1914: "Twitter Verification"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Wee Red Bird
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:50 am UTC
Location: In a tree

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby Wee Red Bird » Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:07 am UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:Maybe instead of giving a badge to people who have been verified, they should ban the accounts of anyone who is discovered to not be who they claim.

You mean I'd have to prove I am a real red bird?

Trouble with working the way you suggest is, and lets take Adam Savage as an example again, how do you know if you are talking to the real Adam or someone pretending to be him? If they haven't checked out who is the real Adam Savage, they can't ban everyone claiming to be him, as they might get the real one. It would leave you wondering if it is the real Adam or if they haven't got around to checking the validity of the real Adam and that you are talking to a pretend version. A verified badge makes it a whole lot easier.

Stargazer71
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:00 pm UTC

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby Stargazer71 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:05 pm UTC

chenille wrote:
Stargazer71 wrote:Looking at Jason Kessler's Wikipedia page, I see him described as a white nationalist, an alt-right activist, a prominent organizer of the Unite the Right rally...

And following those first three links it says that white nationalism takes "ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism"; that alt-right was initially promoted as a term to "disguise overt racism, white supremacism, neo-fascism and neo-Nazism", with beliefs "frequently overlapping with Neo-Nazism"; and that the Unite the Right rally "included white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, Klansmen, neo-Nazis, and various militias". This is really not much of a reach.


"Takes Ideas From" != "They're the same"

It's this kind of attitude that leads to Sarah Silverman level stupidity (https://twitter.com/SarahKSilverman/sta ... 68/photo/1)

Don't get me wrong--Jason Kessler is an complete racist asshole, and a fickle racist asshole to boot. But I've never seen any discussion that was productively advanced by labeling people Nazis (with the notable exception of any discussion involving swastika toting Neo-Nazis).

pscottdv
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:32 pm UTC

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby pscottdv » Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:48 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:Maybe instead of giving a badge to people who have been verified, they should ban the accounts of anyone who is discovered to not be who they claim.


I wonder how big a bite that policy would take off their user base.

chenille
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby chenille » Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:55 pm UTC

Stargazer71 wrote:"Takes Ideas From" != "They're the same"

No, they're not. But when the explanation of one belief after another has reason to bring up commonality with Nazis, actually noticing the center of the Venn diagram is not much hyperbole, certainly not the sort that would make "Is there anyone you don't refer to as a Nazi anymore?" a sensible question. And for myself, I've never seen any discussion that was productively advanced by nitpicking whether someone's open white supremacy was of exactly the right nature to formally count as Nazism or not.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:49 am UTC

I see that my assertion that Twitter is actively taking the alt-right's side has been ignored. So let's present Exhibit B, shall we?

Image
Image

https://twitter.com/x24sonic/status/930621650575417344
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

Mutex
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby Mutex » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:04 am UTC

It probably just means the alt-righter reported them and their account got automatically suspended while Twitter investigate it.

duodecimus
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 12:25 pm UTC

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby duodecimus » Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:29 am UTC

Wait, so he got the banned message almost the instant he sent the first message?

I think I'd agree with Mutex. To assume that he was banned for contesting the presumably racist Omegaa is absurd, since it asserts that the auto ban system detects racism and then specifically protects it.

speising
Posts: 2080
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby speising » Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:28 pm UTC

i guess the ban simply reacts to trigger words like fucking and dummy? notice how madbringer avoided any objectionable words...

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2730
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby orthogon » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:31 pm UTC

speising wrote:i guess the ban simply reacts to trigger words like fucking and dummy? notice how madbringer avoided any objectionable words...

I had replied to this seriously but I think it must have been meant as a joke, so I deleted my reply.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Mikeski
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby Mikeski » Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:14 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
speising wrote:i guess the ban simply reacts to trigger words like fucking and dummy? notice how madbringer avoided any objectionable words...

I had replied to this seriously but I think it must have been meant as a joke, so I deleted my reply.

With one data point, it's hard to say if this was the primary reason for the ban, or just the straw that broke the camel's back. The twitter response does say "abusive behavior from your account multiple times recently". And it might be triggered partially by the oddly forMED ALL CAPS PART OF THE MESSAGE, as that looks like... what spam trying to bypass filters looks like. And the f-bomb, of course. I assume there could be no human interaction in a ban than lands 44 seconds (at most) after the post; it's all done by software.

Twitter can't just block anyone who writes the word "n****r", else black rappers and others who are still "allowed" to say it will get auto-banned along with the racists. So they really can't filter that as an "objectionable word", unfortunately. Unless everyone gives twitter access to their phone's camera and/or computer's webcam, they can't filter that without being racist themselves. (And racists could hack that by tweeting in blackface.)

And visual verification doesn't solve the "Eminem problem" of white people who have been granted permission to use the term. Maybe they could give different-colored checkmarks so they know who's just speaking their dialect, and who's actually racisting, and program the filters based on that? Perhaps some six-pointed stars for known Jews...

So... speising's reply might just be of the "ha ha, only joking dead serious" type. (As is mine.)

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3979
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:39 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:Twitter can't just block anyone who writes the word "n****r", else black rappers and others who are still "allowed" to say it will get auto-banned along with the racists. So they really can't filter that as an "objectionable word", unfortunately. Unless everyone gives twitter access to their phone's camera and/or computer's webcam, they can't filter that without being racist themselves. (And racists could hack that by tweeting in blackface.)

Or we could do the reasonable thing and not discriminate between who is or isn't "allowed" to use a word based on race. (Which I guess is technically what we assume Twitter is doing now, but banning the word for everyone, the obvious first-thought solution to the specific problem at hand, would also be doing that, and the inability to make exceptions to it based on race isn't a good reason not to do it).
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Mikeski
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby Mikeski » Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:54 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Or we could do the reasonable thing and not discriminate between who is or isn't "allowed" to use a word based on race. (Which I guess is technically what we assume Twitter is doing now, but banning the word for everyone, the obvious first-thought solution to the specific problem at hand, would also be doing that, and the inability to make exceptions to it based on race isn't a good reason not to do it).

What's the most-common use of the word now, though? It's a term that sends the toughest f-bomb-dropping hardasses to their fainting couches. (Case in point: this thread.) I'm pretty sure it's used more often in the rap-lyric "my n****rs" sense than in the racist "all them n****rs" sense. I know that's true here in lily-white middle-class Minnesota. ...so we should ban it for everyone? Like it or not, it's a word with two very-distinct meanings, now. So it's sort of like banning "Peter" because, despite being a common name, it sometimes refers to a penis, and someone could be offended by that. (Consider, also, "Dick", which is also a name and a euphemism, and an insult, but probably used as a euphemism or an insult far more often than a name. It also shouldn't be banned.)

...and there's my main problem with "microaggressions". And macroaggressions, like "n****r". God spared Sodom for the sake of ten righteous men amongst thousands of wicked ones. William Blackstone said it is better than 10 guilty people should go free than 1 innocent be punished. Preventing the possibility of anyone being offended by anything requires the exact opposite. Heck, I'm sure my very existence, as a middle-class white Christian American male, offends millions of people. I know the very existence of homosexuals bothers folks like the one who shot up the Pulse nightclub... shall we ban homosexuality to keep him happy? Would just banning the word "gay" help?

Banning a word doesn't make the problem go away, it just makes it harder to talk about. If no one could say "housecat", I would still be allergic to them. 1984 was not an instruction manual.

Leave "n****r" out there, so people can see it being used, and say "that guy's a dick."

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:23 pm UTC

Why would any words need to be banned?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:08 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:Preventing the possibility of anyone being offended by anything
That's not the goal behind suggesting that Nazis should be banned. The problem with Nazis isn't that they are offensive, it's that they are dangerous. As evidenced by the assault, gunshots, and fucking murder that happened at Unite the Right.

Regardless of what you personally think of making rules about what people can say, the fact is Twitter claims to have policies about hate speech, which they very clearly do not follow consistently. If they were being consistent, alt-right fucks would be suspended or banned instead of verified.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Mikeski
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby Mikeski » Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:35 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Why would any words need to be banned?

I am extrapolating a request from the twitter image posted as an example of "twitter actively taking the alt-right's side".

"fucking", "dummy", and/or some random capiTALIZATION got an anti-racist user a temporary, software-based ban. (Based on the text, a ban for multiple infractions, and also not the first ban the user has suffered, so who knows... maybe the software is tougher on repeat offenders, and maybe the racist is a new guy or a disposable trolling account.)

The racist above was not software-banned, despite the use of "shit" and "n****r".

(They both said "racist", so that's apparently not the word in question.)

Assuming the complaint was not based on the word "shit", I have to assume it was a request for the software ban/filter list to include "n****r".

It also doesn't seem to be a complaint based on "twitter verification" of either user, since I don't see any checkmarks in the screenshot (I'm not a denizen of twitter, though.)

If it was, instead, a request for interpretation of context and intent of individual users, regardless of individual words chosen, I am not sure we're there yet.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:53 pm UTC

I don't think there are any banned words. I think insulting users is banned, which Llanfair­pwllgwyngyll­gogery­chwyrn­drobwll­llan­tysilio­gogo­goch technically did by calling him "you dummy" in all caps. Obviously the system as applied here is godawful, but it isn't necessarily deliberately set up to protect racists.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2550
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:10 am UTC

Still, if it isn't a somewhat automated system, you have to admire the tenacity of the moderator who decides to type in the equivalent of "suspend Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch" at their back-end shell prompt... :)


(I always have to check it to make sure I haven't made one or more of three specific typos I'm most liable to a have made… :P Looks very much like Eebster did it right, which ups the chance that I then went and missed a stupid error myself!)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:37 am UTC

It's almost as though copy and paste are things one can do.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2730
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby orthogon » Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:02 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:I don't think there are any banned words. I think insulting users is banned, which Llanfair­pwllgwyngyll­gogery­chwyrn­drobwll­llan­tysilio­gogo­goch technically did by calling him "you dummy" in all caps. Obviously the system as applied here is godawful, but it isn't necessarily deliberately set up to protect racists.

... whereas @madbringer avoided this by enquiring as to llanfairpwll's probable response to a hypothetical insult? They could have played it even safer by going for the subjunctive or irrealis... (adjust terminology to taste).
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby Eebster the Great » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:30 pm UTC

If we are truly talking about an automated system with no human input, I would frankly be surprised if it didn't suck.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:30 pm UTC

For what it's worth, I immediately reported @madbringer and about 12 years later got a response of "Our investigation found this account in violation of the Twitter Rules". What exactly they did, I'm not sure, because he's still publicly posting. But something happened, at least.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

Mikeski
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1914: "Twitter Verification"

Postby Mikeski » Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:27 am UTC

Probably the same sort of temporary ban.

Twitter isn't interested in taking their product (their users) off the shelves, so to speak, even if it isn't a very good product. Crappy stuff still sells, non-existent stuff does not.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], jloucks and 55 guests