Twitter to label politician tweets that break rules

[Morphine Prince 109,700]

WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) said on Thursday it would identify and deemphasize tweets that broke its rules but came from important sources such as politicians, in order to strike a balance between free expression and accountability.

Twitter said the new rules would apply to politicians and government officials with more than 100,000 followers.

“We’ll now clearly label any tweets which violate our terms of service but decide to keep up due to public interest,” Twitter Chief Executive Officer Jack Dorsey said.

If flagged, a notice would cover the offending tweet and require a user to click on a link to view it.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-feature/twitter-to-deemphasize-label-politician-tweets-that-break-rules-idUSKCN1TS2JX?il=0

 

[Nino 12]

Imagine going to work one day and being told that you had to flag every vile, rule breaking Trump tweet ever in just a few days.

I'd quit on the spot  

[Guest]

-

[OMonster 15,025]

I'm sorry, but this *could* be deeply dangerous.

I have carried out a lot of research into social media's role in politics. Since, by their very nature, social feeds are echo chambers of likeminded thinking... politically, they can be *incredibly* biased. Irrespective of your own political alignment, any form of bias totally undercuts democracy - that is, freedom to vote and freedom to think politically. 

Of course, tagging terrible posts (racism, homophobia ect) is a great move. But, considering the political biases of media organisations (which are usually very pro-left, and anti-right) - I fear that this new feature may be used to make an example of figures who simply aren't left-wing. 

And as much as I disagree with certain right wing ideologies (anti-abortion laws, for example), to silence those views would be wrong. Politics is or should be a conversation, not a pre-determined endpoint... left or right. And in giving more 'censorship' powers to social media, I question if these platforms will become ever more left-leaning - essentially silencing any counter-argument to what is popular to the 'woke' class of social media users.

Just a thought.

[Morphine Prince 109,700]

1 minute ago, OMonster said:

I'm sorry, but this *could* be deeply dangerous.

I have carried out a lot of research into social media's role in politics. Since, by their very nature, social feeds are echo chambers of likeminded thinking... politically, they can be *incredibly* biased. Irrespective of your own political alignment, any form of bias totally undercuts democracy - that is, freedom to vote and freedom to think politically. 

Of course, tagging terrible posts (racism, homophobia ect) is a great move. But, considering the political biases of media organisations (which are usually very pro-left, and anti-right) - I fear that this new feature may be used to make an example of figures who simply aren't left-wing. 

And as much as I disagree with certain right wing ideologies (anti-abortion laws, for example), to silence those views would be wrong. Politics is or should be a conversation, not a pre-determined endpoint... left or right. And in giving more 'censorship' powers to social media, I question if these platforms will become ever more left-leaning - essentially silencing any counter-argument to what is popular to the 'woke' class of social media users.

Just a thought.

Twitter rules are very clear. 

Right wingers claim they are being silenced yet all you have to do is not break the Twitter rules. It's not that hard. 

It is interesting why right wingers tend to be the ones to break rules relating to racism, harassment, etc. I think we know the answer to that. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Twitter rules are very clear. 

Right wingers claim they are being silenced yet all you have to do is not break the Twitter rules. It's not that hard. 

It is interesting why right wingers tend to be the ones to break rules relating to racism, harassment, etc. I think we know the answer to that. 

Many progressives and Libertarian are banned from Facebook and Twitter for no reason. But I agree its not only against right wingers, ive seen many progressive people getting banned.

[Nino 12]

4 minutes ago, OMonster said:

I'm sorry, but this *could* be deeply dangerous.

I have carried out a lot of research into social media's role in politics. Since, by their very nature, social feeds are echo chambers of likeminded thinking... politically, they can be *incredibly* biased. Irrespective of your own political alignment, any form of bias totally undercuts democracy - that is, freedom to vote and freedom to think politically. 

Of course, tagging terrible posts (racism, homophobia ect) is a great move. But, considering the political biases of media organisations (which are usually very pro-left, and anti-right) - I fear that this new feature may be used to make an example of figures who simply aren't left-wing. 

And as much as I disagree with certain right wing ideologies (anti-abortion laws, for example), to silence those views would be wrong. Politics is or should be a conversation, not a pre-determined endpoint... left or right. And in giving more 'censorship' powers to social media, I question if these platforms will become ever more left-leaning - essentially silencing any counter-argument to what is popular to the 'woke' class of social media users.

Just a thought.

They're private companies and have every right to any tool of censorship imaginable. I say Twitter should take it further and just eat the backlash. We need to fight dirty just like them. 

[OMonster 15,025]

16 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Twitter rules are very clear. 

Right wingers claim they are being silenced yet all you have to do is not break the Twitter rules. It's not that hard. 

