Twitter Policy of Protecting Abusive Language Called Into Question

By Michelle Maisto  |  Posted 2016-08-14 Print this article Print
Twitter Abuse

A senior engineer who left Twitter in 2013 told Warzel, "You have this opposition between defending the user's experience and not shutting down speech all while there's this big, toxic mass of people that are abusing. … That tension has now … flipped on its head. It's clear something needs to be done."

Jan Dawson, chief analyst with Jackdaw Research, agreed that the problem has been building for years.

"The issue is partly one of policy and partly one of execution, as Twitter does have rules and guidelines around abuse, but takes action on reported abuses too seldom and too slowly," Dawson told eWEEK.

"The fact that high-profile celebrities (mostly women) have started to abandon the service over abuse issues is an indication that it needs to do far more to protect its users," Dawson continued.

"I really don't think this is a free speech issue, but rather an issue of will to actually get something done here. The line between acceptable and unacceptable speech is generally pretty clear cut in these cases, but Twitter has failed to act too often," he said.

Twitter's accommodation of a no-limits approach to free speech also highlights a larger reality. While protests, debates and flat-out name-calling used to take place in the public square, or in the streets—on government property—they now largely take place on platforms like Twitter and Facebook— essentially corporate property in cyberspace. And so, new rules apply—or, in the case of Twitter, fewer rules apply. 

Freedom of speech crosses a legal line when a threat is one that any rational person would understand to be a genuine threat of violence. If a person with a gun is standing in front of you and says, "I'm going to kill you," is the threat perceived as being as legitimate as if a stranger tweets the same threat at someone?

"Legally, courts have always struggled to decide where the line between protected speech and non-protected threats begins," Meredith Rose, a staff attorney with public watchdog Public Knowledge, told eWEEK.

 "In the 20th century, the focus was on where the speech took place; privately owned and operated spaces could impose their own rules for speech that took place on their grounds. Given that the biggest online platforms right now are privately owned, the tension between that way of thinking—'my space, my rules'—and the practical realities of online speech are getting harder to ignore."

Rose added, "For better or worse, these platforms do hold an immense amount of power to regulate their users' speech."

Twitter posted a response to the article on its blog Aug. 11, saying it hadn't read the story until it was published.

"We feel there are inaccuracies in the details and unfair portrayals but rather than go back and forth with BuzzFeed, we are going to continue our work on making Twitter a safer place. There is a lot of work to do but please know we are committed, focused, and will have updates to share soon," Twitter's posted response said.



Submit a Comment

Loading Comments...
Manage your Newsletters: Login   Register My Newsletters

Rocket Fuel