Comments
big-red-aus t1_jdqjd7q wrote
Without seeing the actual correspondence/details, you have to imagine that Twitters legal position of pretending that they don't have to care about Australia/Queensland law is pretty damn weak, based on the pretty decent precedent that has been established.
Perhaps they will pull out of Australia all together, can't imagine that we are contributing a particularly large chunk of advertising dollars nowadays.
[deleted] t1_jdqjouf wrote
[deleted]
GiantRiverSquid t1_jdqm08g wrote
I don't think that guy has the self control to pull out
NoNamesAtAllForever t1_jdqnhoh wrote
I think he will need a fire extinguisher after that. Take an upvote.
BarCompetitive7220 t1_jdqodsv wrote
Twitter is arguing against himself...and loses, oh my
[deleted] t1_jdqqcrm wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdqyxnf wrote
[removed]
bettinafairchild t1_jdr121h wrote
9 kids? Lectures about depopulation? Yeah.
gmo_patrol t1_jdr2ysi wrote
Hate content has increased exponentially since musk took over. Musk even promotes it himself by spreading misinformation.
[deleted] t1_jdr6k4a wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdr6km7 wrote
[removed]
Outlulz t1_jdr8cjk wrote
And as the article points out, Musk himself said Twitter should run according to the laws and not just the values of a small number of people in a certain geographic area.
Now, by that he meant conservatives shouldn’t be banned for calling people slurs just because people in Silicon Valley don’t like it. But now the court get to use his words to justify why Twitter should be subject to Australia’s laws and not just Delaware’s.
Xaxxon t1_jdrcoja wrote
"this tweet cannot be seen from your location. Please use a VPN to bypass this restriction"
[deleted] t1_jdrcruz wrote
[deleted]
Leafybug13 t1_jdrf4dc wrote
I don't think anyone is contributing a particularly large chunk of advertising dollars nowadays.
joeysflipphone t1_jdrfmxa wrote
Twitter saw a nearly 500% increase in use of the N-word in the 12-hour window immediately following the shift of ownership to Musk. Within the following week, tweets including the word “Jew” had increased fivefold since before the ownership transfer.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/02/tech/twitter-hate-speech/index.html
Ande64 t1_jdrfs7j wrote
Dear Elon,
You are really, really, really, really, really bad at this......
[deleted] t1_jdrfz9x wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdrgddf wrote
[removed]
nsci2ece t1_jdrghmq wrote
Whatever one thinks of free speech laws, this is a sovereign country and to operate there, a company has to abide by their rules and regulations.
E.g. If you want to operate in Japan you must have Japanese language labeling on your products and if you have a problem with that, you have the freedom to simply not serve the Japanese market.
Don't agree with Australian hate speech laws? Don't operate in Australia. Simple as that.
Friendly reminder that Twitter's current owner is a huge fan of the mainland Chinese market btw.
[deleted] t1_jdrif33 wrote
[removed]
gmo_patrol t1_jdrlu7s wrote
Have you used Twitter? You can block musk and all the alt-right hate groups and they still promote them at the bottom.
[deleted] t1_jdrn8wz wrote
[removed]
defaultusername-17 t1_jdryyun wrote
maybe the fact that they had to make an explicit carve out for the TOS violations of liboftiktok... or the fact that it's nothing but a hate/misinformation account that has been directly linked to real world bomb and death threats...
Panzer1119 t1_jds3tz9 wrote
And how much of it is intentionally caused just to harm Elon?
lyan-cat t1_jds4ocd wrote
Wait, that's your excuse?!
So lame.
Panzer1119 t1_jds4zpz wrote
There are certainly people who do this, and as long as you can’t prove how much are "real" it’s inappropriate to just say the platform got worse because Elon took over.
firehawk_hx t1_jds6md2 wrote
lmao dude really just went “false flag!?!” like Elon himself doesn’t post bigoted and transphobic shit on his personal account 😂
BlainWs t1_jds85bl wrote
But it did, whether or not it was false flag, there was a verifiable increase in the usage of hate words after he took over.
That's a fact.
janeohmy t1_jds8ptr wrote
If you try to do this in a Muslim country (take the entire Islamic countries to court for publishing hateful and discriminatory things about women's rights, LGBT, children, violation of free speech), they would laugh at you in your face and some radical group would end up beheading you.
It's amazing how Reddit itself seems to baby Islam (I'm talking about the religion itself and not the "nice people" part of the religion) when Islam has consistently shat on human rights in more ways than any other group in the modern world. Forget Roe v Wade, forget Pride, forget child marriage laws, and forget any talks about Free Speech.
No_Character_8662 t1_jds9kuz wrote
How does taking an entire Islamic country to court in a muslim county (?) have anything to do with Twitter violating the law of a country it operates on?
Panzer1119 t1_jdsa8ja wrote
Yes, but correlation isn’t causation, and some people try to blame it all on Elon.
janeohmy t1_jdsayu1 wrote
Figure of speech. Islamic countries violating human rights to be taken to the global human court (which of course doesn't exist). But you can refer to Islamic individuals operating in Free Speech countries violating protections of Free Speech and modern human rights protections (see UK, France, US, AU, and so on)
[deleted] t1_jdsazte wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdsb1vk wrote
[removed]
Rich1926 t1_jdsc8dr wrote
Relevant. This morning I saw a tweet by WWE interviewer Kayla Braxton(part black) post that she's leaving twitter, after twitter told her that the person she reported did nothing wrong. Someone apparently said that her father was a gorilla.
​
However.. many replies under her tweet about it showed screenshots of fans who also reported it but their screenshots show twitter banned the person. I was going to link the Kayla tweet but her account is down now...so I got an article.
​
wambulance25 t1_jdsez33 wrote
If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike
Jonteponte71 t1_jdsfnt0 wrote
In Sweden, we now have an actual Islamic political party that, amongst other nice things want to make it illegal to say bad things about their religion. They did not get any seats in parliament this time, but they got way more votes than any serious analyst thought they would. In four years , they will take seats at the local level. Some areas of larger cities are 80-90% immigrant, and the absolute majority of those are actively Muslim. So that is a given by now.
The irony of it all is that Sweden is one of the most non-religious countries in the world. And has been for decades. The (christian protestant) church and the state have been separated since 2000. Now the Islamists want to undo all of that.
Fun and games!
[deleted] t1_jdshncg wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdspr74 wrote
[removed]
Cult_ureS t1_jdsrcw2 wrote
Apparently some people try to blame it on anyone but Elon.
But sure, get us that magical unicorn data that differentiates between who was being honest in their usage of nggr and j*w who wasn't. So we can look through it. I'll wait.
Panzer1119 t1_jdsrj75 wrote
Which wouldn’t be wrong, or did Elon write all these Messages himself?
Even if he is the reason for everything bad, other people are the ones that write these bad messages.
Cult_ureS t1_jdsroy5 wrote
If there were keyword filters that he ordered removed, then yes, it's his fault.
Panzer1119 t1_jdsru04 wrote
But only indirectly.
Cult_ureS t1_jdss58a wrote
You're proving my point, NaziTank.
Panzer1119 t1_jdsvbmn wrote
Ah, so when you run out of arguments, you resort to an ad hominem?
stutte t1_jdt1i0z wrote
Its not an ad hom, your user name is literally the name of a Nazi Tank.
eosh t1_jdt1n35 wrote
Yes but that was supposed to be only a dog whistle seen by other fascists
[deleted] t1_jdt2ifo wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdtau7a wrote
[removed]
TipTapTips t1_jdtlyix wrote
I don't think the guy knows how to even put it in though: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexzhavoronkov/2022/07/27/elon-musk-and-other-billionaires-make-their-babies-via-ivf-and-surrogatesis-it-a-future-of-reproduction/?sh=692c82e81cf0
Candlelight_Fantasia t1_jdtppea wrote
It's the one we've been living in for quite a while now...
[deleted] t1_jdtrnz4 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdtscf0 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdtsg55 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdtt4dc wrote
[removed]
Cult_ureS t1_jdtubv3 wrote
Hezbollah1119: But since when are Gods exclusively for militant Islamists? "Hezbollah" is literally just "Party of God" in Lebanese. There are so many different Gods and parties in the world…
No_more_hiding t1_jdtv90l wrote
So you're saying Elon is powerless to stop it? Pretty pathetic way to run a company if you can't even moderate the huge surge in hate speech on your own platform.
