Re: [liberationtech] Where can I find the Twitter censorship handbook?

[Griffin Boyce]

  Have you tried contacting twitter support directly? In the first
instance, it's likely that you were reported by someone who saw it and took
offense to it.

  As for having tweets reported for spam, it could have been a competitor
(and that type of reporting is easy to automate). But the Twitter spam
algorithm could also have interpreted the [short tweet length + link +
popular hashtag] as being spam.

  From a merchant perspective, we kind of operate at her majesty's
pleasure.  By that I mean that social networks make the rules, enforce them
(or not), and our only real recourse is to move to another, less populated
social network.  I'd recommend talking to twitter support before totally
writing it off, but you might not get a resolution for the reasons
mentioned above.

Best,
Griffin Boyce
@abditum

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Uncle Zzzen  wrote:

> Warning for the politically-correct: this message contains the N-word. I
> believe it is in context :)


-- 
"I believe that usability is a security concern; systems that do
not pay close attention to the human interaction factors involved
risk failing to provide security by failing to attract users."
~Len Sassaman

PGP Key etc: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/User:Fontaine
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Where can I find the Twitter censorship handbook?

[John Adams]

I work there. Read the damn TOS.  Twitter -does not- censor or meditate
content.

https://support.twitter.com/articles/15794-abusive-behavior

and

https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules

It's a serious affront to all the work we've done to enable people to
freely communicate, and the number of times that we've gone to bat for
users,  to make posts like these.

-john


On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Griffin Boyce wrote:

>   Have you tried contacting twitter support directly? In the first
> instance, it's likely that you were reported by someone who saw it and took
> offense to it.
>
>   As for having tweets reported for spam, it could have been a competitor
> (and that type of reporting is easy to automate). But the Twitter spam
> algorithm could also have interpreted the [short tweet length + link +
> popular hashtag] as being spam.
>
>   From a merchant perspective, we kind of operate at her majesty's
> pleasure.  By that I mean that social networks make the rules, enforce them
> (or not), and our only real recourse is to move to another, less populated
> social network.  I'd recommend talking to twitter support before totally
> writing it off, but you might not get a resolution for the reasons
> mentioned above.
>
> Best,
> Griffin Boyce
> @abditum
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Uncle Zzzen  wrote:
>
>> Warning for the politically-correct: this message contains the N-word. I
>> believe it is in context :)
>
>
> --
> "I believe that usability is a security concern; systems that do
> not pay close attention to the human interaction factors involved
> risk failing to provide security by failing to attract users."
> ~Len Sassaman
>
> PGP Key etc: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/User:Fontaine
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Where can I find the Twitter censorship handbook?

[Uncle Zzzen]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Griffin Boyce wrote:

>   Have you tried contacting twitter support directly? In the first
> instance, it's likely that you were reported by someone who saw it and took
> offense to it.

I guess I should have, but now it's too late and I don't even have links to
those tweets.
I'll try to do this next time something like this happens


>
>   As for having tweets reported for spam,
>
Doh! I wasn't thinking of  that possibility. It would most certainly
explain the N-word incident

> it could have been a competitor (and that type of reporting is easy to
> automate). But the Twitter spam algorithm could also have interpreted the
> [short tweet length + link + popular hashtag] as being spam.
>
And I guess they wouldn't provide the "handbook" for this, so that spammers
don't adapt to it.
This is a perfect place to put political or commercial censorship patterns.
No one would ever know :)


>
>
>   From a merchant perspective, we kind of operate at her majesty's
> pleasure.  By that I mean that social networks make the rules, enforce them
> (or not), and our only real recourse is to move to another, less populated
> social network.
>
A bit off-topic: I think a large "cloud" of indenti.ca/osub communities
(e.g. run by NGOs, promoted by internet defense league or such) could
become "populated" (as a whole - not on a single server) pretty fast (if
the campaign catches) AND you can cross-post everything to your
twitter/facebook etc. via apps, so it would echo into the existing socnets
and promote migration.

 I'd recommend talking to twitter support before totally writing it off,
>
Like I said, I'll do it next time, while I still have the tweet's URL :)

> but you might not get a resolution for the reasons mentioned above.
>
 That's what bothers me the most. I think they should at least say why it
was hidden (e.g. "was flagged by 6 users" or "automatically identified as
spam"). If they can avoid answering THAT, it not only allows arbitrary
censorship but it's a simple consumer problem: "sometimes it doesn't work
and I don't know why", in other words - it's not a reliable service (an
insult in a language even executives can understand).
--
"Those Romans are crazy" -- Obelix
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Where can I find the Twitter censorship handbook?

[Griffin Boyce]

  I don't think that's censorship, but rather removing content that seems
to violate the terms of service.

~Griffin

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Uncle Zzzen  wrote:

>
>  That's what bothers me the most. I think they should at least say why it
> was hidden (e.g. "was flagged by 6 users" or "automatically identified as
> spam"). If they can avoid answering THAT, it not only allows arbitrary
> censorship but it's a simple consumer problem: "sometimes it doesn't work
> and I don't know why", in other words - it's not a reliable service (an
> insult in a language even executives can understand).
> --
> "Those Romans are crazy" -- Obelix
>
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Where can I find the Twitter censorship handbook?

[dan jones]

I am not intimately familiar all cases but I just want to acknowledge
the backbone that Twitter has had in defending the privacy of their
users in court. People like John at Twitter are fighting the good fight
for a free internet.

- Dan

> It's a serious affront to all the work we've done to enable people to
> freely communicate, and the number of times that we've gone to bat for
> users,  to make posts like these.
> 
> -john
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Griffin Boyce wrote:
> 
>>   Have you tried contacting twitter support directly? In the first
>> instance, it's likely that you were reported by someone who saw it and took
>> offense to it.
>>
>>   As for having tweets reported for spam, it could have been a competitor
>> (and that type of reporting is easy to automate). But the Twitter spam
>> algorithm could also have interpreted the [short tweet length + link +
>> popular hashtag] as being spam.
>>
>>   From a merchant perspective, we kind of operate at her majesty's
>> pleasure.  By that I mean that social networks make the rules, enforce them
>> (or not), and our only real recourse is to move to another, less populated
>> social network.  I'd recommend talking to twitter support before totally
>> writing it off, but you might not get a resolution for the reasons
>> mentioned above.
>>
>> Best,
>> Griffin Boyce
>> @abditum
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Uncle Zzzen  wrote:
>>
>>> Warning for the politically-correct: this message contains the N-word. I
>>> believe it is in context :)
>>
>>
>> --
>> "I believe that usability is a security concern; systems that do
>> not pay close attention to the human interaction factors involved
>> risk failing to provide security by failing to attract users."
>> ~Len Sassaman
>>
>> PGP Key etc: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/User:Fontaine
>>
>>
>> --
>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> 

--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Where can I find the Twitter censorship handbook?

[Uncle Zzzen]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:37 AM, John Adams  wrote:

> I work there. Read the damn TOS.  Twitter -does not- censor or meditate
> content.
>
> https://support.twitter.com/articles/15794-abusive-behavior
>
> and
>
> https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules
>
> Neither pages refer to the case where I've already tweeted something and
it got flagged.
I don't get informed when something was taken down, or have web interface
for finding out WHETHER a tweet was taken.
Even Youtube (not exactly "good guys" in my book) has all that, as well as
an explanation WHY something was taken down and GUI to contest the decision.



> It's a serious affront to all the work we've done to enable people to
> freely communicate, and the number of times that we've gone to bat for
> users,  to make posts like these.
>
That wasn't my intention, and I'm sorry if you were offended.
Nevertheless, as a black-box, twitter can't be distinguished from a
censored system (except for the TOS, of course) and if you don't add [at
least some of] the usability I mention above, you are still "guilty" of not
being able to prove you adhere to the TOS.

This is dangerous because no matter how nice you and your colleagues are,
this lack of transparency creates an implied power structure, nature abhors
vacuum, yada yada. You - as a person - are replaceable (best case scenario,
you'll retire when you get old).

Once again, no offense meant.

Peace,
The Dod
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Where can I find the Twitter censorship handbook?

[Jillian C. York]

Sounds like he might have blocked you.  I think that makes a lot more sense
than any of the other possibilities raised.

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Uncle Zzzen  wrote:

> Warning for the politically-correct: this message contains the N-word. I
> believe it is in context :)
>
> I'm sorry I didn't respond to this in time and I now don't have links to
> the tweets I mention, but I'm pretty sure other people on the list had
> similar experiences.
>
> In short: Twitter is excluding tweets by me and my friends based on
> arbitrary (until proven otherwise) criteria. Here are 2 incidents.
>
> 1) The N-word incident
> About a month ago, @MrChuckD ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_D )
> has tweeted that in his opinion, Twitter should censor tweets containing
> the N-word. Me and another friend (independently of each other) have
> replied.
> * I said something like "if you don't oppose censorship, you don't deserve
> to be called a nigger"
> * My friend said something like "and that's from someone who has a song
> called [I don't wanna be called] yo nigga"
> i.e. the n-word was "misspelled" in that case :)
>
> Note: The content of these tweets is not brought here in order to express
> or debate our opinions or style (we're both huge fans BTW), but to show
> what might have triggered censorship filters (if that is the case), and the
> actual semantics of the tweet.
>
> We were then IMing about this to each other, and found out that when
> looking at @MrChuckD's tweet (where all replies can be seen), none of us
> could see our tweets or each other's.
>
> 2) The Bitcoin incident
> A merchant friend has tweeted something as "we now accept #bitcoin [+ link
> to "buy" page]"
>
> Nobody (including the person who tweeted this) could see the tweet at the
> #bitcoin hash tag. #bitcoin seemed to be fairly active during that time and
> there were tweets within minutes (maybe even seconds) before and after that
> tweet.
>
> Now the first incident is alarming enough IMHO (I'm actively considering
> moving my "business" to the identi.ca/OSub world), but I could live
> without using the N-word (and half of my forking vocabulary) if there was a
> "Twitter Censorship Handbook" or "Newspeak Dictionary" I could consult
> (although from a usability perspective, I'd prefer getting a "please
> rephrase that" pop-up). But the second incident gives me the creeps:
> * What the fork WAS wrong with that tweet?
> * Maybe it's a bug?
> * Maybe twitter's filtering algorithm was hacked by competitors of that
> merchant?
> * Is there a way to contest such a decision (or even get an admission from
> twitter that a tweet of mine WAS blocked, and preferably why)?
>
> If twitter is a platform that is supposed to mobilize future "Arab
> Springs", we have a real problem here - because the alternative is facebook
> :)
>
> --
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>



-- 
US: +1-857-891-4244 | NL: +31-657086088
site:  jilliancyork.com * | *
twitter: @jilliancyork* *

"We must not be afraid of dreaming the seemingly impossible if we want the
seemingly impossible to become a reality" - *Vaclav Havel*
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Where can I find the Twitter censorship handbook?

[Uncle Zzzen]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Jillian C. York wrote:

> Sounds like he might have blocked you.  I think that makes a lot more
> sense than any of the other possibilities raised.
>

Maybe (although he didn't unfollow any of us), but that's not the case. I'm
not raising [consipracy] possibilities. I'm saying that the fact that this
is not transparent (even at the level of finding out WHETHER something was
blocked) is dangerous.

Also - in the other incident (the bitcoin one) there's no such explanation,
and I'm not "raising possibilities" that twitter has something against a
lowly merchant. Maybe it's a bug, maybe it's malicious flagging. The fact
that we don't KNOW scares me because of the implications of this in the
future.

I believe twitter are well meaning people, and wouldn't want to support
totalitarianism any more than the "founding fathers" of TCP/IP did (and as
we know - they were a bit sloppy in avoiding that), but it's a serious
problem and it should be addressed.
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Where can I find the Twitter censorship handbook?

[Brian Conley]

John,

So am I mistaken that Twitter "blocks" (and by blocks I mean does not allow
to be visible) certain content in certain countries, in accordance with
local regulation?

I'm not saying its right or wrong, but unless I'm mistaken about this, its
a bit melodramatic to get on your high horse about the "lack if censorship
or mediation" of tweets, which, if twitter filters tweets based on location
is just prima facie untrue.

I happen to completely understand why twitter does this and believe the
ability to "change your set location" in order to avoid the filtering is a
good workaround. That said, no need to be rude, dramatic, or misleading.

