LRT: One of the problems with Twitter moderation - and I'm not suggesting this is an innocent cause that is accidentally enabling abuse, but rather that it's a feature, from their point of view - is that the reporting categories available for us do not match up to the rules.

Now, Twitter's actual policy is that wishes or hopes for death or harm are the same as threats. That policy has been in place for years. But there's no report category for hoping someone dies. You can only report it as a threat.
Which gives the moderator, who doesn't spend long on any individual tweet, mental leeway to go, "Well, there's no threat here." and hit the button for "no violation found".
They have a rule that says persistent misgendering or other dehumanizing language is not tolerated, but again - there is no reporting category for that. We have to report it as hate against a group.
So again, the moderator looks at that tweet, briefly in isolation, and sees what, without context, might look neutral or matter of fact. A series of tweets referring to somebody consistently by the same set of pronouns or a statement that somebody is a man or woman.
I've said this before, but having a rule against misgendering or otherwise dehumanizing trans people and not enforcing it is worse than having no rule.

Because the rule's existence creates the impression that we have protections we don't.
So the people who dehumanize, misgender, and wish death upon us get the best of both worlds - they can freely do it over and over again while proclaiming themselves censored martyrs to free speech. They can use the "power" our supposed "protected status" gives us to foment hate.
There rules, their reporting tools, and their rulings all ultimately feel like they are each created/run by a different group of people who not only don't agree but haven't communicated with each other about what they're doing.
But again, that makes it sound like it's an innocent, well-intentioned mess and even if at one point it started out that way (and I'm not saying that it did, I'm saying *if*) at this point it's been going on so long and has been pointed out to them so many times, it's deliberate.
It is a deliberate choice to keep running their system this way.

Meanwhile, people who aren't acting in good faith can, will, and DO game the automated aspects of the system to suppress and harm their targets.
They can run coordinated and/or bot-assisted mass reporting campaigns to make sure their complaints get escalated or the system automatically steps in and locks accounts.
Another side of this is that, for peoples who have historically been targeted for death, there are all sorts of references that are ready-made for making EXPLICIT DEATH THREATS that to an untrained moderator looking at a tweet in isolation, might just seem like absurdism.
E.g., references to ways people died or had their corpses abused in the Holocaust, in slavery or Jim Crow America. References to lynching, to atomic bombings, to drone strikes.
And then, then we come to the fact that the people making the moderation decisions are making decisions, even on the stuff that "will not be tolerated".

A death threat is not supposed to be allowed on here even if it's a joke. That's Twitter's premise, not mine.
But a sizable chunk of Twitter's moderation pool has a hard time looking at, say, a straight white man threatening violence upon a woman, a gay person, a trans person, etc., and seeing it as serious. It's like background radiation. It's always there. Not alarming.
But anger, even without an explicit threat, from those groups directed against more powerful ones... that's alarming to the same people.
It's the Joker Principle. I know we're all sick of pop culture exegesis but I just can't let go of this one: "Nobody panics when things go according to plan."

A guy going "Haha get raped." is part of the plan. It's normal.

His target replying "FUCK OFF" is not. It's radical.
Things that strike the moderator as unusual, as radical, as alarming are more likely to get moderated.

Things that strike the moderator as "That's just how it is on this bitch of an earth." get a pass.
Helicopter rides. A trip to the lampshade factory.

And then the ultra-modern ones like "Banned from Minecraft in real life."

https://t.co/5xdHZmqLmM
And needless to say, all of this "confusion" and subjectivity in what are supposedly objective, zero tolerance rules that apply to everybody... they give people who *want* to protect and promote fascism and violence through moderation a lot of cover.

More from 12 Foot Tall Giant Alexandra Erin

More from Social media

As we wait for the transition of power from despot to democrat, Facebook (Zuckerberg) has taken it upon itself to aid in the obstruction of that power transfer, facilitation of an insurrection narrative and disregard for the will of the American electorate.


In other words, the Social Media monopoly Facebook commands globally has gone full fascist in an attempt to preserve the corrupt and criminal hold on power by Republicans and Trump Administration.

Aiding and abetting a coup d’état.

As if there weren’t enough other reasons to dismantle Facebook’s monopoly, Zuckerberg is playing his cards and revealing clearly that Cambridge Analytica election interference was not just a onetime anomaly, but is now a feature of Facebook’s business model.

Megalomaniac Marc has now revealed the true colours of Fascist Facebook.

Facebook is a weapon to manipulate the masses. A tool to carry out disinformation campaigns with impunity.

And the response of the left... is to delete their Facebook account.

As if the deletion of a Facebook account will do anything. It might send a message that your virtues are principled, your morality superior. But it enables the weapon to be continued to gaslight and manipulate the electorate.

An inherent flaw in the left’s critical thinking.
So let's check in on "Newsguard," one of the Orwellian groups (e.g., The Atlantic Council) that totally reliable sites like @voxdotcom and @axios use to decide what is "Unreliable" and "fight disinformation."

One example:

OK, so "The Daily Wire" and "
https://t.co/oEa89coNak" are unreliable. Fair enough, maybe they are (I don't use either one of them).

So let's look into one of our new official arbiters of "reliability," Newsguard!

What's their advisory board look like?

https://t.co/5N8op70VE1


OK, so maybe a few names jumped out at you immediately, like, oh I don't know, (Ret.) General Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA AND former Director of the National Security Agency in the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003! Google him, he's famous!


Newsguard is all about "seeing who's behind each site," (like how Michael Hayden is behind Newsguard?)

All they want to do is fight "misinformation." That's laudable, right?

Also, Newsguard has a "24/7 rapid response SWAT TEAM!!"

So cool!
https://t.co/EDN3UXvBR9


Ok, I'm not a journalist or a former CIA director, so I have no idea what's true or not unless someone tells me, so hey, Columbia Journalism Review - what do you think of Newsguard Advisory Board Member Michael Hayden?

You May Also Like

"I really want to break into Product Management"

make products.

"If only someone would tell me how I can get a startup to notice me."

Make Products.

"I guess it's impossible and I'll never break into the industry."

MAKE PRODUCTS.

Courtesy of @edbrisson's wonderful thread on breaking into comics –
https://t.co/TgNblNSCBj – here is why the same applies to Product Management, too.


There is no better way of learning the craft of product, or proving your potential to employers, than just doing it.

You do not need anybody's permission. We don't have diplomas, nor doctorates. We can barely agree on a single standard of what a Product Manager is supposed to do.

But – there is at least one blindingly obvious industry consensus – a Product Manager makes Products.

And they don't need to be kept at the exact right temperature, given endless resource, or carefully protected in order to do this.

They find their own way.
दधीचि ऋषि को मनाही थी कि वह अश्विनी कुमारों को किसी भी अवस्था में ब्रह्मविद्या का उपदेश नहीं दें। ये आदेश देवराज इन्द्र का था।वह नहीं चाहते थे कि उनके सिंहासन को प्रत्यक्ष या परोक्ष रुप से कोई भी खतरा हो।मगर जब अश्विनी कुमारों ने सहृदय प्रार्थना की तो महर्षि सहर्ष मान गए।


और उन्होनें ब्रह्मविद्या का ज्ञान अश्विनि कुमारों को दे दिया। गुप्तचरों के माध्यम से जब खबर इन्द्रदेव तक पहुंची तो वे क्रोध में खड़ग ले कर गए और महर्षि दधीचि का सर धड़ से अलग कर दिया।मगर अश्विनी कुमार भी कहां चुप बैठने वाले थे।उन्होने तुरंत एक अश्व का सिर महर्षि के धड़ पे...


...प्रत्यारोपित कर उन्हें जीवित रख लिया।उस दिन के पश्चात महर्षि दधीचि अश्वशिरा भी कहलाए जाने लगे।अब आगे सुनिये की किस प्रकार महर्षि दधीचि का सर काटने वाले इन्द्र कैसे अपनी रक्षा हेतु उनके आगे गिड़गिड़ाए ।

एक बार देवराज इन्द्र अपनी सभा में बैठे थे, तो उन्हे खुद पर अभिमान हो आया।


वे सोचने लगे कि हम तीनों लोकों के स्वामी हैं। ब्राह्मण हमें यज्ञ में आहुति देते हैं और हमारी उपासना करते हैं। फिर हम सामान्य ब्राह्मण बृहस्पति से क्यों डरते हैं ?उनके आने पर क्यों खड़े हो जाते हैं?वे तो हमारी जीविका से पलते हैं। देवर्षि बृहस्पति देवताओं के गुरु थे।

अभिमान के कारण ऋषि बृहस्पति के पधारने पर न तो इन्द्र ही खड़े हुए और न ही अन्य देवों को खड़े होने दिया।देवगुरु बृहस्पति इन्द्र का ये कठोर दुर्व्यवहार देख कर चुप चाप वहां से लौट गए।कुछ देर पश्चात जब देवराज का मद उतरा तो उन्हे अपनी गलती का एहसास हुआ।