Slashdot Mirror


Twitter Says It's Beating the Trolls (betanews.com)

Mark Wilson writes: After making it easier to report abusive tweets and increasing the size of its anti-troll team, Twitter believes it is getting 'bad behavior' under control. As well as bullying of acquaintances and work colleagues, Twitter has also been used to attack celebrities, the gay community, religious groups, and more, with many people feeling driven from the site. It seems that the decision to take a very hands-on approach to troll tackling is starting to pay off. The head of Twitter in Europe, Bruce Daisley, says that the tools that have been introduced have had a real impact on trolling. He goes further, saying that there is a direct correlation between the release of new safety tools and reporting mechanisms, and the drop in unacceptable behavior.

6 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. "Beating the trolls" is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    From what I've read, Twitter is infact censoring some tweets, depending on the terminology used.
    Apparently several gamergate people have been for lack of a better word "shadowbanned" or words which are trending are deliberately not showing up.

    Say what you will about Gamergate (it's certainly a stupid name) - there's some real dipshits involved with it, who've said some ghastly shit.
    There's *ALSO* some perfectly sane people who've said some quite intelligent things, however one side of the debate has succeeded in altering history and current time, by somehow managing to label the entire group, virtually terrorists, including lying about what's been said or done, claiming they are "in the right" regardless of what the other people say, dismissing things that people say because of who they are (strawman) and so on.

    It's been quite eye opening to watch actually and one thing I have noticed which I wouldn't have before, is that I have a far, FAR more skeptical eye on things in the regular and gaming media. It's opened my eyes HUGELY, in how things are reported. "X is bad, X did this, X said this" etc, when some of those things are utterly impossible to prove, outright incorrect, or labeling an entire group for one persons actions - been an educational year.

    FWIW: I'd align myself as closer to GG than not, but certainly not "active" more a casual observer in it all.

    As for twitter censoring and this news article, as I stated, I've heard multiple times in the past 6 months, certain things are simple not being made visible due to who they are or what's being said, even if it's not offensive - use the wrong hashtag, prepare for potential censorship.

    Note: Posting anonymously, as usual with any gamergate discussion of any kind, lest "the good nice guys" harass and dox me (but that side is infallible and that's never occurred before, honest!)

    1. Re:"Beating the trolls" is it? by martinux · · Score: 4, Informative

      GamerGate supporters complained that she was receiving favourable coverage from a person who is credited as a beta tester for her game and who gave her money.
      https://archive.is/WtK25
      https://archive.is/QwJbc
      https://archive.is/mrVxK
      http://blogjob.com/oneangrygam...

      ""Special thanks for their amazing support during a really difficult time. This game would have been dead in the water months ago without you all." Nathan Grayson included." https://archive.is/AGml8#selec...

      Media outlets, invested in the harassment narrative, published articles claiming that GamerGate made the false claim that Grayson reviewed her game.

      Misinformation is terribly easy to spread, especially when there are people who will treat hearsay as fact. Your comment is at -1 flamebait which you could take as a sign that poorly researched claims based on a false narrative aren't valued on /.

    2. Re: "Beating the trolls" is it? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1, Informative

      After the revolution in Russia, it was expected that workers around the world would follow their lead and rise up to overthrow their governments. That mostly did not happen in the west, so a group got together to figure out why, and what they could do about it.

      The "why" ended up being "western civilization", and the "what to do about it" was "destroy the institutions and traditions of the west", things like family, religion, law and order, individualism, freedom.

      Since Marxism wasn't about economics, but about turning people into ants, the people who work towards that are "Cultural Marxists". You can identify them by their broad opposition to all aspects of western civilization. Honestly, most of them are "useful idiots" and don't understand the nature of the movement they are part of, but part of it they surely are.

      To see it yourself, flip through his post history. For every post with a political angle, ask yourself, which opinion tears down western civilization? Then compare his opinion to the Marxist opinion.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
  2. Censorship isn't limited to governments. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know where the fuck this only-governments-can-commit-censorship concept came from, but it's total bullshit.

    Yes, if a government limits the ability of somebody to express some idea, it is censorship.

    If a corporation limits the ability of somebody to express some idea, it is, guess what, censorship!

    And if an individual limits the ability of somebody to express some idea, once again it is censorship.

    The parties involved don't matter; censorship refers to the action of suppressing what others express.

    Anyone can commit censorship. Anyone can be a victim of censorship.

    And while some social media provider may have the right to remove content from their system, that doesn't mean it isn't censorship.

    It's still censorship, because the expression of somebody else is being suppressed or eliminated.

    Anyone who claims such suppression isn't censorship because it's being done by a private party is a fucking idiot.

  3. Re:Targeted users by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dawkins (note the s) is famous for writing several very popular, widely translated books on atheism and the delusion of religion. He is also an accomplished evolutionary biologist.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Re:Ok... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Informative

    Probably because Minn. Stat. Â 13.601, subd. 2 states that the forms they submitted may be made public at the discretion of the recipient. It's like writing to a magazine and then being upset that the editor decided to publish your letter.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC