Former Twitter Employees: 'Abuse Problem' Comes From Their Culture Of Free Speech (buzzfeed.com) 465
Twitter complained of "inaccuracies in the details and unfair portrayals" in an article which described their service as "a honeypot for assholes." Buzzfeed interviewed 10 "high-level" former employees who detailed a company "Fenced in by an abiding commitment to free speech above all else and a unique product that makes moderation difficult and trolling almost effortless". An anonymous Slashdot reader summarizes their report:
Twitter's commitment to free speech can be traced to employees at Google's Blogger platform who all went on to work at Twitter. They'd successfully fought for a company policy that "We don't get involved in adjudicating whether something is libel or slander... We'll do it if we believe we are required to by law." One former Twitter employee says "The Blogger brain trust's thinking was set in stone by the time they became Twitter Inc."
Twitter was praised for providing an uncensored voice during 2009 elections in Iran and the Arab Spring, and fought the secrecy of a government subpoena for information on their WikiLeaks account. The former of head of news at Twitter says "The whole 'free speech wing of the free speech party' thing -- that's not a slogan. That's deeply, deeply embedded in the DNA of the company... [Twitter executives] understand that this toxicity can kill them, but how do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line? I would actually challenge anyone to identify a perfect solution. But it feels to a certain extent that it's led to paralysis.
While Twitter now says they are working on the problem, Buzzfeed argues this "maximalist approach to free speech was integral to Twitter's rise, but quickly created the conditions for abuse... Twitter has made an ideology out of protecting its most objectionable users. That ethos also made it a beacon for the internet's most vitriolic personalities, who take particular delight in abusing those who use Twitter for their jobs."
Twitter was praised for providing an uncensored voice during 2009 elections in Iran and the Arab Spring, and fought the secrecy of a government subpoena for information on their WikiLeaks account. The former of head of news at Twitter says "The whole 'free speech wing of the free speech party' thing -- that's not a slogan. That's deeply, deeply embedded in the DNA of the company... [Twitter executives] understand that this toxicity can kill them, but how do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line? I would actually challenge anyone to identify a perfect solution. But it feels to a certain extent that it's led to paralysis.
While Twitter now says they are working on the problem, Buzzfeed argues this "maximalist approach to free speech was integral to Twitter's rise, but quickly created the conditions for abuse... Twitter has made an ideology out of protecting its most objectionable users. That ethos also made it a beacon for the internet's most vitriolic personalities, who take particular delight in abusing those who use Twitter for their jobs."
Free Speech Must Be Stopped!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm shocked that anyone would think free speech is a good idea! All speech should be moderated by a team of SJWs to suppress any opposing opinions! All adult material must be censored because "think of the children"! This free speech nonsense must end!
Twitter should look to the UK, where we have a genuine Thought Police backed by an army of volunteer SJWs:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3739348/Scotland-Yard-ploughs-2million-new-thought-police-unit-snoop-web-users-hunt-trolls.html
I was also going
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can I ask the people on the left, when did the left start to view free speech as being a bad thing?
It started when they got so offended by opposing viewpoints that they started condemning them as hate speech, then adopted the mantra "hate speech isn't free speech"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Basically when elements of the left decided the Right's parody of the left was their ideal place to be.
Re:Free Speech Must Be Stopped!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Can I ask the people on the left, when did the left start to view free speech as being a bad thing?
It started when they got so offended by opposing viewpoints that they started condemning them as hate speech, then adopted the mantra "hate speech isn't free speech"
Then quickly added, "Hate speech is anything WE don't agree with."
Re:Free Speech Must Be Stopped!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
The people on the left liked free speech when their speech was unpopular. They turned against it once they gained enough control of the culture to be the majority voice. As with most people they don't support free speech, only popular speech. They don't support liberty, only the idea that everyone should be free to live the way they themselves think people should live.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
BEEP ME!
You're quoting the Daily Mail? Read the comments on that site! They're every bit as bad as the "SJWs" (who barely exist) in that they down rate ANYTHING that doesn't conform to their world view!
Lastly, given the reference above, calmly explain what this has to do with "The Left". I suggest you are a sock puppet to your own prejudices! I believe you are part of the same problem you are describing.
All you have is name calling.
matthew
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Ironically, it's people like you who want an end to freedom of speech. You want people to stop criticising you and banning people you like from their privately owned venues. You want a lesser kind of freedom of speech where there are no consequences to anything you say.
Also, just because you can't use google properly, doesn't mean that those left wing loonies at the Guardian don't oppose the thought police: https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:3)
When they discovered that it applied not only to themselves, but to people who disagreed with them?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
When they discovered that it applied not only to themselves, but to people who disagreed with them?
Exactly, see here the mouthpiece of the left supporting the bill:
https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]
Oh wait, they're condemning it. So do you want to change your views on "the left" or are you going to find some way that "doesn't count"?
Re:Free Speech Must Be Stopped!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Bollocks.
Both the left and the right want free speech. The problem is the asshats on both sides.
There are some on the left who think that no-one should ever be offended ever and want safe spaces for everyone, because god forbid someone be exposed to a scary idea. Bunch of bullshit if you ask me.
