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."
This will be abused by SJWs so fast. I cannot wait to see the fireworks.
ISIS ruins everything. Terrorists are why we can't have nice things.
Some things need to be said...
Is handing out torches to angry villagers. Going to be interesting to see how they square this.
"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."
So to protect against silencing, you're going to silence?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
99.99999% of all stats on the internet are fake, especially if I disagree with them - Benjamin Franklin
Let us make it easy, here is the definition for hate speech:
Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.
Is it overly broad, yes. But there you go.
In God we trust, all others require data.
I guess I could generalize all women gamers with something like: "Women gamers must be a horde of ugly, fat, losers who can't get a boyfriend in real life, so they play online games to harass guys looking to unwind after work" because of statements made by a few women like anita and zoe quinn, but that would stoop to your level of fallacious argument and be just as untrue.
What on earth are you talking about?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Are you just making this shit up?
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Are you just making this shit up?
In essence, yes.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"We need to find a way quash free speech on our network while maintaining the illusion to our users that we are not quashing free speech."
Just like 'old Zuck said, most of their users are dumb fucks, too.
Taking quotes out of context like that is just appalling. Normal people do not do that. The video you linked to is from one of the more vociferous gamergate leaders. Why not find the same quote of femfreq?
However, to answer your point:
"Women are being institutionally oppressed all the time, in nearly every facet of our lives" - this statement is hardly even remarkable. It's a standard feminist idea, which is discussed seriously all over the world. I can't imagine why you think the statement is odd or unusual. Here is a hint: there is feminist critique of every art form. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it or pay any attention to it. The problem here is that she has been receiving rape and murder threats because of what she says. Hopefully you can understand that that is not really appropriate.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Sarkeesian was completely unknown and had zero impact on games or gaming until GamerGate started shitting on the floor in fury that someone would dare think critically of games. Screaming and threatening and smearing shit all over the walls, Now she's famous, is taking in foundation money and her ideas are widely discussed among people who are in a position to affect games and gaming.
I hope you're proud you goddamn morons. You've set gaming back by a generation because you have poor impulse control (most likely the result of a poor experience during potty training). Every goddamn body hates you. From the e-celeb drama, it appears you even hate each other. You have become a punchline to a bad joke. Every single "op" or "happening" has either fizzled or has further embarrassed you.
Once you're lumped in with MRAs, child porn, swatting people, white supremacy, online harassment and stalking, you've kind of painted yourself into a corner. A very smelly, unpleasant corner that people try to ignore, like when a passed out drunk craps himself on the subway.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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
Let's see if they start using the banhammer for #killallmen and the like. I wouldn't be holding my breath.
I mean, I've no love for SJW-type whining identity politics (which is sadly what much of progressive politics has turned into), but what exactly are the stakes in the Gamergate debacle? Are gamers particularly worried that the industry is going to stop including sexy women and cliched plots to sell games? Because that's fucking stupid. The gaming industry will do that maybe 20 years after Hollywood stops.
So, I mean, are there any stakes at all here for the anti-SJW camp? Are there laws being debated in Congress? Are gamers being discriminated against? It's annoying to hear journalists pontificate about shit they don't understand, but that includes damn near anything they talk about. It's perhaps even worse to have to listen to a manufactured controversy, but still....
Why should we care? Let them troll away and then it all goes away once the journalists get bored with it. There are plenty of pro-egalitarian (i.e. anti-SJW) battles to be fought that have actual consequences, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.
Or am I really so old that I'm failing to realize that being a gamer really is a cultural identity and they really are being discriminated against?