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."
Spend any amount of time on Twitter and it is clear that "abuse" in forms other than malicious is rampant. For example, the guy with 17k followers who follows 18k people. His whole Twitter ring is a meaningless bunch of follows/followers/retweets designed to make people look (or feel) popular. In the end, it is just noise.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
This will be abused by SJWs so fast.
Yeah, it's utterly unacceptable that people complain about rape and death threats. I have a good idea: we should spam their twitter feeds with MORE rape and death threats until they see the error of their ways.
That will teach those SJWs a really good lesson!
BTW: at this point SJW doesn't actually mean anything. It's just used as a "shit I hate on the internet" invective. There is no consistency in its use and people use it as a means of either rabble rousing or ad-homenim by trying to shut down a debate by flinging poo rather than actually engaging in a rational discussion.
Like your post for example.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Twitter's hypocrisy was eyeroll worthy before, but it's just outright silly now. They're trying to pander to the very group of people with a history of doxing, threats, and hate speech so vitriolic and pathological that they've had to invent new slurs to keep up with the sheer level of hate they're trying to convey.
It's going to be interesting to see what mindbending excuses Twitter comes up with to continue allowing people like Randi Harper to stay unbanned despite publicly admitting to doxing and threatening to dox others, or Zoe Quinn after also doxing people, or Geordie Tait after his epic multi thousand word racist rant, or...
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
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.
Twitter's hypocrisy was eyeroll worthy before, but it's just outright silly now.
I could be wrong, but I took your "SJW" comment to be a reference to those who abuse the "report for abuse" button.
This is a real phenomenon. Twitter has a history of suspending people for reported abuse, when in fact the "offending" party hadn't abused anyone or anything at all. For some people, like modding "troll" rather than "disagree", it has become synonymous for "I don't like this person, so I'm going to do something nasty".
To compound the problem further, Twitter doesn't tell the "offending" party what they did wrong. Occasionally -- not always by any means -- they will let people know what the "offending" Tweet was, but not specifically what was wrong with it or why anyone objected.
Twitter could easily do that without revealing the name or names of the complainants. But insisting that people stop "abuse" when they don't even know WHAT people complained about, is completely unreasonable in an atmosphere of "report abuse because I don't agree".
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