Any comment on what allowing everyone to DM people will do?
Yes, I know it’s opt-in, but isn’t it likely that people in the public-sphere will face criticism if they don’t?
Banning language intended to “promote violence against others” is long overdue.
Because banning bad language has a long history of success?
Actually, I’m excited about this for a different reason. I expect the false positives to be comedy gold!
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t being blissfully unaware of the abusive plots against your welfare be a tad worse than at least knowing it’s being discussed?
If it’s only going to block new accounts that have similar “threatening” language to the intial tweet(s) you blocked and reported, you’re already going to be aware of said plots, n’est-ce pas?
No ban on threats to free speech.
It’s just a ban on people wrapping themselves in the banner of free speech to justify being an asshole to other human beings.
Glad to see it, and long overdue IMO.
Oblig.
I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.
I can’t imagine they would anymore than they do for not giving out their personal email addresses.
No because threatening people over and over is the primary vehicle that the idiots on the net use to intimidate people. Very few do anything more but getting vile nasty threats over and over again is, itself, very wearing on people.
I’d expect it would be logged somewhere. Maybe an opt in to notifications when new accounts are automatically blocked?
Agreed that they have every right to put up these automatic filters that chill criticism, just like employers and governments have every right to put up automatic filters that inadvertently prevent people from talking about sex.
But just because they have the right to overstep and they are right most of the time doesn’t mean it’s always right.
Feel free to not use twitter in protest or demand your money back.
With massively popular platforms, being noisy is more effective than a boycott. (paraphrased, Rebecca MacKinnon, Consent of the networked)
I for one am waiting with a bag of metaphorical popcorn (I dislike the literal one) for the hilarious false positives that always result from automated attempts to enforce anything.
There is more to free speech than the first amendment. As we all know you need a printing press. It is in the public’s interest to demand that people who have the presses keep them as open and free as possible even if the law does not compel them to do so. Civics is more than just rule of law.
Or even if it is against the law in a given locality. The rulers love to limit access to such platforms.
Neither of you two have been on the end of a concerted campaign of harrassment, have you?
Did you live under a dictatorship, or even just a mild totalitarianism?
One word: samizdat.