[deleted] t1_jdu2sua wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdu6phb wrote
[removed]
PedroEglasias t1_jdu6uz3 wrote
Seems like a scary precedent to say that all websites/apps and their users are subject to laws in every jurisdiction in which those websites are available publicly.
Would the executives at Twitter have to be afraid to fly into China cause users have posted Tweets about Xi looking like Winnie the Pooh? Should I be afraid to fly into China because I just made that comment?
raizhassan t1_jdualog wrote
Scary precendent or something that literally happens all the time. Twitter executives don't have to worry about China because twitter is banned in China.
PedroEglasias t1_jdub66b wrote
OK bad example, let's say users post jokes about the King of Thailand
Although technically even though it's banned China could still accuse them of propaganda to disparage a head of state
Panzer1119 t1_jduu45y wrote
Yeah if that’s true, what’s the problem?
Or do you consider every God, people claim there is, as evil?
Are the Tanks defending the Ukraine evil?
Panzer1119 t1_jduue11 wrote
No, there is a limit to what is disproportionate.
People murder each other every day, yet the governments, where murder is illegal, can’t cope with it or what?
No, because it would require so much intervention (censoring) to stop it completely, that it’s better to let some people do it.
[deleted] t1_jduwx0t wrote
[removed]
TomcatZ06 t1_jdv0xw4 wrote
No_more_hiding t1_jdv939m wrote
So Elon thinks a 500% increase in hate speech is proportionate.....I think you've hit the nail on the head there. It's a deliberate act by him.
Panzer1119 t1_jdva65c wrote
The problem are the people who think this increase would be a problem.
No_more_hiding t1_jdvbsx1 wrote
What kind of person thinks it's not a problem? Hateful people. Crikey, there's no reasoning with broken human beings with no moral compass.
GetsHighDoesMath t1_jdve0lv wrote
This thread has gone very poorly for you and elmo
Panzer1119 t1_jdvfm42 wrote
Because the people writing that stuff didn’t begin to think that way just because Elon took over Twitter.
They are real people with real concerns or just hate. Just censoring them won’t help, it makes them even more angry.
No_more_hiding t1_jdvp470 wrote
No, it inflames and normalises hate. It makes it seem acceptable. Just read any history about normalised hate speech and what happens. Read about how to deal with anger - if you feed the wolf it grows. But presumably you are not in one of the minorities that this hate is directed towards, so you think it's ok and don't feel threatened, and empathy is not your strong point
Panzer1119 t1_jdvq8nf wrote
You don’t have to be in no minority to not feel threatened.
That’s like the take "if you aren’t a women you don’t know much about female bodies".
No, a man, that studied the human anatomy for decades, probably knows much more about the (female) human body than an average woman.
Ponk2k t1_jdvqq6r wrote
The fact that the moderation team got shredded by him it's a good guess it's causation
Panzer1119 t1_jdvqzn7 wrote
Yes, but how much of it?
It is definitely a reason for it, but it’s also true that there are people who hate him and who might take part in spreading more hate on Twitter just to harm him by increasing the statistics for hate speech.
Ponk2k t1_jdvrhxv wrote
I'm sure there's trolls in there but loads who don't like him just left. Throw in the fact that he unbanned some heinous shits who just love themselves some racism and gutted moderation you're really reaching to not blame him.
Panzer1119 t1_jdvrzhu wrote
Personally, I don’t need to justify what he does, i can just accept it and don’t care that it allegedly is bad.
But I don’t want to see people ignoring the fact that he isn’t at fault for 100% of the bad things that happen.
Ponk2k t1_jdvt0ye wrote
I think it's well established that his personally driven changes have been horrific for the platform. That's not some conspiracy nonsense, that's cold hard fact.
He's made himself the platform, therefore it is his fault.
Advertisers have list confidence and it's generally regarded as a laughing stock. They'll be teaching this as a cautionary tale in buisness schools for decades.
No_more_hiding t1_jdvtk5f wrote
That doesn't make sense at all. You can know things on an academic level, but you will never know exactly what something feels like. I'm a woman and I know it hurts to be kicked in the balls but I don't know exactly what it feels like, likewise a man won't know exactly what having a period or giving birth feels like.
However some of us have empathy, but you clearly don't because you can't even imagine how it feels to have rising hate and calls for death and violence towards you because of a certain characteristic outside of your control.
Panzer1119 t1_jdvv8vr wrote
But I wasn’t talking about feelings, just knowledge.
It’s even the opposite, I can imagine the rising hate and violence of certain things outside of my control, because the cancel culture is something like this.
It’s outside of my control and it feels like hate against people who don’t support everything they say or do.
And it’s not just an exaggeration, my depression is partly due to the rising probability of "being canceled" for stuff that was misunderstood or that was arbitrarily or wrongly deemed bad.
lordreed t1_jdw1d4y wrote
>it’s better to let some people do it.
No government, not even the Vatican a nation of priests, has the tools to completely stop murders from occurring even if they wanted to. Unlike moderating an Internet platform, which clearly has the tools to reduce hate speech.
No_more_hiding t1_jdw2ed2 wrote
I think you need to look up the definition of hate speech and examples of it. It's not saying something that could be misunderstood. It's saying something extremely blatant, hateful and often calls for violence. I'm not going to give examples because I don't want to be banned!
Your worries about cancel culture are disproportionate. Those people who are supposedly cancelled are usually still in the public eye, still spouting their views freely, but play the victim. Perhaps therapy would help if it's giving you depression to get reassurance that the things you're no likely reading online are not in actual fact happening.
Panzer1119 t1_jdwaxgu wrote
I wasn’t talking about hate speech, but the accusation of not having empathy or that I couldn’t imagine how it feels having rising hate.
There are indeed "cancel culture things" happening, I already experienced some, at least e.g. downvotes etc.
Or people that assume things about you that either aren’t true, way too exaggerated or couldn’t be known by them without direct proof (like for example the accusation of having no empathy).
Panzer1119 t1_jdwblqu wrote
Yes, some have those tools. They even form the basis of some global fear.
Nuclear Weapons.
No more people means no more murderers happening?
I just wanted to show that some means aren’t appropriate or are too serious interference with fundamental rights.
lordreed t1_jdwe3nz wrote
That is not a of serious suggestion or else you don't need nuclear bombs to accomplish it. Also it would only make sense in this context if the suggestion for fixing Twitter was to end the service all together. I am not sure why you are so set against the content moderation that so obviously working before the Musk takeover of Twitter.
No_more_hiding t1_jdwn3jp wrote
If you think hate speech is acceptable and are defending it, you have a seriously questionable understanding of empathy.
If you have depression because of downvotes and are afraid it means you're being cancelled, then you should look at getting some help with that.
big-red-aus t1_jdx9z3e wrote
Where jurisdictions end is a bit of a tricky question, that in many cases in terms of online content is a bit murky at the edges.
From the Australian context, all the cases have been against big multinationals that have local subsidiaries, actively engage users based on geography (i.e. trending in Australia), have servers in Australia and actively court both Australian users and advertisers. Twitter, pending details of how much it has cut back under Musk, hits pretty much all of these, so in this context it's not so much as the content just being available, but instead the company clearly operating in Australia.
On the other hand, the US has at times taken a pretty extreme view of where their jurisdiction extends to i.e. if your Australian based online shop ships 1 item to the US, you are under US law.
Publishing this internationally is a tricky business, and while online business got away with a couple of decades of just pretending that laws don't matter to them, the reality is that if you are going to operate in a country/jurisdiction, you need to follow their laws or risk legal consequences, especially if they then go put themselves in the jurisdiction in person.
If the executives are worried about this, as far as I'm aware most courts are happy to count basic region IP blocking as sufficient as making the effort to not be operating in country.
jwm3 t1_jdxvpr0 wrote
That's a really well written article. Thanks!
[deleted] t1_jdzkite wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jdqf1du wrote
[removed]