Quote from: TristramEvans;798212The difference is that writing to an advertiser to ask them to do something gives the advertisers a choice to evaluate the request and come to an informeddecision. From the looks of things in regards to Twitter, there is no informed decisions being made, a small group has been placed in charge of deciding who is allowed to post on twitter, a group that has already declared thier intention to abuse that authority.

Andfrom the looks of things Twitter is just going to take their word for it.

Right, but that's the same thing; nobody can just state "I'm going to police twitter for badwrongthink", twitter has had to accept them as a valid source of information. It's looked at them, made an informed decision.

It's evidently not a decision you agree with, I don't agree with it either (Shitty people will happily admit to it, given a chance), but that's the decision twitter made.

Quote... but that a completely open and unmoderated platform imposes its own form of censorship. It effectively prevents women, especially queer women and women of color, from getting to speak on the service.

This is so amazingly toxic on so many levels. Self-defeating too. Again, tying back to my first-post concerns, how have we come to the point where some ostensibly feminist groups are arguing that women are too weak to stand up for themselves in a free medium?

Where will they draw the line on this, and are they prepared for the searing backlash when they're done censoring the caustic types and start censoring reasonable skeptics who question a woman's word on subjects that have nothing to do with gender/feminism?

Quote from: TristramEvans;798212The sameline I heard on tbp for years: free speech prevents women from talking. In other words, women andminorities areunable to have a voice if anyone else is allowed to contradictor challenge it. Note I'm not talking about harrassment. We're talking about people simply saying ("tweeting") things that they don't like.

The cultural Marxist Left applies Marcuse's notion of "Repressive Tolerance" - classical-liberal tolerance for all speech is repressive because it can be used to criticise the Left, the good guys. So it must be replaced with "Liberating Tolerance" - which is tolerance for the approved, good opinions and banning/repression of speech the good people don't like.

Quote from: Ladybird;798244Right, but that's the same thing; nobody can just state "I'm going to police twitter for badwrongthink", twitter has had to accept them as a valid source of information. It's looked at them, made an informed decision.

It's evidently not a decision you agree with, I don't agree with it either (Shitty people will happily admit to it, given a chance), but that's the decision twitter made.

Though an advertiser puulling from a magazine, doesnt prevent the magazine from existing or the writers that make up the said magazine from writing. Ad revenue might be important, but honestly 2 or 3 guys in a basement with a compter can put together amagazine these days. At most it will affect the magazine's success, a success that the magazine isnt entitled to, especially one willing to bite the hand that feeds it. Whereas restricting someone from posting on Twitter prevents them from speaking at all in that venue. Granted they can go elsewhere bt as social media becomes more ubiquitous in life, the bigger an impact this will have over time. As I said before I don't personally use twitter. I'd still use Myspace if all my friends and relatives hadnt ditched it for Facebook. So effectively this isnt really a concern forme, other than I see it as an ogoing trend.The freedom of speech is being challenged onmultiple venues andI think thats going to continuue until its checked or aline in the sand is drawn.

Twitter has the right to go along with this sure but there's lots of things that are legal that are still unethical or amoral, IMO. The law doesnt dictate the whole of right and wrong. So this is something I find ethically offensive. The Constitution doesnt grant free speech, it says its an inaliable right that all free human beings have and no person or governing body is supposed to be able to take it away. This is I think, one of the most glorious parts of the founding of the United States, and too many people I think are willing to throw it away at the drop of the hat if anything makes them feel uncomfortable. And that saddens me.

Of the people banned,Ive read the blogs/seen the vlogs of a few, and for the most part they didnt seem to be great human beings. But they werent harassing anyone; they were merely stating their opinions. Thus if Twitter has become a place where intoleranceis the norm becuuae of this grouup, it will eventually be shaped into and echo chambger, left unchecked. And I don't think that's good for anyone.

Quote from: S'mon;798259The cultural Marxist Left applies Marcuse's notion of "Repressive Tolerance" - classical-liberal tolerance for all speech is repressive because it can be used to criticise the Left, the good guys. So it must be replaced with "Liberating Tolerance" - which is tolerance for the approved, good opinions and banning/repression of speech the good people don't like.

That sounds so much like communist rhetoric

Quote from: Ladybird;798244Right, but that's the same thing; nobody can just state "I'm going to police twitter for badwrongthink", twitter has had to accept them as a valid source of information. It's looked at them, made an informed decision.

It's evidently not a decision you agree with, I don't agree with it either (Shitty people will happily admit to it, given a chance), but that's the decision twitter made.

If Twitter was making careful, informed decisions, why were some reversed? It's like a DCMA takedown, getting it done is easy, then it's up to you to get yourself unbanned.  The admitted intention is to push the envelope of what they can get banned.

Quote from: CRKrueger;798349If Twitter was making careful, informed decisions, why were some reversed? It's like a DCMA takedown, getting it done is easy, then it's up to you to get yourself unbanned.  The admitted intention is to push the envelope of what they can get banned.

Unclear wording on my part.

Twitter has look at the group (WAM) and made an informed decision, based on what they (Twitter) were told and shown, that they (WAM) are a valid source that can be relied on for assisting Twitter's abuse team.

Whether or not we agree with Tiwtter's decision making process in this matter is not the same as realising what Twitter's decision making process in this matter would have been.

Quote from: CRKrueger;798349If Twitter was making careful, informed decisions, why were some reversed? It's like a DCMA takedown, getting it done is easy, then it's up to you to get yourself unbanned.  The admitted intention is to push the envelope of what they can get banned.

