💾 Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz › thread › 29393020 captured on 2021-11-30 at 20:18:30. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
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 think they're still opening themselves up to problems. Take these kinds of issues:
https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2021/08/10/lawsuit-takes-aim...
I really wish they had just come down hard on the side of free speech to the extent they could. It would be better for everyone really.
> _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.
So, no Karens or Kens?
Got it.
From the 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."
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.
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.
How do we get private individuals in public?
Twitter’s Platform, Twitter’s Rules, which can be more constraining than legal or regulatory requirements.
Of course. However, they do need to communicate what they believe private individuals in public means as well as consent.
Just watch. This will see very inconsistent selective enforcement.
That will be rightfully objected to.
As worded, one cannot show almost all images including people other than the author of said image.
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.
Why not link to the actual Twitter announcement instead of some random account talking about it?
So basically following Swiss privacy laws.
interesting timing of this announcement
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?
Simple, just quit using Twitter.
I basically have over the last few months.
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.
Like Reddit.
Have you found another platform that better represents your interests?
what did you mean by this? no complaining allowed?
reddit is fairly terrible. youtube has removed the dislike button which seems like indirect censorship. any company that allows one segment of people to voice their opinion while another segment cannot ought to come with a warning label. example: "warning this website is a media company that is biased towards left/right ideologies" not even joking
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.