Comment by formalsystem
5 years ago
https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1266340243134963712
EDIT: Scroll down a bit, the original poster made their account private a few moments ago
5 years ago
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.
Property damage is absolutely a violation of people's rights, which is why property was added to the constitution. Outrage does not negate a business owners rights.
There is no equivalence between property damage equivalent to killing, much as there is no equivalence between a random twitter user “calling for the guillotines” and the commander of the armed forces threatening to unleash a massacre. It is beyond bad faith to argue otherwise.
Let me make sure I understand your position properly - are you saying that it is insidious left-sing bias to believe that people's rights can be violated by mere words alone?
The entire purpose of Section 230 is to provide protection against civil liability for platforms who publish mere words from their users. Is your position, then, that if we remove the insidious left-wing bias from our political system, there's no need for Section 230 because platforms can never be liable for the mere words that they republish?
Are all of the commentators who are asking for Twitter's Section 230 protections to be removed, including the president, part of an insidious left-wing conspiracy?
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.
Let's compare that to "when the looting starts the shooting begins".
Which is an observation, and which is a directive? I think that is the key question that Twitter is dodging. They want to editorialize with their opinion as to which is which, but not for everyone.
1 reply →
They protected their tweets.
@oliviagatwood helpfully lists her pronouns in her twitter bio as "she/her".
1 reply →
Damaging property is not violence.
It literally is part of the definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence
In this case, doesn't Twitter's definition of violence matter more than the dictionary's definition? Here it is:
> Glorification of violence policy
...
> You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence.
(https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification...)
3 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".
I wouldn't be too happy, but to me violence is damaging a living thing. Not property.
6 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.