Slashdot Mirror


Twitter Tackles Terrorists In Targeted Takedown (betanews.com)

Mark Wilson writes: Having previously battled trolls, Twitter has now turned its attention to terrorists and their supporters. The site has closed down more than 125,000 accounts associated with terrorism since the middle of 2015, it announced in a statement. Although a full breakdown of figures is not provided, Twitter says most of these accounts were related to ISIS. Having increased the size of its account review team, the site has reduced the time it takes to investigate accounts that are reported, and has also started to investigate 'accounts similar to those reported'.

54 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Too Many T's Timothy by rossdee · · Score: 3, Funny

    firsT posT

    1. Re:Too Many T's Timothy by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      "Triumphantly treading titanium testicle territory," tittered tendentious Timothy.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:Too Many T's Timothy by HairyNevus · · Score: 1

      There is in fact a real "timothy", if you go to the video section (or just take my word for it) is in some of them doing interviews.

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    3. Re:Too Many T's Timothy by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      I think you mean, Totally Teeming with T's, Timothy.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    4. Re:Too Many T's Timothy by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Timothy tackled the title in this tale--truly triggering end times with his (touch)typing talent

      Would be terrorists think twice re ISIS

      ta-ta o/

      Apologies to teknologists/readers

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    5. Re:Too Many T's Timothy by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      It's not that many T's, everyone knows Ptimothy doesn't start with a T.

  2. LOL ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Holy alliteration Batman!!

    We need more of that.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:LOL ... by Toad-san · · Score: 2

      Replacing "In" with "Through", of course.

  3. What the future holds is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    that you will be labeled a terrorist if you disagree with the agenda and the status quo, and thus not allowed on Twitter etc.

  4. freedom (but only for those we like) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course twitter is a private service and can have whatever policies it wants. But when the whole world communicates with about 2 total services like that, silencing someone there is tantamount to complete censorship. It makes them go underground, where their message of hate becomes even harder to combat.

    No, it's best to shine a bright light on their bullshit. Let them say it all they want. The right answer to offensive speech is (1) more speech that makes it clear how fucked up their world view is, and (2) giving people good ways to chose what they listen to, but putting that power in their own hands, not having a central authority decide what is acceptable and what is not.

    Turning the internet into something controlled and "safe" is not a good idea, no matter how nasty the speech in question. But we're now centralizing all communication on Twitter and Facebook. The power to do this to ISIS is the power to do it to political dissidents and human rights activists and politically inconvenient people. We should think very, very carefully about what it means to give just a few companies that much control over how literally billions of people communicate.

    1. Re:freedom (but only for those we like) by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. Exactly this.

      The correct answer to people spouting bullshit is to call out their bullshit. Don't silence them by squelching them, silence them by showing them that they are wrong, that they are not the "vocal minority that dares to say what others only think", but that they are a loudmouth few who babble what everyone else knows is BULLSHIT.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:freedom (but only for those we like) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      when the whole world communicates with about 2 total services

      The problem are not Twitter's policies, the problem is we rely on 2 services, that happen to be proprietary and non-compatible with competitors, effectively preventing competition to appear.

    3. Re:freedom (but only for those we like) by Rujiel · · Score: 2

      "It's a war." Oh really? Except In THIS "war", the US and its allies (especially Saudi Arabia) are the ones who engineered the enemy--specifically, the US sought to engender fundamentalism in the arab world in order to battle those godless soviets, and now the birds have come home to roost. All the while Turkey and the Saudis very openly arm ISIS while we look the other way. So spare me your "this is war' WWII analogy bullshit.

    4. Re:freedom (but only for those we like) by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That is countered by those who, right or wrong, will judge and make noise about them, "aiding and abetting." (I might as well continue the alliteration.)

      So, for better or worse, they are "doing something." Smart people might go, "WTF? You're just making them harder to find and track." Alas, there do not appear to be too many smart people and the smarter people are generally not the noisy ones. So, you get stuff like this. I mean, you wouldn't want to be accused of aiding and abetting terrorist communications and recruitment efforts, would you? You'd not want to be providing an platform for the radicalization of terrorists or helping them plan acts of violence, would you?

      So, as long as we don't have smart people (or logical and well reasoned people) you will see things like this.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:freedom (but only for those we like) by KGIII · · Score: 2

      While I disagree, entirely, with the OP AC, pointing out where you think the fault lies does not actually make it any less a war. Your "rebuttal" is a nice rant and all but not really salient.

      Also, it's fun to blame the US but I'd suggest you study some history - the problem goes back *much* further. Instead of blaming the colonization and arbitrary borders put in place by the League of Nations or the United States or even the USSR - how about we, you know, blame the people who are *actually* causing the problems? You know, the people cutting off heads, blowing people up, and setting off bombs? I dunno but I think the culpability lies with the people committing atrocities.

      Yeah, I know... That means holding people accountable for their individual actions and laying the blame on the poor impoverished, uneducated, and disenfranchised souls. That's terrible and not exactly politically correct but the reality is, they're cutting off people's heads. No, no... It's convenient to blame the US (and ignore history which points to much bigger problem creators) and to rant and be a right-minded soul. But me? No... I'm gonna blame the people who cut off heads for cutting off heads.

      At any rate, it's no less a war just because you'd like to point to some cause le jour and feel better about yourself. But, you knew that. Well, maybe you didn't. You do now. And no, the blame lies squarely on the folks committing the atrocities and not the League of Nations or even the interference due to the colonization by Europeans and it's not even the fault of the church and the Crusades. It's not even the fault of Mohamed for spreading his religion north and then outwards. No, it's the fault of the people chopping off heads. But, you knew that...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:freedom (but only for those we like) by Falos · · Score: 1

      >The site has banned more than 125,000 accounts after people hit the "Reported for terrorism" button

      FTFY

      No need to thank me, long as I get an equal amount of "fought terrorism" credits. Yes, I know they're counterfeit, that's obvious, but like them I don't care.

    7. Re:freedom (but only for those we like) by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what it is you're actually trying to say. I'm not sure that you actually read (and understood) my post. For example, I did not advocate violence. Nowhere in my post did I even remotely indicate that I was suggesting a violent solution? So, I have no idea what you mean when you say, "If it would be like you say..." It is like I said. I'd also prefer that they were tried and sentenced in an impartial court of law in the world courts but that's extremely unlikely as I have no control over such things.

      At any rate, if you'd be so kind as to tell me what it is you think I said then we might be able to actually communicate. I've access to machine translation if English is not your native language. I've no idea who you are but, if you're willing to take some advice, it might be prudent to consider avoiding assumptions in the future such as assuming that I am connotations included with using violence to stop violence. I have no idea where you even came up with an idea like that. Hell, I even went so far as to point out that I *disagreed* with the OP AC. That person, not me, is potentially advocating violence. I, on the other hand, have done no such thing. Pointing out reality does not make me agree that it is as it should be nor does it mean that I hold any particular opinion about it unless I expressly state such.

      Trust me on this one... If I hold an opinion, I've either mentioned it or I will mention it. You don't really have to guess, assume, project, or surmise my opinion because I'm more than happy to share my opinion. You don't need to add things that I did not say, I say what I mean and mean what I say. (That does not mean that I don't make mistakes. I'll add that so you don't feel obligated to assume that I think I am without error.) In fact, you don't even need to guess my sentiments on this subject because I have a pretty big comment history that should be indicative of my held opinions or state said opinions outright.

      If you've something salient, I'd be more than happy to have a conversation. However, do try to not read into what I say and make assumptions. Chances are very good that you'll make the wrong assumptions. It's hardly conducive to good communication to do so and text is notably poor at conveying tone.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:freedom (but only for those we like) by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I'm still using ICQ. Maybe there isn't actually a shortage of services? What then? What if XMPP services can be installed out of the box on any cheap VPS? What then?

      There is no need to create fake freedoms, like the right to speak for twitter because you don't have your own platform to kick people out of.

    9. Re:freedom (but only for those we like) by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Indeed, competition would have such a high burden... they might have to ssh into a server and enter some cryptic command like "dnf install ejabberd" and hire a sysadmin for at least 4 hours to set it up. They would also have to create a website.

      A more pressing problem is that you might be targeting people unwilling to pay anything, and they might be willing to consume whatever level of services you are capable of providing.

      And you kids should be advised of the existence of email, email lists, and online communities using HTTP-based services. It may be that there are a whole bunch of options in active use, some of which are transmitted entirely across open channels and that have no proprietary components.

      It may be that the primary distinguishing characteristic of twitter and facebook, the reason they are so popular, is that they are proprietary and therefore somehow elite! Officialish-looking. Be less credulous.

    10. Re:freedom (but only for those we like) by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      This. Exactly this.

      The correct answer to people spouting bullshit is to call out their bullshit. Don't silence them by squelching them, silence them by showing them that they are wrong, that they are not the "vocal minority that dares to say what others only think", but that they are a loudmouth few who babble what everyone else knows is BULLSHIT.

      ISS don't use Twitter to engage in debate with their critics, it's just a propaganda and recruiting tool.

      Trying to have a rational discussion with psychotic fascists is pointless. You are never going to convince them they're wrong. It's like arguing with a Nazi on whether or not it's a good idea to exterminate the Jews.

      I see absolutely no reason why anyone sane would want to give them any help at all in promoting their message. You can't stop them publishing their crap on the internet anyway, but if you're a company like Twitter you really don't want to be associated with them in any way.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re:freedom (but only for those we like) by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      when the whole world communicates with about 2 total services

      The problem are not Twitter's policies, the problem is we rely on 2 services, that happen to be proprietary and non-compatible with competitors, effectively preventing competition to appear.

      The whole point of the internet is that you are not limited to mainstream, officially approved or commercially motivated services. If you want to communicate about terrorism or child porn or hiring a hit man or anything else that is illegal, you are free to give it a try, but you really can't complain when large mainstream companies won't want to touch you with a barge pole.

      The internet is not limited to Twitter and Facebook. I use neither service, but strangely I don't feel like I'm being censored or repressed.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:freedom (but only for those we like) by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If the majority of Muslims supported Daesh, Iran, Syria and practically the whole of the Middle East would be under their control by now.

      It is absurd to equate Islam with Daesh.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re: freedom (but only for those we like) by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "ISIS accounts are hunted down and extinguished" Instead of hunting accounts they should be extinguishing the head choppers, suicide vest wearing, and AK-47 carrying psychopaths.

      You seem to be confusing Twitter admins with military Special Forces.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:freedom (but only for those we like) by Rujiel · · Score: 2

      "pointing out where you think the fault lies does not actually make it any less a war"

      I wasn't simply pointing out "where the fault lies", because that implies that this rash of fundamentalism is some sort of unintended consequence. Although you could claim that it was unintended regarding our coup of Mossadegh, it certainly is not true of our more recent targets. Saddam? Secular. Gaddafi? Secular. Assad? Secular. ISIS, on the other hand, we handled with kid gloves until Russia got around to bombing them (not to mention a lot of civilians as well).

      There are plenty of examples of the pentagon struggling with this administration--having intelligence altered, targets removed from eligibility for bombing, etc.

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

      Of course, this comes not long after our arming of Al Nusra and other extremists in Syria from 2009 onward in a continued attempt to topple Assad.

      So, put simply, the idea that this is a "war" against fundamentalist islam is laughable. (You might as well try to tell me how drugs are the enemy in our war on drugs, when they're actually the war's greatest friend--without the drugs, there would be no war!) In recent times, rather, our goal has been to engender fundamentalism in the western world such that we may have an excuse to intervene. This was the most salient--since you like that word--point of my comment, which you didn't address at all. Even today the west's strongest ally is Saudi Arabia, the monarchy of which pushes Wahabism, which is just as extreme as any variety of fundamentalist islam that the US could purport to be fighting.

      You act as if a rash of state-sponsored fundamentalism sparked up on its own in the Muslim world, as if through some stimuli among savages that we noble westerners could never hope to understand--a very shortsighted and deliberately simple view.

      Actually, the *easy* thing to do would be to claim that those on the other side of the world have a problem, and that our government represents us or always has our best interests in mind--as if we are in the seat of power. The *difficult* thing to do would be to admit that the US' military actions are caused by ripples in a deep state which neither you nor I nor even the president has control over. So your notion that just blaming "the west" is a way of standing up and dusting off our hands is pretty silly--it actually means that WE have a problem, and that WE have work to do.

      So you can spare me your "so easy to blame the west" spiel.

    15. Re:freedom (but only for those we like) by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Sure, you win. You can draw any conclusions you want. You can read into my post anything you want. Who am I? Just some pixels on a screen. I checked your links, that's what makes me think you didn't even read what I wrote. That's okay. I'm pixels on a screen and there's not a damned thing I could say that would make you think anything different or new. Hell, you didn't even notice who I suggested was really to blame. Nah, you even kind of repeated it like it's your own idea. Hell, I'm the guy that says we should legalize drugs and take the crime out of it and treat it as a social issue and not a criminal issue. But no, you win. Congratulations. (When you calm down, read what I wrote and a history book - and don't read into it things that I did not say or make assumptions, it might help... Or you can just believe you won.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    16. Re:freedom (but only for those we like) by Rujiel · · Score: 1

      You blamed the league of nations and the west drawing maps. I pointed out that the causes are much more recent than.that. You can blame people cutting off heads all you like, but then you're pretending that these things come about in a vacuum. You can say we're at war, but then you're presupposing that it's a war we did not choose, and that we do not deliberately propagate..

      Finally, you can say i'm right about this, and, well, you'd be correct. Have a good day.

  5. Re:Alliterative Headline Sucks by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Huh? Something changed?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. twitter free to censor & obey western establis by sittingnut · · Score: 2

    twitter is private so it is in fact free to do as it wishes. twitter can be the prosecution, judge, and executioner, in a private space owned by it

    but all people who love freedom will note well and remember , that by this action it is freely indicating that what it wishes is to do is to obey the western secular 'liberal' establishment and its agenda, same that is invading countries, looting resources, running torture camps, sanctioning coups, drone killing children, spying on everyone, etc etc,. twitter is willing to judge and brand those who disagree with that agenda (in its privately owned property), and perhaps sometimes advocate violent resistance to that agenda, as 'terrorists' ( note however that no physical violence is taking place in twitter and accounts of those who are convicted through due legal process of such violence elsewhere are not the issue here )

    now we know twitter is a willing tool of some nasty people. just as twitter is free to cac like this, we are free to show contempt for that action, (unless we are ourselves specimens of lowest form of humanity to support what twitter is supporting)

  7. We are returning to the dark ages. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I fear that despite all the scientific advancements we have made over the last two or three hundred years, despite the technology we now have at our disposal, we are descending into another dark age.

    Basically, I would rather know what these crack pot followers of Mohamed or Jesus or whoever are up to than have it hidden from me. At least with openness there is some slight chance of entering into a debate about what really bothers them.

     

    1. Re:We are returning to the dark ages. by craigminah · · Score: 1

      While there are plenty of muslim and Christian crackpots,o only the muslims kill, torture, rape, burn, etc. women and children indiscriminately.

    2. Re:We are returning to the dark ages. by ShaunC · · Score: 2

      While there are plenty of muslim and Christian crackpots,o only the muslims kill, torture, rape, burn, etc. women and children indiscriminately.

      Tell that to the victims of abortion clinic bombings.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    3. Re:We are returning to the dark ages. by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      We *were* going to invade. Without a doubt. Instead, millions of lives were saved, and Japan saved itself to rebuild for another day.

      But let's play alt-history here:
      1) Let's say that the coup the day before the surrender had worked. The warrior caste remained in power, therefore no surrender.
      2) Soviets were invading. The cold war starts here, only its hot.
      3) We use Japan as a hot war proxy.
      4) ???

      Do we lay slag to Japan because it won't surrender? Do we lay slag to Japan to stop the Soviets? Or do we invade with thousands of our boys to fight an enraged populace? To fight another superpower?

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    4. Re: We are returning to the dark ages. by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      We are descending into a dark age. We have a culture of death, where we've replaced reproduction with immigration. This has been true for decades, and is becoming more pronounced with the passage of time. We have too many elderly, and our women are facing ever increasing pressure to choose service over family, creating a spiral effect. We will reach a point where we don't have the numbers to keep the infrastructure going. Our modern technological society relies on myriad resources being available, and as those resources become unavailable, all the knowledge in the world won't matter. Once we're unable to implement our discoveries and designs, people will forget them.

      As we became more advanced, our creations became more delicate. The more delicate they are, the quicker archeological evidence of them deteriorates. There is no reason to believe this hasn't happened before.

      ISIS are standing in opposition to this pattern, but I doubt they will be effective enough to prevent it. I'd say a dark age is pretty much guaranteed.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    5. Re:We are returning to the dark ages. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      They weren't even really trying to surrender. They were given ample opportunity to do so. They were trying to vie for an armistice, cease-fire, or discussions (depending on when). That was not an option per the Potsdam Resolution. The only surrender that was to be accepted was complete and total surrender. We did, wisely, allow them to keep their Emperor (in name only) to ease the transition into a non-warring society with democracy, rights, and a representative government.

      Had we not dropped the nukes, they still probably would have surrendered completely. It may have taken longer. A good documentary on this, if I can only recommend one, is Hirohito's War, it's an episode from Secrets of War. Had we invaded the main island, the loss of life would have been much higher, including the loss of civilian life. There are varied estimates as to how many lives such an invasion would have cost but none of those estimates are lower than the lives cost with the totality of both nukes and the resulting figures even due to shortened lives.

      Frankly, as a whole, Japan got off pretty light compared to the number of civilian lives they took all across the area. If you compare their number of dead to those caused by them, they got off pretty light. If you compare them with the numbers of dead caused by their allies, the Axis, they really got off light. If you go back and read some of the documents printed, there were people who really wanted to kill each and every last one of them. Fortunately, nobody took any of them serious and those espousing such views were not in a position of power nor representatives of their governing bodies. Though, to be honest, judging by the number of atrocities committed and the scale on which they were done, it's not hard to understand the anger at the time.

      Oh, I went and found that documentary if anyone wants to watch it. I believe that's one of the ones from the series that was narrated by none other than Moses himself. Here's a link if you want to watch it in your spare time:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      There's something like 110 episodes or more? I don't remember how many. It's hours and hours and hours long. Some of them are actually really good and information density rates are nice and high. I've no recollection of any factual inaccuracies from the series but there's a few times where the facts are presented with biased emphasis and the take-away can be a bit skewed. I'm not sure if that's intentional but it's not uncommon - specifically where war is concerned. That's one of the reasons that I try to get my documentaries from multiple sources. Keeping bias in mind helps keep things in perspective. Most are not outright dishonest but may not include certain events that are important and salient. There's surely a limit to what can be included (due to budget and time constraints) but the attempt to color the findings in a certain light is not always unintentional, I think. So, use multiple sources from varied perspectives.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:We are returning to the dark ages. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the victims of abortion clinic bombings.

      I can't even remember one of those happening here in Canada, and if I remember right the last one in the US happened almost 30 years ago. They were ostracized and called batshit insane by the Christians even the crack-pot Christians.

      Muslims though? You hear a blip here and there, like the organizational leader of a group of mosques here in Canada saying all mosques should be under surveillance and so on. And then you hear the rest of them going nope, we're fine...followed up by chanting god is great and then send some 14 year old off to join a terrorist organization.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:We are returning to the dark ages. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the victims of abortion clinic bombings.

      I can't even remember one of those happening here in Canada, and if I remember right the last one in the US happened almost 30 years ago.

      Three people were killed in a shooting at an abortion clinic in Novermber 2015.

      And, no, it doesn't make any difference that it's not a bombing, terrorism is terrorism.

      The point is not the number of actual murders, it's more about the underlying beliefs of a significant minority of Christians and the lower level day-to-day harrassment associated with the issue.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re: We are returning to the dark ages. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter .

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:We are returning to the dark ages. by craigminah · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the thousands of innocents killed, raped, burned, tortured, etc. Your counter argument of a dozen people killed by Christians is legit but in no way comparable to the horrors the muslims inflict on the world.

  8. #RIPTwitter by bretts · · Score: 1

    We all know how the slippery slope works, and we see it on Twitter. Banning actual terrorist groups, then shadowbanning conservatives, now fiddling with hashtags to prevent politically incorrect ideas. Just like Facebook, Twitter has gone down the path of "safe spaces" that will result in the death of all actual interaction, replaced by a Potemkin virtual village of happy idiots discussing inoffensive nonsense and celebrities

  9. First they came for... by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    First they came for the trolls...I didn't care because I wasn't a troll.
    Then they came for the terrorists...I didn't care because I wasn't a terrorist.
    Then they came for the guys with ironic beards...and I started caring.

    1. Re:First they came for... by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Hah! Good one. I had to look that one up 'cause I'm so unhip it's a wonder that my bum doesn't fall off.

      "Ironic Facial Hair is novelty facial hair grown with the intention of being "ironic"... Although the results are usually about as ironic as that song by Alanis Morisette. It is generally considered a hipster term. "

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:First they came for... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      First they came for the trolls...I didn't care because I wasn't a troll. Then they came for the terrorists...I didn't care because I wasn't a terrorist. Then they came for the guys with ironic beards...and I started caring.

      Trolls can be amusing, terrorists can sometimes be genuine freedom fighters. But there is never any excuse for ironic beards.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  10. Just another reason to #RIPTwitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is all part of a larger trend of Twitter becoming increasing irrelevant, but much more interesting to me is the #RIPTwitter hashtag and Twitter's burying of it.

    For everyone who hasn't been following Twitter recently, Twitter has announced that they're getting rid of the reverse chronological timeline and will be switching everyone over to an "algorithm-based curated out-of-order timeline" some time next week - essentially that horrible thing Facebook did to force companies to pay money to make their posts visible at the cost of real people having their posts buried. (It's the reason why that picture of your family will never show up but you'll routinely see posts from McDonald's, solely because one of your friends hit "like" on McDonald's years ago.) As part of this move, they're also no longer marking promoted tweets and hashtags as "promoted," instead they'll just be mixed in with everything else.

    This has prompted a backlash and people started tweeting "RIP Twitter" - until Twitter blackholed tweets containing that phrase. So #RIPTwitter started trending instead. And then Twitter blackholed that as well, even though it was nearing a million tweets.

    What we're watching is Twitter slowly cave in to the demands of advertisers at the expense of users. First it started going after "trolls" in an effort to prevent bad press. Now it's going after terrorists in a similar bid. Next up it will be actively filtering what we get to see on Twitter, and who knows what biases that's going to be enforcing, but based on what it chooses to run in Twitter Moments, the one thing we can be sure of is that it will be biased.

    All in the name of promoting advertisers who all pretty much agree that Twitter is useless as an advertising platform.

    #RIPTwitter.

  11. Propaganda by MrL0G1C · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The site has closed down more than 125,000 accounts associated with terrorism"

    ^ This, folks is what's known as propaganda and it's utter BS.

    It doesn't take more than a couple of seconds of logical thought to realise that either the 125,000 number is wrong or the accounts are not associated with terrorism, unless you include talking about terrorism to mean 'associated with terrorism'

    It's sad that people fall for this kind of crap.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  12. Better headline would be by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    Twitter Tackles Terrorists Through Targeted Takedown

    The original headline could imply that the terrorists were in the middle of a targeted takedown when twitter tackled them.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  13. so if we define terrorism by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    if terrorism is maiming and killing innocents to incite fear in forwarding a political or religious agenda...

    wouldn't that make the United States government the biggest terrorists on the planet? So Twitter will be taking down accounts of them and their supporters?

    1. Re:so if we define terrorism by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      No.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    2. Re: so if we define terrorism by rubycodez · · Score: 1
  14. "Terrorists" by Dereck1701 · · Score: 2

    I wonder what their definition of 'terrorists' is, somehow I bet it isn't quite what people are thinking. When the US was bombing the heck out of Iraq/Afghanistan they simply labeled everyone that they killed as "terrorists". When it started to come to light that women and pre teen children were included in those numbers they did finally limit their tally, to including anyone they killed who was armed, including reporters with large scary cameras.

  15. They missed one by troll+-1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    CIA account is still active.

  16. Re:Alliterative Headline Sucks by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Technically? Yes. Practically? Well... Most of the mentions of Dice are gone (I just went and looked - Dice is still mentioned on the jobs board, I stopped looking at that point.)

    Err... You're here frequently. We had a nearly 2000 comment thread. We had another thread with 1000+ comments. We've had someone mention it in nearly every thread. So, I'm not really sure why you're asking... I'll take it at face value 'cause I've got nothing better to do.

    About 10 days ago, DHi sold Slashdot and SourceForge. The new overlords are BIZX (rhymes with physics). Two, that I know of, new overlords have offered some communication and appear to actually understand we're a community and not an audience. Presumably, it will take some time before any significant changes become manifest. Hopefully, those changes are beneficial. One thread reached out to us and asked what we'd like to see changed in an effort to make the site better. The other official thread was about the sale itself.

    There's been mention of them being more open (which is not to be mistaken as entirely open - even though some folks seem to think that's exactly what more open means). There have been indications that there are a couple of changes to be made such as the removal of bundled software at SourceForge and increased access to Unicode on this site. So far, and this may be confirmation bias, the story selection seems to have improved and the majority of references to Dice are now gone. Other than those two thing and some communication, not much more than the name of our overlords has changed.

    I'm still a bit suspicious of why you're asking. ;-)

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  17. They should leave the accounts appearing active... by FauxReal · · Score: 1

    Just put them in a black hole so nobody else on the Internet sees the tweets unless you're logged into said account. And maybe people on law enforcement accounts used to track the terrorists.

  18. *to engender fundamentalism in the Muslim world by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    ..is what I meant

  19. P.S. by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    You might want to hold off until you can actually win an argument before you tell someone to "read a book". Also, likely not a great idea to throw a sardonic "you win" temper tantrum at the same time. You've been around for a few years, so I figured these things would be second nature to you by now.. guess I was wrong.