Vice article: Why Won’t Twitter Treat White Supremacy Like ISIS?....

[D Luniz]

Why Won’t Twitter Treat White Supremacy Like ISIS? Because It Would Mean Banning Some Republican Politicians Too.

it mainly points at how often GOP members retweet content, or in King's and Duke's cases, create the original content. If they treat them like ISIS, they'd be banned as well

[Kraenen]

How often is "how often"?

[PC2]

Because ISIS is a specific terrorist organization with a particular leader. "White Supremacy" on the other hand is an idea, not a specific organization. If someone in a country registered an organization called "White Supremacy" and wrote a mission statement about killing civilians, then in that case they would be banned.

[Edge-]

Because ISIS is a specific terrorist organization with a particular leader. "White Supremacy" on the other hand is an idea, not a specific organization. If someone in a country registered an organization called "White Supremacy" and wrote a mission statement about killing civilians, then in that case they would be banned.

Did you actually read the article, out of curiosity?

[PC2]

Did you actually read the article, out of curiosity?

Yeah. They were wondering why white supremacy can't be treated the same as ISIS. The answer is because they are apples and oranges, one is a particular organization, the other is a concept.

[DarkTZeratul]

Yeah. They were wondering why white supremacy can't be treated the same as ISIS. The answer is because they are apples and oranges, one is a particular organization, the other is a concept.

Except that's not the reason a Twitter executive gave for their decision.

[D Luniz]

Yeah. They were wondering why white supremacy can't be treated the same as ISIS. The answer is because they are apples and oranges, one is a particular organization, the other is a concept.

so banning an organization that follows a hateful concept is fine, but others following a hateful concept get a pass since they aren't organized?

[Edge-]

Yeah. They were wondering why white supremacy can't be treated the same as ISIS. The answer is because they are apples and oranges, one is a particular organization, the other is a concept.

That's not what the article was about at all. You either didn't read it, or you didn't bother reading all of it.

It was discussing the algorithms developed to remove content from ISIS and similar extremists groups based on analyzing their posts in real time, not just looking, "Did this person put "DEATH TO AMERICANS" in their bio? Do they link to the official ISIS homepage?" And how this tool, according to an employee who works on it, isn't being deployed out of concern that it would also hit Republican politicians would be included in the "unintended casualties" that are affected by these kinds of systems given some of the similarities in posting.

You're grossly misstating the thrust of the article and doing a disservice to anyone who reads your post.

[PC2]

Except that's not the reason a Twitter executive gave for their decision.

It's the reason why it won't work, by targeting an idea instead of targeting a terrorist organization it would mean 'painting with a broad brush'. Which inevitably leads to false positives.

[Edge-]

It's the reason why it won't work, by targeting an idea instead of targeting a terrorist organization it would mean 'painting with a broad brush'. Which inevitably leads to false positives.

Which already happens, and folks don't mind according to the same source. You'd know this if you actually read the article. The sensitivity comes when those false positives just happen to be Republican politicians, who realistically shouldn't share anything remotely in common with white supremacist posts that would cause such a system to flag them. Unless they were trafficking in similar styles of rhetoric and content.

[PC2]

Which already happens, and folks don't mind according to the same source. You'd know this if you actually read the article. The sensitivity comes when those false positives just happen to be Republican politicians, who realistically shouldn't share anything remotely in common with white supremacist posts that would cause such a system to flag them. Unless they were trafficking in similar styles of rhetoric and content.

Listen, this entire endeavour is garbage. It's based on ML which sucks balls because it's based on some form of inductivism or Bayesianism. Subsequently it lacks explanation and interpretability. If they want to ban people they could just use a keyword-search-and-ban. This whole thing is nothing more than drama.

[Edge-]

If they want to ban people they could just use a keyword-search-and-ban.

I agree on the issues surrounding the complexity of the issue, but this point is nonsense. Keyword bans? Those are painfully easy to circumvent either using new, custom language that requires constant updating, or by adopting "safe" terminology to replace their own words. This is not a serious proposal.

[Felya]

I agree on the issues surrounding the complexity of the issue, but this point is nonsense. Keyword bans? Those are painfully easy to circumvent either using new, custom language that requires constant updating, or by adopting "safe" terminology to replace their own words. This is not a serious proposal.

Yep, but what they can do is ban athno nationalist rhetoric, which would cover both ISIS and Nazis. I really wish they could just kill each other off and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.

[Has lost its way]

Why would they ban one of the fastest growing political views in the west? Seems bad for business.

[Orbitus]

Why would they ban one of the fastest growing political views in the west? Seems bad for business.

Because they are bad for business. They aren't a political view, they are a hate group that deserves no protection from anything. They need to be nuked from orbit.

[Has lost its way]

Because they are bad for business. They aren't a political view, they are a hate group that deserves no protection from anything. They need to be nuked from orbit.

I wonder for how many more years they will be bad for business before they are business?

So far they have had a rather impressive upswing and I admit to having a twisted enough sense of humor to watch as the boogieman everyone feared was given life by said fear.

[Theodarzna]

Because ISIS is a specific terrorist organization with a particular leader. "White Supremacy" on the other hand is an idea, not a specific organization. If someone in a country registered an organization called "White Supremacy" and wrote a mission statement about killing civilians, then in that case they would be banned.

It is an idea that could mean people who worship Adolf Hitler as a kind of God, to basically anyone to the right of Lenin. I think anything other than a person of European descent being a self-loathing Social Justice Warrior is considered that.

Given that "White Supremacy" can mean anything from "I think European ethnic groups should be allowed to exist a century from now" to "Praise Hitler 14/88!" are considered the same thing, that is essentially banning everyone but the same blue check marks and their circle of dick riders jerking themselves wildly.

[Orbitus]

I wonder for how many more years they will be bad for business before they are business?

So far they have had a rather impressive upswing and I admit to having a twisted enough sense of humor to watch as the boogieman everyone feared was given life by said fear.

Hopefully forever. Because if you are a white nationalist, you deserve everything you get.

[Breccia]

As much as I think white supremacists are intentionally retarding themselves and scum of the earth, ISIS is just flat-out worse.

[Fahrenheit]

Guess he likes hugo boss.