Jack Dorsey apologizes for white supremacist ads appearing on Twitter, blames automated system

[midian182]

Earlier this week, Twitter introduced a handful of new tools in an effort to shake off its reputation as a platform rife with trolls, bullies, and abuse. But CEO Jack Dorsey has been forced to apologize after an ad promoting a white supremacy group appeared just hours after the new features came into effect.

Los Angeles musician and writer Ariana Lenarsky first spotted the promoted tweet, which came from an account associated with a neo-Nazi organization called New Order. It linked to an article on the group’s website, titled “The United States Was Founded as a White People’s Republic.” You can see her NSFW tweet here.

Twitter told Motherboard that Lenarsky's screenshot was either old or photoshopped. She responded with: “I am heartbroken that my favorite site is a coward and loves Nazis and told the news I am a liar and a photoshopper.”

Yesterday, Twitter boss Jack Dorsey posted an apology. He admitted the ad was real and his company made a mistake. The CEO blamed Twitter’s automated system for failing to flag the offending post. “We made a mistake here and we apologize. Our automated system allowed an ad promoting hate. Against our policy. We did a retro and fixed!” he tweeted. The ad and the user who posted it has since been suspended.

We made a mistake here and we apologize. Our automated system allowed an ad promoting hate. Against our policy. We did a retro and fixed! https://t.co/7gvycmzpsm

— ??jack (@jack) November 17, 2016

Not long after Twitter introduced its anti-troll measures, a number of “alt-right” users found themselves banned from the service, including head of the National Policy Institute, Richard Spencer. "Twitter is trying to airbrush the alt-right out of existence," he said.

As retaliation for the bans, white supremacists have vowed to create thousands of ‘fake black people’ accounts with the apparent aim of stirring up racial tensions.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/67104-jack-dorsey-apologizes-white-supremacist-ads-appearing-twitter.html

 

[davislane1]

A couple generations ago, people fought the Nazis. Took up arms and gunned down the Nazis.

Today, they're triggered by them on social media.

What a bunch of snowflakes.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

"Create thousands of 'fake black people' " - more lies in support of 'truthiness' - so, again, a few dozen extremists making life miserable for the rest of the world.

 

[captaincranky]

Apparently, the First Amendment is only convenient when people want to run their mouths, not when they have to listen to somebody else's opinion or belief.

But this really calls into question modern standards. When white people want to form a group promoting white people, it's "hate speech". When black people do it, you'd think pro-black sentiment was the word of our black, Musilm, lesbian, god herself. (n)

A couple generations ago, people fought the Nazis. Took up arms and gunned down the Nazis.

Today, they're triggered by them on social media.

What a bunch of snowflakes.

Yeah well, the entire "millennium generation" wants to crawl back inside their mommies unless they can have cars that drive for them, and they can't possibly even so much as break a nail while traveling on our roadways.

I have a few more substantive pejoratives than "snowflakes" for them, but alas, the First Amendment really isn't what it used to be...

 

[Levi Sterling]

Apparently, the First Amendment is only convenient when people want to run their mouths, not when they have to listen to somebody else's opinion or belief.

But this really calls into question modern standards. When white people want to form a group promoting white people, it's "hate speech". When black people do it, you'd think pro-black sentiment was the word of our black, Musilm, lesbian, god herself. (n)

A couple generations ago, people fought the Nazis. Took up arms and gunned down the Nazis.

Today, they're triggered by them on social media.

What a bunch of snowflakes.

Yeah well, the entire "millennium generation" wants to crawl back inside their mommies unless they can have cars that drive for them, and they can't possibly even so much as break a nail while traveling on our roadways.

I have a few more substantive pejoratives than "snowflakes" for them, but alas, the First Amendment really isn't what it used to be...

You really have no idea what you are talking about, none of your points support your conclusions. Self driving cars are being made by and for older people. Lots of people whine on the Internet, and the owner of twitter was indoctrinated into an ideology that has nothing to do with an age group

 

[captaincranky]

You really have no idea what you are talking about, none of your points support your conclusions. Self driving cars are being made by and for older people. Lots of people whine on the Internet, and the owner of twitter was indoctrinated into an ideology that has nothing to do with an age group

So,I take it that you're a millennial then?

But somehow paradoxically, you just got here and think you know it all.

Really, it doesn't matter the what the age of the people designing and building the cars are, it's only the age of the target demographic which matters. And........that would be the millennials. Since they're at that precise age where every generation has been, and most likely always will be, marked for wallet emptying via shiny trinkets. In this case, their vulnerability will be because of their extreme preoccupation with frivolous technology. Oh, and fear of breaking a nail.

"Cars which are connected to the internet are way better than those nasty old mechanical things". "Hey wait, these cars are invading are privacy". Nice circular chat, now be gone wit ya

 

[Raoul Duke]

Apparently, the First Amendment is only convenient when people want to run their mouths, not when they have to listen to somebody else's opinion or belief.

But this really calls into question modern standards. When white people want to form a group promoting white people, it's "hate speech". When black people do it, you'd think pro-black sentiment was the word of our black, Musilm, lesbian, god herself. (n)

as they used to say "ain't that the truth".

 

[Levi Sterling]

So,I take it that you're a millennial then?

But somehow paradoxically, you just got here and think you know it all.

Really, it doesn't matter the what the age of the people designing and building the cars are, it's only the age of the target demographic which matters. And........that would be the millennials. Since they're at that precise age where every generation has been, and most likely always will be, marked for wallet emptying via shiny trinkets. In this case, their vulnerability will be because of their extreme preoccupation with frivolous technology. Oh, and fear of breaking a nail.

"Cars which are connected to the internet are way better than those nasty old mechanical things". "Hey wait, these cars are invading are privacy". Nice circular chat, now be gone wit ya

I did not declare that I "know it all" nor did I declare that I did, I declared that you do not know demographics. Your assertions are not an argument, you are just whining on the internet like a prattling child that needs their mother to hold their hand in the real world. Blaming Millennials for your problems do not make you superior, and bringing Autonomous Vehicles into it does not reinforce your conclusion. This is about Twitter being Authoritarian, not about cars.

 

[davislane1]

I did not declare that I "know it all" nor did I declare that I did, I declared that you do not know demographics. Your assertions are not an argument, you are just whining on the internet like a prattling child that needs their mother to hold their hand in the real world. Blaming Millennials for your problems do not make you superior, and bringing Autonomous Vehicles into it does not reinforce your conclusion. This is about Twitter being Authoritarian, not about cars.

So to recap, for those who don't want to review the thread:

Cranky declared that snowflakes are very easy to trigger. This is when a triggered snowflake decided to drop into the thread and refute his point by being...well, a triggered and pedantic snowflake. Because that's really a way to show Cranky wrong.

The cognitive tell here is the lead: "you really have no idea..." When someone starts off their rant like this, they are triggered. When Levi refocuses on autonomous vehicles, we understand what triggered him. You see, Mr. Sterling is a big fan of autonomous cars. At the very least, he supports the technology. This is why he was triggered. Cranky linked autonomous vehicles with neediness, frailty, and femininity. This obviously contradicts Levi's view of autonomous tech as virtuous and strong. If he continues to double-down you will know this analysis is correct.

 

[captaincranky]

I did not declare that I "know it all" nor did I declare that I did, I declared that you do not know demographics. Your assertions are not an argument, you are just whining on the internet like a prattling child that needs their mother to hold their hand in the real world. Blaming Millennials for your problems do not make you superior, and bringing Autonomous Vehicles into it does not reinforce your conclusion. This is about Twitter being Authoritarian, not about cars.

Well Levi, let's start this off with me opining, "the first sign of someone thinking they know it all, is when that person denies it". But in reality, how could you. You most likely haven't been around long enough.

As far as your very lame and self serving argument about, "self driving cars are for old people". Perhaps so, but that's simply because millennials are simply too in debt, (a lot of it being student loans), to be able to afford them. And after all, every one in this day and age needs a college degree, plus a couple of years of Boy Scout training, to find their way out of their parent's basements.

Moving on, the most populous monolithic voting block in the country is rapidly becoming the ghetto blacks. That means, the least productive, least educated, and least qualified demographic in the country, is, by proxy, making most of the decisions regarding and affecting domestic and foreign policies.

Before you take exception to that, keep n mind, we've practically had riots started by blacks demanding "parity in education". Keep in mind also, that suburban more affluent schools, (ostensibly "better" schools), are supported by taxes, from the parents who send their kids to those schools. Somebody, I'm not pointing fingers, needs to get it through their thick skulls that, "if you pay taxes, you can pretty much have whatever type of school system you like".

Let's get back on point, ghetto blacks kill each other by the thousands. But if a white cop should have a lapse of judgement, it generates an entire social movement. To wit, "black lives matter". Well actually some black lives matter, but the cops could spray my entire street with assault weapons, and still not hit one who actually does. More hypocritically, they blame white people for making the guns, with which black drug gangs kill each other.

And now we'll tackle the "autonomous cars are for old people" bizarre, nay extremely bizarre, statement which you've made.

Self driving cars would no doubt be a boon for old timers who can't get around on their own. The trouble is, millions of them will be sold to millennials before any charity is permitted to put its finger in the pie. (Actually charities, will likely have to settle for some bits of stale pie crust)

Now, you seem intent on abridging MY first amendment right to free speech. Keep in mind, white people aren't whimpering to the government to let then into black schools or social clubs. But we are being prevented from starting our own because of black, "sensitivities".

As for Twitter, really? Who gives a flying snot.

 

[Levi Sterling]

Well Levi, let's start this off with me opining, "the first sign of someone thinking they know it all, is when that person denies it". But in reality, how could you. You most likely haven't been around long enough.
Why was this whole thing here?
As for Twitter, really? Who gives a flying snot.

Well Cranky, If you think that you know so much better than me and you can wax loquacious all you like. At the end of the day, your last sentence sums up my entire argument against you. Read the above article, or at the very least the damn title.

 

[Levi Sterling]

So to recap, for those who don't want to review the thread:

Cranky declared that snowflakes are very easy to trigger. This is when a triggered snowflake decided to drop into the thread and refute his point by being...well, a triggered and pedantic snowflake. Because that's really a way to show Cranky wrong.

The cognitive tell here is the lead: "you really have no idea..." When someone starts off their rant like this, they are triggered. When Levi refocuses on autonomous vehicles, we understand what triggered him. You see, Mr. Sterling is a big fan of autonomous cars. At the very least, he supports the technology. This is why he was triggered. Cranky linked autonomous vehicles with neediness, frailty, and femininity. This obviously contradicts Levi's view of autonomous tech as virtuous and strong. If he continues to double-down you will know this analysis is correct.

No, I skimmed the thread and saw someone completely off topic. How does his argument relate to the above article? I don't care past "someone has a **** argument" Triggered? Notification. Your points do not lead to your conclusion, and your word use means nothing to me.

 

[captaincranky]

Well Cranky, If you think that you know so much better than me and you can wax loquacious all you like. At the end of the day, your last sentence sums up my entire argument against you. Read the above article, or at the very least the damn title.

I did read the article. I came to the conclusion that, "the right to free speech is governed by whatever someone else condescends to permit be spoken. Free speech is only allowable only if it is the same opinion as the people listening. Free speech is indeed abridged unless it is "politically correct in the contemporary sense":

So, if free speech is truly a "right", the a**hole in charge of Twitter should have kept his mouth shut, instead of pandering to every imbecile that frequents Twitter on a regular basis. In other words, the mutt was issuing "apologies", which he deemed necessary to insure the continued flow of advertising revenue. Beyond that, who knows or cares, what he thinks, feels, says, or believes.

Besides, I figure if hoards of people are dumb enough to go to Twitter, simply to lap up every word a brainless, no talent and no skill set, completely self absorbed, lard a**ed bimbo, like Kim Kardashian has to "say", a little "tweet or two from the far right" might bang some sense into them. Or at the very least, serve as a "reality check".

In other words, even the content of "the hate-speak" is pretty much irrelevant.

As long as Twitter users have been pacified, and will continue to indulge in mindless prattle, idolatry, "celebrity" worship, and load up their credit cards with every piece of crap advertised there, who needs free speech anyway? It just gets in the way of the fantasies.

 

[Levi Sterling]

I did read the article. I came to the conclusion that, "the right to free speech is governed by whatever someone else condescends to permit be spoken. Free speech is only allowable only if it is the same opinion as the people listening. Free speech is indeed abridged unless it is "politically correct in the contemporary sense":

So, if free speech is truly a "right", the a**hole in charge of Twitter should have kept his mouth shut, instead of pandering to every imbecile that frequents Twitter on a regular basis. In other words, the mutt was issuing "apologies", which he deemed necessary to insure the continued flow of advertising revenue. Beyond that, who knows or cares, what he thinks, feels, says, or believes.

