Will Reuters/AP news be able to includes photos of crowds or politicians in their tweets? Or will they have to get explicit permission of everyone. Does 'sharing' include linking? I'm trying to figure out the impact on photojournalism.
Edit: Reading the fine print, it sounds like it's a "whatever twitter says it is" policy:
> This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.
> However, if the purpose of the dissemination of private images of public figures or individuals who are part of public conversations is to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence them, we may remove the content in line with our policy against abusive behavior.. Similarly, private nude images of public individuals will continue to be actioned under our non-consensual nudity policy.
> We recognize that there are instances where account holders may share images or videos of private individuals in an effort to help someone involved in a crisis situation, such as in the aftermath of a violent event, or as part of a newsworthy event due to public interest value, and this might outweigh the safety risks to a person.
> We will always try to assess the context in which the content is shared and, in such cases, we may allow the images or videos to remain on the service. For instance, we would take into consideration whether the image is publicly available and/or is being covered by mainstream/traditional media (newspapers, TV channels, online news sites), or if a particular image and the accompanying tweet text adds value to the public discourse, is being shared in public interest, or is relevant to the community.
> I really wish they had just come down hard on the side of free speech to the extent they could
I think they did try, but ultimately any centralizing web service cannot succeed in this. For one, they need to follow government censorship laws (presumably what you mean by "extent they could"). But even deeper, their intrinsic profit motive destroys free speech through both negative distortions ("don't upset the sponsors") and positive ones ("drive engagement"). The effects of the latter are slower to take hold (eg online flash mobs rallying around centrally-promoted content). But once they do the company ends up stuck between a rock and a hard place - either hurt their core product by removing its centralizing features, or attempt to mitigate the ill effects through increasingly invasive policies.
"This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse."
The "Public interest" exception is basically a get out of jail free card for Twitter. However I don't fault them for this at all, since our collective expectation for platforms is completely lacking in internal consistency and more or less impossible to meet.
This sounds like a nice way to make people play nice, but it's a significant departure from the way that the world and especially the news media has worked in the past.
I think figuring out these new rules are going to pretty difficult. For instance, one of the most famous images from the Vietnam war showed a General executing an alleged criminal in the street. If that general objects, will we be prohibited from sharing that Pulitzer Prize winning image?
As written this "rule" simply allows Twitter to selectively delete videos and images that don't support the narrative they are currently pushing. Next time we have some "peaceful protesters" burning down cities, there won't be any video on Twitter to let people see what is actually happening. Videos of massive demonstrations against lockdowns and other government mandates will certainly be down the memory hole. You can be certain that curated NYT videos and images will remain, whether or not that video is filled with images of private individuals who have not offered their consent. Twitter is making a large gamble that people won't leave the platform in droves as all they are left with is a whitewashed, Twitter/government approved message. Perhaps they ought to look at what happened to Digg.
This is the kind of active truth reengineering that brought us here in the first place. You are the one pushing a narrative about protesters with your framing and language. Much edgy media such as the Jan 6 protester exclaiming it was a revolution are clearly compliant with this rule despite its breadth. Perhaps more focus on raw truth and what people agree to share would be better than all the heavy interpretation up front?
>You are the one pushing a narrative about protesters with your framing and language.
The narrative I'm pushing is one of transparency. There is no "clear compliance" with this rule because it is deliberately vague and open to the interpretation of Twitter censors - and that is the problem. As written it very clearly delegates the power to Twitter moderators to pick and choose what raw images and videos people will be allowed to see based on no specific metrics at all. The clear fact is that the powers-that-be have lost control over the narrative and desperately want to return to the age when everyone got the same, curated message from ABC, CBS and NBC. From the Bay of Tonkin to WMD to Russiagate, more disinformation and lies has been distributed by the government and the corporate media than all the Qanon shamans and 4Chan basement dwellers combined. These are the people who now claim that they need to impose mass censorship across all major platforms to combat, "disinformation".
I'm wary of the absolutist tone of this comment, that said, I think the underlying point is reasonable.
Coverage of events is filtered to some degree with a clear dose of editorial bias depending on a variety of factors, this does actually matter. Some degree of independence and oversight on these things would help.
Twitter does what it wants. They will bend their rules when it favors them or their party. People will still be filmed posted on Twitter demonized and picked up by the outrage industry and paraded until they have their apology tour and are unemployable. Twitter must be held civilly liable for their publications before they truly stop ruining lives and feeding the syndication of divisive fear.
One of the Instagram accounts I follow is called @climingawesome, which is images that have been DM'ed to @climbingawesome for the purpose of being posted in @climbingawesome's public feed. So all of the images are of people climbing. I don't know if the account holder even is a climber, and that leads to my tentative conclusion that all of the images are of "other people". And the vast majority of climbers are not Alex Honnold, and likely to be considered private individuals.
> As worded, one cannot show almost all images including people other than the author of said image.
If Twitter had such an account, it seems like it would now be canceled in order to be consistent with such an interpretation as this.
I just saw something the other day about street photography in Norway. Apparently it's illegal, like almost an inverse of the very permissive US law, which carries no expectation of privacy in public at all.
Twitter is already on a downward swing. The Hunter Biden laptop from hell is a good example of the platform no longer being the place for breaking news, info and insights. Nevermind that they got it wrong, that was always by design.
This is by design as well. Guess what? There will be MORE Hunter Biden laptop drama this weekend. Now, I agree it's petty and pedantic to talk about censorship in the context of this laptop, but it's also a political culture flashpoint.
I can't see myself going to twitter much if they seriously implement this. Everyone under the sun that did something wrong or relevant to public discourse will have all info and links to said exposing content banned.
Twitter will be consigned to the wastebin of normies circle jerking themselves off with progressive narratives and no pushback.
No. But like streaming services, I'm happy to use 2 or 3 to accomplish the goal.
Gab is great, under the radar it has been flying along and getting better and better. It has Milo and other banned characters that are worth the price of admission. It is surprisingly not toxic and not virtuous. Any off topic groups like meat eaters or homesteading or parenting etc are really good. For politics and realted things it definitely has a bent, but I'm ok with that. Eventually the left will get bored of their own creations and slowly spread out. A legit app store app would make it a legit competitor.
There are so many banned people. Paul Sperry. Alex Jones. Milo. Vox Day. Any one of these is worth joining for.
I don't doubt that they like the notoriety. But I would call them artists before I would call them celebrities. Unique artists doing unique things from unique perspectives. Milo is a gay christian master troll leading a religious crusade in the modern world through trolling and shocking and mocking. He is effective because he knows his enemy inside and out. He's been on both sides of the aisle. It's delightful to watch. I find these people highly original and good at what they do. They are also all, in my opinion, intellectuals, knowing their opponents well. Milo didnt become the ultimate troll not reading the Bible and philosophy and culture and studying their intersectionality. Alex Jones didn't become who he is by not reading millions of pages of conspiracy documents and doing crazy outrageous journalist activisism (while having mental illness run in the family). Vox Day created a book publishing company that represents everything progressives hate and have tried to kill. He is on a one man mission to reinvigorate books in the classic tradition of archetypal storylines rather than new age race and gender and earth harmony/disaster storylines. Paul Sperry is just a wonderful reporter that pulls big stories at big times, though he is a little obscure.
I think this is one of his best scoops. He broke a lot of news in this one article and blew open the case for Vindman being the whistleblower.
That's why I'm interested in these people. Not because of some vapid celebrity, but because they stand out and in this sanitized narrated world where thoughts are highly fought over and controlled.
People who like celebrities have similar praises for them. Calling celebs artists or similar things is one of the most common occurrences.
This seems like you like these celebs like any one likes “vapid celebs” but because of the persistent push of these sort of folk to seem so intellectual (but not elite), things have to be spun like being called artists vs celebs to keep the narrative and celebrity going.
>the wastebin of normies circle jerking themselves off with progressive narratives and no pushback
So, why aren't you using a six word phrase that expresses why "normies" should care about the laptop, instead of a tag that only communicates to the already initiated?
I think this may be more of an impediment than "censorship". Also, it would help to put it in context with Hillary's emails. I've forgotten why those mattered.
Hilary Clinton had a private email server. She got shit for it. She deleted the emails so noone could read them. In order to cover up her transgressions, she accused her political opponent of doing exactly what she was doing: colluding through secret internet communications for nefarious purposes. She spent millions of dollars through several cutouts that John Durham is investigating. She colluded with the Russians to frame Trump for colluding with the Russians. She got her revenge and special council against him.
Meanwhile, a disgruntled staffer likely stole DNC "stuff" and maybe fed it to WikiLeaks. The DNC knew. In order to combat this knowing it would drop as an October surprise, they made a fake hacking claim up and blamed it on the Russians.
Confused? Hilary colluded with Russians while blaming Russians and Trump? Yep. And the emails are important because they would have shown the same level of corruption seen in hunter Biden's emails.
Hunter Biden's laptop was soaked with liquid while hunter was doing drugs. He took it to be repaired and never picked it up. The repair shop was owed compensation, and eventually the laptop became that compensation. Legally. In order to counter the heat about Joe Biden and Hunter Bidens shady business dealing in Ukraine, they accused their opponents of shady dealing in the Ukraine. This was the impeachment scandal that revolved around Colonel Vindmans "whistleblower" complaint. They tainted the waters so greatly with politics that there was no way to wade through the mess and hold Hunter or Joe to account. They accused Trump of their corruption in Ukraine.
The playbook is accuse your opponents of your crimes.
>they would have shown the same level of corruption
Would have? Meaning the emails were not released?
>colluded with Russians
>the same level of corruption
>shady business dealing
>tainted the waters so greatly with politics
>their corruption in Ukraine
These are all perfectly generic accusations. My point is, you need a sound bite or slogan that is not generic. That evokes something specific, and a context. If you don't care, why bother saying anything?
>The playbook is accuse your opponents of your crimes.
Yes, it is. How do you, and how should we, tell the difference between two sides accusing each other in similar terms?
Edit: Reading the fine print, it sounds like it's a "whatever twitter says it is" policy:
> This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.
> However, if the purpose of the dissemination of private images of public figures or individuals who are part of public conversations is to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence them, we may remove the content in line with our policy against abusive behavior.. Similarly, private nude images of public individuals will continue to be actioned under our non-consensual nudity policy.
> We recognize that there are instances where account holders may share images or videos of private individuals in an effort to help someone involved in a crisis situation, such as in the aftermath of a violent event, or as part of a newsworthy event due to public interest value, and this might outweigh the safety risks to a person.
> We will always try to assess the context in which the content is shared and, in such cases, we may allow the images or videos to remain on the service. For instance, we would take into consideration whether the image is publicly available and/or is being covered by mainstream/traditional media (newspapers, TV channels, online news sites), or if a particular image and the accompanying tweet text adds value to the public discourse, is being shared in public interest, or is relevant to the community.