Our Terms
There's some discussion in our forum right now about content disputes and the specifics of our Terms of Service. It seems there is room in our Terms for folks to debate the difference between an update and an insult. There is some confusion surrounding our official policy with regard to taking action.
Some people think we should ban one person if another person is unhappy with the content—or more specifically, if they personally define that content as "harrassment." In the case being discussed, we didn't perceive a violation of our Terms after a careful review.
This speaks to our larger stance that Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content. For those who are interested in this debate, please note that we are engaged in editing our ToS so it more clearly states the scenarios in which we will take action. The revised ToS will reflect this earlier statement of our policy on abuse.
Some people think we should ban one person if another person is unhappy with the content—or more specifically, if they personally define that content as "harrassment." In the case being discussed, we didn't perceive a violation of our Terms after a careful review.
This speaks to our larger stance that Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content. For those who are interested in this debate, please note that we are engaged in editing our ToS so it more clearly states the scenarios in which we will take action. The revised ToS will reflect this earlier statement of our policy on abuse.
39 Comments:
"This speaks to our larger stance that Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content"
I agree completely. I've agreed with you from the beginning. I look forward to seeing the new TOS. Will you blog when the changes are made?
Keep Doing What You Do,
Naresh
twitter.com/naresh
Wikipedia went through a similar discussion and came to the same conclusion.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/132590#132590
I'm impressed you are erring on the side of leaving twitter open. With a woman claiming harassment, the easy thing for you to do would have been to ban the alleged 'cyberbully' and get rid of the content. That you decided to carefully review the content and update your terms of service so that grown ups can decide for themselves if they want to tweet every ounce of themselves into open airwaves with the risk and responsibility that entails is quite brave. Thanks. (Still on the downtime issue, i think you guys should be the ones buying us pizza).
Couldn't agree more--
don't mediate the content.
To be fair though, your initial
(read: current) TOS does state that harrassment is prohibited. Based on *some* of the Twitter messages in question, there was a breach of your TOS.
Very good step modifying and clarifying your TOS, as long as the next one you stand by.
Keep up the good work!
Shanebe
twitter.com/shanebe
There are a number of issues involved here. First and foremost should be Twitter allowing people to Tweet with as much freedom from filtering and restraint as possible.
In some cases, people will become overly obnoxious, abusive, threatening, etc.
But what is "harassment"? Is it the same for you as it is for me? The same for a woman, as it is for a man, the same for a Vegetarian and for a Carnivore?
The answer is actually pretty clear, and it has been addressed time and time again for generations - circumstances have to be taken into consideration.
This is why we have a Jury, and why there is a "Police Review Board" in many cities, etc.
The core issue here is that Twitter and a Twitterer have different interpretations of harassment. And this will happen again - because there is no way to write a ToU document that defines "harassment" - even our courts cannot do that with any granularity.
This is part of what I would do as the Twitter Community Evangelist (http://lagesse.org/i-am-running-for-twitter-community-evangelist-convince-them-they-need-one/) - I would form a volunteer "Twitter Review Board" that took other Twitter users, from a variety of backgrounds, and have them review and suggest actions to Twitter. Of course, Twitter would make the final determination, but the review board would be transparent, and people would know when Twitter acted outside of their guidance - and then (presumably) Twitter would explain why.
And the Committee would change every six months. Members would be selected based on suggestions from the Twitter Community. And although no member could serve back to back terms, they can serve multiple terms.
http://twitter.com/kr8tr
http://twitter.com/confessions.
That is all harrasment and spam. Would you let those things be said about your wives, mothers, and sisters?
"... Some people think we should ban one person if another person is unhappy with the content—or more specifically, if they personally define that content as "harrassment." In the case being discussed, we didn't perceive a violation of our Terms after a careful review.
This speaks to our larger stance that Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content. ..."
It doesn't matter how you legally interpret the situation. The law is the lowest common denominator. The real question is, "are you being 'good'?" ~ http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html
"... In the case being discussed, we didn't perceive a violation of our Terms after a careful review. This speaks to our larger stance that Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content. ..."