Besides, I figure if hoards of people are dumb enough to go to Twitter, simply to lap up every word a brainless, no talent, completely self absorbed, lard a**ed bimbo, like Kim Kardashian has to "say", a little "tweet or two from the far right" might bang some sense into them. Or at the very least, serve as a "reality check".

Half of the problem is that the owner of the company was indoctrinated into an authoritarian ideology. Yes, the apologies were a moot point but because of his ideology he has too.
It is not even handed in it's own rules or even complicit with the laws of the country it was founded in. The other half of the problem is that many of the people on any social platform wish to only have an echochamber of their ideas.
You are still a bit off though, people of all political views and ages love their twitter, a good example would be a recent banned person Milo Yiannopoulos.I check it about once a month to see if the less posting youtube personalities I follow are not dead.
Frankly if you want to see the people that need a reality check, I can show you Flat Earthers.
A large aggregate of the population have unhealthy biases, you can only try to help people move past it. agreeing with other people with a different bias in another place will do nothing towards that.

I will say this, What Jack Dorsey is doing is the reason their Alexa rank is falling and I'm just fine with them falling into obscurity,

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ]....I will say this, What Jack Dorsey is doing is the reason their Alexa rank is falling and I'm just fine with them falling into obscurity,

The concept of "the right to free speech", is completely impractical from the outset. I think it's a joke started by the framers of our Constitution for the sole purpose of starting arguments.

But, their idea of "free speech" was basically, so that someone couldn't be dragged off to the tower of London and beheaded for calling the king an a**hole.

That said, "free speech" does need limits placed upon it, so that that all of us can enjoy a modicum of that same right.

The issue I'm having with the white supremacists being censored, is the fact , (IMHO of course), that black people have been handed "free speech" carte blanche, while the white race has had an equivalent amount "free speech" taken away from them to provide it.

Granted, the people which placed the ad, certainly have no class, and lack a significant amount of good sense. By the same token, I'm not ready to be declared a "racist", because I'm "ethnocentric".

FWIW, this is the second "civil rights movement", I hope to live through. The first one, powered by us "hippies", made some progress for some very deserving people. Many blacks just wanted to be considered and treated as "middle class". You know, ride the same buses, attend the same schools, and work on the assembly line next to the white guy, while buying a house the same as him, putting his kids through school as him, and so forth. I think they called it, "equality".

This second "black lives matter" bullsh!t, is basically the work of professional troublemakers.However, In the "modern" black community, "having your civil rights", means, being able to sell all the heroine you can, carry unlicensed forearms, fathering all the children you possibly can, with all the women you can, and all the while collecting Social Security "disability", in a house rented for you by the government, with a comprehensively vulgar, racist soundtrack to your life provided by convicted felons. OK, if that sounds outrageous, that's exactly what people I know are doing, and it's more widespread than anybody outside the inner city would like to believe.

We have reached a point in this country where backlash to these goings on is not only inevitable, but absolutely necessary.

But hey you know, "the right to free speech" can be freely tailored to whatever your needs dictate. Want to film the filthiest porn imaginable? Well, that's "freedom of expression". (That's an observation, not a condemnation).

So, how come broadcasters still have "standards and practices" which they must follow to remain on the air? In fact, viewers demand that "free speech" BE abridged, so that little Johnnie and Janie, don't hear things which might "make them grow up too fast". Have you ever heard anything on broadcast TV which denied the existence of Santa Claus? Of course not. But we both know that Santa Claus doesn't exist, and not being allowed to say so, abridges one's "right to free speech". So, the right to "free speech" needs to be tempered with "good taste", and, "common sense".

And this article should explain why I think "police officer's lives should matter as much as black lives", but isn't emphasized anywhere nearly enough.
http://6abc.com/news/san-antonio-police-officer-fatally-shot-while-writing-ticket/1617059/

 

[Levi Sterling]

just a notification

I find what you said reasonably agreeable.

 

[mbrowne5061]

A couple generations ago, people fought the Nazis. Took up arms and gunned down the Nazis.

Today, they're triggered by them on social media.

What a bunch of snowflakes.

A couple generations ago our govt. also declared open season on Nazis, so you legally could do that.

But agreed that some are too easily offended in this age.

 

[davislane1]

So to recap, for those who don't want to review the thread:

Cranky declared that snowflakes are very easy to trigger. This is when a triggered snowflake decided to drop into the thread and refute his point by being...well, a triggered and pedantic snowflake. Because that's really a way to show Cranky wrong.

