Comment by phailhaus
5 years ago
Eh? Do you have any examples? This is nothing new, Twitter has been applying this standard to tweets for a very long time (it's part of their ToS!). It usually results in deleting your tweet or an outright ban. The only difference here is that they've kept the tweet up since they deem it to be in the public's interest.
There are tons of examples. Look in almost any thread and there are people calling for public hangings of politicians, assassinations. The "guillotine" crowd. People telling people to burn down the city. Some people saying anti-Semitic stuff...I've reported a lot of this. Twitter usually comes back and say they found it wasn't in violation of anything. There are other politicians, such as Chinese officials, Iranian officials the Twitter has not policed or marked as misleading despite them being outright anti-Semitic or propaganda.
https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1266340243134963712
EDIT: Scroll down a bit, the original poster made their account private a few moments ago
"Violence" against property doesn't really compare to killing people, IMO.
I don't really even think property damage should be included in the definition of "violence" and maybe Twitter agrees with me.
She also didn't say what to burn down. Trump was very clear that looters are who he wanted shot. Burn it down is a common saying that can mean anything from literally burning stuff to just tearing down a system in order to rebuild.
> "Violence" against property doesn't really compare to killing people, IMO.
That's the kind of thing that results in the insidious left-wing bias of sites like Twitter. Moderators who don't believe that property damage is a blatant violation of peoples' rights, but do believe peoples' rights are violated by mere words alone, and moderating in accordance with such views.
3 replies →
It's been a couple of hours - in general, saying stuff like that actually does in fact get Twitter's content moderation to kick in and force you to delete the tweet, and I regularly see folks who aren't conservative get temporary suspensions for it.
> It's been a couple of hours
She posted that tweet more like 11 hours ago. Since that time it has become somewhat infamous - I've seen it in my deliberately not-politicized timeline and separately here on HN. What is the chance their content moderation team hasn't seen it?
Whatever tweet he retweeted, it's now unavailable. Looks like Twitter's moderation policies are working as expected.
She just made her tweets private is why that's happening
"burn it down. fuck property. fuck cops."
That's what the tweet says, there are screenshots in the replies.
2 replies →
They protected their tweets.
2 replies →
Damaging property is not violence.
It literally is part of the definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence
4 replies →
I am pretty sure you would disagree if someone started smashing your front door or car. It is at best technically true in a deeply misleading way like calling a surgeon "a professional cutter and organ remover from the helpless".
7 replies →
This is not quite true, losing property can cause real material harm to someone. If my house burns down and I'm on the streets, there is a real chance of harm to my person. Also now apparently words can be violence and cause the cancellation of someone..pretty sure it's all up for grabs now.
By pretty much every definition it is violence.
It wasn't explicitly calling for violence but Elon Musk's recent tweet [1] calling for "politicians & unelected bureaucrats" to be "tarred, feathered & thrown out of town" certainly was trending in that direction and could easily have been interpreted as a call for violence, or at least assault, by some sections of Musk's vast (35 million) collection of followers. Especially when the particular 'unelected bureaucrat' that Musk had been most vociferously complaining about and attacking, the Alameda County Health Officer, had been named in numerous news reports.
[1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1261100731378982912
Would the same happen if Theil owned Twitter, and fact checked, etc. Joe Biden? IMO we would see the opposite, and liberal politicians calling for Twitter to be taken down. One person's soap box is another's tabloid.
Do you have any examples of liberal politicians calling for social media platforms to be taken down for fact checking or enforcing their terms of service? Simply saying "in my opinion they'd do the same thing" is not convincing.
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm stating my opinion which you happen to disagree with. There are no liberal politicians that I can find calling for fact checking because, for now, Twitter is working in their favor.
1 reply →
> Would the same happen if Theil owned Twitter, and fact checked, etc. Joe Biden?
No, it would not, because generally left-wing people don't spread lies with the intention to dissuade people from voting (quite to the contrary, the left wing is fighting for people to have the right and means to vote) or call for storming the White House and start shooting.
Different side of the coin. They often spread lies to persuade people to vote for them. Almost everyone in politics is full of it.
If you believe your side is the good one and the other is bad, it's probably because it's part of your identity. And that prevents you from thinking about it honestly and results in more polarization. Once you accept they're all full of it, you will think more clearly. And you'll have better dialogue with opposing viewpoints.
How about this one:
https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1086927762634399744?...
You could say requesting dox is a form of violence. But it's a lot less violent than ordering the military to shoot people. It's reasonable that a policy of removing tweets that glorify violence would catch one but not the other.
''But it's a lot less violent than ordering the military to shoot people.'' You know, he is president, that gives him right to use or threaten with violence if he thinks that safety of country is seriously in danger. If you think that he is breaking constitution there is court to decide about that.
7 replies →
agreed, im not saying this is equal to trump, but i don't think anyone here downvoting me would want to be doxed by someone with 2.1 million followers, regardless of if she is a comedian or not.
Which is violence: Doxing, or using the information to call in a swat team? If the swatting occured, it was the Doxing which directly led to it. It's a loaded gun.
That's not a violation of the ToS.
The Trump crowd sure hates Kathy Griffin today. Do you guys know that she is a comedian and not the President of the United States?
im not the trump crowd
4 replies →