Twitter Plans ‘Hate Speech’ Crackdown After Backlash From Upset Employees

[Swordsmyth]

Twitter Plans ‘Hate Speech’ Crackdown After Backlash From Upset Employees

Twitter is planning to accelerate changes to the company’s speech policies after a backlash from its own employees who want the company to ban right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, responding to a critical tweet from a Twitter engineer, said Wednesday he is “not happy” with Twitter’s current policies, which he said need to “evolve.”
Twitter vice president Del Harvey also sent a company-wide email Wednesday pledging to accelerate Twitter’s efforts to crack down on “dehumanizing hate speech,” in the wake of internal “conversations” about Jones.
Harvey noted that Twitter also plans to evaluate whether the company needs to better police “off-platform behavior.”

More at: http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/08/twitter-jack-dorsey-hate-speech-policy/

 

[UWDude]

1/3 of East Germans were on the Stasi payroll.

One third.

Now, it is more focused. But the numbers are still massive.

Bunch of legal (Sep 2013) propagandists. Paid for by us.

Not a private company, a Deep State shell company.

War on them all.

 

[aGameOfThrones]

 

[NickOdell]

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

 

[timosman]

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

Have you heard of company towns? What Happens to Free Speech in the Public Square When It's Owned by a Private Monopoly. www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.ph...-Square-When-It-s-Owned-by-a-Private-Monopoly

For the record Twitter is a public company currently traded on NYSE under TWTR - https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TWTR

 

[Brian4Liberty]

“There is no honor in resisting ‘outside pressure’, just to pat ourselves on the back for being ‘impartial,'” Twitter engineer Marina Zhao replied, adding: “Twitter does not exist in a vacuum, and it is wrong to ignore the serious real-world harm, and to equate that with political viewpoints.”

She wants a left-wing safe space, and to destroy her perceived enemies.

 

[donnay]

Put 'em out of business!

 

[EBounding]

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

From another thread:

Interesting question. A question that can not be easily answered with platitudes.

My opinion is best summed-up in my sig:

“Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex."

Big brother is a complex. It can not be defined by simple terms like “government” or “private business”.

There are several natural reasons for the complex to develop in this way. The first is graft and corruption. It is much more profitable to engage in graft via outsourcing government activities to corporations and businesses. It is relatively difficult for elected politicians and government bureaucrats to engage in money skimming while in office. But as a government contractor, the profits are almost endless.

Number two is the fact that outsourced government corporatism is a loophole to bypass constitutional restrictions on government. This would be the main point of the current controversy about various forms of internet censorship.

And finally, size and scope would be a limiting factor without a distributed structure. Government as a single, centrally controlled, hierarchical entity could not possibly effectively do what is being done now. It has to be decentralized, with some incentives to innovate and invent. New companies and technology can be absorbed when they reach a critical mass and join the complex via contracts and regulation.

 

[timosman]

She wants a left-wing safe space, and to destroy her perceived enemies.

A permanently offended commie nutcase.

 

[dannno]

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

In addition to what Brian said, there is this legal argument at 1:45




The idea is that the social media giants have escaped legal liability for the content of their platform by saying that they don't exercise editorial restrictions over their content. They have guidelines and rules, but that's it.

So a newspaper can be sued for slander if one of their writers slanders someone, but your niece can't sue facebook because your your grandma slandered her on facebook.

If you have a case like Sarah Jeong from the NYT who tweets out racist tweets against white people and doesn't get banned, her tweets don't get deleted, etc.. and then you have Candace Owens who makes the same tweets but replaces "white" with "black" and then gets banned, even though she specified she was just making the same tweets Jeong did (Candace Owens is black) and we have enough of these cases (we do) then we can surmise that these companies are banning people for their political content as opposed to banning them for breaking the rules. Thus they are maintaining editorial control over the content and under current law the courts would say they would be liable for what users post.. This makes owning a social media company untenable.

Now, should it be that way? Probably not.. But what that means is that if I started a social media company with a clear conservative bias, my company could be sued if we maintained editorial control over the content. So it's important to treat these big leftist companies the way you would treat their smaller competition until the laws are changed.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

One of the interesting things about all of this hullabaloo is how the left has now gone totally pro-corporate. Corporations used to have an image of stodgy, conservative capitalists in suits. Now they bow to the progressive party line and are often run by progressives, social media conglomerates especially. Now big tech is leftoid approved! What a relief. I know I feel safer.

 

[William Tell]

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

They are taking it beyond their own website.

Harvey noted that Twitter also plans to evaluate whether the company needs to better police “off-platform behavior.”

 

[VIDEODROME]

Isn't Twitter as a private company free to filter content on its own website? How does this have anything to do with freedom of speech?

Yeah I thought this place was all about the Free Market.

 

[specsaregood]

Yeah I thought this place was all about the Free Market.

��

please point out the many people here arguing for the govt to step in and stop them via laws?

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Gavin McInnes was just banned from Twitter, so was the official Proud Boys account..

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Interesting. And yet Spencer and the actual alt-right are still on Twitter....

 

[timosman]

Interesting. And yet Spencer and the actual alt-right are still on Twitter....

It seems pointing out hypocrisy of the left is a no-no.

 

[eleganz]

SJW millennials employees call this corporate democratization. Ultimately, they would like to vote in their own bosses and company policies, compensations, etc...

 

[timosman]

SJW millennials employees call this corporate democratization. Ultimately, they would like to vote in their own bosses and company policies, compensations, etc...

Whatever it takes to keep your job. You can't be too enthusiastic about the company policies.