Home

New Twitter "Safety" Policy
1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News


View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Fox




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 2:21 pm
In addition to naming a controversial new CEO, Twitter has announced a new "safety" policy.



At first glance, this may seem reasonable. Posting private videos and people's meltdowns or doxing people even inadvertantly is invasive and doesn't increase the good in the world.

But this new policy is really the work of mainstream or legacy media. Both MSNBC and Fox News have a similar vested interest in keeping the work of independent journalists out of the public eye, and this is one way to make sure they remain the gatekeepers of news.

Mainstream news organizations were shown to have been thoroughly scooped by independent reports covering the riots in Kenosha and the subsequent Rittenhouse trial. They don't like to be shown as fat and sluggish.

This will work in the short run, but it's not likely to work in the long run. Independent journalists will find other platforms, such as Substack, on which to publish their videos and commentaries. Information wants to be free.
Back to top

flowerpower




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 2:40 pm
Yups. If you think Twitter was censored till now.... just wait and see how bad it’ll be
Back to top

IMHopinion




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 2:44 pm
So if we see Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden or other liberal liars without their masks on we don’t get to show the truth anymore?
Not sure I’m understanding the assignment right.
Back to top

naturelover




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 2:44 pm
And the censorship continues...
Back to top

exaustedmom




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 2:52 pm
IMHopinion wrote:
So if we see Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden or other liberal liars without their masks on we don’t get to show the truth anymore?
Not sure I’m understanding the assignment right.


You will see what Twitter WANTS you to see.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 2:55 pm
IMHopinion wrote:
So if we see Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden or other liberal liars without their masks on we don’t get to show the truth anymore?
Not sure I’m understanding the assignment right.


You're not. Its not your fault. The information provided was artfully edited to provide an inaccurate depiction of the actual rule. The key is in the words "private individuals." So check the full policy, which explains.

Quote:
This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.

However, if the purpose of the dissemination of private images of public figures or individuals who are part of public conversations is to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence them, we may remove the content in line with our policy against abusive behavior.. Similarly, private nude images of public individuals will continue to be actioned under our non-consensual nudity policy.


Feel free to read the entirety at https://blog.twitter.com/en_us.....pdate

Of course, those who would like to do things that Twitter prohibits, such as

Quote:
threatening to publicly expose someone’s private information;
sharing information that would enable individuals to hack or gain access to someone’s private information without their consent,e.g., sharing sign-in credentials for online banking services;
asking for or offering a bounty or financial reward in exchange for posting someone’s private information;
asking for a bounty or financial reward in exchange for not posting someone’s private information, sometimes referred to as blackmail.


can do so on other forums.
Back to top

IMHopinion




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 3:07 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
can do so on other forums.


Thanks for clarifying, I didn’t read about it at all.
I was just surprised that Twitter would do something so agenda driven. Glad I was mistaken because it’s really not like them at all.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 3:46 pm
IMHopinion wrote:
Thanks for clarifying, I didn’t read about it at all.
I was just surprised that Twitter would do something so agenda driven. Glad I was mistaken because it’s really not like them at all.


I don't put anything past any forum. Except things that will hurt their bottom line. Foreclosing things about public figures would. That's one reason it seemed unlikely.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 3:58 pm
Quote:
However, if the purpose of the dissemination of private images of public figures or individuals who are part of public conversations is to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence them, we may remove the content in line with our policy against abusive behavior.

This is the dangerous part. Again, in theory, all this is perfectly reasonable.

In practice, social media organizations don't have the best track record when it comes to assessing the "purpose" of posts or whether a post is intended to "harass, intimidate, or use fear."

Moreoever, social media organizations have a lousy record when it comes to selective enforcement. Twitter, in particular, allows antisemitic posts that glorify violence and urge harassment of Jews. The Canary Mission organization has identified many of these accounts and posts.

Historically, people have been deplatformed because they are effective at spreading a message the management doesn't like -- not because they actually violate the TOS. Which is why the TOS are written so vaguely. "Harass, intimidate, or use fear" could cover virtualy anything.

Confidence isn't boosted by the fact that Parag Agrawal, Twitter's new CEO, is an avowed racist.
Back to top

LovesHashem




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 4:28 pm
Did you know the PFLP a huge palestinian group who have taken credit for manyany terrorist attacks including the Har nof massacre have their own Twitter page?
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 4:41 pm
Fox wrote:
Quote:
However, if the purpose of the dissemination of private images of public figures or individuals who are part of public conversations is to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence them, we may remove the content in line with our policy against abusive behavior.

This is the dangerous part. Again, in theory, all this is perfectly reasonable.

In practice, social media organizations don't have the best track record when it comes to assessing the "purpose" of posts or whether a post is intended to "harass, intimidate, or use fear."

Moreoever, social media organizations have a lousy record when it comes to selective enforcement. Twitter, in particular, allows antisemitic posts that glorify violence and urge harassment of Jews. The Canary Mission organization has identified many of these accounts and posts.

Historically, people have been deplatformed because they are effective at spreading a message the management doesn't like -- not because they actually violate the TOS. Which is why the TOS are written so vaguely. "Harass, intimidate, or use fear" could cover virtualy anything.


