Everyone should read the examples so they have a clear understanding of what twitter is meaning when they say "dehumanize". It's not "hey I disagree with these people" it's "hey I want these people dead/injured/equated to shit".
Religious and ethnic persecutions have often gone hand-in-hand. Religious minorities of all types will be helped by this, and we'll see less hate-speech on twitter. Seems to be a very reasonable step.
Sidenote: any religion topic really brings out the "I have a problem with religion" types on HN.
Twitter would be better received if it were bold enough to also state specific examples of permissible religious satire/criticism. I think that would do a lot to address what people are worried about, and be a step in the direction of having more concrete rules and predictable enforcement.
If experience is anything to go by, "things I don't like" or "things that offend me" get twisted into things far more severe than what is actually stated, words are now "violence" and make people feel "unsafe".
This rule's application - like all rules like this - will be stretched and exaggerated to cover much more than intended and will be applied unevenly across demographics.
Just like we see on Reddit when /r/ChapoTrapHouse and /r/Bad_cop_no_donut (both of which I sub to, genuinely) gets a pass, while right wing subs do not, when it comes to violent threats and comments.
Atheists and Christians will get the short end of the stick on this. Mark my words.
Religious and ethnic persecutions have often gone hand-in-hand. Religious minorities of all types will be helped by this, and we'll see less hate-speech on twitter. Seems to be a very reasonable step.
Sidenote: any religion topic really brings out the "I have a problem with religion" types on HN.