While these labels will initially only apply to a set of Tweets that potentially violate our Hateful Conduct policy, we plan to expand their application to other applicable policy areas in the coming months. We are working on allowing authors to appeal our decision. Currently, submitting feedback does not guarantee you will receive a response or that your Tweet’s reach will be restored. You can learn more about the ways we may restrict a Tweet’s reach here.Īuthors will be able to submit feedback on the label if they think we incorrectly limited their Tweet’s visibility. Additionally, we will not place ads adjacent to content that we label. Tweets with these labels will be made less discoverable on the platform. These labels bring a new level of transparency to enforcement actions by displaying which policy the Tweet potentially violates to both the Tweet author and other users on Twitter. Starting soon, we will add publicly visible labels to Tweets identified as potentially violating our policies letting you know we’ve limited their visibility. However, like other social platforms, we have not historically been transparent when we’ve taken this action. Restricting the reach of Tweets, also known as visibility filtering, is one of our existing enforcement actions that allows us to move beyond the binary “leave up versus take down” approach to content moderation. Today, we’re excited to share an update on our approach to policy enforcement that better aligns this philosophy with our commitment to transparency. These beliefs are the foundation of Freedom of Speech, not Freedom of Reach - our enforcement philosophy which means, where appropriate, restricting the reach of Tweets that violate our policies by making the content less discoverable. We also believe it is our responsibility to keep users on our platform safe from content violating our Rules. We believe Twitter users have the right to express their opinions and ideas without fear of censorship. But States can also use alternative tools – such as education and promoting counter-messages – to address the whole spectrum of hateful expression, both on and offline.Our mission at Twitter 2.0 is to promote and protect the public conversation. Determining when the potential of harm is high enough to justify prohibiting speech is still the subject of much debate. Alongside the relevant international human rights law provisions, the UN Rabat Plan of Action provides key guidance to States on the difference between freedom of expression and “incitement” (to discrimination, hostility and violence), which is prohibited under criminal law. Therefore, any restrictions must be an exception and seek to prevent harm and ensure equality or the public participation of all. To counter hate speech, the United Nations supports more positive speech and upholds respect for freedom of expression as the norm. Therefore, legislative efforts to regulate free expression unsurprisingly raise concerns that attempts to curb hate speech may silence dissent and opposition. It is undeniable that digital media, including social media, have bolstered the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. These freedoms support other fundamental rights, such as to peaceful assembly, to participate in public affairs, and to freedom of religion. The need to preserve freedom of expression from censorship by States or private corporations’ is often invoked to counter efforts to regulate hateful expression, in particular online.įreedom of opinion and expression are, indeed, cornerstones of human rights and pillars of free and democratic societies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |