Slashdot Mirror


Twitter Clampdown Could Impede Anonymous Tweets

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."

58 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. Seems Obvious by Beardydog · · 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 · · 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and no one will see those tweets as the twitter search sucks.

    3. Re:Seems Obvious by Gaygirlie · · 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."

    4. Re:Seems Obvious by nospam007 · · 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?

    5. Re:Seems Obvious by Dunbal · · 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.
    6. Re:Seems Obvious by sco08y · · 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.

    7. Re:Seems Obvious by Archangel+Michael · · 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.
    8. Re:Seems Obvious by demachina · · Score: 1

      Costolo IS an idiot, and so is most of his team apparently. What did you expect from him?

      I kind of thought Jack Dorsey had a clue. Either he really doesn't or he is getting outvoted by Costolo and the board.

      I thought it was pure awesomness when Brett Taylor, Facebook's CTO, resigned almost precisely 2 weeks before Zuckerberg went ape shit and started changing everyones email addresses to facebook.com without their knowledge or permission. I imagine Brett's stock was vested and he still got rich on his way out the door, but people walking when companies do stupid shit is cool.

      --
      @de_machina
    9. Re:Seems Obvious by dargaud · · Score: 2

      Any post that has a sole purpose of inciting a FLAME WAR is a troll

      Wouldn't that be flamebait ?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    10. Re:Seems Obvious by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 2

      It is. At least, everywhere else I've ever been on the Internet in the past 20 odd years they're the same. Since flaming is universally frowned upon, however, the most common response to a troll is more trolling, rather than old-fashioned flaming.

      SlashDot is the only place that actually tries to make a distinction -- and fails to, because it's never defined or not defined anyplace I know of.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    11. Re:Seems Obvious by davydagger · · Score: 1

      flamebait is when its an honest but flamboyant opinion. e.g. I hate macs/linux/microsoft because.

      A troll almost never believes the opinion he spews. Its a set up. its from the fishing term when you slowly motor a boat down the river with the line out, looking to agitate some fishies into biting your line.

      A flamebaiter generally seeks to engage and fight the flamewar he starts. I troll pulls the pin, runs, mostly for the humor if it all. Trolling is considered a dark form of humor, its satire and farce packed into performance art combined with a joke which is always at someone's expense.

    12. Re:Seems Obvious by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Flamebait is a subset of Troll IMHO. But yeah that is Flamebait.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:Seems Obvious by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I always thought that "troll" was in reference to the dumb mythical creature that lives under a bridge.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  2. "useful for protest in repressive regimes" by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:"useful for protest in repressive regimes" by Zorque · · Score: 1

      I wonder what a good way to organize one of those street revolutions would be in this modern age. It would preferably be online, and of course it would have to allow anonymity. Maybe a service which allows people to subscribe to and receive updates from others. Perhaps it could even be updated via SMS! Somebody ought to create a service like that.

  3. Ain't Nobody's Business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Twitter is a private enterprise, not a public service. They have every right to decide what they will publish.

    1. Re:Ain't Nobody's Business by ThatsMyNick · · 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.

    2. Re:Ain't Nobody's Business by geekmux · · 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.

  4. about time by chentiangemalc · · Score: 2

    I don't know how serious this threat is about "curtailing the anonymous Tweets which have been useful for protest in repressive regimes" But what twitter does need to block is the high amount of spam that is all so predictable...I can't believe twitter has not yet fixed it as the algorithm seems to be so simple to get rid of vast majority of it: 1) A person I do not follow "mentions me" i.e. Free iPhone here @chentiangemalc 2) This person has 0 followers, and usually also does not follow anyone else 3) They tweet this same message to 100s of people If a person wants to make "anonymous Tweets" or spam messages to themselves without mentions, then no problem for me. I can't believe though twitter has yet failed to block this kind of spam message.

    1. Re:about time by Hentes · · Score: 1

      You are right in that the system is inherently wrong, but instead of fixing they just try to patch it.

  5. You must be (THIS) popular to post by Bieeanda · · 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.

  6. Re:Meanwhile, in the sensible part of the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  7. Or people could just chose not be ouraged by gelfling · · Score: 2

    Because the idea that world has been built for you personally so as to never give you an uncomfortable moment is a bit silly.

  8. So web 3.0 is here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Since we didn't like what some individuals were saying in our "web 2.0" model we are now turning it into solely a broadcast medium for celebrities to promote their projects and plug their endorsements, and the "popular" to spew their random 140 character thought fragments that nobody with a brain cares about in the first place.

