Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Rolls Out New Anti-Abuse Tools
An anonymous reader writes: After facing criticism that it gives trolls and hatemongers a platform to intimidate people, Twitter has now rolled out a new set of tools and policies to handle abusive tweets. Previously, they only prohibited threats of violence that were "direct" and "specific," but now that's been expanded to all threats of violence or tweets promoting violence. They said, "Our previous policy was unduly narrow and limited our ability to act on certain kinds of threatening behavior." Twitter has also added non-permanent bans, as well as this: "[W]e have begun to test a product feature to help us identify suspected abusive Tweets and limit their reach. This feature takes into account a wide range of signals and context that frequently correlates with abuse including the age of the account itself, and the similarity of a Tweet to other content that our safety team has in the past independently determined to be abusive." Twitter's general counsel recently said, "Freedom of expression means little as our underlying philosophy if we continue to allow voices to be silenced because they are afraid to speak up. We need to do a better job combating abuse without chilling or silencing speech."
Yeah because it's not like SJWs are the very people committing the overwhelming majority of abuse, screaming racial slurs at people, and have a history of real world crime and violence to back it up. It's not like they don't have a proven history of doxing so widespread and severe that sending a rape victim's information to a rapist isn't even surprising for them. It's not like their use of hate speech is so common, and so vitriolic, that they've invented new slurs to go with their threats of death and violence.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
That'd be nice, but so far I haven't seen any evidence of SJW's getting banned en masse despite the provocative hate and vitriol that spews from them.
If the "whole of media" lied about surviving having jumped off a cliff would you simply believe them?
The truth is plainly obivous. The whole of media is lying about online harassment. Here's one such hit-piece where they spread their lies. In this one they selected an example post of what will not be tolerated -- violent hateful language -- the poster having been banned for it, and then the media said that this is the normal comment, even encouraged failing to mention that it will actually get you banned instead.
Thanks to Noam Chomsky, and lately #GamerGate it's become blatantly obvious how corrupt the mainstream media is, especially when they are all willfully lying to cover for the truth: That they are lying and should not be trusted.
Do a bit of fact checking and you see that the supposed rape threats against these SJWs are not from the groups or people that the MSM attributes them to, and even the FBI has chimed in, prompted by #GamerGate itself, saying their investors believed the "harassment" target was never in any serious danger. Where is the reporting on this in "the whole of media". Sorry, but it's been known since at least the 70's that the media is chock full of careful omissions, lies that further ideologies, and state propaganda.
Here are your examples. Watch the video and weep, fool.
Are you really suggesting that the three women who have mostly been targeted by gamergate actually made up the threats against them?
Your "argument from authority" point means nothing, as I have no skin in the game. I'm simply pointing out that there is no benefit to someone screeching here that '"SJWs" are the worst people in the world', when gamergate and similar groups have comprehensively failed to have their case accepted anywhere. That's an argument from reality.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Can I be the one who decides who is undesirable and gets silenced?
Absolutely. Create and popularize the NotDrWhoNet communications platform, and you can make those decisions. For your platform.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Nice try. "Thanks to gamergate", three women have been forced from their homes from threats that law enforcement officers found credible enough to suggest that. Trying to pretend that gamergate has done anything but abuse people defines you as - at best - an imbecile.
It causes you physical pain that few here buy into the "mysogyny and harrassment" narrative, doesn't it?
The cover-up didn't work.
The week-long gaming press news blackout and ongoing user comment/forum censorship (in former free-speech strongholds such as 4chan and Reddit, no less) didn't work.
The coordinated, ongoing smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Over" articles hasn't worked.
The endless train of embarrassingly desperate counter-hashtags hasn't worked.
The Wikipedia and Nightline hit pieces only damage those outlets' credibility for short-term effect.
The SVU episode . . . hahaahhahaha WOW, where do I even begin . . . it is progapanda that couldn't be more precisely crafted to the corrupt press's specifications (i.e. "narrative"), and broadcast to a national non-gamer audience, much of which likely accepted it as reality. It was a wake-up call to quite a few previously unaware or neutral parties, especially game devs*.
Eurogamer is the latest games journalism site to update its ethics policy in the wake of Gamergate, joining PC Gamer, IGN, the Escapist, and of course Kotaku/Gawker (though in Gawker's case, they put up more of a fight and the Gamergate pressure to be ethical had to be routed through the FTC).
Gamergate also got Brad Wardell (CEO of Stardock) some long-overdue apologies for hit pieces run against him:
https://twitter.com/iamDavidWi...
http://www.gamepolitics.com/20...
http://www.zenofdesign.com/in-...
Ask yourself how much of this you've seen reported in the corrupt media (which at this point, sadly, clearly includes Slashdot). Of course none of it ever had a chance of appearing in the Wikipedia article. Nothing enrages anti-Gamergaters more than someone covering both sides of the story, and that should tell you something.
Their side thrives only in an environment of propaganda and censorship, and evaporates when faced with integrity and transparency. They prove the need for Gamergate every time they write an article based on the assumption that terrorism and child porn^W^W^W^W misogyny and harassment have become the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.
* like Mark Kern and Ken Levine, who had nothing to do with Gamergate, but were so disgusted by the SVU episode that they publically called on the gaming press to stop slandering gamers. Both were instantly swarmed by anti-GG on twitter, and VG24/7 ran a hit piece on Kern without even getting his side of the story, and refused even after he specifically asked them. I think Eurogamer saw exactly what happened to Kern, and it's no accident that tha