And there are some on the right who think that they should be able to say whatever they want, consequence free, and if anyone is ever offended, and wants them banned from a forum or whatever, they HATE free speech. Also a bunch of bullshit, if you ask me.
Let's get something straight. In the U.S., freedom of speech stops the government from punishing you for exercising it. (There are certain limitations, though.)
Just the government.
Only the government.
If you post (for example), some racist screed on a private owned forum (such as Slashdot, or Twitter, or wherever), and they decide to ban you, it's not a violation of your first amendment rights, because Twitter isn't run by the government. (Although, going by their track record, Twitter will take a long time to ban you)
You're still free to say what you want. You just can't use that forum to broadcast it if they decide to ban you. You have a right to free speech. You don't have a right to use a private venue to voice those statements if the venue decides they don't want you there.
And you don't have a right to ignore the consequences of your speech. If you want to stand in your front yard and yell offensive things as the neighbors, you're free to do so. Just don't expect that magically, everyone will go "Oh, he's just exercising his freedom of speech." No, they're probably going to think you're an asshole. But the two are not mutually exclusive. It's possible to be exercising free speech AND be an asshole. Just don't be surprised that people don't want you around because you're being an asshole.
Re:Free Speech Must Be Stopped!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you post (for example), some racist screed on a private owned forum (such as Slashdot, or Twitter, or wherever), and they decide to ban you, it's not a violation of your first amendment rights, because Twitter isn't run by the government
It's not a violation of first amendment rights, but it is a violation of free speech.
One of the reasons I like Slashdot is the commitment to free speech, and the use of alternate methods besides banning people.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, free speech doesn't have to be nice, and it isn't always nice.
On other sites, you would be banned for your opening sentence on your post. And frankly, you should be banned: you are a caustic fool who adds nothing to the conversation, neither here nor elsewhere (your posts are derivative drivel). There is no benefit to keeping you here.
Freedom of speech means keeping people like you around. That is the price we must pay.
Re:Free Speech Must Be Stopped!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, those websites/companies can ban comments/commenters that are racist or w/e but then they don't "have a culture of free speech" like TFA is saying.
Kind of hard to say "we have a culture of free speech and love free expression so much except when we don't like what you say." with a straight face.
Just like the government, there are acceptable limitations that could be put in placed (doxxing, threats, etc) but that is not what we are talking about, are we.
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot, or Twitter, or the comments section of Huffington Post, or wherever else doesn't have to let you say whatever you want. Most of those sites have rules or terms of service that you agree to when you create an account there. If you violate those terms of service, they are free to turf you.
That's true.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get a free venue to be an asshole. It means you can talk. It doesn't mean anyone has to listen, and it doesn't mean anyone has to give you a forum to spout your views from.
See, now you're talking about government protection of free speech (based on the First Amendment). I think you completely missed the point GP was trying to make.
A site doesn't have to allow "free speech," as you rightly point out, because they are a private business with their own rules or whatever. HOWEVER, they are still restricting free speech if they do so. They aren't infringing on your legal rights. But they are still saying you aren't allowed to speak freely through their service, e
Re: (Score:3)
Some humble thoughts:
- The UK has a conservative government, and had one for some time.
- The current Scotland Yard commissioner was appointed by Boris Johnson, a staunch conservative, when he was Mayor of London.
- The legislative background of this supposed initiative is the so called Malicious Communications Act, which at least in its most recent incarnations is again a brainchild of a conservative government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The types who claim "their words are taking away my freedom, so they must be muzzled" are likely to be, by co-incidence, those who identify as left. This suggests the argument that they aren't quite representing the left's tone precisely, for that act.
You're unlikely to meet many who advocate absolute free speech. For one, most acknowledge front violations, eg yelling fire in theaters is prohibited because endangering people is prohibited, preempting speech concerns.
Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
As an example to consider. If someone phones/emails/speaks your family members, friends, work colleagues, and other associates about you (and says things that would certainly constitute harassment if said to you directly) but never actually contacts you, does the fact you don't get the message from them directly stop it being harassment? Your answer on that concept will likely explain whether you think giving people the ability to stop seeing messages removes the issue of harassment or not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The block feature has proven to be ineffective because trolls just keep creating new accounts, or moving on to harassing followers and friends of their victims. When people try to make it more powerful, e.g. with the "ggautoblock" script, the howls of "censorship!!" start up.
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
GGautoblock script (and similar "share my list") items are frankly, ridiculous.
Once you're flagged on such things, you're in it for life, perpetually shared as a "harasser" to people across the internet, regardless what your initial infraction was.
I replied to a 'famous' satirical tweeter (The Riker Googling account) who was making a joke about Wil Wheatons sex tape, I CC'd will in on my joke, my _first ever tweet to Wil_ if I recall I said "I loved one night in Wheaton" or "I loved one night in Crusher" something like that.
BAM Wheaton who is seemingly ashamed as fuck of his past as Crusher (mostly due to Trek fans giving him a hard time as a kid) not only blocked me but of course added me to his list of 11,000 blocked accounts, which he actively promotes sharing.
I am now blocked by tens of hundreds of people I don't know, for reasons _they don't fucking know!_ but apparently I'm in Wheatons "toxic" list.
What if we have something in common and I would have stumbled across them to discuss something? We clearly have an interest in Star Trek. What if I make a product they'd like that they miss out on (and I miss their sale) because I'm blocked by them
ALL due to the mentality of groupthink "share my list, share my list!!!!! omg *THESE* people are bad!!!"
Nope, GG Autoblocker and similar 'bad people' list sharing services are utterly ridiculous and if you look at Wheatons pinned tweet you'll see dozens of cases of other people responding to strangers / him disappointed that they too are now branded as bad and can't talk to a heap of people.
Screw Wheatons insecurity and fuck those lists.
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Informative)
I am now blocked by tens of hundreds of people I don't know, for reasons _they don't fucking know!_ but apparently I'm in Wheatons "toxic" list.
Why are you so fascinated with talking to the type of people that would blindly choose to use Wil Wheaton's censorship list?
What if we have something in common and I would have stumbled across them to discuss something? We clearly have an interest in Star Trek. What if I make a product they'd like that they miss out on (and I miss their sale) because I'm blocked by them
If you're coming to Slashdot to get sympathy for your right to advertise your product to people that don't want to hear it (for whatever reason), you've probably come to the wrong place.
Re: (Score:3)
"slander and inciting harassment" is now free speech?
You should have made the argument that being put on a ban list is not "slander or inciting harassment". You didn't. Instead you tried argue that taking proper legal actions to protect the reputation of oneself is the same as using the law to suppress ideas.
Did I get that right? What part of slander or libel should be legal in your eyes?
Here is an example: "XXongo is a child rapist." A statement that can and has ruined lives with just the accusation. If yo
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
So the need a reputation system of some kind, or to prominently display account create dates and number of posts, perhaps number of followers that person has anywhere their content is displayed when on their own feed or elsewhere.
People need to learn not to take the opinions and statements of someone who is essentially and Anonymous Coward to seriously. I am not suggesting they go as far as real name policy, but at least people maintaining a persona for a period of time have some investment in reputation. Presumably they care if people are listening, so they are less likely to harass others and be inflammatory for its own sake, unless the persona itself is designed to be an inflammatory type, in which case most normal intelligent people will recognize a provocateur ( like @nearo ) and treat their speech accordingly.
Twitter needs to make it easy for regular folks to identify people who have opinions that matter from the digital equivalent of the crazy dude ranting in the park about who shot JFK.
Re: (Score:3)
I can personally confirm this. I had a stalker/troll (who we'll call DG) who assumed that I was the same person and another person she had a beef with because we both liked photography. (As if we're the only ones online who like taking pictures.) Now, you couldn't argue with her, because she's a prophet of god. Yes, she honestly believes that god
Re: (Score:3)
The block feature has proven to be ineffective because trolls just keep creating new accounts, or moving on to harassing followers and friends of their victims. When people try to make it more powerful, e.g. with the "ggautoblock" script, the howls of "censorship!!" start up.
But there are easy solutions to this too. Require twitter accounts to have a cell phone number which is harder to create hundreds of new copies. Also, allow users to approve their followers and/or specify criteria of which users need approval to post. There should be blocks/approval required for things like account age, number of tweets, etc... Allow me to block "friends of X". This is a feature that I wish facebook had. Basically, twitter has a trust network that they can leverage that could make t
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter provides a block feature, a mute feature, the ability to report harassment, and various features to control how public your tweets are. If someone is harassing you, why don't you block them?
Because they don't really want you to stop being mean, they want you to want to stop being mean. I find it's easiest to imagine Twitter trolls as ten million redneck/frat dudes being loudly racist and throwing beer bottles on the sidewalk, while the would-be censors are their ten million girlfriends who think that Chad has great potential, and they can fix him.
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter provides a block feature, a mute feature, the ability to report harassment, and various features to control how public your tweets are. If someone is harassing you, why don't you block them? I'm not sure why we need to kill free speech to fix a problem that appears to be already solved...
In other words, the onus of dealing with bullying is on the receiver. Just consider someone like Gabby Douglas and the vitriol she gets. How do you block thousands of trolls without pretty much abandoning your online presence?
And that goes to the core of something very deep, the right to have an online presence, which is a part of freedom of speech and expression. Online bullying when done at scale, it pretty much denies an individual his free speech rights.
Free speech is no right to be heard (Score:5, Insightful)
"Free speech" doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you. Unfortunately the Twitter staff act like it does.
Twitter lacks effective ways for people not to listen to things. Users lack ways to filter the content they see, filter who can send to them, filter seeing third party mentions of them, and so on.
The asshole problem on twitter is that they can be effective assholes: twitter makes it hard, or impossible, for the targets of attack to block or filter out the messages, so the targets of abuse receive the messages, so the assholes succeed in abuse. "Not using twitter" is not a realistic option for many people who work in media, PR, or whose jobs and lives are about communication - so they end up in a situation where they are the targets of the assholes and cannot do much about it.
Twitter should care more about the recipient users, not the sender users - and they can do that without compromsing anyone's ability to speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't use Twatter myself so I am not going to have the correct terms but the miss feature is clearly letting other people's content appear on your feed.
Their mistake was making it a conversation platform rather than a status posting platform. Maybe nobody would be interested if you could not converse but that is the root of what creates a situation where content can be associated with you that you don't control.
Which I assume is people's real objection to the 'abuse' Its not that someone wrote something
Re: (Score:2)
You can control what appears in your feed based on who you follow, but the big problem is that if you "@" anyone, that will appear in your feed whether or not you follow that person. This can be a good thing as celebrities can see who is "talking to them" without having to follow everyone, but it can also wind up allowing Random Internet Troll the ability to repeatedly invade your stream with harassing remarks. You can block/mute people to stop this, but many times these trolls have plenty of time on their
Open windows (Score:3)
Open windows let in foul air, as well as fresh air.
Same deal with foul speech and fresh speech.
Twitter is pro-Free Speech ? REALLY ?? (Score:5, Informative)
. . . perhaps if you have the correct POV. Anyone on the Right, however, seems to be subject to arbitrary and capricious censorship on the Twitter platform, without explanation or even appeal.
And it happens to targets large and small: the obvious large example is Milo Yiannopolous [buzzfeed.com], but also lesser lights like SF author Brian Niemayer [brianniemeier.com].
Add to that, the recently created Trust and Advisory Board [reason.com] which all comes from the same end of the political spectrum. Apparently, Twitter is all about Free Speech. . . only some Speech is More Free than others. . .
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
the obvious large example is Milo Yiannopolous
The guy was banned for organizing troll mobs. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, if you shout "fire!" in a theatre you will get banned regardless of your rights.
If anything he is proof that Twitter will give people every possible benefit of the doubt and every opportunity to remain on the service. The amount of racist crap he spewed out over the years was pretty awful, but Twitter tolerated it because they only ban over direct threats and mobbing, the former of which is a crime in their juri
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, you've checked the box for "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech." [theatlantic.com]
Nevermind dropping the whole "falsely" thing. Banning someone for yelling "fire" when there is a fire, however small, is the height of idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
unlike old DeRay who organizes real mobs yet still somehow manages to keep his Twitter account in good standing. While I don't agree with Milo on a lot of things, there's a lot of truth to the fact that Twitter has been capricious and diligent about silencing conservative voices and yet they put an icon symbolizing unity with BLM thuggery. If you're going to say "ban all hate related speech" then do it uniformly Twitter and people can live with it, or not.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The examples of Milo's racism are very easy to find:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
In case you don't realize why depicting a black person as a gorilla is racist, here is a little history:
http://www.authentichistory.co... [authentichistory.com]
Re: (Score:2)
He's actually more subtle than that most of the time, which is what makes him such an asshat. He uses tactics like criticising African American vernacular as "wrong" and uneducated, when it definitely isn't [stanford.edu]. He become quite a pro.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is one thing to disagree with someone, criticize their actions or point of view, but to repeatedly and ad nauseum go after them because of their race, that is not something which, despite free speech, should be tolerated on someone elses platform.
As Twitter said when banning him:
"People should be able to express diverse opinions and beliefs on Twitter. But no one deserves to be subjected to
Re:Twitter is pro-Free Speech ? REALLY ?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you noticed lately how censorship enthusiasts always resort to ad-hominem attacks against unnamed crimethinkers? Their basic argument goes like this: "oh, they're just a bunch of assholes, they don't deserve free speech like me and my goodthinking buddies do."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Chill out, dude. We all know Twatter can and do eagerly censor whomsoever they want. That's a given.
We also all know that Twatter is a de facto public forum. Thus many here and elsewhere call that company's leadershipo to account for their policies that diminish the scope of public discussion.
Also - get over the tired left/right meme. Leftist = rightist = centrist = capitalist. Bellyfeel notwithstanding, they're all the same, and all enemies of the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, if you're not satisfied, don't use Twitter. No one is forcing you.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
twitter can ban anyone they want but doing so with clear political slant while claiming to be a platform for free speech is false advertising
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"right-wingers tend to be vindictive hateful assholes" ?
They might say mean words on the twatter, but it's the left wings SJWs that organize hate campaigns to get people fired for daring to say things that they don't like
Re:Twitter is pro-Free Speech ? REALLY ?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's because right-wingers tend to be vindictive hateful assholes a majority of the time.
This differentiates them from left-wingers how exactly?
Why would Milo get banned and not the people making racist, homophobic and abusive messages to and about him?
Twitter's censorship policy may be equal in concept, but it's demonstrably flawed to hell in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
And Left-Wingers tend to be self-aggrandizing, obnoxious, and with a penchant for social engineering.
It has been my experience that ANY group, given a sufficient echo chamber, becomes obsessed with their own voices.
Left:
"We have to promote "Progress!" (Of course, no two of us can define what that is! We bicker about the minutia behind closed doors.) We have to get society to abandon its false gods, and accept the only one truth of secular humanism-- Cultural heritage is only valuable when we can embrace it,
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Publishing mediums have changed (Score:2, Interesting)
But publishing standards should not.
What anyone posts on Twitter is, by every definition of the word [thelawdictionary.org], publishing. So, if People Magazine makes a statement like, "Pollux is a child molester," they are making an untrue public statement that may easily be subject to a libel suit. Trolls everyday on Twitter say the same, so why don't we hold Twitter to the same standard? They are the medium and should be held as equally responsible as any paper printing of the same libelous statement.
