Twitter bans the sharing of private media such as images or videos of private individuals without their consent

[Saya]

There are growing concerns about the misuse of media and information that is not available elsewhere online as a tool to harass, intimidate, and reveal the identities of individuals. Sharing personal media, such as images or videos, can potentially violate a person's privacy, and may lead to emotional or physical harm. The misuse of private media can affect everyone, but can have a disproportionate effect on women, activists, dissidents, and members of minority communities. When we receive a report that a Tweet contains unauthorized private media, we will now take action in line with our range of enforcement options.

While our existing policies and Twitter Rules cover explicit instances of abusive behavior, this update will allow us to take action on media that is shared without any explicit abusive content, provided it's posted without the consent of the person depicted. This is a part of our ongoing work to align our safety policies with human rights standards, and it will be enforced globally starting today.

Click to shrink...

 

[808s & Villainy]

What exactly falls under "private media"? Do videos of police assaulting people fall under this ban, if it wasn't posted by the person being assaulted or the officers didn't consent?

 

[Kensation]

So, what does this mean exactly?

 

[Surakian]

I mean this is great to stop doxxing but I almost expect this to mean filming of minorities being abused/killed by cops will also get thrown in that.

 

[wenis]

so filming cops is verboten?

 

[Lobster Roll]

YouTube removing downvotes. Twitter putting up roadblocks to expose people for their public behavior. It's like we're going backwards with this shit.

 

[BassForever]

I assume this just means that someone can report a tweet with a video or image of a person and say "I'm in this photo and don't consent to it being online". Sure this won't be abused at all.

 

[Omega.X]

So, what does this mean exactly?

Click to shrink...

It sounds pretty open-ended. I imagine they'll pick and choose when to enforce it.

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

What exactly falls under "private media"? Do videos of police assaulting people fall under this ban, if it wasn't posted by the person being assaulted or the officers didn't consent?

Click to shrink...

Damn, that'd be rough but I also imagine that would be considered public?

 

[Jarmel]

Could this be interpreted to mean copyright material as well?

 

[Khanimus]

The misuse of private media can affect everyone, but can have a disproportionate effect on women, activists, dissidents, and members of minority communities.

Click to shrink...

If not properly enforced, this can just as easily be weaponized against such groups

 

[Min]

So, what does this mean exactly?

Click to shrink...

NFTs are back bby!!

 

[Pai Pai Master]

On paper this sounds like what PornHub did and was fighting against (in a good way) but there are certainly issues that could arise as far as activism work and things like filming police, possibly. I imagine it will be selectively enforced.

 

[Poltergust]

Cops, by definition, are public workers, not private citizens. So I'm not sure this would apply to them.

It would apply, however, to videos showcasing Karen freakouts or things of that nature, or at least I think it would.

 

[Ravensmash]

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[Surakian]

so filming cops is verboten?

Click to shrink...

Wouldn't be surprised if that was the actual intention behind this policy despite claiming it is a way to protect women, minorities, and protestors. It just means they get to enforce this when they want.

Cops, by definition, are public workers, not private citizens. So I'm not sure this would apply to them.

It would apply, however, to video showcasing Karen freakouts or things of that nature, or at least I think it would.

Click to shrink...

Didn't stop cops from complaining they were being put in harm's way by people filming them lol

 

[Indy in the Fridge]

Law enforcement is a public service and Twitter's rules do not supersede the right to film police interactions with citizens.

I think that's the whole point of using the term "private."

 

[Chaos Legion]

Paparazzi?

 

[Pheonix Will]

Sounds like a response to the tweeting of JK Rowling address if I were to guess.

 

[Hollywood Duo]

So you can't retweet someone's stuff?

 

[BLEEN]

This will end up being a shit show.

 

[Joe]

Cops, by definition, are public workers, not private citizens. So I'm not sure this would apply to them.

It would apply, however, to videos showcasing Karen freakouts or things of that nature, or at least I think it would.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, that's how I'm reading it.

 

[ZeoVGM]

so filming cops is verboten?

Click to shrink...

Cops are not private individuals so it shouldn't.

 

[Doomguy Fieri]

This feels like some kind of Karen Protection Act thing.

 

[Kemal86]

Cops being shitty out in the streets don't have any expectation of privacy. I imagine this is more focused on things like revenge porn.

 

[Ravensmash]

Sounds like a response to the tweeting of JK Rowling address if I were to guess.

Click to shrink...

That was already covered.

Or, presumably, given they've always had rules against posting private addresses.

 

[Mesoian]

Oh this is it huh.

This is the inflection point. The point where twitter falls apart.

 

[Fergie]

"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."

Can't wait for selective removal.

 

[djplaeskool]

This feels like some kind of Karen Protection Act thing.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, that's how I'm reading it.
No more, "Twitter, do your thing!" manhunts

 

[Thordinson]

We'll have to see how this is enforced.

Law enforcement is a public service and Twitter's rules do not supersede the right to film police interactions with citizens.

I think that's the whole point of using the term "private."

Click to shrink...

There's nothing stopping you filming a cop, well at least there isn't supposed to be, but there's also nothing stopping Twitter from removing it from their platform.

Cops are not private individuals so it shouldn't.

Click to shrink...

They are but they generally aren't acting as such during their work. They don't just stop being private individuals altogether.

 

[Sign My Guestbook!]

Cops, by definition, are public workers, not private citizens. So I'm not sure this would apply to them.

Click to shrink...

But it sure applies to their victims, I bet!

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

I think people are confusing private and public. Sharing a photo or video of others embarrassing or revealing themselves in private (say, in your home) can't be mass shared or used by news outlets or meme video aggregators.

Or things like gathering peoples' tiktoks and compiling them and sharing as your own video.

 

[Doran]

Just another tool that will be used to censor some and allow free reign for others.

 

[Futureman]

It sounds good at face value, but I guess depends on how it's enforced. Videos of police should be fine as you are allowed to record.

 

[Keyser S]

This is vague enough to be abused in all the worst ways possible

 

[AndyD]

What exactly falls under "private media"? Do videos of police assaulting people fall under this ban, if it wasn't posted by the person being assaulted or the officers didn't consent?

Click to shrink...

Anything taken in public would likely not fall under this. Probably bedroom photos, private party photos and such is what this is targeted at.

 

[Mindwipe]

That is a hilariously badly written safety policy that's wide open to abuse.

Twitter's safety team are actively bad at their jobs, and frequently go out of their way to enable bad actors.

 

[entremet]

so filming cops is verboten?

Click to shrink...

Not private. That's a public place. SCOTUS already ruled on that many times.

Same reason why surveillance cameras are not an invasion of privacy rights. Although privacy rights in the US are garbage, even though it is codified in the Constitution.

 

[Mindwipe]

Anything taken in public would likely not fall under this. Probably bedroom photos, private party photos and such is what this is targeted at.

Click to shrink...

Nope. Read the policy the tweet links to.

Technically under this policy as written you have to have written permission from everyone in the crowd of a concert to post a photo from it, unless Twitter arbitrarily judges it to be in the "public interest".

 

[TaySan]

I hope this won't be selectively enforced. First Youtube and now Twitter.

 

[Kyuuji]

This feels like some kind of Karen Protection Act thing.

Click to shrink...

That was my first thought tbh.

 

[Ravensmash]

Nope. Read the policy the tweet links to.

Technically under this policy as written you have to have written permission from everyone in the crowd of a concert to post a photo from it, unless Twitter arbitrarily judges it to be in the "public interest".

Click to shrink...

That doesn't sound correct.

An individual has to notify Twitter for them to take action.

 

[Aurongel]

That is hilariously open ended and can be interpreted to provide cover for private citizens in public spaces who wouldn't normally have an expectation of privacy (like the 1A).

 

[Seven of Nine]

It would be nice if this meant the end of 'cringe' reposting and harrassment of marginalized people, but will probably just be used to protect bigots from backlash.

 

[mbpm]

Entirely depends on how they choose to interpret it.

 

[808s & Villainy]

That doesn't sound correct.

An individual has to notify Twitter for them to take action.

Click to shrink...

Which cops would be likely to do

 

[UltimateHigh]

more unneeded shit.

 

[8byte]

That is a hilariously badly written safety policy that's wide open to abuse.

Twitter's safety team are actively bad at their jobs, and frequently go out of their way to enable bad actors.

Click to shrink...

Or they're GOOD at their job (which is going out of their way to enable bad actors).

 

[Alavard]

Sounds like by their definition the FBI's own tweets like this wouldn't be allowed:

 

[steejee]

I expect very selective enforcement of this in the very worst ways.