Twitter Prepares Curbs On Hate Speech

[Ducman69]

It's literally no different than if you started posting NSFW images in this thread. Those posts would be deleted and you'd be banned. By having a forums account here I haven't chosen to view NSFW images just because you decided to post them. [H]ard|OCP is potentially protecting my job in that scenario.

It's literally very different, and I don't think you understand how Twitter works.

Do you have any idea what I have posted on my Twitter feed? Of course not, because you never subscribed to my channel.

You don't opt-in to hear what I have to say in a public forum, you do opt-in for private subscription channels like Twitter.

 

[Hamish Campbell]

It's literally very different, and I don't think you understand how Twitter works.

Do you have any idea what I have posted on my Twitter feed? Of course not, because you never subscribed to my channel.

You don't opt-in to hear what I have to say in a public forum, you do opt-in for private subscription channels like Twitter.

You're inventing a distinction to argue a dumb point. If I've subscribed to your twitter feed it's not because I want to read hate speech.

 

[teh_chem]

The only--and I mean ONLY--useful thing I've seen come from twitter is the real-time updating of the commuter train schedule/delays that I use for my daily commute. That's the only utility I've found in twitter. It's a nice service for giving real-time updates on something (transportation, web-page/site issues, simple news headlines--but that's iffy in itself). Other than that, I refuse to believe that anything worth saying can be said in 140 characters or less, and LOL at people having stupid bickering arguments over it. Get over yourselves, and talk face-to-face if something is important to you.

 

[Ducman69]

You're inventing a distinction to argue a dumb point. If I've subscribed to your twitter feed it's not because I want to read hate speech.

Its THE point, and if you subscribed to my twitter feed its because you have some idea who I am and what I post about. And if at any time you didn't like my tweets, you would unsubscribe and never see them again.

Likening opt-in subscription notifications to a public forum is whats dumb, its apples and oranges.

 

[Hamish Campbell]

Its THE point, and if you subscribed to my twitter feed its because you have some idea who I am and what I post about. And if at any time you didn't like my tweets, you would unsubscribe and never see them again.

Likening opt-in subscription notifications to a public forum is whats dumb, its apples and oranges.

Your point is stupid. The public forum/opt-in distinction is utterly meaningless. You're the one saying just because Twitter's format operates a little differently than the rest of the web they shouldn't be able to make their own rules. That's asinine.

And why? Because you don't like it? You feel like you should be able to use their service to say anything and everything you want? Sorry, go invent your own Twitter copycat if you want to make the rules.

 

[kbrickley]

Its perfectly legal right now, correct, just as it was once perfectly legal for realtors to protect their financial investment by discriminating against minorities in their developed communities. Laws just like company policies change when there are enough vocal people that complain about it.

The difference is that having the right to live in a house without unreasonable restrictions was ruled to be a basic right protected by the constitution. If privately owned communication venues, like Twitter or Facebook or Google+, were the ONLY means to communicate then there could be some justification for the government mandating they allow totally open communication. However, although prevalent and useful at times these internet venues are private for profit enterprises and not general communication forums and they are certainly not the ONLY sources of communication, regardless of how convenient they may or may not be. As long as they are for profit enterprises their primary fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders not necessarily their users

 

[Ducman69]

If privately owned communication venues, like Twitter or Facebook or Google+, were the ONLY means to communicate then there could be some justification for the government mandating they allow totally open communication.

You could say the same thing about a privately owned restaurant. Texas Steakhouse is not the ONLY steak place in town yet alone the only restaurant or place to get food, but they still have government mandates about handicap parking, who they can hire, who they can serve, what they can serve, how many people they are allowed to seat, various rules they have to follow about how to build their restaurant, and prepare and store their food.

So the idea of throwing it out there that, well, you have alternatives or that private industry can't be regulated (assuming there were a consensus we wanted that) is pretty laughable.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Your point is stupid. The public forum/opt-in distinction is utterly meaningless. You're the one saying just because Twitter's format operates a little differently than the rest of the web they shouldn't be able to make their own rules. That's asinine.

And why? Because you don't like it? You feel like you should be able to use their service to say anything and everything you want? Sorry, go invent your own Twitter copycat if you want to make the rules.

I don't understand why the distinction is meaningless. Of course Twitter gets to make the rules on what gets said and tweeted on their site, but I don't think random hate speech is or was a problem, as you don't see it unless you're looking for it or following someone who uses it.

 

[DrDoug]

You could say the same thing about a privately owned restaurant. Texas Steakhouse is not the ONLY steak place in town yet alone the only restaurant or place to get food, but they still have government mandates about handicap parking, who they can hire, who they can serve, what they can serve, how many people they are allowed to seat, various rules they have to follow about how to build their restaurant, and prepare and store their food.

So the idea of throwing it out there that, well, you have alternatives or that private industry can't be regulated (assuming there were a consensus we wanted that) is pretty laughable.

Poor analogy. It's more like anyone can use Twitter but they have to comply with the rules to do so. Just like anyone can visit Texas Steakhouse to dine, just as long as they follow the rules of the establishment. Twitter has the right to set the rules for use, just like any other for profit business. They aren't stopping you from using them, just your using them to do something they disagree with. Go into Texas Steakhouse and break the rules of the establishment.

See what that gets ya.

It's the free markets and freedom baby, you get what you ask for even if you weren't asking for it.

It's all in those pesky details.

