zlacker

What kind of utterly ridiculous policy is hiding posts for “glorifying violence?” So if I write a post about the Bangladeshi independence war, saying how great it was that we beat those damn Pakistanis, my post would get hidden?

>>rayine+(OP)
When you threaten to start shooting people you are glorifying violence. I am guessing you didn't even look at the tweets.

>>rayine+(OP)
Why is that ridiculous?

>>report+e
So if I say it was great that India came in with guns blazing in 1971, killing thousands of Pakistani soldiers to liberate Bangladesh, that is a view that should be censored?

>>jakela+n
Because violence is one of the fundamental political and sociological forces in the world, and preventing people from talking about it in the abstract--as distinguished from targeted threats of violence to specific people--is completely off the reservation. As a Bangladeshi, I have a country because people like my uncle went to war and killed a bunch of Pakistanis. I bet Polish people are glad that Americans gunned down millions of Germans in the 1940s. Steven Spielberg's "Munich" was an amazing account of Operation Wrath of God--glorifying the assassination of terrorists that killed 11 members of Israel's 1972 Olympic team. Violence is often a proper subject of glorification.

In practice, I strongly suspect the Twitter isn't actually applying the policy as written. Instead, they're applying the policy selectively, based on ideological biases.