Indeed.
It makes me wonder how big the disconnect is, between what was sold to Twitter, and their current stated strategy, is.
If anything, their current aims will only inflame the rhetoric on both sides.

Hur. Maybe that was Twitter's plan all along. GamerGate has to be good for business...

Quote from: Ladybird;798356Unclear wording on my part.

Twitter has look at the group (WAM) and made an informed decision, based on what they (Twitter) were told and shown, that they (WAM) are a valid source that can be relied on for assisting Twitter's abuse team.

Whether or not we agree with Tiwtter's decision making process in this matter is not the same as realising what Twitter's decision making process in this matter would have been.

Possibly, I don't know what goes on at Twitter.  I can easily see this happen though...

"Hey guys, one of our Investment Firms is a little worried about the #gamergate thing, thinks the backlash might hurt the stock".

"Hmm, this WAM group has this tool for reporting harassment they're offering us.  We have partnered with other groups in the past."

"What's the effect?"

"Well, it will look good and take the heat off, trim out the extreme nuts and get the lefties off our case."

"Ok, let 'er rip."

I can also see people at Twitter being completely in line with WAM's political objective of social engineering through censorship.

In any case, of all the possible options, a detailed, rigorous analysis of WAM's politics and agenda behind the tool being done is pretty much the bottom of the list.

Quote from: Novastar;798359Maybe that was Twitter's plan all along. GamerGate has to be good for business...

Heh, or that.

I suspect Twitter, Facebook, and similar companies only care about Problems.
Their behavior is to minimize Problems, not be 'fair' or anything.

I have acquaintances on Facebook who rail against what tribe Facebook is supporting by shutting down X, but generally FB shuts down things temporarily when a bunch of people complain, because FB just ... doesn't want problems. People complain, stuff gets shut off, owner complains, stuff gets turned back on.

Just (social media) business.

Quote from: CRKrueger;798361"Ok, let 'er rip."

Well, yeah. That was my point. They've made it through twitter's "should we use this tool" process, whatever that is.

Quote from: Will;798365I suspect Twitter, Facebook, and similar companies only care about Problems.
Their behavior is to minimize Problems, not be 'fair' or anything.

A WINNER IS YOU

Will - I would agree that companies like Twitter and Facebook are probably just motivated by business concerns - but that doesn't mean it isn't a real free speech problem.

That said, I don't think there's a pure solution. For example, even here on theRPGsite, people still get banned for being trolls and/or violating policies - and that's a good thing. Private companies and groups should have the right to moderate, just like how stores and restaurants have the right to refuse certain customers.

I think it's not so much a legal issue as a social one. People need to accept having open debate - and behave like open debate, rather than like flamewars or campaigns. Twitter and Facebook react to their customers, and so their customers need to express it.

Quote from: TristramEvans;798311Though an advertiser puulling from a magazine, doesnt prevent the magazine from existing or the writers that make up the said magazine from writing. Ad revenue might be important, but honestly 2 or 3 guys in a basement with a compter can put together amagazine these days. At most it will affect the magazine's success, a success that the magazine isnt entitled to, especially one willing to bite the hand that feeds it. Whereas restricting someone from posting on Twitter prevents them from speaking at all in that venue. Granted they can go elsewhere bt as social media becomes more ubiquitous in life, the bigger an impact this will have over time.

And I think this is the key point on which we disagree. I don't see what the core difference is between an organisation being unable to use a website called twitter, or being unable to use a website called gawker (For example, as magazines have basically been replaced by web sites). Either way, they have to go elsewhere (Which they've probably already done); either way, a particular platform has been closed off to them, and the intended outcome looks like "prevent this organization from having a voice".

We all know that, in the end, it won't work, but that still looks like the intention.

QuoteAs I said before I don't personally use twitter. I'd still use Myspace if all my friends and relatives hadnt ditched it for Facebook. So effectively this isnt really a concern forme, other than I see it as an ogoing trend.The freedom of speech is being challenged onmultiple venues andI think thats going to continuue until its checked or aline in the sand is drawn.

Web 2.0 sites aren't really designed for communication or information transfer, they're designed around that sweet, sweet advertising money. The nominal content is just something to get you to look at the site (But not too much content, you can't have enough space for anything more than a soundbite or a throwaway quip, because then you might not pay attention to the next advert).

If twitter (For example) stops providing this content, because it bans enough influential people that posters start to leave, then it will die, and a competitor will emerge. Free market, working as intended. Will twitter's working with WAM turn out to be bad for twitter? Well, let's see. Nothing in tech or media is forever.

QuoteOf the people banned,Ive read the blogs/seen the vlogs of a few, and for the most part they didnt seem to be great human beings. But they werent harassing anyone; they were merely stating their opinions. Thus if Twitter has become a place where intoleranceis the norm becuuae of this grouup, it will eventually be shaped into and echo chambger, left unchecked. And I don't think that's good for anyone.

Echo chambers are fine, if you like the noise.

If there was a large enough group not interested in being in that echo chamber, but into expressing their thoughts in 140 characters or less, a twitter rival would appear.

TBH I can really live with the WAM thing.  I figure it's win win win for me in the long run.  If they're a fair-minded group, it won't be a problem.  If they unfairly target people on ideological premises, it's likely that twitter will cease doing business with them, and also give similar complaints far less hearing in the future.  And, if they are unfair and twitter doubles down on them, in the long run they lose all credibility, they become a safe space, and I don't have to care so much about what's going on there as people move on.

Quote from: Alathon;798413And, if they are unfair and twitter doubles down on them, in the long run they lose all credibility, they become a safe space, and I don't have to care so much about what's going on there as people move on.

Interesting (sad?) how "safe space" is becoming a pejorative.