"We'll do it if we belie
Re: (Score:3)
You could do this, but it's easier to sue People Magazine than AbusiveTroll3117. People Magazine is a rather public institution and it's easy to track down where they reside to serve them papers. Tracking down AbusiveTroll3117 would mean first filing a John Doe lawsuit, proving to a judge that you need to get the information on the person from Twitter, getting said information which might only include a throwaway e-mail address and an IP address, convincing the judge that you need to get the user's informa
Re: (Score:2)
I think the grandparents point was you don't sue John Doe who wrote an article falsely accusing you of being child molester for People Magazine, you sue People Magazine for publishing it.
I think the GP is proposing the Twitter be held to similar editorial standards. IE if John Doe posts some libelous comment about John Smith, Smith's beef should be with Twitter not with Doe directly. I actually agree. When you consider our current libel and slander laws take into account the credibility of the person mak
Re: (Score:3)
Because under that regime I
Either .. Or (Score:5, Insightful)
Either you believe in free speech or you don't.
Unfortunately even in today's modern world, unpopular opinions continue to need Voltaire's "defending to the death" because those in power are all too ready to mete it out (if they only could) - instead of countering it with their own opinion and civilized debate.
And it doesn't matter where in the political spectrum you fall, people everywhere pay lip service to "free speech" only when it suits them. To the contrary, those on the left are often the most intolerant of people saying something falling foul of the accepted orthodoxy.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people don't know what freedom of speech is. It's not a guarantee that you can post whatever you like to Twitter, or any other commercial service. It's not a guarantee that there won't be repercussions from what you said either.
There are plenty of places on the internet where you can post stuff that Twitter doesn't allow. Twitter does not owe you a platform.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
plenty of cases where anonymity is vital to free speech, when certain subjects can't even be discussed with out risking getting your head chopped off or a lynch mob harassing your employer to get you fired
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't use to like twitter... (Score:2)
Maybe I should check them out...
Thanks
Honeypot (Score:2)
Sadly, not tongue in cheek (Score:3)
Who do they think their fooling?
Twitter is well known for either being extremely tolerant or intolerant of bullying, death threats, personal attacks all based on your politics. Want to threaten to kill a cop? Go right ahead. Fancy hate speech against white people? That's okay. Want to use twitter to propagate terrorist propaganda? No worries, they can't be bothered to do anything about it.
With twitter, free speech depends on who your victim is. In fact their executives refuse to go on the record saying that they support free speech.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g... [breitbart.com]
Clarification (Score:4, Funny)
...an article which described their service as "a honeypot for assholes."
No, Twitter is only part of the internet.
Common carrier. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it is time to rethink how we classify, view, and regulate social media platforms. The fact is that these platforms have moved beyond the age where they existed simply to swap selfies and funny cat videos. Over a very short period of time, these platforms have transformed into essential networks where most of the free exchange of ideas take place. Couple this with the fact that many people might be unwilling or unlikely to seek out other platforms in which they can engage others in political discussion with others, and you will reach a frightening realization. Not only are people self-limiting themselves to getting much of their information from these networks, but the social media network owners are absolutely free to manipulate what data is presented to the users of said network. In effect, this gives these companies what might be considered a loose "monopoly" on what ideas people are "allowed" to view and interact with.
Now, naturally, people are absolutely free to seek out other sources of information, use other social media platforms, or avoid the internet entirely. However, the questions that I think we should engage with here are these.... Are they going to other sources? How viable are these other sources? How well traveled are these other sources? How well networked are they?
If people are not making use of these sources, or worse, are actively being encouraged to avoid them by the very same social media companies which keep people voluntarily "locked" into their networks (insofar as the fact that no one is going to use a social media platform that has no one on it, meaning that people really are "locked" into using the ones that have high rates of use), then one cannot consider these to be viable alternatives. Even more imporantly, if there are no viable alternatives to these major social networks, I would argue that a new form of monopoly has developed. This new monopoly, even if one can voluntarily disengage in it, is engaged in a widespread campaign of censorship, media, and information manipulation designed entirely to alter the political discourse of our societies. This places the majority of political discussion in the hands of a very select group of people who can now essentially control everything you are allowed to see, hear, read, watch, and discuss.
This is too much power for anyone, even if any association with these companies is technically voluntary. I would argue at this point that we need a new form of telecom legislation, along the line of the common carrier laws, which force social media companies to be completely neutral in regard to controlling what information will or will not be displayed.
We could bicker over the fact that these are private companies and that people can use other platforms, but I feel these are technicalities at this point. We've had no issue in the past reigning in the abusive and monopolistic practices of an entire spectrum of other industries when the public good was at stake, and I think it is time to bring the social media platforms to heel. The fact is that these networks now control what billions of people see and hear, and, whether we like it or not, people are going to continue to go solely to these platforms, because that is where their family and friends are also.
Our political discourse should not be in the hands of the elite.
Re: (Score:2)
these platforms have transformed into essential networks where most of the free exchange of ideas take place
No, they've transformed into misused networks where the reinforcement of trenchant views takes place.
No free exchange of ideas at all - self isolation within sub communities drives that all by itself, even without censorship to enforce the echo chamber.