Brian
On Dec 15, 2012 4:38 AM, "John Adams"  wrote:

> I work there. Read the damn TOS.  Twitter -does not- censor or meditate
> content.
>
> https://support.twitter.com/articles/15794-abusive-behavior
>
> and
>
> https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules
>
> It's a serious affront to all the work we've done to enable people to
> freely communicate, and the number of times that we've gone to bat for
> users,  to make posts like these.
>
> -john
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Griffin Boyce wrote:
>
>>   Have you tried contacting twitter support directly? In the first
>> instance, it's likely that you were reported by someone who saw it and took
>> offense to it.
>>
>>   As for having tweets reported for spam, it could have been a competitor
>> (and that type of reporting is easy to automate). But the Twitter spam
>> algorithm could also have interpreted the [short tweet length + link +
>> popular hashtag] as being spam.
>>
>>   From a merchant perspective, we kind of operate at her majesty's
>> pleasure.  By that I mean that social networks make the rules, enforce them
>> (or not), and our only real recourse is to move to another, less populated
>> social network.  I'd recommend talking to twitter support before totally
>> writing it off, but you might not get a resolution for the reasons
>> mentioned above.
>>
>> Best,
>> Griffin Boyce
>> @abditum
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Uncle Zzzen wrote:
>>
>>> Warning for the politically-correct: this message contains the N-word. I
>>> believe it is in context :)
>>
>>
>> --
>> "I believe that usability is a security concern; systems that do
>> not pay close attention to the human interaction factors involved
>> risk failing to provide security by failing to attract users."
>> ~Len Sassaman
>>
>> PGP Key etc: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/User:Fontaine
>>
>>
>> --
>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Where can I find the Twitter censorship handbook?

[Julian Oliver]

Per-country censorship:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/twitter-censorship-policy-global-outrage_n_1238188.html

Trending topics:


http://blog.tweetsmarter.com/twitter-rules/twitter-admits-editing-offensive-trending-topics-plans-more/

Or not:


http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2012/01/27/twitter-isnt-censoring-you-your-government-is/

There was also this case of Twitter blocking an account with pro-Nazi sentiment:


http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57534798-93/report-twitter-bans-german-group-for-hate-speech/

Even if Twitter did 'censor' tweets/accounts etc, we can hardly get all that
upset about it (although it should be in the TOS). 

Twitter is as much Public Space as a shopping mall; it's a privately owned
service. Twitter and Facebook aren't part of the Commons yet regularly I hear
people, from professors in the Humanities to activists referring to them as
such.

People's Tweets, Facebook walls, GMails are on a businessman's hard disk,
surrounded by air-con, security-guards, lawyers and share-holders.

Cheers,

-- 
Julian Oliver
http://julianoliver.com
http://criticalengineering.org

..on Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:47:31AM -0800, Brian Conley wrote:
> John,
> 
> So am I mistaken that Twitter "blocks" (and by blocks I mean does not allow
> to be visible) certain content in certain countries, in accordance with
> local regulation?
> 
> I'm not saying its right or wrong, but unless I'm mistaken about this, its
> a bit melodramatic to get on your high horse about the "lack if censorship
> or mediation" of tweets, which, if twitter filters tweets based on location
> is just prima facie untrue.
> 
> I happen to completely understand why twitter does this and believe the
> ability to "change your set location" in order to avoid the filtering is a
> good workaround. That said, no need to be rude, dramatic, or misleading.
> 
> Brian
> On Dec 15, 2012 4:38 AM, "John Adams"  wrote:
> 
> > I work there. Read the damn TOS.  Twitter -does not- censor or meditate
> > content.
> >
> > https://support.twitter.com/articles/15794-abusive-behavior
> >
> > and
> >
> > https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules
> >
> > It's a serious affront to all the work we've done to enable people to
> > freely communicate, and the number of times that we've gone to bat for
> > users,  to make posts like these.
> >
> > -john
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Griffin Boyce 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>   Have you tried contacting twitter support directly? In the first
> >> instance, it's likely that you were reported by someone who saw it and took
> >> offense to it.
> >>
> >>   As for having tweets reported for spam, it could have been a competitor
> >> (and that type of reporting is easy to automate). But the Twitter spam
> >> algorithm could also have interpreted the [short tweet length + link +
> >> popular hashtag] as being spam.
> >>
> >>   From a merchant perspective, we kind of operate at her majesty's
> >> pleasure.  By that I mean that social networks make the rules, enforce them
> >> (or not), and our only real recourse is to move to another, less populated
> >> social network.  I'd recommend talking to twitter support before totally
> >> writing it off, but you might not get a resolution for the reasons
> >> mentioned above.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Griffin Boyce
> >> @abditum
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Uncle Zzzen wrote:
> >>
> >>> Warning for the politically-correct: this message contains the N-word. I
> >>> believe it is in context :)
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> "I believe that usability is a security concern; systems that do
> >> not pay close attention to the human interaction factors involved
> >> risk failing to provide security by failing to attract users."
> >> ~Len Sassaman
> >>
> >> PGP Key etc: https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/User:Fontaine
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
> >> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
> > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
> >

