Twitter should look at removing users that are fueling hate. Having a social media presence should be a privilege, not a right. They need to take a hard, long look inwards and figure out what role they have in promoting hate-speech and violence.
They're just providing a free channel for everyone to say whatever they want. I agree 100% that it can be dangerous and removing likes isn't doing anything to stop it... I found this decision really odd, to say the least.
"They're just providing a free channel for everyone to say whatever they want."
Right, but that's not free from consequences.
Freedom of speech is a human right and with social media becoming a more prominent way of how we communicate as a species, censorship is a dangerous pathway to go down.
I wonder how much of this idea was influenced by Kanye. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/09/kanye-west-is-right-about-social-media-follower-counts.html
Freedom of speech is indeed a right. Being a user of a social media platform is a privilege though. And that privilege can be revoked.
Why is this getting downvoted? He's right. A private company has every right not to let you on their platform.
I agree that cyberbullying users should be banned if possible. But as far as specific groups with bad ideas, should discourse of polarizing/disagreeable/wrong ideas take place in public forums or fester in dark corners? Perhaps there are arguments for both, but I believe an open dialogue is healthiest for society.
That's a very idealistic approach that completely fails to take into account several issues, such as what and who defines what hate speech is and where do you draw the line, among other things, and the implications both philosophical, political and financial that would result in doing this.
It’s not that difficult. There’s only two concerns: 1. What’s legal. 2. The private company that owns the service you’re posting.
The line isn’t that hard to draw. The financial implications will take care of themselves, if Twitter continues to fail to act. Anyone who’s run a community likely knows that letting this stuff fester does not end well.
But that's the thing - They have acted, and clearly their 'line' is different to your 'line' which is where the problem lies. Everyone has different tolerances for this kind of stuff and it's extremely difficult to get a happy middle ground of both free speech and a nice community because of that.
Their line is objectively wrong, and they are risking the future of their business as a result.
Genuine question: Could you please explain how it is objectively wrong?
I could try, but I think this article does a better job than I could: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376
That article contradicts your point.
"To withdraw those protections from those who would destroy it does not violate its moral principles; it is fundamental to them, because without this enforcement, the treaty would collapse. It is appropriate, even ethical, to answer force with proportional force"
That's what I'm saying - twitter's proportional force aligns with what they want to do, which is different from what you want to do, so by definition it isn't objective at all.
Yes Tony Gines, several large tech oligarchies should be able to decide what people can or cannot say on their totally private and independent platforms influenced in no way by their own internal political persuasions.
Twitter should look at removing users that are fueling hate
Which specific journalists are fueling hate? (I know which ones are, but I'm curious what your answer is.)
DN isn't the right place for me to name and shame but let me just say it would probably take less time to name the ones who are not rather than the ones who are.
The whole journo and bluecheck sphere of twitter is honestly most of the people turning it into an awful place to go.
There's a block button for a reason. Use it.
Talk about looking the other way. I sometimes miss Twitter as I used it for years as my professional outlet where I followed and chatted with fellow web designers around the world and it was great but I had to bin it last year because the problem was the toxic user base and the voice amplification they were given by the total lack of standards enforcement by Twitter leadership.
There's no debate on Twitter, it's too limited a tool for it and as with so many other meaningless "attempts" to improve the quality of the platform, I don't think Jack really cares. They want engagement no matter how they get it or at what cost.
I consider Twitter to still be a valid platform for a professional outlet. I follow around 50 people and that's it. 95% of them are designers and they tweet about design only (mostly). Twitter is like any other open social platform, you get what you make out if it.
I used to follow a max of 100 people, all professional / industry peers and curated that follow list pretty regularly too but the toxic stuff still found its way through for me.
I guess mileage may vary on it but to be honest, I put a lot of effort into my Twitter life and found it just didn't matter in the end. I do miss the friends I followed but the negativity became too much for me and I made a choice I don't really regret for 99% of the time.
Now I tend to follow a few slack channels and I do find myself signing up for a lot more email newsletters than before.
The real joke to me about talks to improve Twitter is it's not the great unwashed making Twitter a cesspit, it's mostly the bluechecks and Twitter power users it spends most of it's time trying to please that make it an utterly awful corner of the internet.
Not a bad move in general, but it's not likes that are the problem with Twitter. :(