Australia puts Twitter on notice for hate speech content

[Dirtyshado]

24 minutes ago, Spotty said:

I What I'm guessing has happened recently is Twitter has stopped responding to them when they've tried forwarding complaints and any resolution the commission has tried to get from Twitter has stalled.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if it's just that due to the thousands of people they fired Twitter just does not have the workforce required to deal with all of these requests. They're also currently being sued by the music industry for failing to respond to copyright infringement notices on the platform. Seems like it's a systemic issue at Twitter.

Twitter layed off its 40 Australian employees that were based here, those included the staff in the government relations, communications, marketing, and news curation. So pretty much anyone who could of represented Twitter in Australia.  So that would of cut off most lines of communication.

 

Quote

From the perspective of the eSafety Commission, what else would you have them do?

Under the Online Safety Act, gives the commission authority to compel online service providers to remove seriously harmful content within 24 hours of receiving a formal notice. (which Twitter has failed to do)

 

Codes and standards are enforceable by civil penalties and injunctions to make sure online service providers comply. (we are now in early part here)

 

If the provider does not remove the material, authorities can prosecute on criminal charges to show the provider acted deliberately, recklessly or negligently in opposing the law.

 

[wanderingfool2]

9 minutes ago, Spotty said:

It's probably in Twitter's best interest to respond to the complaints and remove offending content

But this herein lies the crux of the issue.  What is considered "offending content".

 

Because again, under the way some of the CCDH applies hate speech the comments Linus made on the WAN show; now I doubt anyone would report it but if someone were to would anyone here actually think the video should be removed?  Or to that matter, does all the focus of there being "more hate" on Twitter cause people to report more often than on lets say YouTube.

 

At the moment we can only go based on what they said, they had more complaints, they made not accusations of Twitter not responding to those complaints.  They did cite some of the CCDH stuff, but they had reported 100 tweets and only reported back in 4 days...why 4 days though?  I suspect because maybe after 5 days the accounts began being deleted/suspended/removed.  Of those 100 tweets though, they listed listed 8 examples.  Now of those 8 examples, you have 2 accounts perna banned, 1 tweet removed, 2 flagged with limited visibility.  Of the remaining 3 though, 1 seems to be a holocaust denier (but the tweet CCDH reported was showing pictures valid news articles of people who actually lied about being a holocaust survivor)...so while some might be offended it shouldn't be removed, 1 is iffy in that I do see how it could be interpreted as hate, but at the same time it could be thought as a comment regarding policies like affirmative action, the final one I do think deserves a flagged with limited visibility.   The general question being out of 100 tweets they only showed 8 examples but at least 1 of them I doubt could be considered hate, and one I think is maybe slightly borderline whether it's okay or not...so it gets back to the general point of what is considered "offending content".

[Brooksie359]

6 minutes ago, Dirtyshado said:

Twitter layed off its 40 Australian employees that were based here, those included the staff in the government relations, communications, marketing, and news curation. So pretty much anyone who could of represented Twitter in Australia.  So that would of cut off most lines of communication.

 

Under the Online Safety Act, gives the commission authority to compel online service providers to remove seriously harmful content within 24 hours of receiving a formal notice. (which Twitter has failed to do)

 

Codes and standards are enforceable by civil penalties and injunctions to make sure online service providers comply. (we are now in early part here)

 

If the provider does not remove the material, authorities can prosecute on criminal charges to show the provider acted deliberately, recklessly or negligently in opposing the law.

 

You can't get charged criminally for breaking the law in a country you don't even live in and haven't even been to. They can at most stop allowing Twitter to do business in Australia but if they think they would be able to get Twitter in a criminal court in Australia they are naive. Tbh it's really annoying when every country in the world makes their own rules about the internet and try and force foreign websites to comply with their rules like they have jurisdiction over the internet. 

[Dirtyshado]

5 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

But this herein lies the crux of the issue.  What is considered "offending content".

cyber‑bullying material targeted at an Australian child;

cyber‑abuse material targeted at an Australian adult;

 a non‑consensual intimate image of a person;

 material that promotes abhorrent violent conduct;

 material that incites abhorrent violent conduct;

 material that instructs in abhorrent violent conduct;

 material that depicts abhorrent violent conduct;

 

Most of these are considered criminal offences (via a communications platform -  US has a similar law), the act compels social media to proactively report and remove such items to protect users until law enforcement can be involved.

 

 

 

[Quackers101]

artists always getting banned on these platforms, while bots benefit from their work.

 

hate speech is such a weird term and doesn't need to mean much at all, unless its more defined and explained.
if saying any hate speech, could more or less mean a lot of things.

 

all of these stupid charges, also some being issues on any big platform.

"28 days explaining what their plan is to deal with hateful content on its platform. If Twitter fails to respond they will face fines of $475,000 USD per day until they respond."

[Dirtyshado]

19 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

You can't get charged criminally for breaking the law in a country you don't even live in and haven't even been to. They can at most stop allowing Twitter to do business in Australia but if they think they would be able to get Twitter in a criminal court in Australia they are naive. Tbh it's really annoying when every country in the world makes their own rules about the internet and try and force foreign websites to comply with their rules like they have jurisdiction over the internet. 

Yes you can be criminally charged for breaking a law in a country you never been in, extradition is also an option.

 

Any company or individual doing business in Australia via import/export/digitally is bound by our laws, that is the cost of doing business in any country, not just Australia... that is what makes multi-national corporations, multi-national.

 

Facebook just made that arguement a few months ago in relation to Cambridge Analytica scandal, that they were a US company and had no liability under the Australian laws they were being accused of breaching in the second highest court in Australia and it got thrown out promptly, the case is still going ahead.  (Valve, Microsoft, Apple, Bethesda, Sony... all made similar claims, and lost, its a false arguement)  

 

The reason is cause this Australian law is written to protect its citizens, if Twitters actions or inaction effect Australian citizens, then Australia has the right to prosecute them.  If Twitter doesn't want to deal with that, they shouldn't have come to Australia. 

 

Twitter agreed with the Online Saftey Act and stayed in Australia, they also were the one of the original members of the Christchurch Call (which the Online Safey Act is based on), so Twitter has no excuse... except their CEO Musk didn't do his friggen due diligence and failed to realise he has compliance and reporting obligations in multi-national countries... as a multi-national corporation.

 

[Brooksie359]

10 minutes ago, Dirtyshado said:

Yes you can be criminally charged for breaking a law in a country you never been in, extradition is also an option.

 

Any company or individual doing business in Australia via import/export/digitally is bound by our laws, that is the cost of doing business in any country, not just Australia... that is what makes multi-national corporations, multi-national.

 

Facebook just made that arguement a few months ago in relation to Cambridge Analytica scandal, that they were a US company and had no liability under the Australian laws they were being accused of breaching in the second highest court in Australia and it got thrown out promptly, the case is still going ahead.  (Valve, Microsoft, Apple, Bethesda, Sony... all made similar claims, and lost, its a false arguement)  

 

The reason is cause this Australian law is written to protect its citizens, if Twitters actions or inaction effect Australian citizens, then Australia has the right to prosecute them.  If Twitter doesn't want to deal with that, they shouldn't have come to Australia. 

 

Twitter agreed with the Online Saftey Act and stayed in Australia, they also were the one of the original members of the Christchurch Call (which the Online Safey Act is based on), so Twitter has no excuse... except their CEO Musk didn't do his friggen due diligence and failed to realise he has compliance and reporting obligations in multi-national countries... as a multi-national corporation.

 

You will never see someone being extradited for something like this. Like I said at most a company would pull out of Australia. The only reason why any company even entertains the Australian courts is because they want to do business with them otherwise Australia could sue these companies into oblivion but it wouldn't matter because they aren't based in Australia and they would simply pull out of Australia and ignore whatever fines Australia put on them because they would be effectively nonenforcable. It reminds me of getting a speeding ticket in a different state in the US. So long as you don't go to that state again you can absolutely get away with not paying the ticket and there isn't much that the other state can do. 

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

Wait what is the problem with vampires? I mean I am not a fan of twilight as much as the next guy but that seems like a weird distinction. 

VISA has gone after cosplayers, streamers and artists that have vampires in it for absolutely silly reasons if it's cosplay or other NSFW material.

 

I have a whole list of absolutely stupid things VISA takes an issue with because they see no difference between fictional and real life, and the "Vampire" thing falls right into to a whole bunch of VISA not liking non-human on human NSFW material either. Like a sextoy passes, but sexy humanoid-shaped monster does not.

 

*shrug*

 

I imagine the issue twitter has, for better for for worse is that arbitrary nonsense comes from everywhere, and if you want to be a bastion of free speech, you have to leave some of the hatespeech/materials up less you have some countries nonsense try to override another's sensible speech. Like most religious hate-speech has to stay up otherwise you'd have to remove every single tweet talking about Jesus for the same grounds you'd remove it for talking about Mohammad or any other religious deity. In the same breath then having to remove every single tweet that that is offensive to those same silly countries.

 

I'm more in favor of a soft-firewall being put around countries that have arbitrary nonsense (Eg government over-reach, or thin-skinned cowards in a position of power.) Just make those tweets not visible inside the country that it's offensive to. 

 

Australia, or Canada, or UK, or NZ, or any other country with english-speaking expats really should not be able to override what a US company says or does unless their business operates inside their borders, and then they only need to filter it out for them, not everyone globally without some illegal-everywhere reason to. When it comes to language barriers, it's a bit too much to ask for Twitter to have 100 people sitting around able to understand three randomly picked languages fluently just in case a tweet gets reported. 

 

We have reached a point in time that AI translation is reasonable-enough to understand the context of a tweet in a foreign language to determine if it's targeted hate speech or just two people who banter rudely to each other but are friends. Despite that, I've seen people get banned for basically calling each other slutty yet they're clearly all in on the joke. Twitter's putting of tweets out of context in front of the wrong people is what causes a lot of unnecessary reports.

 

[wanderingfool2]

49 minutes ago, Dirtyshado said:

cyber‑bullying material targeted at an Australian child;

cyber‑abuse material targeted at an Australian adult;

 a non‑consensual intimate image of a person;

 material that promotes abhorrent violent conduct;

 material that incites abhorrent violent conduct;

 material that instructs in abhorrent violent conduct;

 material that depicts abhorrent violent conduct;

 

Most of these are considered criminal offences (via a communications platform -  US has a similar law), the act compels social media to proactively report and remove such items to protect users until law enforcement can be involved.

The issue is while you listed things not everything is always well defined.

 

"non-consensual intimate images" for example.  While I think everyone knows what it's talking about, what about people whose religion requires covering of some body parts; do you classify a picture of that posted without permission "intimate" then.  Or what about people who consider hugging to be quite intimate, and have their picture put up with them hugging someone.

 

In regards to this topic though, an issue is what are they considering hate speech and the actual statistics behind it.  What is mentioned is very vague, and the studies they pointed to in their article actually have some of the reported "hate" tweets not matching the activities above.

 

They mention a report of hate speech, but reporting doesn't necessarily mean much if they aren't giving statistics of what it was like.  As an example, of those reported how many of them were actual hate speech based on how they define it (and to that how do they define it).

 

Like as an example, would they consider Person A tweeting "XYZ is the slowest animal in the world"  Person B tweets at them "You are an idiot for thinking that and the whole world is dumber because you said that".  An interaction like that is perhaps unpleasant, but under the old Twitter mentality and some other social platforms you could actually get suspended for that (or rather getting your account flagged where you need to verify you are a human by giving them your number).  The issue becomes that not all tweets that are being requested taken down are necessarily falling into a category that or severity where it's against a law.

 

 

I think it's also important to note the Trust and Safety Officer prior to Musk taking over, Yoel Roth, had stated before in a tweet that "[...] ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE [government body that didn't have Nazis in it]".  

[Dirtyshado]

6 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

You will never see someone being extradited for something like this. Like I said at most a company would pull out of Australia. The only reason why any company even entertains the Australian courts is because they want to do business with them otherwise Australia could sue these companies into oblivion but it wouldn't matter because they aren't based in Australia and they would simply pull out of Australia and ignore whatever fines Australia put on them because they would be effectively nonenforcable. It reminds me of getting a speeding ticket in a different state in the US. So long as you don't go to that state again you can absolutely get away with not paying the ticket and there isn't much that the other state can do. 