> --
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech


--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Where can I find the Twitter censorship handbook?

[Lisa Brownlee]

I will try to find u gen counsel privacy name in meantime Marc Rotenberg
likely to have it and/or Jules, both CC'd above.

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Uncle Zzzen  wrote:

> Warning for the politically-correct: this message contains the N-word. I
> believe it is in context :)
>
> I'm sorry I didn't respond to this in time and I now don't have links to
> the tweets I mention, but I'm pretty sure other people on the list had
> similar experiences.
>
> In short: Twitter is excluding tweets by me and my friends based on
> arbitrary (until proven otherwise) criteria. Here are 2 incidents.
>
> 1) The N-word incident
> About a month ago, @MrChuckD ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_D )
> has tweeted that in his opinion, Twitter should censor tweets containing
> the N-word. Me and another friend (independently of each other) have
> replied.
> * I said something like "if you don't oppose censorship, you don't deserve
> to be called a nigger"
> * My friend said something like "and that's from someone who has a song
> called [I don't wanna be called] yo nigga"
> i.e. the n-word was "misspelled" in that case :)
>
> Note: The content of these tweets is not brought here in order to express
> or debate our opinions or style (we're both huge fans BTW), but to show
> what might have triggered censorship filters (if that is the case), and the
> actual semantics of the tweet.
>
> We were then IMing about this to each other, and found out that when
> looking at @MrChuckD's tweet (where all replies can be seen), none of us
> could see our tweets or each other's.
>
> 2) The Bitcoin incident
> A merchant friend has tweeted something as "we now accept #bitcoin [+ link
> to "buy" page]"
>
> Nobody (including the person who tweeted this) could see the tweet at the
> #bitcoin hash tag. #bitcoin seemed to be fairly active during that time and
> there were tweets within minutes (maybe even seconds) before and after that
> tweet.
>
> Now the first incident is alarming enough IMHO (I'm actively considering
> moving my "business" to the identi.ca/OSub world), but I could live
> without using the N-word (and half of my forking vocabulary) if there was a
> "Twitter Censorship Handbook" or "Newspeak Dictionary" I could consult
> (although from a usability perspective, I'd prefer getting a "please
> rephrase that" pop-up). But the second incident gives me the creeps:
> * What the fork WAS wrong with that tweet?
> * Maybe it's a bug?
> * Maybe twitter's filtering algorithm was hacked by competitors of that
> merchant?
> * Is there a way to contest such a decision (or even get an admission from
> twitter that a tweet of mine WAS blocked, and preferably why)?
>
> If twitter is a platform that is supposed to mobilize future "Arab
> Springs", we have a real problem here - because the alternative is facebook
> :)
>
> --
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>



-- 

-- 
Lisa M. Brownlee, Esq.
Mexico
Skype:  lisa.m.brownlee
lmbscholar...@gmail.com
lmbconta...@yahoo.com
Author's website at West Thomson
Reuters
About my Law Journal Press
treatise
Facebook: Lisa M
Brownlee

Author of:

Intellectual Property Due Diligence in Corporate Transactions: Investment,
Risk Assessment and Management (West Thomson Reuters)

Assets & Finance: Audits and Valuation of Intellectual Property (West
Thomson Reuters)

Federal Acquisition Regulations: Intellectual Property and Related Rights
(Law Journal Press)
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Where can I find the Twitter censorship handbook?