The cognitive tell here is the lead: "you really have no idea..." When someone starts off their rant like this, they are triggered. When Levi refocuses on autonomous vehicles, we understand what triggered him. You see, Mr. Sterling is a big fan of autonomous cars. At the very least, he supports the technology. This is why he was triggered. Cranky linked autonomous vehicles with neediness, frailty, and femininity. This obviously contradicts Levi's view of autonomous tech as virtuous and strong. If he continues to double-down you will know this analysis is correct.

No, I skimmed the thread and saw someone completely off topic. How does his argument relate to the above article? I don't care past "someone has a **** argument" Triggered? Notification. Your points do not lead to your conclusion, and your word use means nothing to me.

He doubled-down, folks. This is how we know he's triggered. There is also another cognitive tell in this response. Note at the end he says very awkwardly, "your word use means nothing to me." In addition to being very strange (we aren't talking about prose composition in this thread), he claims to not care about what I wrote in spite of not only responding to it, but attempting to refute it by doubling down as well.

This is an example of the rule of opposites. When someone proclaims, "I don't care," the opposite is always true.* For if they truly did not care, they could not have found the motivation to respond. You can test this rule yourself. If I asked, "What font is used on your local road signs?" you probably wouldn't know because you've never cared. If I asked, "How much do you weigh?" you probably know, because at some level you care about that.

...[ ]....I will say this, What Jack Dorsey is doing is the reason their Alexa rank is falling and I'm just fine with them falling into obscurity,

The concept of "the right to free speech", is completely impractical from the outset. I think it's a joke started by the framers of our Constitution for the sole purpose of starting arguments.

But, their idea of "free speech" was basically, so that someone couldn't be dragged off to the tower of London and beheaded for calling the king an a**hole.

That said, "free speech" does need limits placed upon it, so that that all of us can enjoy a modicum of that same right.

The issue I'm having with the white supremacists being censored, is the fact , (IMHO of course), that black people have been handed "free speech" carte blanche, while the white race has had an equivalent amount "free speech" taken away from them to provide it.

Granted, the people which placed the ad, certainly have no class, and lack a significant amount of good sense. By the same token, I'm not ready to be declared a "racist", because I'm "ethnocentric".

FWIW, this is the second "civil rights movement", I hope to live through. The first one, powered by us "hippies", made some progress for some very deserving people. Many blacks just wanted to be considered and treated as "middle class". You know, ride the same buses, attend the same schools, and work on the assembly line next to the white guy, while buying a house the same as him, putting his kids through school as him, and so forth. I think they called it, "equality".

This second "black lives matter" bullsh!t, is basically the work of professional troublemakers.However, In the "modern" black community, "having your civil rights", means, being able to sell all the heroine you can, carry unlicensed forearms, fathering all the children you possibly can, with all the women you can, and all the while collecting Social Security "disability", in a house rented for you by the government, with a comprehensively vulgar, racist soundtrack to your life provided by convicted felons. OK, if that sounds outrageous, that's exactly what people I know are doing, and it's more widespread than anybody outside the inner city would like to believe.

We have reached a point in this country where backlash to these goings on is not only inevitable, but absolutely necessary.

But hey you know, "the right to free speech" can be freely tailored to whatever your needs dictate. Want to film the filthiest porn imaginable? Well, that's "freedom of expression". (That's an observation, not a condemnation).

So, how come broadcasters still have "standards and practices" which they must follow to remain on the air? In fact, viewers demand that "free speech" BE abridged, so that little Johnnie and Janie, don't hear things which might "make them grow up too fast". Have you ever heard anything on broadcast TV which denied the existence of Santa Claus? Of course not. But we both know that Santa Claus doesn't exist, and not being allowed to say so, abridges one's "right to free speech". So, the right to "free speech" needs to be tempered with "good taste", and, "common sense".

And this article should explain why I think "police officer's lives should matter as much as black lives", but isn't emphasized anywhere nearly enough.
http://6abc.com/news/san-antonio-police-officer-fatally-shot-while-writing-ticket/1617059/

This post is on point. Well stated.

*Except when it isn't.

 

[Levi Sterling]

He doubled-down, folks. This is how we know he's triggered.

 

[GyratingIndy]

White supremacist ads? The beginning of a new end.