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.
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!)
So they're cracking down on common everyday trolls. But, racist/misogynistic/hateful tweets are just fine, if you're a presidential candidate.
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.
Crowing about beating trolls is such a great idea. What could possibly go wrong?
Will they be cracking down on celebrity trolls as well? Or will they only be taking action on peons who respond to hateful hateful comments from self-righteous celebrities?
Why didn't the earlier story about internet freedom make any mention of this Twitter banfest, Slashdot? Why was there never a /. story about Vice (where the internet freedom story came from) itself hypocritically silencing the masses by wiping out its own comments section, ensuring that only themselves and approved plebians will have a voice on their site?
/. story about the ridiculous UN Women/Broadband propaganda report that tried to promote the idea of "cyber-violence" (an awkardly obvious pretense to a desired government crackdown) which proved so embarassing that they had to pull it from public view (and no /. story when that happened either).
Why was there never a
It's abundantly clear that there's an activist arm of the tech news media (which Slashdot, sadly, clearly wants to be part of) that isn't anti-censorship or anti-bullying at all, as long as they get to be (or choose) the approved bullies and censors.
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.
Facebook already has shown it can't be trusted with free speech (which is why I refuse to have a Facebook account). If Twitter follows suit then I'm gone (as will be my eyeballs seeing its ads, which I see more regularly now, by the way!).
Adam Baldwin had his a twitter account banned for a post that said "#gamergate'ers are more attractive and joyous for than anti-gg'ers"
The whole "troll" excuse, seems to be an excuse to target users who buck the trend of political correctness, gamergate seems to be the largest target of users.
Even Richard Dawkin had to mention that twitter "thought" police going after people.
Twitter is private, not a government so it technically can't be censoring. They have a right to delete whatever they want from their site.
Whoever told you that, make sure you never trust anything they say ever again. When it comes to the Bill of Rights, the ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment wide, but even it knows better than to say what you just did:
https://www.aclu.org/what-cens...
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
Remember when Reddit (and Google and most of the internet) stood up and actively, officially, and effectively opposed SOPA and PIPA? Well, CISA just passed without a peep from them, while they instead actively censor discussion of similar things like the TPP.
Do you see yet why private censorship shouldn't be ignored?
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.
Her motivation was in the right place. She is trying to protect black men from being constantly killed by the Republican's thugs in blue.
Nice troll.
Isn't it though.
In my experience, if there's one tenet that reliably and consistently predicts (if not drives) an SJW's opinions and behavior, it's the one that tells them "It's OK when we do it."
If the twitters go tweet tweet, do the trolls go roar roar. Just thinking.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The trolls already won, and everyone knows it. Censorship just changes you from a loser to a whiny loser. Even worse, it is an announcement to the whole world that you can't defend your ideas, which most people understand to mean that your ideas are indefensible.
See that "Preview" button?
You have a different opinion than mine? You criticized someone who happens to be black, female or other minority?
TROLLS. STOP TROLLING ME SHITLORD. Everyone knows my politically correct opinion will remain unchallenged until the end of time!
You think that's bad? ESR apparently has evidence that a Feminist organization is attempting to frame Linus Torvalds and other open source leaders for sexual assault, presumably to force them out of the community / push some form of gender/diversity quota on Kernel Development. (This all occurred around the same time they started pushing to get those god awful totalitarian Codes of Conduct on various groups and websites.)
One would think that would make the front page, but nope. Went into submission limbo.
One would think that would make the front page, but nope. Went into submission limbo.
It made the front page, you didn't pay attention. Try to do better next time.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
And use single posts to slander large groups of people.
ESR makes wild, unfounded accusations about people claiming that they make wild, unfounded accusations. Apparently irony is lost on the guy.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Terrorism is a far bigger problem and Twitter only cares and actively works to do something about the trolls, which in comparison, aren't a problem at all. It's disgusting.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Is that kinda like "ISIS is contained"?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
They do not get, what a real troll is. Hint: No bully, harasser, spammer or similiar. You do not notice a real troll, you only notice the reactions.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Oddly enough, I have this link in my bookmarks:
http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/...
You might wish to spend a few minutes reading that article about how the world has butchered Ben's quote on liberty vs. security.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
A great idea for a app would be a Troll to PC Converter, maybe "Troll2PC?" Its not that the Trolls are always 'wrong', for all cases, Trolls say it 'wrong' for all cases. I know for a fact I should always use it. I would think of it as Spell Check for Trolls, maybe SpellCheck4Trolls? Of course there's always comedy, "You Know When You're a Troll when you write ..." That probably works better now that I think of it.
They're not beating alleged "trolls", they're just trying to remove counter-SJW narrative messages. Twitter protects abuse and doxxing if it supports a leftist cause (e.g. BLM), while removing anti-leftist content of the same caliber (e.g. Sarah Nyberg's acts of child abuse).
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The individuals that run the abuse department at Twitter are well connected to the various SJW causes.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
They already have.
Adam Baldwin is not a troll, but he is a well-known personality with conservative beliefs. As a consequence, Twitter's abuse department considers him an enemy of the highest order.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
If one has to cite XKCD 1357, then one has automatically lost the argument. Using that comic means that one's argument cannot survive scrutiny without administrative defense.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Remember that time when Torvalds joked about Greg Kroah-Hartman being a huge dude and some crazy harpy absolutely flew off the handle with a rude reply screeching about Torvalds making violent threats, and media pushing that exact narrative even though it was obviously false? Yeah, no attempts at character assasination there, no sir.
That harpy is Sarah Sharp. She's on the board of the Feminist organization who was apparently trying to frame Linus.
http://adainitiative.org/2014/...
One would think that would make the front page, but nope. Went into submission limbo.
It made the front page, you didn't pay attention. Try to do better next time.
Wrong. It didn't make the front page. Someone's attempt to shoehorn it into an interview on being a woman in tech made the front page, with ESR's post mentioned as a weird random aside -- a month after the fact.
ESR's claims were the story.
Instead, Slashdot went for an interview with someone about what they felt about that story.
Because remember, when the founder of Linux and arguably one of the most important figures in Open Source is apparently the target of a misandric hate-hob attempting to frame him for attempted rape, accusations of which are brought forth by one of the other most important figures in Open Source, the important thing to do is not report on that, and instead ask someone what they think about it instead.
Lets also not forget that Sarah Sharp, one of the people on the board of the Feminist group apparently attempting to frame Linus, was the one who had a very public (and very faked) fainting couch moment when Linus apparently blocked their attempts to frame him by never being alone, claiming he was mean on the LKML and being mean on a mailing list is the same as physical violence. At which point it stops being just "Oh look ESR is crazy" and more "Oh look, there's an organized effort to drive Linus off the project."
You didn't pay attention. Try to do better next time.
Pretty much anything goes if you're a presidential candidate. Frankly, the more evil sh*t they spew, the better. I'd rather they be openly evil and crazy before an election than to have it come out in their policies afterwards. Now if people actually vote them in based on that crap, that's a serious problem but it says a lot more about the voters than the candidates in that event.
Wrong. It didn't make the front page. Someone's attempt to shoehorn it into an interview on being a woman in tech made the front page, with ESR's post mentioned as a weird random aside -- a month after the fact.
Dude, it was on the front page. Chill out, you're a little crazy here about a topic that doesn't matter too much.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
btw I don't think ESR is crazy, just that the whole issue is a temporary one that will mainly resolve itself.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."