Hi, I generally avoid engaging with you Catherine but I wanted to ask you some very specific questions that almost beg to be asked by your email.
I have kept it on the list because I felt that if you could show evidence for your claims, we'd all be better for it. If not, I figured it would be nice to let these things air in the open. ... Catherine Fitzpatrick: > One shouldn't have to be literalist about the obvious *intent* of rules like > this. They exist to prevent harassment, not to be > literalized to death. Twitter shouldn't be party to a lynch mob -- that's > what this was, and that's what so many things on > Twitter are these days, like the massive hate-ins over Chik-fil-A. > Where does the rules, terms of service, or guidelines specifically say they exist to prevent harassment? I looked here: https://twitter.com/tos - the word harassment isn't even on the web page one single time. I looked here: https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules - the same is true, the word harassment isn't on that page either. Furthermore, I looked here: https://support.twitter.com/groups/33-report-abuse-or-policy-violations/topics/148-policy-information/articles/20169997-abusive-behavior-policy They specifically say: "Users are allowed to post content, including potentially inflammatory content, provided they do not violate the Twitter Terms of Service and Rules. Twitter does not screen content and we do not remove potentially offensive content unless such content is a violation of our Terms of Service." So no, actually, the intent of such rules is not as you suggest. It does not even use the word harassment, so I think it's a stretch to say that they exist to prevent harassment. They EXPLICITLY exist to protect users who post "potentially inflammatory content" and they seem to qualify that by saying it must violate the ToS. ************************************************************************ ************** Million Dollar question for you! ************************ ************************************************************************ Do you have an example twitter web page that shows where harassment is specifically a goal or that reducing harassment is somehow their intent? ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ Should it be that way? I'm not sure. If that's the discussion, I think that is one worth having. I think there is a lot of bad behavior online and it sucks that Twitter isn't even remotely a safe space at times. Ironically, the short space means that people with good intentions are often misunderstood and those with bad intentions well, they're sometimes the only thing that gets through clearly. As an example - I've experienced harassment on Twitter. From you, specifically. So - shall we talk about the literal nature or the intent? Do you believe your actions have ever crossed the line into harassment of me? Generally, I've found blocking you to be a good solution and it doesn't require Twitter to compromise. It just requires me to be the bigger person and not engage with people who are being inflammatory. ... Oh and regarding the "the massive hate-ins over Chik-fil-A" - do you dispute that people are allowed to boycott, to talk about how wrong it is that such a company promotes discrimination? If such a company discriminated against hiring women, people of color, die hard capitalists, or a guy with a GIANT AMERICAN FLAG on his car - would that make it alright to have those conversations? > > And BTW, this illustrates a problem with all social media platforms. They are > all businesses, not civic institutions, and that's ok. > They are not bound by the First Amendment, but are practicing it themselves > when they decide what kind of expression they > want on their servers, and which kind of other business partners they want. > That's all fine. That's what free enterprise and a > > liberal democracy is all about. This idea that corporate responsibility > involves parroting the kind of progressive expression > > > that you want has no validity in First Amendment jurisprudence. It doesn't. That's part of the image that this company is pushing. They call themselves the free wing of the free speech party regularly. So if you mean it doesn't matter what they say, they're not legally bound to honor their advertised nature, well, huh. I'm not sure how I feel about truth in advertising. I think at the very least, it invites someone to call them out about it but clearly, it invites little more. Twitter doesn't owe anyone anything in this - so whatever they do, they'll be credited by the "market" and their users accordingly. > Corporations get to express what they like and > police expression as they wish and fortunately, we have a choice. If the > state backed them or there were only state > > corporations, we could rightly object, but they are private companies so we > have no grounds for objection. > So I guess you're fine with their policies, even though they don't say what you wish them to say? Do you really believe you have absolutely no grounds for objection? None? So you think the Somalian terrorists that use twitter, there is no grounds for objection? Or do you mean, we have no right to regulate their choices? One is very different from the other, right? > > Once again, for all those clutching their pearls about it, if you don't like > Twitter's policies and uneven enforcement of their > policies, which is common to all these big social media services, then you go > to another one or you start your own. I'm for > a free market in social media services with a range of toleration up to First > Amendment level. Then you get what you get. > It's either 4chan or Youtube comments or getting a net-nanny warning in your > face on Facebook for using the word > Actually, there are many alternatives. Part of what makes Twitter interesting is that their policy is one of discussion. Their policies are not made in the dark and this kind of civil dialog shapes their policies. So what gives us a ground for objection, or even praise? At the very least? Twitter regularly engages and talks with people, reaches out and seeks to create such a dialog. Not the least of which, often, takes place on Twitter. > "breast" or typing too many messages at once. That's life in the big city of > social media. The endless fretting about this > and admonishing of these companies is really out of place, and takes away > time and effort from the real victims of > free speech violations in countries like Russia or Uzbekistan or Syria or > Sudan. > Do you really believe that no free speech violations happen outside of those places? Do you believe Germany, the US, Canada, the UK and so on have zero free speech violations? Do you dispute the validity of legal cases that say otherwise? Or do you simply not know about them? > > Have Dave Winer make a darknet and then see who shows up. Or I hear Anonymous > is making some kind of > social network. What's a darknet in your world? Why would discussion be alright there but not here or on Twitter? All the best, Jacob _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list [email protected] Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
