, that's why I'm saying context matters, and it's often up to the court to decide the context