Twitter banning accounts that 'deadname' Ian Huntley - is not using his female name hate speech now?

[DJLippy]

Ian Huntley is apparently now transgender and has taken the name Nicola (which is the name of one of his victims mother)

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/15/call-lian-child-killer-ian-huntley-has-told-inmates-call-feminine/amp/

A parody Twitter account made a complaint about somebody who 'deadnamed' Ian Huntley (i.e. referred to them as Ian Huntely not Nicola Huntley) and Twitter upheld the complaint. Here is something the fake account tweeted to give you a flavour.

A warning from Aunty Xyr: If you misgender ANYONE you will be reported for transphobic abuse. This includes murderers like Lian (NOT Ian) Huntley. Misgendering is bigotry and it puts my life more in danger when you use it to attack society's worst people. I'm watching

Here is a twitter thread with more information

twitter.com/pamelacuna/status/1005072367918477314

My issue is not about the fact that Ian Huntley is trans or the politics of 'deadnaming' but rather that Twitter have taken such reports seriously considering

• a clearly vexatious report
  
• from a clearly unreliable source
  
• about one of the UK's most notorious child killers
  
• on the basis of tabloid rumour not fact
  
• via what it has said is an automated process
  
  Am I being unreasonable or is Twitter's complaint adjudication system insane?

[ParellelReality]

It's all BS starting from an article in the Daily Star where an ex inmate made a few quid winding up a rag. The prison has always been clear Huntley isn't intending to transition but it keeps being brought up as fact and aimed to cause outrage.

It's been used to cause outrage on MN and when challenged the posters say 'okay it may not be true but it's an example of what could happen'. Twitter are just doing the same, they know it's not true but have to say thay their rules apply to all.

[rosesandflowers]

I imagine Twitter would have had a policy to tackle transphobia and can't relax it just because the person is a criminal. As said above, the rules gave to apply to all.

It's a slippery slope when certain rules don't get applied to people in prison.

[rosesandflowers]

*have, sorry

[SameTerfDifferentUserName]

Twitter have a policy on gender but sex discrimination is fine with them. It’s in their t+c’s. Twitter ABVU.

[Pratchet]

It's crazy. Yanbu.

[DJLippy]

@ParellelReality My issue is that this is a tabloid rumour
Regardless of what you think of the news report - whether it's true or not - Twitter are going along with this and viewing this as hateful speech- that's wrong!

[CertainHalfDesertedStreets]

rosesandflowers did you read the OP?

[Pratchet]

Nobody should ever be banned from describing material reality i.e. That he is a man. That's fascistic.

[rosesandflowers]

did you read the OP?

My understanding was someone made an account and that Ian Huntley was referred to as Ian, rather than the female name he now utilises. Twitter have said they will ban the accounts regardless of whether they are a murderer or not.

I said that they'll have simply banned it no matter the source, person or circumstance. How many people are on Twitter? I doubt they'll have time to sift through individual cases and there will be problems raised if they start doing so.

Have I misread?

[DJLippy]

So anybody can now decide - without a diagnosis of dysphoria or any medical gate-keeping - that they're a member of the opposite sex and failure to comply is hate speech?

This is another way that abusers can continue to abuse women. Why are Twitter facilitating this?

[Pratchet]

Yes it's controlling and abusive

[LangCleg]

My interest is also in the way that the Twitter reporting mechanism is clearly open to being gamed - in this case, the issue is trans but it doesn't really matter what issue it is - by political means. My pet theory is about the various block lists particular interest groups create and encourage others to sign up to. I think reports against accounts on those block lists stand more chance of having complaints against them upheld than those who are not on any such lists. So, if you want to shut someone up, just add them to all the blocker lists so that they are blocked by hundreds, if not thousands, of other Twitter users, and then report borderline or even innocent tweets.

I've seen suspensions being given out for giving factual crime rates from government websites.

[CertainHalfDesertedStreets]

Well this is the bit I thought you might have missed -

"
My issue is not about the fact that Ian Huntley is trans or the politics of 'deadnaming' but rather that Twitter have taken such reports seriously considering

• a clearly vexatious report
  
• from a clearly unreliable source
  
• about one of the UK's most notorious child killers
  
• on the basis of tabloid rumour not fact
  
• via what it has said is an automated process
  
  Am I being unreasonable or is Twitter's complaint adjudication system insane?"

