Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, December 20, 2017

"In our efforts to be more aggressive here, we may make some mistakes and are working on a robust appeals process," the company acknowledged in a blog post Monday announcing the start of its enforcement of stricter hate speech policies. Specifically, Twitter now bars users who take to the platform to "promote violence against civilians to further their causes," as well as those who glorify such violence. The rules also bar attacking people "on the basis of their group characteristics" and using Twitter to harass people into silence. Twitter wasn't joking. By the end of the day Monday, the removal of accounts belonging to white nationalist and far-right extremists started to rack up. While Twitter isn't keeping a public list of its expulsion efforts, here's a (non-comprehensive, as the account removals are ongoing) list of newly suspended accounts as a result of Twitter's recent clean-up efforts:

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More FTA:

Jayda Fransen and Paul Golding, the leaders of Britain First, a far-right anti-Muslim group in the U.K. that gained notoriety stateside in November after President Trump retweeted its videos. The group's main account was also suspended

#1 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-20 05:40 AM | Reply

More bias from the elites.

#2 | Posted by sawdust at 2017-12-20 10:42 AM | Reply

More bias from the elites.

#2 | POSTED BY SAWDUST

While I don't agree with twitter imposing censorship ...

Why do you think it's good for the President of the United States to re-tweet foreign far-right BS?

#3 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-12-20 10:51 AM | Reply

More bias from the elites.

#2 | POSTED BY SAWDUST

While I don't agree with twitter imposing censorship ...

#3 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF A

Pick 1:

A. As a business they have every right to decide what gets posted

or

B. They are a public utility

It can't be both.

Choose wisely.

#4 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-20 10:58 AM | Reply

#4 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

As a business they have every right to decide what gets posted

Just like all media that decides what information and news that the lowly masses (like you and me) get to hear. I get it, you're comfortable with censorship that fits your POV -- no offense.

The much bigger and more important question is why anyone would think that it's good that the leader of the free world (the President of the United States) is re-tweeting racist and hateful foreign far-right propaganda.

I know my answer, and I would think I know your answer -- but Sawdust still needs to answer the question.

#5 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-12-20 11:38 AM | Reply

While I don't agree with twitter imposing censorship ...

A private company can ban any user it wants using any criteria it wants. That isn't censorship.

These Nazis and other hatemongers are hurting Twitter's business. They should have been booted a long time ago.

Nobody calls it censorship if a restaurant kicks out customers for bad behavior. The same principle applies here.

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-20 01:51 PM | Reply

A private company can ban any user it wants using any criteria it wants. That isn't censorship.

These Nazis and other hatemongers are hurting Twitter's business. They should have been booted a long time ago.

Nobody calls it censorship if a restaurant kicks out customers for bad behavior. The same principle applies here.

#6 | POSTED BY RCADE

I would rather see Trump's behavior out in the open, like his re-tweeting nazi garbage, so we can ask the bigger and more important questions like why is the POTUS coddling nazis.

You're right, private businesses like twitter can do what they want, but arguing that point is short-sided because it's the same as any media outlet or platform ... people smarter than me would able to argue a form of corporate censorship where twitter (or any media outlet) is choosing the content for the rest of us. Choosing what we can and cannot see = censorship.

Twitter chooses Trump and all his hateful repulsiveness because like CBS executive Les Moonves admitted during the 2016 president campaign, Trump and his nazi-oriented rhetoric is good for business.

Somewhere in all that there's censorship.

#7 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-12-20 02:19 PM | Reply

As an active Twitter user I think kicking off the Nazis is an act of self-preservation. No site overtaken by racists can survive in the long run.

Moonves should have lost his job for that comment.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-20 02:22 PM | Reply

Here's a nice comment in the comments section from the above Slate link ...

icemilkcoffee 21 hours ago

I am very disturbed that my fellow liberals are cheering on censorship.

Even if it's coming from a private corporation, it's still antithetical to free speech.

Especially when the corporations doing the censoring, are ubiquitous, major corporations like Google and Twitter.

We have laws against violence and threats of violence. If Twitter wants to prevent violence, then they should be reporting violent threats to the police.

They are in a position to do so.


I'm totally on board with this way of thinking.

#9 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-12-20 02:22 PM | Reply

As an active Twitter user I think kicking off the Nazis is an act of self-preservation. No site overtaken by racists can survive in the long run.

Moonves should have lost his job for that comment.

#8 | POSTED BY RCADE

Well, I agree about Moonves and and I agree with self-preservation from nazi scum ... there is a real world-wide threat of being over-run by far-right racists ... it's worrying that we don't have a full understanding of how much is out there -- that's why I think we're kidding ourselves when twitter does what it just did.

#10 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-12-20 02:31 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Even if it's coming from a private corporation, it's still antithetical to free speech.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution doesn't guarantee so-called "free speech." It forbids Congress from passing laws abridging the freedom of speech.

The First Amendment makes no mention of private corporations.

#11 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-20 02:38 PM | Reply

We have laws against violence and threats of violence. If Twitter wants to prevent violence, then they should be reporting violent threats to the police.

This is bad advice. The cops don't investigate online threats, especially when they are sent from outside their jurisdiction.

Cops don't even do much when a husband threatens to kill his wife. At most the wife can get a restraining order.

Twitter is the only entity in a position to do anything about hate speech and threats on its site.

Icemilkcoffee should start his own online service where he can celebrate free speech by letting Nazis threaten women, Jews, blacks and others they hate. Then he can watch those groups quit his site because their freedom to speak without enduring a torrent of hate is not being respected.

#12 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-20 02:48 PM | Reply

The cops (local, state, and the Feds) need to stop getting their jollies playing soldier with all that excess military hardware that's unnecessarily built by defense contractors, and then passed along to police jurisdictions, and do what police are supposed to do -- to serve and protect.

Less police in flak jackets and armored personnel carriers, and more good old fashioned police work ... like investigating credible threats of violence from credible violent hatemongers like the nazis.

#13 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-12-20 02:59 PM | Reply

Twitter, google, facebook have more than enough monetary horse-power to work with police at all levels to chase down credible threats of violence from hate groups without resorting to censorship.

#14 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-12-20 03:01 PM | Reply

You gotta be kidding. Working with police would require considerably more staffing and time than clicking a Ban Nazi button.

As someone who has run discussion sites for 22 years, I can tell you that the "celebrate free speech" world you're fighting for isn't what you think it would be. It isn't a glorious marketplace of ideas. It's a cesspool of the worst people doing the worst things for the lulz.

There isn't a user here who would want to run a site like that. It would scar your soul.

#15 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-20 03:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"There isn't a user here who would want to run a site like that. It would scar your soul."

I don't think there are many users here who would want to post on a site like that either for the very same reasons.

#16 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-20 03:52 PM | Reply

You gotta be kidding. Working with police would require considerably more staffing and time than clicking a Ban Nazi button.

As someone who has run discussion sites for 22 years, I can tell you that the "celebrate free speech" world you're fighting for isn't what you think it would be. It isn't a glorious marketplace of ideas. It's a cesspool of the worst people doing the worst things for the lulz.

There isn't a user here who would want to run a site like that. It would scar your soul.

#15 | POSTED BY RCADE

It can be done if it's a priority ...

Hate Crime Training for Police Is Often Inadequate, Sometimes Nonexistent
www.propublica.org

Only a fraction of bias crimes ever get reported. Fewer still get successfully prosecuted. Perhaps the widespread lack of training for frontline officers has something to do with that.

Hate crimes in America have made no shortage of headlines over the last year as the country has once more confronted its raw and often violent racial, religious and political divisions. Just how few hate crimes get formally reported and analyzed has shocked many. Fewer still get successfully prosecuted, a fact that has provoked frustration among some elected officials and law enforcement agencies.

But the widespread lack of training for frontline officers in how to handle potential hate crimes, if no great surprise, might actually be the criminal justice system's most basic failing. There is, after all, little way to either accurately tabulate or aggressively prosecute hate crimes if the officers in the street don't know how to identify and investigate them.

Hate crimes are not, by and large, simple to deal with. Different states identify different categories of people to be protected under their laws. And the authorities must prove not only guilt, but intent. It isn't enough to find fingerprints on a weapon. The authorities must explore a suspect's state of mind, and then find ways of corroborating it.

"Hate crimes are so nuanced and the laws can be so complex. You're trying to deal with the motivation of a crime," said Liebe Geft, director of the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles, which has for years provided training to officers as expert consultants.

"Thirty minutes in the academy is not enough," Geft said.

Law enforcement leaders point to several factors to explain, if not justify, the lack of emphasis on training for hate crimes.

While the offenses can be dramatic and highly disturbing -- like the incident earlier this year in which a white supremacist impaled an African-American man with an 18-inch sword in New York's Times Square -- they represent a very small percentage of the nation's overall crime.

Working with often limited budgets, police officials have to make difficult decisions about what to prioritize during training, and hate crimes can lose out.

That said, the events of the last 18 months, driven in great part by the racially charged presidential campaign of 2016, seem to suggest an adjustment of priorities might be in order.


I don't think it's unrealistic to say that law enforcement -- in cooperation with twitter, google, and facebook -- that something can be done law enforcement wise about hate groups who hide in plain site on social media.

The pro-publica link also points out how state police and national guardsmen stood by passively at Charlottesville -- that's a training issue.

#17 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-12-20 04:03 PM | Reply

Twitter's net worth = $10 billion
Google's net worth = $527 billion(!)
Facebook's net worth = $72 billion

So, training and re-training law enforcement at all levels of government and getting them to re-focus their police-work, combined with the mega-uber-Ba-Za-Gillionaires representing social media ... can most definitely figure out how to chase down credible threats of violence from credible hate groups, like the nazis ... without resorting to corporate censorship.

#18 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-12-20 04:12 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort