↵

Twitter to remove 'like' tool in a bid to improve the quality of debate(telegraph.co.uk)

over 4 years ago from John Doe

  • Tony GinesTony Gines, over 4 years ago

    Likes?

    Twitter should look at removing users that are fueling hate. Having a social media presence should be a privilege, not a right. They need to take a hard, long look inwards and figure out what role they have in promoting hate-speech and violence.

    9 points
    • John Doe, over 4 years ago

      They're just providing a free channel for everyone to say whatever they want. I agree 100% that it can be dangerous and removing likes isn't doing anything to stop it... I found this decision really odd, to say the least.

      1 point
      • Ken Em, over 4 years ago

        "They're just providing a free channel for everyone to say whatever they want."

        Right, but that's not free from consequences.

        1 point
    • Nic TrentNic Trent, over 4 years ago

      Freedom of speech is a human right and with social media becoming a more prominent way of how we communicate as a species, censorship is a dangerous pathway to go down.

      I wonder how much of this idea was influenced by Kanye. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/09/kanye-west-is-right-about-social-media-follower-counts.html

      1 point
      • Ken Em, over 4 years ago

        Freedom of speech is indeed a right. Being a user of a social media platform is a privilege though. And that privilege can be revoked.

        5 points
        • Account deleted over 4 years ago

          Why is this getting downvoted? He's right. A private company has every right not to let you on their platform.

          2 points
        • Nic TrentNic Trent, over 4 years ago

          I agree that cyberbullying users should be banned if possible. But as far as specific groups with bad ideas, should discourse of polarizing/disagreeable/wrong ideas take place in public forums or fester in dark corners? Perhaps there are arguments for both, but I believe an open dialogue is healthiest for society.

          1 point
    • Account deleted over 4 years ago

      That's a very idealistic approach that completely fails to take into account several issues, such as what and who defines what hate speech is and where do you draw the line, among other things, and the implications both philosophical, political and financial that would result in doing this.

      3 points
      • Marc EdwardsMarc Edwards, over 4 years ago

        It’s not that difficult. There’s only two concerns: 1. What’s legal. 2. The private company that owns the service you’re posting.

        The line isn’t that hard to draw. The financial implications will take care of themselves, if Twitter continues to fail to act. Anyone who’s run a community likely knows that letting this stuff fester does not end well.

        1 point
        • Account deleted over 4 years ago

          But that's the thing - They have acted, and clearly their 'line' is different to your 'line' which is where the problem lies. Everyone has different tolerances for this kind of stuff and it's extremely difficult to get a happy middle ground of both free speech and a nice community because of that.

          2 points
          • Marc EdwardsMarc Edwards, over 4 years ago

            Their line is objectively wrong, and they are risking the future of their business as a result.

            1 point
            • Account deleted over 4 years ago

              Genuine question: Could you please explain how it is objectively wrong?

              0 points
              • Marc EdwardsMarc Edwards, over 4 years ago

                I could try, but I think this article does a better job than I could: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376

                1 point
                • Account deleted over 4 years ago

                  That article contradicts your point.

                  "To withdraw those protections from those who would destroy it does not violate its moral principles; it is fundamental to them, because without this enforcement, the treaty would collapse. It is appropriate, even ethical, to answer force with proportional force"

                  That's what I'm saying - twitter's proportional force aligns with what they want to do, which is different from what you want to do, so by definition it isn't objective at all.

                  -1 points
    • Jonathon HalliwellJonathon Halliwell, over 4 years ago

      Yes Tony Gines, several large tech oligarchies should be able to decide what people can or cannot say on their totally private and independent platforms influenced in no way by their own internal political persuasions.

      Good grief

      -1 points
    • John PJohn P, over 4 years ago

      Twitter should look at removing users that are fueling hate

      Journalists?

      1 point
      • Ken Em, over 4 years ago

        Which specific journalists are fueling hate? (I know which ones are, but I'm curious what your answer is.)

        0 points
        • John PJohn P, over 4 years ago

          DN isn't the right place for me to name and shame but let me just say it would probably take less time to name the ones who are not rather than the ones who are.

          The whole journo and bluecheck sphere of twitter is honestly most of the people turning it into an awful place to go.

          -2 points
    • Jared KrauseJared Krause, over 4 years ago

      There's a block button for a reason. Use it.

      1 point