 

[Hamish Campbell]

You could say the same thing about a privately owned restaurant. Texas Steakhouse is not the ONLY steak place in town yet alone the only restaurant or place to get food, but they still have government mandates about handicap parking, who they can hire, who they can serve, what they can serve, how many people they are allowed to seat, various rules they have to follow about how to build their restaurant, and prepare and store their food.

So the idea of throwing it out there that, well, you have alternatives or that private industry can't be regulated (assuming there were a consensus we wanted that) is pretty laughable.

We're not talking about a government mandate so why bring that up? We're discussing a private company instituting a policy that only affects their business ostensibly because of market pressure or popular opinion. You have a problem with that idea. Which is ironic, considering the libertarian slant of your other posts.

 

[Ducman69]

We're not talking about a government mandate so why bring that up? We're discussing a private company instituting a policy that only affects their business ostensibly because of market pressure or popular opinion. You have a problem with that idea. Which is ironic, considering the libertarian slant of your other posts.

Of course we are! LOL! It was one of the very first posts in this thread that the only way to get laws or corporate policies changed with regard to freedom of speech is to be vocal.

Some have somehow created this straw man argument that people unhappy with hate speech in general or specifically the implementation for Twitter somehow don't understand the law or are confused.

 

[kbrickley]

So the idea of throwing it out there that, well, you have alternatives or that private industry can't be regulated (assuming there were a consensus we wanted that) is pretty laughable.

Yes, the consensus in this country at one time was that Alcohol was evil so they ammended the constitution to ban it and then a few years later to unban it resulting in the only 2 dead ammendments in the constitution. If the government were to change the laws related to private industry regulation they could certainly try to control this with Twitter. I think what most of us in favor of Twitter are saying is let them manage their own house. Remember the quote from Reagan, "The nine scariest words in the English language are ... I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

Although Twitter is not yet a public company that is certainly a goal they have. Since they want to be profitable and stable to sell stock they are entitled to make changes to their services that they think may do that. If you don't like the changes they make then change services or send them feedback directly or start an internet petition or whatever ... just don't give the government Carte Blanche to start controlling private companies if people's basic human rights are not at stake ... which in my opinion in this case, they are not.

 

[Hamish Campbell]

I don't understand why the distinction is meaningless. Of course Twitter gets to make the rules on what gets said and tweeted on their site, but I don't think random hate speech is or was a problem, as you don't see it unless you're looking for it or following someone who uses it.

Racism on twitter has been and is definitely a problem for major brands, celebrities, news outlets, etc. Their follower's tweets aren't invisible, and there is a guilt by association effect they would like to avoid if possible.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Racism on twitter has been and is definitely a problem for major brands, celebrities, news outlets, etc. Their follower's tweets aren't invisible, and there is a guilt by association effect they would like to avoid if possible.

Hm, I guess I've just not used it enough to see that.

Though, imagine Dave Chappelle without the racial edge. Boring!

 

[Ducman69]

just don't give the government Carte Blanche to start controlling private companies if people's basic human rights are not at stake ... which in my opinion in this case, they are not.

I'm not sure if you're just willfully ignoring the numerous examples I have already cited, or what, but the government can and already does control private companies each and every day and has been doing so for decades now.

We did not require a constitutional amendment to force these private businesses to put handicap parking, ramps, and even handicap toilets on their private property, nor would we (if so desired) to protect freedom of speech on the internet.

I also just downright do not understand how people can find a few characters on a screen such a physical assault on their minds. If someone posts something racist on his Twitter feed or Youtube channel, exactly how much time and money do you really need to invest in therapy to recover from that attack to your sensibilities?

And with regard to the previous comment about my Libertarian ideals, having the government put in place laws to protect the openness of the internet or freedom of speech or freedom to hell smoke pot if you want is not about government regulation but about Liberty. To call something like that contradictory just highlights ones ignorance, usually of people that think Libertarianism means anarchy.

 

[Pantalaimon]

I also just downright do not understand how people can find a few characters on a screen such a physical assault on their minds. If someone posts something racist on his Twitter feed or Youtube channel, exactly how much time and money do you really need to invest in therapy to recover from that attack to your sensibilities?

I don't think it's only about people who see those messages and get offended. You need to also take into consideration that the person spouting the hate message is using Twitter as a tool to spread that message, and Twitter wants to prevent that.

 

[kbrickley]

We did not require a constitutional amendment to force these private businesses to put handicap parking, ramps, and even handicap toilets on their private property, nor would we (if so desired) to protect freedom of speech on the internet.

Actually they did pass laws over many years culminating with the Americans with Disabilities Act to mandate this. The requirements for public restaurants and such to serve all patrons was driven under an existing constitutional amendment usually (the 14th). The first amendment doesn't apply to Twitter since Twitter is not the government and the 1st Amendment only prohibits the government from restricting free speech ... it does not require the government to encourage or require non-government entities to not restrict free speech. Private industry has always had the ability to restrict "free speech" if it didn't align with their business goals. There is definitely no need to insert the government into the private industry decision process here.

Twitter is making a "Business" decision that that a type of speech they are defining and labeling as "hate speech" doesn't align with their brand image and/or business goals. If someone wants to provide or receive "hate speech" there will almost certainly be other venues. If not, maybe someone can start a new NonProfit Organization ( IcansayanythingIDamnwellwant.org ) ... I don't think free speech on the internet is in any way threatened by Twitter's decision