I always find the US citizens interpretation of the law funny, especially in international agreements, considering the US Government is a key signature in most international agreements including criminal codes, trade, communication, banking, security, human rights, extradition, taxation etc. 

 

A US company/citizen can't even ignore the fines imposed by Australia government (or any sovereign nation recognised by the US), there are ways to compel a foreign person/corporation to pay. Twitters could only avoid a fine by declaring bankruptcy.

[wanderingfool2]

6 minutes ago, Dirtyshado said:

I always find the US citizens interpretation of the law funny, especially in international agreements, considering the US Government is a key signature in most international agreements including criminal codes, trade, communication, banking, security, human rights, extradition, taxation etc. 

 

A US company/citizen can't even ignore the fines imposed by Australia government (or any sovereign nation recognised by the US), there are ways to compel a foreign person/corporation to pay. Twitters could only avoid a fine by declaring bankruptcy.

If the companies don't operating in Australia then yes, they could effectively ignore the fines.  Extradition agreements typically have clauses in it, and not just US ones, where the offending crime committed must also be applicable in the country that you are trying to extradite from.

 

A big example of that is the Canada US and the Meng case (where the primary argument was that Canada didn't have the laws she was being charged for at the time of the alleged crime, so the extradition shouldn't be valid).  It was fought out for a long time, but the general point being that if it wasn't a violation of the law in one country, but is in the other, the other country typically only has restitutions of going after assets within that country.

[Dirtyshado]

13 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The issue is while you listed things not everything is always well defined.

 

"non-consensual intimate images" for example.  While I think everyone knows what it's talking about, what about people whose religion requires covering of some body parts; do you classify a picture of that posted without permission "intimate" then.  Or what about people who consider hugging to be quite intimate, and have their picture put up with them hugging someone.

The terms I posted are the general summary, its a legal act with 240 multi-paragaph legal definitions.

 

But if you must know, Religious attire is defined, and that the removal of religious attire may be considered an invasion of privacy and that an image taken without permission or consent.  The emphasis is not on the image itself, but the intent of the person posting the image is being used for bullying/abuse of the person in any way (which is again about intent, not subject matter).

[Spotty]

Twitter does operate within Australia though... Twitter Australia Holdings Pty Ltd is an Australian registered company which is a subsidiary of Twitter, Inc. 

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312513400028/d564001dex211.htm

They also have subsidiaries in UK, Canada, Brazil, Germany, India, France, Ireland, Japan... The list goes on. As long as they're operating businesses in those regions and providing services in those regions they are required to comply with the laws of those countries.

 

As long as Twitter (Twitter, Inc or its subsidiaries) takes money from Australians (Australian business ad money, Twitter blue subscribers) or provide services to Australians (the Twitter website/app) they are doing business in Australia and must comply with Australian law. If they don't want to comply with Australian laws they can't do business here.

[Dirtyshado]

2 minutes ago, Spotty said:

They also have subsidiaries in UK, Canada, Brazil, Germany, India, France, Ireland, Japan... The list goes on. As long as they're operating businesses in those regions and providing services in those regions they are required to comply with the laws of those countries.

Not only that but because of all the Criminal and Terrorism Finance laws put in place by the USA, any western nation has the power to freeze and seize assets through a process similar to extradition. If a US court recognises Australia's fine is legal, they can go after any US assets to recoup it.

[wanderingfool2]

10 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Twitter does operate within Australia though... Twitter Australia Holdings Pty Ltd is an Australian registered company which is a subsidiary of Twitter, Inc. 

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312513400028/d564001dex211.htm

They also have subsidiaries in UK, Canada, Brazil, Germany, India, France, Ireland, Japan... The list goes on. As long as they're operating businesses in those regions and providing services in those regions they are required to comply with the laws of those countries.

 

As long as Twitter (Twitter, Inc or its subsidiaries) takes money from Australians (Australian business ad money, Twitter blue subscribers) or provide services to Australians (the Twitter website/app) they are doing business in Australia and must comply with Australian law. If they don't want to comply with Australian laws they can't do business here.