It is interesting why right wingers tend to be the ones to break rules relating to racism, harassment, etc. I think we know the answer to that. 

I think Twitter's rules could be quite malleable to different agendas, though. And there is evidence that suggests that Twitter and Facebook do try to 'silence' (or at least, not promote) right-wing thinking. 

I don't think racism or harassment is a right-wing issue - it is an issue, period. For example, the Labour Party (the UK's left-wing party) is under constant investigation for it's racism / anti-semitism, and right-wing figures in our country (Nigel Farage) are being 'attacked' in the streets. By the same account, though, the Conservative Party (right-wing) is also home to some racist politicians. 

As a side-note, this is what I worry about in politics... total polarisation and division, which social media really encourages. To label either side as racist or harassing, I think, would be a real disservice to the right and left wing politicians who all share a common goal, though might have different approaches of reaching that goal. 

Spoiler

I should probably add that I am a liberal progressive myself... but a liberal progressive who believes in uncensored political discussion. 

 

[Morphine Prince 109,700]

Just now, OMonster said:

I think Twitter's rules could be quite malleable to different agendas, though. And there is evidence that suggests that Twitter and Facebook do try to 'silence' (or at least, not promote) right-wing thinking. 

I don't think racism or harassment is a right-wing issue - it an issue, period. For example, the Labour Party (the UK's left-wing party) is under constant investigation for it's racism / anti-semitism, and right-wing figures in our country (Nigel Farage) are being 'attacked' in the streets. By the same account, though, the Conservative Party (right-wing) is also home to some racist politicians. 

As a side-note, this is what I worry about in politics... total polarisation and division, which social media really encourages. To label either side as racist or harassing, I think, would be a real disservice to the right and left wing politicians who all share a common goal, though might have different approaches of reaching that goal. 

 

I just meant of the cases I have personally seen relating to racism, etc. and posts I’ve read of right wingers complaining about being silenced. 

The truth is everyone has to adhere to the rules. 

[OMonster 15,025]

7 minutes ago, Nino said:

They're private companies and have every right to any tool of censorship imaginable. I say Twitter should take it further and just eat the backlash. We need to fight dirty just like them. 

Interesting point. 

But if Twitter (or any other social platform) is able to categorise anti-abortion laws, for example, as 'dirty' - isn't that quite problematic? Doesn't that suddenly turn the private organisation into a public one? Or a private organisation into one with excessive influence over the political sphere, at least. And since these private companies are sources of news, doesn't that erode the principle of transparent democracy?

Is anything that differs from a liberal viewpoint dirty or bad?

[Vergil 2,296]

Oh wow, get ready far-right nazis in my country.

[Morphine Prince 109,700]

I’d also like to add that Twitter is doing this because they’ve received criticism of not holding politicians accountable for their behavior on the platform. 

So now they will do this whenever public officials break the rules. 

[OMonster 15,025]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

I’d also like to add that Twitter is doing this because they’ve received criticism of not holding politicians accountable for their behavior on the platform. 

So now they will do this whenever public officials break the rules. 

I really agree with the principle. I just hope it isn't used in a biased or political way - I guess we'll see. 

[Morphine Prince 109,700]

1 minute ago, OMonster said:

I really agree with the principle. I just hope it isn't used in a biased or political way - I guess we'll see. 

I think all sides will claim bias against them whenever a politician is labeled as breaking a rule tbh. 

[Nino 12]

14 minutes ago, OMonster said:

Interesting point. 

But if Twitter (or any other social platform) is able to categorise anti-abortion laws, for example, as 'dirty' - isn't that quite problematic? Doesn't that suddenly turn the private organisation into a public one? Or a private organisation into one with excessive influence over the political sphere, at least. And as news sources, doesn't that erode the principle of transparent democracy?

Is anything that differs from a liberal viewpoint dirty or bad?

I understand the point you're trying to get at and in a perfect world I'd agree. But I thoroughly believe that we should just censor right wing ideology on social media at large. It's been proven not only to be a breeding ground for all kinds of hate crime, but also made the most powerful country in the world vulnerable to the influence of foreign actors in a very scary way. Keeping the posts up when they clearly violate rules was showing bias to begin with, outrage fuels engagement which increases reach which leads to a bigger audience and incentivizes even more outrageous rhetoric. We literally saw the worst case scenario of this unfold before our eyes and nobody wins. The short term public interest is in letting everybody have an equal platform, which I'll agree with, but as the cycle of hateful obscenity churns it lowers the quality of discourse. We've devolved into an age of clickbait politics.

Twitter needs to SILENCE them. They have far too big of an influence and instead of desperately trying to please everybody they should weaponize that influence. Politics is only about being fair on paper. In the real world we have to fight.