[rosesandflowers]

I doubt they'll have time to sift through individual cases and there will be problems raised if they start doing so.

I imagine Twitter would have had a policy to tackle transphobia and can't relax it just because the person is a criminal.

If it wasn't clear, I meant that Twitter would probably have to do a blanket ban regardless of whether he's one of the UK's most notorious child killers. And whether or not it was vexatious, unreliable or based on tabloid rumour their transphobia policies would probably still apply, because Twitter will probably never have the full facts in a case like this.

And lastly, because it's so widely used, it would be an automated process.

Is that an explanation that satisfies? Sorry if I was being unclear but I thought that my meaning was understandable without directly addressing every issue raised in quotes

[CertainHalfDesertedStreets]

I imagine Twitter would have had a policy to tackle transphobia and can't relax it just because the person is a criminal. As said above, the rules gave to apply to all.

It's a slippery slope when certain rules don't get applied to people in prison.

I was responding to this. Which doesn't address the op. But does sound a bit like the debate is around prisoners human rights. Which is not what the op said.

But yes thanks you've now explained your point perfectly well. Thanks.

OP YANBU though - the only evidence we have that Huntley wants to be called 'she' is from a prison source quoted in a tabloid. So that he can't be misgendered. And if twitter can't run their processes effectively maybe that is a bit shit?

[screepy]

Ian Huntley is one of the few people in this world whose feelings definitely don't matter. He has put two families and one community through hell.

The pronoun 'he' suggests that Ian is somehow human, which I don't think he deserves. If we had things my way, we would refer to him as 'it'. And we wouldn't give him any attention at all.

There is no way I will ever cater to his feelings. Ban me if you want.

[DJLippy]

I think it demonstrates a total lack of awareness on Twitters part. Ian Huntley is one of the most notorious child killers in the UK. Why doesn't Twitter have greater 'local knowledge.' This decision was either made by someone abroad - in which case you have to ask questions about it's ability to wield such censorship powers. Or they were aware of the situation and they went ahead anyway....

[Lallypopstick]

Where's the evidence anyone has been banned? A report being upheld doesn't equate to a banning in all cases.

[L0UISA]

Why doesn’t twitter have a policy to tackle misogyny then, if they are so concerned about” hate speech “?

[ZingerTowerAddict]

It's a situation where he can keep himself in the public eye and people are still talking about him. It a really not about his gender, he just does not want to be forgotten about.

[Fluffypinkpyjamas]

I had always hoped someone in prison would deal with him. Permanently.

[Bowlofbabelfish]

OPs point is more about twitter bans than Huntley.

The new GDPR rules ban discrimination by algorithm. So one application of that previously was using software to filter CVs.

So the issue is:
1 If the reporting system is algorithmic with no human input then it falls foul of GDPR.

1. If humans look at the reports, and ban, then twitters policy is saying that calling a man a man is hate speech.
   

Neither of those options are good.

So, another real life consequence. There are also ‘blocker bots’ On Twitter like Terfblocker which have blocked women who have never tweeted a single teeet but follow feminist accounts. Recently someone threatened to release the list of blocked names as a list of ‘transphobes.’ . Now; if your name is on that list because you just signed up to twitter and followed a feminist author, and suddenly you’re being reported to your employer as transphobic...

See the problem?

• potential to discriminate by algorithm- illegal
  
• potential to libel by algorithm
  
• scientific facts such as ‘humans cannot change sex’ banned.
  

This is a big deal. It’s pretty Orwellian in scope.

[rosesandflowers]

Twitter's "hateful content" policy states:
^Examples of what we do not tolerate includes, but is not limited to behavior that harasses individuals or groups of people with:
violent threats;^
wishes for the physical harm, death, or disease of individuals or groups;
references to mass murder, violent events, or specific means of violence in which/with which such groups have been the primary targets or victims;
behavior that incites fear about a protected group;
repeated and/or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone.

I think misogyny would come under here too, so I don't think they're ignoring sex-based hate in favour of transphobia.

[rosesandflowers]

Italics failed a bit
But the information is there.

[Pratchet]

Whatever the policy is, if it deletes accurate descriptions of material reality, it is censoring truth. This is fascistic.