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.
And here's a serious question. Why wasn't that Minnesota politician who doxxed her complaining constituents banned from Twitter? It made national headlines because she was taking a self-righteous "herp derp, take that you racists" view of perfectly sane, non-racist complaints that she was siding with Black Lives Matter as they planned to disrupt access to an airport and the Mall of America.
Then she takes her account private. You want to drive these trolls off social media? When they do stuff like that, block them from privacy. Make every dirty, rotten thing they've said public.
Telling the truth is hateful.
Telling the truth is misogynist.
Telling the truth is racist.
Welcome to 1984. it just took 30 years longer than planned.
its still censorship, its just legal censorship. they have the right to set the rules on their site that is 100% correct. but its not fair to claim its not censorship
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
its still censorship, its just legal censorship. they have the right to set the rules on their site that is 100% correct. but its not fair to claim its not censorship
I'm an atheist. I don't demand equal time with the priest in church, if they want a forum by Christians for Christians that's fine and I don't consider it censorship but don't call it public debate. It's when you've driven away all the dissenting opinions by forced registration, real name policies, labeling them "trolls" and moderating them away and still pretend that what you have is a public debate that I disagree. It's a sanitized, whitewashed debate where hardly anybody would voice personal information or opinions their family, friends, employer, landlord or anybody else would take offense from.
And not because they're doing anything wrong, if you interviewed one of the daughters of Muslim immigrants on equality of the sexes, hijab, forced marriage, female genital mutilation etc. I bet roughly 99% would give different answers under promise of anonymity than under full name, published for the world and everyone they know to see. Just because the government isn't going to throw me in jail over it, doesn't make free speech advisable.
It's probably true that you get more hateful opinions with anonymity/pseduo-anonymity, but I don't think there's any reason to believe they're less true. There's a saying at least in Norway "from children and drunken men you hear the truth" and I think that is because they don't think about consequences. The emperor's new clothes and all that. The only free exchange of opinion is the one free from consequence, the question is if you want to hear it or not. And the world is trending towards no, thank you.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I hope Twitter will be around for a long time. It's a honey pot for people who think they can engage in social or political commentary in 140 characters or less. The more these people are distracted and kept away from the rest of the Internet, the better.
Racist, misogyn, hateful messages are never the truth by definition.
They are charged with emotions, bias and misconceptions, all obvious enemies if the truth.
Speech comes with certain responsibilities. Not shouting fire in a theatre, for example. If you can't express your controversial ideas without trolling then you need to take responsibility and improve your writing skills.
The problem is stating /any/ controversial opinions is called "trolling" now.
No. Fuckwads like you will call anyone who disagrees with you a troll, instead of addressing what they said. Your type attack the person, because they can't defeat the ideas.
Let the children argue, they'll figure it out.
I've followed this GG thing since about Jan. Most of the followers on both sides are 14-22. They're quick to throw out something 'deep' they heard. XKCD made a comic that they all take as truth. What he meant to say was the "First Amendment" not "Free Speech".
It's just the children fighting. I'll take twitter's announcement like I would have taken a Usenet admin's word on "We've fixed the trolling". Everyone on both sides seems to either be a 14-22 year or the ~30 year olds that they're following. The only thing the 30 year olds seem to be good at is being professionally unemployed. "FreeBSD Girl" hasn't made a commit in 5 years, but still leverages her "I'M A PRECIOUS DEVELOPER".
I think what a lot of them are finding out is everyone has a ceiling in life. I made it until 30 until I hit mine. I've accepted that I will never be CEO or VP of my company because of the career paths I chose in my 20s. I have female friends from college hitting it just past 30 and they're blaming it on everything but the fact that they can't go any higher.
Personally I think half of the problem is that a lot of kids weren't raised with reality in mind. They got into what ever college and major and life they wanted and they're expecting jobs without being able to actually perform. Brianna Wu's game Revolution 60 looks like something a 13 year old would have designed in the late 90s. There are a lot of actual women in STEM that have real accomplishments to their name by their ages. Stuff like patents.
</soapbox>
Yep. It's perfectly fine to harass and doxx people who disagree with you, but only if you're part of the hugbox.
No, this is basic SJW stuff.
"I cannot dispute your argument, so I'll pretend it doesn't exist and try ad hominems instead."
It's not so much trolling as just funny and/or sad.
Considering the number of times you've repeated that lie, and people have told you that there was no review but you continue to repeat it kinda shows that you already believe the narrative presented to you. Useful tip: It was positive coverage, not forgetting the fact that it wasn't her boyfriend. Rather it was a game journo, who was also shacking up with her, paying for her hotels, and was also involved in part of the production of that work work. None of which was disclosed when he wrote the articles praising her as a indie darling and the not-quite VN, the best thing since sliced bread. I do find it funny how salty people get over deepfreeze though, who'd have though exposing gamejournos being corrupt would be so fulfilling.
What I find funny about all of it is, when this originally broke it was called burgers and fries. People dumped the name and it centered to gamergate, and of course aggro's like yourself continue to go on and on about "how changing the name would really mean they've distanced themselves from it" as well. Showing however, that even once the name was changed you didn't care. And when a conference with members of the SPJ decided to use a different name, the first thing aggro's did was start screaming about "how it's gamergate, and they rape women."
Or that after a year and a half, you still can't find actual threats linking them to gamergate but it's pretty easy to find outspoken aggro's who want to get people fired from their jobs, actively dox people, and in general are the usual asshats that social justice produces these days. Who of course believe that no matter what they do it's justified. ally got caught by pretending to be an actual terrorist.
Om, nomnomnom...