But if lets say Twitter were to decide "close up shop" so to speak in Australia, then there is a possibility that Australia would only be capable of going after the assets of the subsidiary...which also depending how the company is structured might be no where near what the fines would be.

 

At that point, if lets say they didn't operate servers inside of Australia then there wouldn't be much that could be done...except ban the use of the app.  The thing about some of the international treaties as well, sometimes the definition of a service is equated to where the final processing of a transaction for digital services occurs (sometimes used for tax avoidance).

 

So while they might not necessarily operate there, there actually wouldn't be anything stopping them from still having Twitter there aside from the government ordering the shutdown of routing to twitter servers.

 

27 minutes ago, Dirtyshado said:

The terms I posted are the general summary, its a legal act with 240 multi-paragaph legal definitions.

 

But if you must know, Religious attire is defined, and that the removal of religious attire may be considered an invasion of privacy and that an image taken without permission or consent.  The emphasis is not on the image itself, but the intent of the person posting the image is being used for bullying/abuse of the person in any way (which is again about intent, not subject matter).

Then if there is strict definitions, they should not be pointing to studies that include tweets that do not meet the definition of what they consider to be a hate speech.  That's sort of the issue here as well, that it's all good and well that there might be definitions of what you said but how often do they cross the boundary and overstep their mission statement.

 

At least at a glance, from what I have seen of how they refer to things, using terms like "you throw like a girl" would be classified by them as hate speech...actually anything relating to someone's intelligence seems to be classified as something they consider hate speech.

[CarlBar]

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

You will never see someone being extradited for something like this. Like I said at most a company would pull out of Australia. The only reason why any company even entertains the Australian courts is because they want to do business with them otherwise Australia could sue these companies into oblivion but it wouldn't matter because they aren't based in Australia and they would simply pull out of Australia and ignore whatever fines Australia put on them because they would be effectively nonenforcable. It reminds me of getting a speeding ticket in a different state in the US. So long as you don't go to that state again you can absolutely get away with not paying the ticket and there isn't much that the other state can do. 

 

There are international treaties and agreed upon protocols for issuing of fines to entities with assets only in another country. Having nothing for Austrailia to seize in Australia does not protect a company from being fined.

[williamcll]

I don't think the amount of hate speech increased at all on twitter, it's been always everywhere.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, williamcll said:

I don't think the amount of hate speech increased at all on twitter, it's been always everywhere.

No, it definitely increased.

 

Like twitter went from "a little overbearing" to "fingers in the ears" 

 

[williamcll]

2 minutes ago, Kisai said:

No, it definitely increased.

 

Like twitter went from "a little overbearing" to "fingers in the ears" 

 

A year before Musk even declared his takeover I got bot replies to people that I follow posting actual child porn.

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

There are international treaties and agreed upon protocols for issuing of fines to entities with assets only in another country. Having nothing for Austrailia to seize in Australia does not protect a company from being fined.

There are many international treaties that are regularly disregarded by the US and other big countries. If you think that if Twitter pulled out of Australia they would be subject to their fines you are crazy. 

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, williamcll said:

A year before Musk even declared his takeover I got bot replies to people that I follow posting actual child porn.

That tells me more about you than it does Twitter. (ie, you follow people that don't report/block stuff.)

 

I've never, not once, seen that, before or after Musk's take over. What I did see between early twitter and late twitter was bots were extensively posting low quality garbage. Funny enough all these bots I blocked, all have yellow badges now. Funny that.

Low or zero quality bots posting links to seo-farm garbage sites.

 

Every month, like clockwork, around the 20th-25th there would be hundreds of these spam accounts posting on twitter links to these garbage sites with the same 3-image/4-image clickbait style. If you go look at any of these now, their timelines are empty.

[williamcll]

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

That tells me more about you than it does Twitter.

 

I've never, not once, seen that, before or after Musk's take over. What I did see between early twitter and late twitter was bots were extensively posting low quality garbage. Funny enough all these bots I blocked, all have yellow badges now. Funny that.

Low or zero quality bots posting links to seo-farm garbage sites.

 

Every month, like clockwork, around the 20th-25th there would be hundreds of these spam accounts posting on twitter links to these garbage sites with the same 3-image/4-image clickbait style. If you go look at any of these now, their timelines are empty.

Lucky you to only run into marketing spam whereas vulnerable people that I know has targeted harassment that gets ignored for years.

[VanayadGaming]

19 hours ago, Spotty said:

What's the source that hate speech is lower since Musk's takeover and what statistic is it based on? Is that based on the number of accounts Twitter has banned for hate speech?

 

If the number of people banned for hate speech has dropped since Musk's takeover it might not represent less hate speech on the platform. It just represents fewer people being banned for hate speech. If Twitter has been failing to act to remove hate speech from its platform since Musk's takeover it wouldn't be surprising if fewer accounts have been banned for hate speech. That might be the problem - the people posting hate speech aren't being banned.

 

Twitter could have also redefined their definition of hate speech since Musk's takeover which excludes a lot of content that might have previously been considered by Twitter to be hate speech. That might also be why fewer people are being banned for hate speech (if that is the case) and why Twitter isn't removing content it would have previously removed, which could also be why there's been a rise in complaints.

@twittersafety usually posts about stats and stuff :


Also this:
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2023/an-update-on-twitter-transparency-reporting

[Spotty]

13 minutes ago, VanayadGaming said:

@twittersafety usually posts about stats and stuff :

That's "impressions" ie. the number of views hate speech content receives. It is good that it is lower but it doesn't tell the full picture like the actual number of removed hate speech content, the number of banned accounts, the time it takes to remove that content after it's reported, etc. It just means that the algorithm isn't promoting hate speech as much (which is good). It might mean that people scrolling their feed are seeing less hate speech content but there might be a rise in directed hate speech content that people are receiving on the platform which is getting less overall impressions.

 

The line they draw for pre-acquisition is right at the top of all of the peaks and the line they draw at the end after acquisition is below the bottom of the valleys. Hard to say just by eyeballing it but if that is meant to represent the median over that period that doesn't look right.

 

13 minutes ago, VanayadGaming said:

Also this:
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2023/an-update-on-twitter-transparency-reporting

That data is from January 2022 - June 2022. It doesn't cover the period that this notice is concerning (post-Musk's takeover).

 

Quote

Around the world, Twitter received approximately 53,000 legal requests to remove content from governments during the reporting period. Twitter’s compliance rate for these requests varied by requester country. The top requesting countries were Japan, South Korea, Turkey and India. 

Twitter received over 16,000 government information requests for user data from over 85 countries during the reporting period. Disclosure rates vary by requester country. The top five requesting countries seeking account information in H1 2022 were India, the United States, France, Japan, and Germany.

That's actually useful information though since it's those legal requests from governments to remove content which this notice is about. It'll be interesting to see these same stats for the January 2023 - June 2023 period to see if the number of legal requests increased or decreased.

[Sauron]

17 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Visibility can be bought to a certain extent.  Hateful comments can still be flagged, hateful comments can still be essentially shadow banned.

Which might work if they had a sufficient moderation team, which they don't anymore.

17 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It wasn't just the ads though, it was in general promoted tweets etc, it's why I mentioned side note.  Also the whole advertisers who dropped Twitter were the major brands, the ones that showed see through tops and things like that I doubt really cared about it (plus they didn't go away immediately)  While it's not hate speech, the whole general lack of action I think speaks volumes to what it was like before on Twitter.  CCDH gave a total of 4 days of reporting a tweet to conclude that Twitter Blue subscribers were "immune".  I mentioned this in a Twitter thread well prior as well, but I waited over 6 months before finally giving up in regards to a tweet that was worse than some of the examples CCDH gave.

The point is that any amount of porn is not illegal in most countries whereas hate speech is regulated in places like australia and the EU. Old twitter's moderation was certainly not perfect but it clearly prioritized getting rid of things that could place the platform in violation of laws and stuff that would cause significant parts of their userbase to leave, hate speech fitting both categories. Right now moderation seems to be exclusively dictated by elon musk's personal beefs and things he personally cares about having or not having on the platform, which is worse both for users and for twitter's ability to avoid legal action.

 

And let's not forget that the platform was more ready than ever to  l i t e r a l l y  censor turkish electoral discussion on request by the government of turkey, as opposed to the bullshit definition of censorship where it's just a private platform not wanting you to post the N word.