It matter less what you perceive and get legal opinion on. The law is really the lowest acceptable standard of good behaviour. What matters most is, "doing good" ~ http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html
Are you "being good" here?
This is abhorrent. Twitter needs to accept the responsibilities inherent in the stewardship of a community. Because that's the situation they're in, whether they want it or not.
Twitter needs to accept the responsibilities inherent in the stewardship of a community.
Twitter isn't trying to steward a community - they are trying to allow people to create and to consume information as they wish. Communities will form out of this, yes.
But Twitter is right to thoughtfully establish rules and then let the rules dictate action.
I've read the discussion, and Ariel's blog about it. I think this stinks of cronyism and rationalization. Changing the TOS only changes the future - you can't just sweep this under the rug and hope it will go away. I think Twitter's stance on this stinks, and I plan to tell everyone I know about it.
you guys are doing the right thing - give people the freedom to say what they will, and don't cater to someone who is bringing up two month old issues in a clear need for attention
What's to stop this nimrod from starting up another account and doing the same thing again?
If someone's giving you grief and you cant "get satisfaction" from the services, contact the ISP of the offender. Most of them do not take crap like this lightly.
Do you see the 'confession' alias and data entry site (http://kosso.co.uk/twitter/confess/) to be within your TOS?
If I post a tweet from other sites that use your API I am asked to login.
Are logins optional?
I think that your behaviour here has been disgraceful. There is a complete difference between open discussion and active and continuous harrassment. This has nothing to do with being a 'mediator of content', merely preventing some users from abusing your service.
I wouldn't say that any social networks are 'mediators of content', but I don't know ANY who wouldn't respond to this kind of abuse without acting swiftly against the perpetrator. Your stance stinks of cowardliness.
On that note, I see that you've enabled comment moderation, so that the only comments your willing to show must be 'approved by the blog author'. Possibly more willing to mediate content when it's directed at you?
Biz - I'm sorry but this is a very lame reply to what looks like Ariel's very legitimate concerns.
Repost the content and let the community decide! Community involvement is a good way to craft a better TOS or decide if that is even needed.
You do realise that you can't just change your TOS every time you don't want to deal with a problem, right?
Regardless of if you change your TOS next week, the current TOS apply to the current day.
I shut my account, as this is the second totally unacceptable episode of the week. The first being that the site is more down than up. I consider myself lucky that Europe has proper laws to deal with this sort of thing, and we wouldn't stand for the airy-fairy nonsense from the people at Twitter on this topic.
They cannot simply define themselves to be something, that is not in their power. If you or your company permit or enable the law to be broken, you are in a position of weakness. Viz. the peer sites which permit illegal sharing of copyrighted music and movies. They got sued and lost.
I understand the UK pretty much defines 'harrassment' as anything which the person being harrassed considers to be unacceptable, which is clearly the case here. But I side with the people who think that upholding manners and etiquette is a higher standard (and more desirable) than doing the legal minimum.
Twitter is doing everything that is needed. They provide you with a block button, and the ability to not follow someone that you don't want to. If you are offended by something that someone says, and it isn't under the purview of libel, then it is their responsibility to ignore the offender.
Twitter, you did the hard (but right) thing by refusing to act. Free speech is sometimes uncomfortable, but if Twitter is to expand into that needed service for everyone like it has become to me, it needs to be like other major communication mediums and be agnostic to content.
As it has been stated above, harassment is a very subjective thing, and as such it is difficult to draw a line between true harassment and legitimate criticism and even just friendly horsing around.
In the US (and likely in other countries with similar ideals) there are too many that would give up their freedom in the name of moral purity or security, but when we give in to these tempting notions we find that soon it is OUR freedoms that are being eroded.
Go Twitter!
Twitter you need to deal with this and fast. This user particularly needs to be banned:
http://twitter.com/confession
Deliberately breaking your TOS, inciting hate speech, smearing other peoples reputations. This has got to stop before the whole world realises that they can abuse whoever they like on Twitter and get away with it.
I am really disappointed in your ability to deal with this. If you won't do anything about it, the community most certainly will. We made you great, we'll bring you down without a moment's hesitation. The negative PR is spreading like wildfire.
If someone deliberately breaks your TOS the answer is not to change your TOS to allow it. Follow the example of every other great site on the internet and make your message clear: hateful abuse will not be tolerated.
If all that I have read is true, I have one question for Twitter and a comment...
How does lewd name calling and releasing personal information such as an address not qualify as harassment?
Can't wait to see how your attorneys redefine harassment... This is making me think of Bush redefining torture...
Interestingly enough, the confessions username is now gone. WTF twitter, why not revise the TOS again for that too? I'd love to know what "crosses the line" considering you just posted that you're a comunication mechanism.
"Some people think we should ban one person if another person is unhappy with the content—or more specifically, if they personally define that content as "harrassment"."
This is a serious understatement. The posted things were definitely harassments.
It's perfectly ok for you to see your self to be a communication utility - as soon as you updated your TOS. As long as the current TOS are in place, you have to take them serious.
Think about law: It's not possible to say "Hey you committed a crime, but I don't like the current law, so lets create new law under you will be prosecuted (or not).".
Does anybody at Twitter actually think before doing something? I mean we already know that your engineering team didn't think too much when they created Twitter. Is there anybody else you actually thinks before working?
I am not a fan of Twitter, nor a user, and am heartily tired of stories about this service.
I am impressed, though, with how Twitter responded to this incident. By clarifying Twitter's role, you remove yourselves as nanny, which is the only feasible approach you could take and still have an "open" service.
amber lee, you wrote something in the forum about Twitter not being a "safe" place.
Thank god! We should celebrate the remaining places of the Internet that aren't "safe". Celebrate and cherish because too often idiot governments respond to cries like yours, to make the Internet "safe", until all that we love about the internet will one day be "safely" gone.
I don't want your "safe" internet, and commend Twitter not taking the "safe" course.
The point is that you made a promise to people with your TOS that you'd look after them. There are two ways to look at Twitter, one is like a phone company and one is like a community.
In your TOS you said that you got your harassment language from Flickr. Flickr very much gets involved in these sorts of disputes and has kicked many people from their site over them.
Twitter doesn't have to be like Flickr -- but to allow someone to be harassed for two years in violation of your TOS and then only agree to change your warm and fuzzy sounding TOS when you take the PR hit isn't very good.
What's worse, because this person works for Pownce (someone you might consider a competitor even though she's been very active on Twitter), it makes it look like you might be allowing her to be harassed simply to stick it to the competition.
Personally I'd recommend disabling the offending account in this case to be in compliance with your TOS and then changing your TOS going forward to make yourselves sound more like a phone company and less like a community.
You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either Twitter is a community like Flickr or it's a carrier like your DSL provider or Comcast.
I agree with Amber Lee who asks the question if you'd let these things be said about your wives and mothers.
It's far from uncommon for women to be harassed in vulgar sexual terms online. In fact, being on the receiving end of abusive sexual insults happens all too often. And when it does, it can be very scary and intimidating.
It seems to me that you're saying if it happens to a woman on Twitter she's SOL. I am deeply disappointed to hear that that is your considered opinion on the issue.
I agree 100% with Twitter's standpoint. Twitter's job is not to manage the content, only to manage the tools to create it.
Why not add an /ignore feature in twitter, the notes will still be in the public time-line, but at least your view will filter them out.
Follow the conversation on this at FriendFeed here.
Even *MySpace* allows you to block spammy and/or harassing content/contact, and if the perpetrator does it enough, they get banned. It's sad when a company with so many smart people behind the scenes like Twitter can't even keep up with web-two-point-no MySpace.
And it's also sad that as per usual, when a woman complains about harassment, she's called a drama queen and attention-seeking, told to get over it, etc etc.
But therein lies the difference -- calling someone a drama queen, while obnoxious, is not harassment. Posting personal information and other things designed to hurt someone is. You can't police a million tweets to see if someone called someone else a twat. But if someone clicks a "report this" button or the like, you should take action to review it, and close the accounts of repeat offenders.
How about the ability to "mute" individuals?
PLEASE F*CKING UPDATE US ON THE STATUS OF TWITTER> IT DOWN AGAIN!
Confessions is likely an Anon account. It's obviously multiple people bent on being annoying.
I would consider this an anon attack and ban. It unleashes a huge retaliation though.
I don't have any problem with Twitter deciding that they'd rather be in the communication utility biz than the community biz -- it's a smart call. And I don't have any problem with them updating their ToS to be in alignment with that decision.
But I find it extremely troubling that there's such a significant disconnect between their (legal) words and their actions.
What, exactly, *would* have counted as harassment under the terms of their current ToS? Is this something they never discussed as a company? Did they spend *no* time thinking their ToS through before throwing it up on the site? Yikes.
If they have no problem ignoring this part of their ToS, what other legal statements are they not willing to stand by? What parts of their Privacy Policy are they totally unacquainted with and willing to ignore?
It sounds to me like they're learning a rough lesson here, but I hope that they'll take a long, hard look at *all* of their legal verbiage, and actually take the time to think through what it *means* in terms of practical operations. It's not just words on a page to protect their asses in case of lawsuits, it's a communication to users, and it should have some meaning.
Freedom of speech is one thing...but calling someone a 'cunt' is reprehensible.
Allowing it to go on on shows Twitter as bias and cowardly.
Communities shouldn't be policed per se but when they are tool for peoples personal and twisted agendas...sites like Twitter need to step up the the plate.
While I generally support and applaud the desire to stay more open and remove yourself from the real or perceived drama, I think your overall choice of action is flat out lazy and weak. Why? Because I know you know better. The Twitter team has far too much collective experience to think otherwise.
If you're not going to enforce your ToS, why have them it at all? Rewriting the ToS to save yourselves the trouble of maintaining a positive culture is flat wrong.
While you might think of your application as nothing more than a "tool" or a "communications platform", I doubt that a great many of your members would agree. I regularly hear people talk about it as a "community", a "destination", the place they spend their social networking time.
I remember hearing the MySpace team use the "we're just a platform" argument as a way to avoid dealing with their rampant spammers, predators, and troublemakers. Digg's gaming is nearly laughable and they've only gotten around to employing a community manager a few months ago. If you're opting to take a similar hands-off and proven ineffective path, I find myself wondering about the investment in time I'm putting into Twitter. Hard to think this attitude has a happy ending.
Throwing your hands up and wrapping yourself around the excuse (and it is an excuse) that you're just a platform and that you have no interest or responsibility to draw and enforce some level of positivity on the site bothers me.
The saddest part of your reaction is that it is EXACTLY what old school media would have done - sent in the lawyers to clean up the legalese then sat back and scratched their heads while wondering why people are still upset.
This is NOT a LEGAL issue. This is not a ToS issue. This is not a "mediation" issue. This is a social issue. This is your community looking to the community's leadership and wondering how they're going to look out for them. And the leadership took a pass.
By editing your "ToS so it more clearly states the scenarios in which [you] will take action", you're giving a free pass and a roadmap to those who wish to harm the culture so many of us have come to love here on Twitter.
Jake McKee
communityguy.com
One word for the discussion: PATHETIC!
Keep going like this and you'll see on what the Internet becomes.
If this was a man, there wouldn't be a discussion in the first place!
Get a life Ariel!
Twitter, good job! Don't even pay attention to people who tell you otherwise.
Nice dodge, Twitter! Decline to enforce your ToS, then change it and claim you're a common carrier, as though that solves ethical problems. If we go through all the talks and blog posts of Twitter employees talking about everyone building services and driving traffic to the site, will we really conclude that you're just a communications medium, and that you're not trying to build and support a community?
Stand up and take responsibility. As it stands, the Republicans would be proud.
No Twitter, you have to understand that when one of your users is being openly harassed you have to take action immediately and stop playing it cool. When one of your users is harassed on Twitter and you do nothing and that user experiences physical harm then you will be responsible, you do understand that, right?
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home