Fox wrote:
Confidence isn't boosted by the fact that Parag Agrawal, Twitter's new CEO, is an avowed racist.


Are we referring to an 11 year-old tweet in which Agrawal quoted Aasif Mandvi from The Daily Show? Now, I had to google the rest, of course. Its apparently from an episode of The Daily Show with John Stewart in which there was a segment reacting to the firing of NPR correspondent Juan Williams. The correspondent had made a controversial statement on Muslims on Fox News. According to BBC News, Williams had said: “I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." The point, of course, being that we shouldn't stereotype anyone.

But hey, if that bothers conservatives, they should leave and use their own platform. Make your own.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 4:42 pm
LovesHashem wrote:
Did you know the PFLP a huge palestinian group who have taken credit for manyany terrorist attacks including the Har nof massacre have their own Twitter page?


What does that have to do with the change cited?
Back to top

DrMom




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 5:01 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
But hey, if that bothers conservatives, they should leave and use their own platform. Make your own.

They did: Parler. Then Amazon Web Services decided it wasn't going to let Parler use their servers.

I guess conservatives and free speech advocates have to create their own web services too, and their own electricity supply, and their own electrical lines, etc, etc, etc.
Back to top

miami85




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 5:05 pm
On Thursday I came across a FB post on a politically-conservative group page about the legend that an economics professor failed a whole class due to a socialist grading system. The article was written on the "opinion" page of the newspaper, and it wasn't important whether or not it TRULY happened, but it's allegorical and COULD happen and the article was educating about the dangers of socialism. FB censored it as "not factual" and "never happened" and literally covered it up without you knowing it "Wasn't real" before you saw it to "prevent spread of misinformation" . It was such an Orwellian moment it was hysterical. FB "fact checkers" checking on an "opinion" page.

I heard it's to prevent the spread of videos of these "smash and grab" incidents and the "car crash" in Waukesha and probably even what happened in Kenosha which was a court case where once you saw the independent videos it completely exonerated Rittenhouse (the videos where you hear Rosenbaum cursing and pushing fire-lit dumpsters), but if we could ONLY see the FBI drone video, then it's a matter of whose version of narration do you believe--the prosecutor or the defense.
Back to top

LovesHashem




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 5:18 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
What does that have to do with the change cited?


Just saying how they censor violence only when it's certain kinds. They choose when to use their rules.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 5:29 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
What does that have to do with the change cited?

It's an example of how capriciously long-standing TOS standards are enforced. The PFLP has often advocated for violence with no consequences.

Yet a number of accounts opposing the Iranian regime have been permanently suspended.

Suppressing news should not be a point of liberal/conservative contention. This is a situation where both MSNBC and Fox News have a stake in making people more dependent on their gatekeeping. That's a bad outcome no matter where you land on the political spectrum.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 5:40 pm
Btw, passive-aggressive hugs are dumb and cringey. If you have something to add, say it. If you dislike me, put me on Ignore. I promise I won't say anything so important or original that you can't miss it.
Back to top

fortunate123




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 6:32 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
What does that have to do with the change cited?


It is the entire point of this thread. Twitter already has existing policies in place intended to protect people from intimidation, fear and threats of violence. Yet, they continue to allow terrorist groups who openly call for, support and engage in violence against civilians to keep their accounts (clearly a violation of their TOS) while shutting down accounts of people who have never explicitly called for or engaged in violence - as in the president of the US. People are bothered by these “policies” by which Twitter discriminates against anyone whose views they disagree with. As long as the user is in violation of their TOS, they can penalize them. Since there is no regulation or oversight of this enforcement, they are free to enforce or ignore their own policies in a completely discriminatory way.
Back to top

IMHopinion




 
 
 
 

Post Tue, Nov 30 2021, 7:10 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
I don't put anything past any forum. Except things that will hurt their bottom line. Foreclosing things about public figures would. That's one reason it seemed unlikely.


I was being very sarcastic.

I love the way my original post was reported for no reason. I get liberals are offended at the truth once again.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 
 

Post Wed, Dec 01 2021, 12:21 am
I deliberately put this in the "In the News" subforum because news suppression should concern everyone, no matter her political leanings.

If your politics -- whether it's right-wing or left-wing -- leads you to think that making a handful of corporations the gatekeepers of what we know about the world is a good idea, I respectfully suggest you reevaluate your politics.

Hugs back in advance!
Back to top
1, 2  Next Recent Topics

Page 1 of 2 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News

Related Topics Replies Last Post
"White sugar"
by amother
2 Today at 2:37 am View last post
Stores in NY or NJ with sofas or sectionals "in stock"?
by amother
10 Yesterday at 11:54 pm View last post
I dont want solid walls and dont like wallpaper, whats "in"?
by amother
23 Thu, Jan 20 2022, 11:24 pm View last post
Does anyone use "The pink stuff" from Amazon for cleaning? 13 Thu, Jan 20 2022, 7:58 pm View last post
Are print and tone on tone fabrics "OUT" for "MODERN" sofas?
by amother
15 Fri, Jan 14 2022, 12:50 am View last post