Twitter Clampdown Could Impede Anonymous Tweets

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Clampdown Could Impede Anonymous Tweets

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday July 1, 2012 @10:24AM from the 140-decent-characters dept.

judgecorp writes "Twitter is going to clamp down on abuse and 'trolling' according to its CEO Dick Costolo. Actions could include hiding replies from users who do not have any followers or biographical information. The difficulty is that moves to stop trolling could also curtail the anonymous Tweets which have been useful for protest in repressive regimes."

14 of 93 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Seems Obvious by Beardydog · 2012-07-01 10:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Adding censorship tools could aid censorship? I would guess that what's considered trolling if it's done to a comgressperson's feed is considered noble dissent it's done to a dictator who has suddenly lost popularity in the west. Will Twitter have an emal address to which one can apply for the "noble dissent" waiver?
1. Re:Seems Obvious by slashmydots · 2012-07-01 10:46 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Too bad we can't stop troll posts on Slashdot. Do you realize that instead of anonymous tweets, you can simply register a dummy account in 60 seconds and tweet whatever you want "anonymously" and that it has nothing to do with censorship whatsoever, nor would they ever EVER censor tweets based on political content.
2. Re:Seems Obvious by Gaygirlie · 2012-07-01 11:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  as the twitter search sucks.
  You made a typo there, mate; you added two extra words there by mistake. Here, let me fix it for you: "as twitter sucks."
3. Re:Seems Obvious by nospam007 · 2012-07-01 11:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "you can simply register a dummy account in 60 seconds and tweet whatever you want "anonymously"
  So you can create a dozen that follow each other in 12 minutes thereby circumventing this idiotic measure?
4. Re:Seems Obvious by Dunbal · 2012-07-01 11:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Considering from the moderators here that "troll" means "any post I don't agree with", you need to understand why this is such a bad idea. What is a troll, exactly? Concrete, objective definition please.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
5. Re:Seems Obvious by sco08y · 2012-07-01 12:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Considering from the moderators here that "troll" means "any post I don't agree with", you need to understand why this is such a bad idea. What is a troll, exactly? Concrete, objective definition please.
  I remember back in the day on some smaller boards when trolling had a pretty specific meaning: it meant someone who was probably mentally disturbed who would routinely hurl invective at people on a board, try to set up arguments between people, and such.
  Years ago on /., trolls were a specific group of people who just liked to fuck with people. They'd cook up certain irrelevant posts that would get a lot of angry comments, or they'd do stuff to wreck the layout of the page, or just post bizarre stories or whatever.
  But now, trolling has lost its meaning because it's become ubiquitous... it's gotten to the point where someone says something stupid, you point it out, and they claim that they were trolling you. /. just needs to update its mod labels to reflect the way the terms have changed in meaning. But whether it's through "troll" or "flamebait", I know that people across the ideological divide from me are promoting people they agree with, and suppressing people who agree with me, so I'm forced to do the same to balance it out.
6. Re:Seems Obvious by Archangel+Michael · 2012-07-01 12:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A troll is someone you may disagree with, but not always. I know people who troll and get all sorts of +5 Insightful. Those are troll that many agree with, but they are trolls none the less.
  A troll is a stupid comment designed to illicit a emotional response. I know I've got plenty of "troll" mods for things I've said that weren't meant to be "troll" posts. SImply saying "Troll" meaning "I disagree" is in itself a troll.
  Name Calling is trollish (___ is stupid). So are out of context random quotes (GNAA). Most Sexual comments (unless in a related topic) are troll posts. Any post that has a sole purpose of inciting a FLAME WAR is a troll (PCs Rule!!).
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"useful for protest in repressive regimes" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 10:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

aka "useful when the west sees the chance of insurrection and wants to ramp up the propaganda so it can install a new reactionary and cooperative government".
Revolutions don't happen on Twitter, no matter how much the lazy want to think they're suddenly enfranchised. Revolutions only happen in the corridors of power and, more rarely, on the street.
You must be (THIS) popular to post by Bieeanda · 2012-07-01 10:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

The example given is ridiculous on its face. Biographical information can easily be faked-- a lot of the bots I've encountered swipe photos from Facebook and personals sites. Requiring a certain number of people to follow you, before you can... what? The only people this really hurts are newbies to the service. If you can automate creating an account, you can automate getting accounts to follow one another.
Re:Meanwhile, in the sensible part of the Internet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 10:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

This has already been done. It's called 4chan. It's a good place to have anonymous discussions.
Posting as anonymous, because slashdot hates that website.
Re:Ain't Nobody's Business by ThatsMyNick · 2012-07-01 11:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

But people do have the right to voice their displeasure and hope for (or start) a new service that does not have these flaws.
Re:Ain't Nobody's Business by geekmux · 2012-07-01 11:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Twitter is a private enterprise, not a public service. They have every right to decide what they will publish.
While legally there is some truth here, this is quite possibly the most pointless thing ever said about Twitter.
In case you were new to this whole Twitter thing and how it works, "Ain't Nobody's Business" is in the business of making every damn thing everyone's business, via a public service that is free to use by anyone.
One can argue the legalities of private vs. public all damn day long, but there is no denying what Twitter is, or more importantly, what people have come to expect from Twitter, and censorship isn't one of them.
I don't predict a good outcome from this. This policy may stop trolling alright, but Twitter dying a horrible death due to censorship probably wasn't the troll solution they were going for.
A simple spam filter would be nice by JazzXP · 2012-07-01 11:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

I just wish they'd block tweets that are directed straight at me, with a shortened link in them, from people I've never interacted with before.
Re:Meanwhile, in the sensible part of the Internet by Osgeld · 2012-07-01 13:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

its over 50% of the site and by if you mean clicking an ok box its restricted I have a box of magic beans to sell you