Curious what (unacceptable) lines has Twitter crossed as of now

[Kerebron]

His feet must look like swiss cheese by now.

[Mæstro]

The late changes to Twitter have caused almost all Nitter instances to fail. The few which still work are struggling under the load and have themselves been rate-limited. I have used Nitter for years as a proxy to view some Japanese aritsts I like. (Curiously, one had been shadowbanned for a month and a half, shortly before this had happened.) I can access their art elsewhere, so this is not too grave, but I like sometimes reading their (translated) comments and dialogues with fans. Would anyone have advice for how to mitigate this while waiting some weeks for Nitter’s developers to tell whether this problem will linger?

[Sob__]

As written there, https://syndication.twitter.com/srv/timeline-profile/screen-name/<username> worked for a while (but only showed few latest tweets and not the full long ones). Then it didn't work at all (there was some error message). Now it's hit and miss (mostly the latter, it says that there are no tweets). The whole thing is slighly annoying. I might perhaps consider registering an account, but doing that AND having to use their official interface, which doesn't work great in PM (overscripted slooow), I'm not ready for that.

[lucas_jooj]

and very soon TweetDeck will be accessible for Twitter Blue users only

[frostknight]

Never used twitter before and the more time that passes the more I am glad.

Ironically, I used to detest facebook more, due to their willingness to allow people to spread lies and hate without consequences. but ever since elon took over twitter, they are pretty much on par with each other at the least if not twitter being worse.

Although, I did enjoy the blue verified trolls.

I heard about him closing twitter off to non-users.

This very much defeats the purpose of what social media is though.

Btw, extremists on the left and the right both abuse free speech as if its hate speech. The only difference is, some get away with hate speech without much of any punishment at all. (right wingers)

communism is bad, but so is oligarchies and fascism. The other two are becoming way more prevelant...

I saw some posts in this thread about this stuff aka.

Btw, Moonchild, be glad you don't live in usa, extremist haters get away with a lot of bs.

My viewpoint is simple, ban all hate speech which I define as, at the minimal, all violent, threatening, flamewar starting messages are banned.

I would also say ban all disinformation, but knowing how corporations and governments are, they would abuse this to cause people to think they can lie through their teeth while truthtellers get autobanned.

I dislike liars of all kinds. Extremist anti-religion leftist trolls and right wing nutcases both disturb me and lie through their teeth about their motives. That's my take on that anyhow.

Hate speech is not supposed to be free speech and yet my country doesn't enforce this ideal. Sometimes it seems like the opposite is being enforced to be honest.

Btw, twitter, facebook and discord are notorious for this stuff, so its not too far off topic.

[moonbat]

Btw, extremists on the left and the right both abuse free speech as if its hate speech. The only difference is, some get away with hate speech without much of any punishment at all. (right wingers)

There is no such thing as 'hate' speech because there is no objective definition of the term, and history shows that it will simply creep up to be defined as 'any speech I disagree with'. Nobody is compelled to look at opinions they don't like. Twitter and Facebook both have always let you block accounts or hide posts, so use these features. The internet isn't a goddamn TV channel for you to act like you have zero agency over what content is available to you.

I would also say ban all disinformation

And who are the totally unbiased and enlightened saints who should get to decide on your behalf what you should be allowed to see?

[Pallid Planetoid]

^ +1 - hear hear, perfectly stated! - the road down imposed censorship has never ended well.

We must at all costs avoid handing over our freedom of thought and expression to any and all self-described arbiters of what defines "truth".

It is critical that we should never take the bait that it should be the responsibility of any one person or group at the exclusion of any other person or group -- to determine what we as a society might subjectively define as "reality".

Likewise, we should also never fall into the self-imposed trap (as we clearly have) that it should be the responsibility of any one person or group to take on the inherently impossible task of keeping all persons or groups from at all times feeling "uncomfortable". Buck-up people - you can take it!... Honestly, it is "natural" that any one person or group may or may not feel "uncomfortable" at any point in time as a result of any and all conclusions drawn by any one person or group - we should try to not be so thin-skinned, live with it.

The bottom line is that conclusions that will always be fundamentally subjective in nature should never be left to any one person or group to define.

[frostknight]

And who are the totally unbiased and enlightened saints who should get to decide on your behalf what you should be allowed to see?

Exactly, that's the problem and to be fair, in this world we live in, its impossible to ban all disinformation and hate speech.

This would very likely end up in doing the opposite of what is actually needed. This world is usually ruled by evil corrupt souls more often than not.