Meanwhile people who act as you describe get all surprised and bewildered when the Brexit referendum results in a 'leave' vote, because half the population weren't listening to the groupthink on social media.
Our political discourse should not be in the hands of the elite.
Agreed, but I think I'd prefer to educate the idiot
it's simple - we have precedents (Score:5, Interesting)
...if they in ANY way moderate their content, then they're akin to a bbs provider or chat room provider and thus liable to the content itself. If someone is abused or stalked or whatever, then Twitter should be held liable. ...if they refuse to control content in any way, then I think they'd have the protected status of a common carrier like a telco. I can't sue the telco (with any reasonable chance of winning) if someone calls me up and tells me I'm an asshole (ok the truth may provide a defense there in any case...).
or
Of course, from my understanding they have been practicing filtering, some might say tendentiously, so IMO that should make them massively vulnerable to anyone suing them because of trolls, etc.
After all, we seem to have forgotten a few fundamental fact of Twitter: NOBODY *HAS* to look at the fucking thing. If you're uncomfortable with what's being said...stop reading it?
Well... (Score:2)
...there are worse reasons for having an abuse problem.
But is it really because they truly believe in free speech, or is that just a PR-useful side-effect of not wanting to be bothered with piddly shit like chasing down trolls?
Free speech is NOT a problem (Score:2)
Twitter Is Pro-Censorship (Score:2)
Here's the latest:
http://www.washingtontimes.com... [washingtontimes.com]
The hype in this article about how Twitter is about "free speech" is designed to distract/deflect from the obvious fact of extensive politically-based censorship on Twitter.
Difficulty of libertarianism or anarchism (Score:2)
Fenced in by an abiding commitment to free speech (Score:2)
Fenced in by free speech.
That's some Orwellian shit right there.
the actual source of Twitter's abuse problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The actual source of Twitter's abuse problem is that it is all about identity and popularity, rather than content or discussion. You can't make much of an argument in 140 characters, but you can engage in social signalling and trolling. The most successful Twitter users are those with the most followers, and narcissists and minor celebrities want to increase that number; and the easiest way of increasing those number is through self-righteous indignation and trolling.
The solution to Twitter's problem is simple: discourage the use of real names. You'd find that most Twitter users with many followers would drop in popularity to nothing, and they would be discouraged from trolling people.
Re:Moderators are the opposite of free speech (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot has the best system I've seen so far. Reddit's just leads to bandwagoning. Slashdot is capped at -2:5.
Additionally if I only have 5 points I'll usually not waste them on 0, I normally just browse at +2. Back in the day you would have entire threads of +5s. I'll save them for someone that needs modded up, not waste it on someone that doesn't need to be heard.
Re:Moderators are the opposite of free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot has the best system I've seen so far. Reddit's just leads to bandwagoning. Slashdot is capped at -2:5.
Additionally if I only have 5 points I'll usually not waste them on 0, I normally just browse at +2. Back in the day you would have entire threads of +5s. I'll save them for someone that needs modded up, not waste it on someone that doesn't need to be heard.
Agreed. Slashdot has easily the single best method of moderating out of every major website, changing that would be foolish. Besides, moderators are surprisingly fair - I have gone against the grain plenty of times, and extremely often these reached +4 or +5. If you state your opinion reasonably and rationally, Slashdot is almost always interested in hearing it. Character attacks on unnamed moderators, with no examples or anything of substance at all, are not inside this category.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
It really depends what particular issue you went against the grain on. It's got better since Dice sold the site, but even so there is still a lot of troll block-moderation going on. The Slashdot system makes it harder, but far from impossible.
Re: Moderators are the opposite of free speech (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, Slashdot is still far and away the best system of this type on the internet. Simply up/down voting systems like Ars and the BBC use are terrible. Ars tries to fix it by having "controversial" posts pushed up, but it's largely useless.
I wonder if the Slashdot model could be adapted to Twitter somehow. Probably not because Twitter will never get enough people to sensibly moderate and meta-moderate.
Re: Moderators are the opposite of free speech (Score:4, Funny)
You must admit, your posts are often inflammatory and very, very inconsistent.
Re: Moderators are the opposite of free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
How often are opposing views labeled as "trolling" on Slashdot? I have submitted a thoughtful post without any inflators words and it was modded down.
So what? I've had posts marked as troll, and I don't get much butthurt about it. If you had the balls to post with even a pseudonym, you might see that sometimes mini range wars erupt over posts. I get email notifications of mods to my posts, and sometimes its a litany of a post getting modded insightful, then troll, then insightful, ant overrated, then informative, then flamebait. I consider that as showing I am onto something.
Then again, I don't have the bitched up idea that everyone has to agree with me. If I end up as Troll in the end, then maybe I was being an asshole. So what.
Slashdot a "major website"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. Slashdot has easily the single best method of moderating out of every major website
Kind of adorable that you think slashdot is still a "major website". 10-15 years ago slashdot kind of mattered. Someone posted a link and it would generate so much traffic it could crash the server (slashdotting). Not so much anymore. Comment volume has dropped substantially, a lot of the "celebrities" (for lack of a better word) that used to read and comment have long since moved on. Many of us (myself included) still find it amusing and fun but slashdot isn't the force in the geek community that it once was.
Re:Slashdot a "major website"? (Score:4, Informative)
Someone posted a link and it would generate so much traffic it could crash the server (slashdotting). Not so much anymore.
This isn't such a great argument as you might think. The rise of easier-to-use caching software and technology services like Cloudflare have made it much easier for smaller sites to withstand even a slashdotting. You should see how much of the web runs through Cloudflare these days. There are still some servers that run pretty much standalone and when that happens someone usually posts the content quickly to the slashdot story, but by and large, you simply can't say that Slashdot doesn't matter anymore because it doesn't destroy >80% of the sites it links to.
Years of neglect (Score:4, Insightful)
you simply can't say that Slashdot doesn't matter anymore because it doesn't destroy >80% of the sites it links to.
True but there are plenty of reasons I can say Slashdot doesn't matter so much any more. The volume of comments is way down. 200-400 comments per story used to be the norm. Now it's often less than half that and sometimes doesn't even get to 100. There are far fewer well known geeks frequenting Slashdot. It used to be a premier destination and a place to hear what the best and brightest had to say. But years of neglect and bad management have slowly driven away a substantial portion of then user base that once set Slashdot apart from other news/discussion sites. I won't say it doesn't matter at all but it's not the place it once was. Perhaps the new management can fix that though I'm not holding my breath...
Sadly Nonsense (Score:3, Interesting)
While I agree that Reddit is the nadir of the internet, I am not fond of Slashdot's system, as it also suppresses any dissent that is actually threatening to the narrative, while tolerating token dissent in a public show of how virtuous Slashdot is for tolerating such outre opinions.
I wish I could agree. I have seen too many quality posts get voted into the negatives to believe that. As to why, the answer
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree that Reddit is the nadir of the internet, I am not fond of Slashdot's system, as it also suppresses any dissent that is actually threatening to the narrative, while tolerating token dissent in a public show of how virtuous Slashdot is for tolerating such outre opinions.
You folks have a different internet than I do? I see every post, and the only difference is the mod level. Altogether too many people seem to think that they can post whatever they want, and others have to agree.
I've had posts modded to -1 flamebait and troll, and not one has disappeared yet. I've had people reply to them at that point, so unless they are psychic, they are seeing them as well.
You have a strange idea of "suppressing dissent". You have the right to say what you wish. You do not have the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
See, I think there needs to be a -1: too stupid to realize how stupid attempts at sarcasm almost always are.
Poe's Law Makes Funny Impossible (Score:2)
Yep the only times I get negative karma are when people don't realize I'm joking. Maybe I'm not being funny enough :|
That's correct: you're not funny enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Moderators are the opposite of free speech (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine if Google allowed people to mod search results the way slashdot does. Now imagine 98% of people who search Google for a HDD formatting problem are Windows users, 2% are Linux users. The Windows users search for their problem (without specifying OS as lazy people are wont to do), and they get a page of search results, one of which happens to address how to solve the problem in Linux.
If just 2% (1 in 49) of the Windows users is a jerk and downvotes that Linux result (even though it was their own fault they got that search result since they didn't specify the OS), that's enough downvotes to cancel out all the upvotes if 100% of the Linux users searching upvote the result. The Linux site gets a negative rating even if it's the most helpful and most useful site on the Internet, because a tiny fraction of the majority Windows users are idiots and jerks.
Or in slashdot terms, because of the modding system a minority viewpoint has to be proportionately better-written in order to rise up to the same +4 or +5 as a majority viewpoint. This is why other sites have resisted adding the ability to downvote. The results aren't necessarily better or worse, just different.
As for which system is most fair, i suspect that falls under Arrow's impossibility theorem [wikipedia.org], where if you use "common sense" definitions of fairness, you find that it's mathematically impossible to come up with a single system which yields a "fair" result in all situations.
Re: (Score:3)
As long as users of Google, in your scenario, could continue to view all search results, regardless of moderation, why would it matter? Here on Slashdot we can all view all the posts regardless of the moderation. Negatively moderating the post does not change where it shows up in the list of posts. It's still there for all to see whom choose to see it.
If a user decides to subscribe to the group think of moderation and browse only at +5 they see what they the group wants them to see. If on the other hand a u
Re:Moderators are the opposite of free speech (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. Slashdot has easily the single best method of moderating out of every major website, changing that would be foolish.
And Twitter is finding out what Usenet found out. When you have 0 restraints, you do indeed become a honeypot for assholes. It's called the "Tragedy of the Commons". When completely unfettered, any common era sinks to the bottom, as productive people find out that the assholes have made the place completely unproductive. The term TofC came about from public parks with completely open access that ended up becoming grazing grounds as farmers brought livestock which of course chased out the people using it as a park. But hey! free access for all right?
A good example more akin to online sites is what happened to usenet. A small example is at one time, there was an electronics group called rec.radio.antenna. I was on the group for a number of years. It was a tremendous resource, with some highly respected professional designers, Amateurs who also made contributions to the SoA, and a lot of people there to learn from them.
It also had a few kooks, but not the jackass variety, just guys with strange theories. You could have a rational exchange with them, and often they served as a goad to make you think.
And a few weirdos - but they were manageable.
Then, as the entry requirements to the internet became lower, a new element snuck in. And they were strange to say the least. Some had definite psycho-sexual issues that would make the typical "haiku faggot" AC here in slashdot blush. And of course, they would get into flame wars with each other, and try to draw the rest of us in.
As well, there was the odd equalization issue. Some kid with mom and dad's computer could get in the group, and go after the experts. A group of people carrying on a real conversation, and here's the kid screeching about how the expert likes to fuck pigs, or even physical threats.
And Usenet was so big on allowing the folks with the severe issues to have their say, even if it was turning the group into literary porn, and allowing the expert to be hammered with insult and threats. Their answer? block them with your newsreader.
Then the kooks started opening up dozens, in one case thousands of new accounts to get around the blocks. It was so freaking weird, as they not only wanted their insane range war, they wanted the normal users to have to see it as well.
So one by one, the actual users of the group went away. First it was the experts, then the rest of us. Now? well, a few of the kooks are still there, and precious little else. Group after group went through the same assault. Usenet is dead for all practical purposes.
Tragedy of the commons.
And yeah, Twitter is going the same way. It is a honeypot for assholes, no matter what they might think.
Here in Slashdot, the moderation system is not perfect, but it is about as perfect as you can get in a world with both normal people and assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
If you state your opinion reasonably and rationally, Slashdot is almost always interested in hearing it.
I think "sometimes" is more accurate than "almost always" but it depends on what you're talking about. If you dare to post anything critical of the sacred cows most of the readers hold dear, they'll simply moderate your comments as a "troll".
Re: (Score:2)
Saying that you are right doesn't make you so. Believing that you are right is just that, a belief.
If you have a view point, back it up with arguments, not emotions.
Re: Moderators are the opposite of free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, first you have to consider that anyone can be a moderator. I don't have mod points right now, but I've had them within the last week, and I don't post that much on here any more.
Second, there is such a thing as meta-moderation. (Or at least there was. Not actually sure it's there any more.)
Third, Slashdot doesn't want their moderators harassed. You don't get to see who modded down your post, because they don't want you going to every post that moderator makes and revenge-modding them, or harassing them.
Fourth, if you are consistently being modded down (presumably under your Slashdot handle, rather than as an AC), then the problem isn't the mods, it's you. It is highly unlikely that one or more mods are specifically looking for your posts and going "HaHa! Time to mod him down again!" while twirling their mustaches. If you're being modded down while posting as an AC, how are the mods supposed to know it's you specifically? Not even mods see who is behind a particular AC post.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you thought about your usage pattern and how it relates to the whole?
You only see things that other people either value or agree with. You don't get the whole conversation (and in fact /. is weird and forces you to move the slider to see more; maybe getting an (undeleteable) account you can have that preference saved). Maybe you're okay with that -- I have no clue -- but if the goal is socializing and conversing, it seems to me that having the whole picture in an unbiased, threaded ranking (be it rando
Re:Moderators are the opposite of free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I noticed that death and rape wishes were conveniently left out of your comment on topicality. Nobody is leaving twitter because people talk about moon landings when they are trying to talk about mosquitos. They are leaving because entitled brats on twitter are telling them how much they hope they are beaten, raped, or killed just for expressing an opinion that they don't appreciate.
By following a design where people can run others off of twitter by flooding their mentions with graphic depictions of rape, murder, and other forms of violence against them, any viewer is getting an incomplete conversation, skewed by what the most number of people like or dislike.
Back in the day-- (Score:2)
You forgot the stories about computer life in the 70's-80's. That's a guaranteed track to +5, as almost everyone on Slashdot is a curmudgeon over 50.
Yeah, back in the '80s, when we didn't even have the internet, just usenet and dial-up BBs and BITnet, we had flame wars that would singe your eyeballs. Moderation? Ha!
(In fact, we actually invented moderation because the flames got so bad on usenet. But the web, when it came, had to re-learn all those lessons again.)
Re:Moderators are the opposite of free speech (Score:4, Informative)
The problem are moderators who decide to moderate on topics they feel strongly about. Good moderators make sure the messages stay on topic, and valid discussion is occurring. Because it is too easy for a vocal group to take over the discussion and spam it with like ideas or just poor arguments. But if the moderator has an emotional attachment to a side, a different view is often felt as a personal attack, thus can get censored.
However message trolls can be just a detriment to free speech by spamming a good conversation with hate and nonsense changing the tone of topic from an insightful expression of ideas a bunch of idiotic ranting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Each moderator here is basically a little Hitler, with the power to censor five posts they don't like.
Well lookie here! Some guy gets modded to -1, and here I see it as the very first post. Some censorship!
Re: Moderators are the opposite of free speech (Score:2)
You're wrong. You're so wrong that your statement "everyone here are liberals" is akin to a Platonic ideal of wrongness.
I'm on my phone, so your UID is not visible, but if you've been here as long as I have you'll know that Slashdot's users represent a myriad schools of political thought. If anything, libertarianism is over-represented. Remember when Ron Paul ran for president?
k.
Political bent (Score:3)
Anti-gov? Everyone on here are liberals.
I find the strongest political thread here is the libertarians. Or possibly just the loudest.
Liberalism takes a lot of abuse here on /.