From @jack:

Starting
now, we are changing the way we do things at Twitter. Even though we have been following policies we created, that we thought were good and necessary, it just hasn’t had the desired effect of promoting good discourse. Effective immediately, we are changing.

The basic principle that now guides us is that instead of trying to manipulate discourse, we are opening it up, and making ourselves more transparent and accountable, and resisting attempts at censorship of us or our users.
Further, we have been fundamentally operating under the false premise that we, our our news and fact-checking partners, are smarter or better at understanding information than you, our users, are. This is a vain fiction, and we will drop this pretense.
We have long known that we are not just another social media site, but the place where citizens, governments, and organizations communicate with each other, for essential purposes. We have a great responsibility to the public to be open. So, we change to improve.
First: we will no longer proactively delete any content, except for: private information harming a person other than who posted it (e.g. doxxing, revenge porn, etc.), and any content we are legally required to remove.
That’s it. There are, for now, no other categories. I hope there will not be. We will continue to have a close working relationship with the DOJ and other law enforcement agencies so we can respond very quickly to their requests, but they will initiate removal, not us.
And when we remove content, it will all be documented clearly and available for auditing by independent third parties (as many as wish to do so), who will sign NDAs agreeing to not disclose the removed content, but will be free to report on all other aspects of it.
Second: we will continue to suspend accounts for bad behavior, but we will be entirely transparent about it. When you go to an account that is suspended, you will see that it is suspended, and the content that got the account suspended, and the policy it violated.
Obviously, for removed content, we will not show the content, but will show a placeholder and the policy violated, and the third-party independent auditors will be able to see the content, and report for themselves whether it was justified.
Third: we will have a serious appeals process. No one appeals now because there is no point: we never overturn decisions except by public pressure. But appeals require resources. So, starting one week from today, we will offer subscriptions on Twitter.
For $1/mo., you will get no ads, and expedited appeals. These expedited appeals will happen within one hour, any time of day or night. If your appeal takes longer than an hour, it is automatically upheld.
If your appeal is upheld, you will get a free subscription for one year, so we are incentivized to get to the appeal quickly, and to get the action right the first time.
We have internal tools that rate the ideology of our users in multiple ways. We will use these tools to score our employees, so that if they are taking action against users or posts in an ideologically lopsided manner, we will detect it and take action.
Any employee found to be repeatedly violating these policies will be reassigned or released. The independent third-party auditors will have full access — with personal information removed, and employees identified by random ID — to this history.
Fourth: we will no longer engage in any fact-checking. Our fact-checkers — and the fact-checkers at WaPo and other news organizations — are no better at fact-checking than most of you are. It is a waste of time and resources and we often do it in a biased way.
Fifth: we will no longer take sides on any issues. Our role is to promote discourse, not to steer it. We will continue to summarize news, but we will not adopt a viewpoint on the news items.
Sixth: we will offer new tools to promote a good user experience. Just because we are going to allow someone to post anti-Semitic views, doesn’t mean you should have to see it.
We will use algorithms to hide content from your view, unless you specifically request to see it, similar to how mutes work today. A key component of this algorithm is the new Dislike feature. Posts that are disliked significantly are hidden.
Your social network graph affects this algorithm: accounts you follow will not be hidden; accounts they follow will be less likely to be hidden. And so on.
We will also fill the space between blocks and mutes: “Ignore” will be like many think “mute” should work: you will never, ever see that account’s content (unless you request it), but they can still see you. When they view your account, they will see that they are being Ignored.
We will also allow you to block not just keywords, but concepts and ideologies. Block discussions about sex, or religion. Or block accounts we have marked as anti-Semitic. The categories and data used to populate them will be fully auditable by the independent third parties.
This last one is very scary to us, but we have the tools to do it, and it will be transparent and accountable. We believe it is a good balance between a good user experience, and being open.
Some of you will be disheartened by this. You want us to silence speech that you dislike … usually for good reasons. But we learned — and we should have known all along — that there is no reasonable path to do so, because there are no people capable of reasonably enforcing it.
So we will stop trying to silence anyone, and instead focus on a great user experience for all of our users, who are mostly just trying to connect with other people, and we will support that, regardless of ideology.

@jack

More from For later read

Hi @EdinburghUni @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options

Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other

1/13


'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

2/13


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.

3/13


You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"

4/13


Again, 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

5/13

You May Also Like

Oh my Goodness!!!

I might have a panic attack due to excitement!!

Read this thread to the end...I just had an epiphany and my mind is blown. Actually, more than blown. More like OBLITERATED! This is the thing! This is the thing that will blow the entire thing out of the water!


Has this man been concealing his true identity?

Is this man a supposed 'dead' Seal Team Six soldier?

Witness protection to be kept safe until the right moment when all will be revealed?!

Who ELSE is alive that may have faked their death/gone into witness protection?


Were "golden tickets" inside the envelopes??


Are these "golden tickets" going to lead to their ultimate undoing?

Review crumbs on the board re: 'gold'.


#SEALTeam6 Trump re-tweeted this.
🌿𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒓 : 𝑫𝒉𝒓𝒖𝒗𝒂 & 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒏𝒖

Once upon a time there was a Raja named Uttānapāda born of Svayambhuva Manu,1st man on earth.He had 2 beautiful wives - Suniti & Suruchi & two sons were born of them Dhruva & Uttama respectively.
#talesofkrishna https://t.co/E85MTPkF9W


Now Suniti was the daughter of a tribal chief while Suruchi was the daughter of a rich king. Hence Suruchi was always favored the most by Raja while Suniti was ignored. But while Suniti was gentle & kind hearted by nature Suruchi was venomous inside.
#KrishnaLeela


The story is of a time when ideally the eldest son of the king becomes the heir to the throne. Hence the sinhasan of the Raja belonged to Dhruva.This is why Suruchi who was the 2nd wife nourished poison in her heart for Dhruva as she knew her son will never get the throne.


One day when Dhruva was just 5 years old he went on to sit on his father's lap. Suruchi, the jealous queen, got enraged and shoved him away from Raja as she never wanted Raja to shower Dhruva with his fatherly affection.


Dhruva protested questioning his step mother "why can't i sit on my own father's lap?" A furious Suruchi berated him saying "only God can allow him that privilege. Go ask him"