The degree to their evil varies from place to place, but in general, you understand my point I believe.

I wrote it in the same message you quoted me from.

I still am of the opinion hate speech means threatening people bodily harm or treating other people differently based on some insane concept such as color of your skin, gender, titles, etc...

For example, two people both commit crimes or break rules in a corporation, the one who is let's say "white" gets away with it and the one who is Asian gets punished.

That to me is a form of hate speech.

This all being said, its impossible to fix these problems completely. Its like a game of cat and mouse. You keep having to be vigilant to deal with the tyrants/abusers as they make their move.

There is no way to create world peace that wouldn't be a nightmare. There is an anime that very much makes this point, with the name being naruto shippuden.

I will show myself out for now...

[Moonchild]

For example, two people both commit crimes or break rules in a corporation, the one who is let's say "white" gets away with it and the one who is Asian gets punished.

That to me is a form of hate speech.

No, that's called discrimination.

Hate speech is the egregious use of harassing and threatening speech based on arbitrary properties but otherwise without merit. At least that is my understanding of the term.

[frostknight]

No, that's called discrimination.

Hate speech is the egregious use of harassing and threatening speech based on arbitrary properties but otherwise without merit. At least that is my understanding of the term.

discrimination in my opinion is a form of hate speech if nothing else.

It's a more subtle type though if nothing else.

That's at least my opinion. But yeah...

[THX-1139]

Hate speech is the egregious use of harassing and threatening speech based on arbitrary properties but otherwise without merit. At least that is my understanding of the term.

While this may be "the" definition of 'Hate Speech',the "without merit" is beyond ridiculous considering that the statement "Men can't give birth" (make babies) would be considered "Hate Speech".

[Pallid Planetoid]

discrimination in my opinion is a form of hate speech if nothing else.

In my opinion improper "discrimination" (i.e. a form of "racism") represents an "action" that is taken (i.e. a "behavior" as opposed to a form of "speech").

I use the word "improper" because that is the form of "discrimination" you're referencing.

To be sure, there can be both "proper" and "improper" discrimination.

In terms of "hate speech" as it relates to "discrimination", the reference to "hate" in combination with "speech" is what in general designates the difference between "improper discrimination" as opposed to valid or "proper discrimination" - an example of which, would be described as reaching a rational decision on the basis of a perceived improper association (i.e. discriminating as to whether or not it would be a "wise decision" to associate with an egregious "law breaker" for example).

This is where the term "merit" is meaningful that Moonchild referenced regarding the term "hate speech" which would in turn be applicable in my example above in so far as properly using discrimination with whom we choose to socialize based on perceived character would be considered a valid form of discrimination (i.e. "merited") as opposed to invalid (i.e. meritless") discrimination. And we should always bear in mind that our judgement either way may be incorrectly based on mistakenly invalid conclusions as well. And it's worth noting that a very critical factor in regards to reaching both honest and fair-minded conclusions should be based on the premise that those conclusions never be in any way arbitrary in order to seek proper validation (which I think to a large extent ties in with what Moonchild has expressed) - which is the crux of the matter in that this undefinable term "hate speech" will necessarily tend to always be inherently arbitrary in nature.

[Moonchild]

beyond ridiculous considering that the statement "Men can't give birth" (make babies) would be considered "Hate Speech".

You clearly didn't comprehend what I wrote in what way is that "harassing or threatening"?

[frostknight]

Well regardless, if people say something that causes a person to be punished, for instance, a judge pronounces sentence on someone knowing full well they are discriminating based on something completely illogical or irrelevant like skin color, that is both a behavior and words at the same time.

So I suppose if nothing else, discrimination may not be always hate speech, but it can be.

Either way, both hate speech and discrimination are still both extremely evil.

[BenFenner]

Either way, both hate speech and discrimination are still both extremely evil.

I can discriminate between a knife and a fork. Is that evil?
Maybe more relevant; I can discriminate between a tall person and a short person. Same for men and women. Same for left-handed and right-handed people. Is that evil? If I'm a scissor salesman and I give a left-handed person a pair of left-handed scissors to buy when asked for a pair, because I could discriminate between them and the right-handed person sitting next to them, that's extremely evil?

I would argue discrimination has gotten an unfair negative connotation. Especially discriminating between.

Maybe you're trying to talk about discriminating against? Still problematic in my opinion, as I am happy to discriminate against unethical people, people who wish to do me physical harm, etc. etc. and I guess that makes me or my actions extremely evil? Are you sure?

Being able to tell the difference between two things is not evil.
Being able to tell the difference between two things and acting against one of them is not inherently evil either, I would argue.

But this is just a pet peeve of mine. People misusing words they don't seem to understand.

[frostknight]

Either way, both hate speech and discrimination are still both extremely evil.

I can discriminate between a knife and a fork. Is that evil?
Maybe more relevant; I can discriminate between a tall person and a short person. Same for men and women. Same for left-handed and right-handed people. Is that evil? If I'm a scissor salesman and I give a left-handed person a pair of left-handed scissors to buy when asked for a pair, because I could discriminate between them and the right-handed person sitting next to them, that's extremely evil?

I would argue discrimination has gotten an unfair negative connotation. Especially discriminating between.

Maybe you're trying to talk about discriminating against? Still problematic in my opinion, as I am happy to discriminate against unethical people, people who wish to do me physical harm, etc. etc. and I guess that makes me or my actions extremely evil? Are you sure?

Actions are okay to judge by sometimes, things people have no power to control, such as how they were born are very often not reasonable.

Btw, your idea of discrimination is very bizarre to me.

Discrimination is not treating people differently when they want to be, it means that you are treating them differently when they DON'T want to be, its more of mainly about people in authority who abuse their power sometimes to mega extremes and even to make one group or person suffer for nothing. Such people should either stay out of power or expect to be condemned over their actions till they are forced to taste the dust they have fed to others, if that's what it takes.

I use dust here as a way to say suffering/pain or even utter despair depending on the severity of their actions.

This being said, I probably should have been more clear.

I had thought people would understand what I actually meant. But as with other things, much to my dismay, people prove to me that they don't understand more than I thought.

Not that I don't have that same capacity sometimes. Still, at some point, any patience I have will get worn out over this.

Off-topic:
Btw, as a last edit: I don't like it when people try to attribute good things as if they were evil and vice versa... that is a pet peeve of mine.

Not that its related to this part, but my point being, I detest liars who expect to be taken seriously when they are clearly trying to start fires by trolling the hell out of people.

I have a specific group in mind that I say this about, but given its about the topic of religion or more specifically anti-religion, I should probably say nothing much else.

[THX-1139]

Just to clear some things up: Had to go find a Somewhat reliable definition of H.S.-https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hate-speech?q=Hate+speech+++++++ "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.):"

TBH @Moonchild; I thought your definition was fine too, but granted I may have missed your intent
Heck, the way things are going in today's world, it's easy to be confused.

[frostknight]

Just to clear some things up: Had to go find a Somewhat reliable definition of H.S.-https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ate+speech+++++++ "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.):"

Off-topic:
For me there are only two groups that fit this bill, extremist far right and extremist anti-religious nuts who make up fake religions in order to insight anger from those they dislike.

Aka, satanists very much fit this bill.

If you use an enemy from a religious text such as the devil and then do foolish things like shouting heil satan and try to attribute good deeds to him and when people say bad things about satanists, people pretend to feel offended.. Its very obvious that a group with such a provocative group name did so, purely to aggravate and troll those they dislike. If that weren't the case they would have chosen a name that doesn't have to do with a name that symbolizes pure evil itself to so many people.

This is my viewpoint as to what I consider an anti-religious group.

This being said, other than that, I am very liberal on my beliefs.

Extremism causes many sorrows and nothing else, people should remember this.

wasn't going to bring this up, but I feel like I might as well given the post I responded to has such a context, meaning its a good segway for a response. Aka, its the best timing I could have for such a reply.

I could say more about the far right, but people know my viewpoints already I think here, so I will save it for elsewhere.

[Sob__]

Off-topic:

Off-topic:
... extremist anti-religious nuts who make up fake religions in order to insight anger from those they dislike.

Or could it be that traditional religions weren't always exactly nice to opposition and now it's coming back to them? What's the difference between real and fake religion anyway? Aside from the former having head start? Give it few thousand years and it's possible that Flying Spaghetti Monster will rule the world and other religions will be long dead.

[Mæstro]

Off-topic:
There is an obvious difference between parody religions and genuine ones. The former have no sincere observers, and are not intended to have any. A Briton who marks himself as Jedi in the census form does not actually believe in the Force as a Buddhist believes in karma, but is upset that his government is asking him about his faith. A Yankee who puts a strainer on his head for official business does not actually believe that it is a holy duty to dress like a buccaneer, but dislikes political factions his country who shroud themselves in piety. They are secular humanists who try to erode religious privileges in their countries’ law by exploiting them, or otherwise caricature something they hate, and it is obvious.