    What could go wrong?

  9. Re:Meanwhile, in the sensible part of the Internet by Osgeld · · Score: 3, Informative

    Thats cause its full of 12 year olds swapping porn and not much else

  10. Re:Meanwhile, in the sensible part of the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Thats cause its full of 12 year olds swapping porn and not much else"

    They should swap a few apostrophes and periods.

  11. A simple spam filter would be nice by JazzXP · · 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.

  12. Re:Meanwhile, in the sensible part of the Internet by icebraining · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, porn is restricted to the "Adult" boards, which are only a subsection of the site.

  13. Twit Fitlers seem obvoious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the owners of a private technology like Twitter decide they should do something about the 'abuse' of their system, so be it. Hopefully they aren't hobbling its usefulness. I'm sure they're aware of the problem.

    Perhaps it's better to allow users the ability to set their own levels of counter-community communications, and let the trolls continue to inhabit the dark spaces under the bridge. We all know they're there, and they need a place to lurk, otherwise they'll be tempted to come out into the light where they will surely shrivel under the scrutiny.

    Maybe that's a better way to ensure civil behavior, if that's what you really want, start a 'troll tracker' and see what you can do to out the bastids!

    Just remember, when you try to build a more fool-proof system, you are asking for nature to counter your efforts with a better fool.

    Personally, I'd much rather be free of commercial solicitations than worry about the occasional troll.

  14. Irrelevancy by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    it shall enter a time of.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  15. Re:Meanwhile, in the sensible part of the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    That's like going to Hooters for their menu.

    I'm posting anonymous because I fear the revenge of the nerds.

  16. Can we please drop this concept of "YRO"? by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some time ago some sensible folks pointed out that there is no such thing as "cyber crime" just "crime". For the very same reasons, there really is no such thing as "your rights online", just "your rights" and I'd like to remind everyone that the concept of "rights" is not the same everywhere.

  17. Actually, so is twitter... by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the summary, it sounds like Twitter's efforts--purportedly to clamp down on abuse--can be easily bypassed by setting up two accounts instead of one, and entering a few fake fields.

    So basically, it sounds like a way to artificially bump the number of accounts. So they may be looking to sell the company, or someone may be looking to artificially pad their resume.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  18. With only 140 characters... by whargoul · · Score: 1

    ...how is Twitter still relevant? Personally I think it makes a great single sign on service, but this whole 140 character limit they've imposed on themselves has rendered them useless for any kind of substantial communication IMO.

    1. Re:With only 140 characters... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Didn't Twitter originate as an SMS gateway, whose messages have a 140 byte limit?

    2. Re:With only 140 characters... by b5bartender · · Score: 1

      I think you've missed the point somewhat.. the character limit has its benefits (enforces brevity), but that's not what I'd consider the strength of Twitter these days--since the addition of the streaming API, Twitter has become an invaluable resource for gathering information in real time.

    3. Re:With only 140 characters... by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has a limit on the number of characters in your sig too... it's 20 less then twitter even.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
  19. Re:Meanwhile, in the sensible part of the Internet by Osgeld · · 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

  20. Re:Meanwhile, in the sensible part of the Internet by EdIII · · Score: 1

    I fear the revenge of the nerds

    If you can't beat em, join em.

    They let Ogre join, so you have a real good chance.

  21. Twitter is no friend of freedom by LS · · Score: 1

    Despite the fact that twitter played a part in several "revolutions", twitter never had freedom in its DNA. Just look at some of their actions:

    Country specific censorship controls

    Purchase and subsequent shutdown of Whispercore, an android build used for secure communications in Egypt

    I also have a friend that was an organizer for OWS in NY during its inception, and he claimed that several of his tweets were removed.

    LS

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    1. Re:Twitter is no friend of freedom by LS · · Score: 1

      And you apparently are a douche. You ignore the first two links, then anonymously trash someone with tired epithets.

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
  22. He's just sour by whois · · Score: 1

    You guys have had your fun. Stop tweeting dick jokes at him and he'll turn the internet back on.

  23. Re:People same Everywhere, Rights same Everywhere by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

    Rights are granted by the society you live in. Sometimes they are made into laws by the representatives of that society.

    "Natural" rights are a ridiculous concept used as propaganda by certain politically active philosophers and revolutionaries. They don't stand up to logical examination.

  24. The difficulty is ... by SSpade · · Score: 1

    The difficulty is that moves to stop the anonymous Tweets which have been useful for protest in repressive regimes could also curtail trolling.

  25. it wasn't your intention by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    but you disproved your point deeply by saying that

    among a certain set, it is attractive to privatize everything

    of course, in industries with a network effect (electricity, cable, telephone) and huge startup costs (power plants, car manufacturing) the effect is that a few large players dominate, an oligarchy. this is true of google and twitter and facebook as well

    an oligarchy is not the same thing as a free market where consumers can easily and freely switch providers

    this being true, there is no easy and obvious alternative. if i dislike the sandwich my deli made me, i can walk down a block to another deli. but there is no other twitter. well, there is, but, the network effect being what it is, it's like saying i'm going to drop verizon and take up cardboard cups on strings

    so, in response to your comment, i say this: for fields dominated by a few large players, the government has the right, in your name, to regulate those players as if they were part of your government, and that it is not at all illogical to say that rights you hold your government to, such as free speech, be imposed on the private enterprise, because it is, after all, basically serving a public interest with no real competitors

    you can't have it both ways: either the situation is truly like a free market, or it is like a government service. you can't point at an oligarchy and a monopoly and say the rules of walking down the street to another deli applies. there are no other choices, it's not really a free market

    just because you privatized a service to a few huge players is not the same thing as a free market. you're just playing silly games because you believe capitalism is some sort of religion that answers all things, when it clearly doesn't

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:it wasn't your intention by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      it's like saying i'm going to drop verizon and take up cardboard cups on strings

      Why does you wanting faster downloads factor into this?

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  26. Re:Meanwhile, in the sensible part of the Internet by icebraining · · Score: 5, Informative

    its over 50% of the site

    There's 57 boards in total, of which only 17 are for +18.

    It's not hard math.

    by if you mean clicking an ok box its restricted I have a box of magic beans to sell you

    I meant what I wrote: porn is restricted to the Adult boards.

  27. could? isn't that the goal? by nazsco · · Score: 1

    Also, it's tweeter. Who the fuck care besides journalists that try to validate that shit since forever but got all of then locked in a circle jerk.

  28. Re:Meanwhile, in the sensible part of the Internet by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    marking them as adult boards is just so that it's easier for teens to find what they're looking for.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  29. Re:Meanwhile, in the sensible part of the Internet by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

    Ok, now compare the number of posts (or threads) in those categories and report to us what your "not hard math" tells you.

  30. Re:Meanwhile, in the sensible part of the Internet by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Thats cause its full of 12 year olds swapping porn and not much else"

    They should swap a few apostrophes and periods.

    DO NOT start asking 4channers to 'swap periods'. It could get very icky very fast.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  31. thank god stealth mountain has 10k followers by farker+haiku · · Score: 1
    --
    Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
  32. But I'm not trolling ... by Skaperen · · Score: 1

    I've said that 1000 times already.

  33. Twitter useless as medium of free speech by PSdiE · · Score: 1

    I set up @NetFreeUK a month or so ago and built up a following by retweeting and commenting on stories related to freedom of speech, individual privacy, dangerous Big Media legislation like ACTA etc. I've been meticulous in sticking to the rules - not spamming, replying politely to those with contradictory views etc .. but my account is currently suspended, as of several days ago.

    I've appealed to Twitter, asking them to verify from my history that I've not broken any rules, heard nothing back after nearly a week. I'm assuming someone took a dislike to my views (e.g., defending Assange) and reported my account to silence it. If it's happened to me in this manner, I can't be the first.

    So much for Twitter being an effective medium of free speech. Dissenters using it to share knowledge within repressive regimes like Syria can be easily silenced simply by officials reporting their account for "trolling" or similar - Twitter don't seem to bother verifying complaints. That could have disastrous IRL consequences. In my case it's just been a very effective method of putting me off advocating some important causes.

    Anyone else run into the same problem with Twitter? Any advice on restoring a maliciously suspended AC?

  34. Re:Meanwhile, in the sensible part of the Internet by icebraining · · Score: 1

    I like the concept; I don't particularly like most boards, particularly /b/. Same as Freenet and other anonymous and pseudo-anonymous systems.

  35. Re:Meanwhile, in the sensible part of the Internet by icebraining · · Score: 1

    I don't go to /b/. The only boards I go to - and even those, it's rare - are /hr/, /lit/ and /wg/.

  36. Re:Meanwhile, in the sensible part of the Internet by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Rule 34 has already taken effect.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"