[Julian Oliver]

..on Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 03:24:32PM +0100, Jillian C. York wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Julian Oliver wrote:
> 
> >
> > Per-country censorship:
> >
> >
> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/twitter-censorship-policy-global-outrage_n_1238188.html
> >
> > Trending topics:
> >
> >
> > http://blog.tweetsmarter.com/twitter-rules/twitter-admits-editing-offensive-trending-topics-plans-more/
> >
> > Or not:
> >
> >
> > http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2012/01/27/twitter-isnt-censoring-you-your-government-is/
> >
> > There was also this case of Twitter blocking an account with pro-Nazi
> > sentiment:
> >
> >
> > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57534798-93/report-twitter-bans-german-group-for-hate-speech/
> >
> > Even if Twitter did 'censor' tweets/accounts etc, we can hardly get all
> > that
> > upset about it (although it should be in the TOS).
> >
> 
> It's that sort of in-the-box thinking that allows so many to just sit back
> and watch Facebook et al take over the online public sphere, changing the
> norms of how we interact, what we say, etc.  Just because it's not
> government censorship doesn't mean we oughtn't fight against it.

I'm not at all saying that we shouldn't fight it but we need to be clear about
the terms of the challenge and our expectations. In doing so we strengthen our
position, rather than just fighting symptoms. 

It's my belief that we need to get in there early and educate people that these
services, marketed heavily as 'gifts' or as free services, come with distinct
threats to civil liberties, distinct techno-political challenges. I would say we
are better to /expect/ that they will breach basic rights rather than be
surprised when they do, as if the last few years of abuses online hasn't given
us enough cues there.

I often hear people likening Facebook and Twitter to The Commons, a public
property like air or language.  This is a remarkably powerful position for a
company to be in and we need to remind each other that such companies are not
/necessarily/ working at all in the Public interest.  These are private
for-profit businesses and we need to develop the same healthy level of suspicion
and vigilance in our dealings with them as we would any other.

Cheers,

--
Julian Oliver
http://julianoliver.com
http://criticalengineering.org

> >
> > ..on Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:47:31AM -0800, Brian Conley wrote:
> > > John,
> > >
> > > So am I mistaken that Twitter "blocks" (and by blocks I mean does not
> > allow
> > > to be visible) certain content in certain countries, in accordance with
> > > local regulation?
> > >
> > > I'm not saying its right or wrong, but unless I'm mistaken about this,
> > its
> > > a bit melodramatic to get on your high horse about the "lack if
> > censorship
> > > or mediation" of tweets, which, if twitter filters tweets based on
> > location
> > > is just prima facie untrue.
> > >
> > > I happen to completely understand why twitter does this and believe the
> > > ability to "change your set location" in order to avoid the filtering is
> > a
> > > good workaround. That said, no need to be rude, dramatic, or misleading.
> > >
> > > Brian
> > > On Dec 15, 2012 4:38 AM, "John Adams"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I work there. Read the damn TOS.  Twitter -does not- censor or meditate
> > > > content.
> > > >
> > > > https://support.twitter.com/articles/15794-abusive-behavior
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules
> > > >
> > > > It's a serious affront to all the work we've done to enable people to
> > > > freely communicate, and the number of times that we've gone to bat for
> > > > users,  to make posts like these.
> > > >
> > > > -john
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Griffin Boyce  > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>   Have you tried contacting twitter support directly? In the first
> > > >> instance, it's likely that you were reported by someone who saw it
> > and took
> > > >> offense to it.
> > > >>
> > > >>   As for having tweets reported for spam, it could have been a
> > competitor
> > > >> (and that type of reporting is easy to automate). But the Twitter spam
> > > >> algorithm could also have interpreted the [short tweet length + link +
> > > >> popular hashtag] as being spam.
> > > >>
> > > >>   From a merchant perspective, we kind of operate at her majesty's
> > > >> pleasure.  By that I mean that social networks make the rules,
> > enforce them
> > > >> (or not), and our only real recourse is to move to another, less
> > populated
> > > >> social network.  I'd recommend talking to twitter support before
> > totally
> > > >> writing it off, but you might not get a resolution for the reasons
> > > >> mentioned above.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best,
> > > >> Griffin Boyce
> > > >> @abditum
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Uncle Zzzen  > >wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Warning for the politically-correct: this message contains the
> > N-word. I
> > > >>> believe 

Re: [liberationtech] Where can I find the Twitter censorship handbook?

[Uncle Zzzen]

>
> Even if Twitter did 'censor' tweets/accounts etc, we can hardly get all
> that
> upset about it (although it should be in the TOS).
>
We CAN and SHOULD get upset, if not about the censorship, but on the lack
of transparency.
We need to at least have indication that a tweet was banned (or banned in
some countries - it's important, because I live in one :) ).
This has nothing to do with what's "right" or "moral". It's a "consumer"
issue: this service is unpredictable.
For example - Jillian has offered the theory that the "N-word tweets" were
blocked by the recipient (not what happened in this case), but why should
this be theory and not fact? We're talking about relationships between
people.

When I @mention someone, I shouldn't need to guess whether:
a. They've read my tweet, got offended and blocked me
b. Never read my tweet because twitter has "protected" them from it
Especially if it's a fan-to-celeb tweet (luckily, I'm no teenager).

This is not only a feature request. It's a bug report. Twitter is broken
until it's fixed.

BTW, sometimes the lack of transparency is due to policy and not
technology: when they closed down @AnonOpsSweden (twice), twitter (people,
not machines) didn't say why. If twitter believes this is acceptable, maybe
they don't WANT to invest in features that inform me about their [non]
censorship decisions.

It's their right (although it would only be fair to add "we might take you
down for reasons we can't discuss with you" to the TOS), but let the
consumer be very afraid.
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Where can I find the Twitter censorship handbook?

[Julian Oliver]

..on Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 01:22:07AM +0700, Uncle Zzzen wrote:
> >
> > Even if Twitter did 'censor' tweets/accounts etc, we can hardly get all
> > that
> > upset about it (although it should be in the TOS).
> >
> We CAN and SHOULD get upset, if not about the censorship, but on the lack
> of transparency.
> We need to at least have indication that a tweet was banned (or banned in
> some countries - it's important, because I live in one :) ).
> This has nothing to do with what's "right" or "moral". It's a "consumer"
> issue: this service is unpredictable.
> For example - Jillian has offered the theory that the "N-word tweets" were
> blocked by the recipient (not what happened in this case), but why should
> this be theory and not fact? We're talking about relationships between
> people.
> 
> When I @mention someone, I shouldn't need to guess whether:
> a. They've read my tweet, got offended and blocked me
> b. Never read my tweet because twitter has "protected" them from it
> Especially if it's a fan-to-celeb tweet (luckily, I'm no teenager).
> 
> This is not only a feature request. It's a bug report. Twitter is broken
> until it's fixed.
> 
> BTW, sometimes the lack of transparency is due to policy and not
> technology: when they closed down @AnonOpsSweden (twice), twitter (people,
> not machines) didn't say why. If twitter believes this is acceptable, maybe
> they don't WANT to invest in features that inform me about their [non]
> censorship decisions.
> 
> It's their right (although it would only be fair to add "we might take you
> down for reasons we can't discuss with you" to the TOS), but let the
> consumer be very afraid.

I agree, they'd be a much better service if they were transparent about why and
on what basis they censor. It's perhaps something we should ask for, as a
petition, from the Directors of this company. 

As it stands, their TOS states quite clearly they reserve the right to refuse
distribution of 'Content' (tweets) and to "suspend or terminate users" without
any obligation or liability:

//->

We reserve the right at all times (but will not have an obligation) to remove or
refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, to suspend or terminate users,
and to reclaim usernames without liability to you. We also reserve the right to
access, read, preserve, and disclose any information as we reasonably believe is
necessary to (i) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or
governmental request, (ii) enforce the Terms, including investigation of
potential violations hereof, (iii) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud,
security or technical issues, (iv) respond to user support requests, or (v)
protect the rights, property or safety of Twitter, its users and the public.

https://twitter.com/tos

//<-

By 'satisfy any applicable law' they point to the vastly broad 'Unlawful Use'
in 'Content Boundaries and Use of Twitter':

https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules#

>From what I can read their TOS is quite similar to those governing use of the
comment system on the websites of news corporations.

Cheers,

-- 
Julian Oliver
http://julianoliver.com
http://criticalengineering.org
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Re: [liberationtech] Where can I find the Twitter censorship handbook?

[Uncle Zzzen]

I guess "without any obligation or liability" COULD be interpreted as "we
don't even have to let you know where your tweet is visible and where it
isn't, or how to avoid such incidents in the future".
That's good enough for court, but is it good enough as a service? :)


On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Julian Oliver wrote:

> without
> any obligation or liability
>
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech