Slashdot Mirror


'The Room Had Started To Smell. Really Quite Bad': Stephen Fry Exits Twitter (betanews.com)

Mark Wilson writes: For a man so readily associated with words — and certainly for a wordsmith so enamored with technology — Twitter seems like something of a natural home for Stephen Fry. Over the years he has amassed hundreds of thousands of followers, but last night he closed his account. Fry's latest exit from Twitter (there have been several over the last few years for numerous reasons) came about because of the backlash he received for making a joke at an award ceremony. Hosting the BATFAs (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) on Sunday, he referred to costume designer and award winner (and, indeed, friend) Jenny Beavan as being 'dressed as a bag lady'. 'Offended' Twitter users attacked Fry in their droves, and he fought a valiant battle, before eventually giving up and terminating his account. It comes just days after Twitter set up a new Trust & Safety Council.

151 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. These people don't stop existing, though by gnaarly · · Score: 5, Informative

    Closing your account stops them from tweeting at you. But they are still out there.

    1. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So? They were their before, but it was web forums, email mailing lists, newgroups et al. Life if full of cunts, twats, and fucking morons. Social media merely gives these tossers a global voice. Ignore them.

    2. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by barc0001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But you can also never reason with them. One of the reasons I don't use social media is I don't feel like engaging with random idiots who are either some tenuous friend of a friend coworker's cousin by marriage 14 places removed or complete strangers who just happened on a comment. Dealing with that crap can sometimes be draining even if you're only reading their comment and then completely ignoring it afterward. It takes up mental cycles no matter what, and when some of these people are trying to get a deliberate rise out of you, you occasionally feel a stab of wanting to respond to the provocation.

      Much easier to not be in that situation to begin with. For me the "ups" of being on social media and engaging with friends is outweighed by the potential for conflict with random clowns. Plus I find a lot of people on social media overshare waaaaaay too much.

    3. Re: These people don't stop existing, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More importantly, why is your tinfoil hat so tightly-fitted, and why are you still breathing unfiltered air when there are so many chemtrails around?

    4. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These people don't stop existing, though

      Well, in a way they do.

      "If you don't like the jokes stay out of the comedy clubs... If you don't like criticism stop googling yourself every 10 seconds." (Louis C.K. on The Daily Show, July 16th, 2012)

      By leaving Twitter he's no longer giving those people his ear. They don't matter to him anymore, they stop existing to him.

    5. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Twitter might end up looking like nothing more than a place where whiners go to whine

      I doubt it. Even Twitter's management isn't stupid enough to position themselves as a direct competitor to Facebook.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      But you can also never reason with them. One of the reasons I don't use social media is I don't feel like engaging with random idiots who are either some tenuous friend of a friend coworker's cousin by marriage 14 places removed or complete strangers who just happened on a comment. Dealing with that crap can sometimes be draining even if you're only reading their comment and then completely ignoring it afterward. It takes up mental cycles no matter what, and when some of these people are trying to get a deliberate rise out of you, you occasionally feel a stab of wanting to respond to the provocation.

      How is that any different than posting on Slashdot? Surely it's just as stressful dealing with all the contrarianism here.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Sort of. Who would listen to them anywhere else though? A large part of what they're doing is trolling or some other form of attention whoring. Without instant feedback there's no point.

    8. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The context is different. Our idiots are less random, and are more easily dismissed due to our focus on a particular subset of life. If you say stupid shit here, it gets culled or refuted and then buried pretty quickly.The true obvious trolls on Slashdot are easy to ignore. (APK, GNAA posters etc)

      --
      Good-bye
    9. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Surely it's just as stressful dealing with all the contrarianism here.

      No it isn't.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Yes hes a Prima Donna, he still says incredibly insightful things from time to time. He has pretty severe mental issues, so maybe cut him some slack?

      --
      Good-bye
    11. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by barc0001 · · Score: 2

      There's quite a few differences. Firstly, there's a level of anonymity, nobody in my "real" life knows who I am on Slashdot (or would even use Slashdot for that matter). Secondly, the way social media works, if someone posts a reply or a @ to you on Twitter for example, all of your followers see that as well. If someone replies to this post, only those people who have bothered to snake through it will see it. Same for Facebook and similar, posts to your wall are open to all and they get updated on them, as well as being able to see reply chains. Conversely if some random dude cruises by and replies to this message a month from now trying to start shit, nobody will ever see it.

      They're two different animals.

    12. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      If you say stupid shit here, it gets culled or refuted and then buried pretty quickly...

      Hahaha! Bull. When one says stupid shit here they, more often than not, fight to the end to save face. Either they come up with some weird rationale that backs them up or they try to change the topic so they can fight over there instead. At least on social media someone will back down if they're clearly in the wrong, not wanting the stink of that to tarnish their name. Here on Slashdot there's nothing to lose but pride, that's why this place is so hostile.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    13. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      I thought Twitter was already that....

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    14. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well this is a whole new breed of cunt. The previous generation of cunts would call you dirty names and shit, however the new generation of cunts call themselves "politically correct" and will use clean sounding but still inappropriately placed words like "racist" "bigot" "misogynist" "homophobe" or label you as one who uses "hate speech", even when none of these terms apply to you in any way possible. In other words, the old cunts were hecklers, the new cunts are self-righteous assholes.

      In fact, here's a video of what it's like to be assaulted by a hoard of these cunts:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    15. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes it is.

    16. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish it were as easy as ignoring them. These kinds of mobs are now driving policy and causing the concept of free speech to be rolled back on what is now a rather significant swath of communication on the internet.

    17. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Funny

      No it isn't!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    18. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      If you say stupid shit here, it gets culled or refuted and then buried pretty quickly...

      Hahaha! Bull. When one says stupid shit here they, more often than not, fight to the end to save face. Either they come up with some weird rationale that backs them up or they try to change the topic so they can fight over there instead. At least on social media someone will back down if they're clearly in the wrong, not wanting the stink of that to tarnish their name. Here on Slashdot there's nothing to lose but pride, that's why this place is so hostile.

      slashdot is 'so hostile'??

      You don't get out much...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    19. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 2

      Yes it is!

    20. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      it *might* be. Further govt funding is needed...to uh, well, funding is needed, study, things, money. needed.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    21. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1, Funny

      I love how an AC came out of the woodwork to illustrate my point.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    22. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      No it isn't.

      *ducks*

    23. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      The world has ALWAYS been full of self righteous assholes.

      Honestly, assume people are pieces of crap until they prove otherwise. It's a lot easier and safer.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    24. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's astoundingly gentle and well behaved. this is more representative of the level of violence disguised as victimhood you can expect from these people.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    25. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I love how an AC came out of the woodwork to illustrate my point.

      I very rarely post as AC. My point is just that slashdot is not particularly hostile and if you think it is then your experience outside of slashdot must be pretty limited.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    26. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I see this type of thing all the time.

      Wait, what?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    27. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by brantondaveperson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So wait - he closed his twitter account, and that makes him an attention whore?

      Dammed if you do, and dammed if you don't, I guess. He does have a good point though, Twitter genuinely is a waste of technology. I defy anyone to point to anything even halfway interesting or significant that has ever been posted on that site.

    28. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Next article: "Is Twitter the new Slashdot?"

    29. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I very rarely post as AC. My point is just that slashdot is not particularly hostile and if you think it is then your outside of slashdot must be pretty limited.

      If your "real life" is more hostile than slashdot then dammmmmmnnnn, you need to move somewhere far, far away.

      I mean I don't give a crap because I happen to have a thick skin, but it's much much more hostile here than my day to day life. I don't recall anyone ever equating me with the Nazis AFK, and I get sworn at at most one or two times a year. And it's very very rare for people to simply make shit up about me then accuse me of being a liar when I dispute it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    30. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by esperto · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

    31. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      Oops. I wasn't intending to imply you were the AC. I apologize.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    32. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      It is politically correct to blame things on political correctness.

    33. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Actually, they do stop existing.

      There are a shit load of people who don't exist.

      I don't have a Snapchat account. I don't have a fucking clue about what goes on over there. Those people don't exist in my world.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    34. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't have a Snapchat account. I don't have a fucking clue about what goes on over there. Those people don't exist in my world.

      Same here. No twitter, no snapchat, no instagram, and no facebook. And I haven't missed anything by not using them except a lot of angst and jealousy and posturing.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    35. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ladies and gentlemen, we have here Exhibit A: the ad hominem.

      An ad hominem argument is typically made by shifting the conversation from the actual message, with the requisite subtle dismissal of said message ("the room had started to smell a bit") to attacking the messenger ("hes quite the prima donna over here in the UK") with the goal of tainting the message by associating it with a tainted messenger.

      The question then is, Mr. Richard, why is it so important for you to dismiss his complaints by casting aspersions about his character that, either correct or incorrect (of course he's a bloody prima donna, show me someone in that biz that isn't - that's why people watch their shows) are irrelevant? It seems to me that your behaviour is strangely adjacent to what he meant by pissing in the pool, so perhaps something hit a wee bit too close to home?

    36. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If you let someone make you angry, you're giving that person the power to control your emotions. You're conceding your autonomy and thoughts to someone whom you probably don't want to have that power. So, yeah, in a way - perhaps he's no longer granting those people the power to control his thinking? I'm not sure I agree with his method but that's for him to decide. I find it much easier just to point out the logical fallacies, the inability to reason, and amuse myself until I get bored when people attempt to troll me in real life or on the 'net. Fuck 'em, they're random pixels on the screen.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    37. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by rednip · · Score: 1

      Why do you think that people are not entitled to their opinion? The irony is that you complain about 'political correctness' while complaining viciously about 'other people's language'. I can only come to the conclusion that they aren't 'politically correct' for your tastes

      In reality, what you seem to think are earnest 'self righteous' (let me use the word you almost said) 'Social Justice Warriors', are simply a new version of trolls. 'this new generation' of trolls understands that everything you do or say online will be linked permanently and thus instead of calling other random people 'ass knockers' (which could be dug up and perhaps used against you in 20 years), they simply pound out anger on whichever righteous target is trending on Twitter.

      Meh, welcome to trolling 2.0

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    38. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Duck Season! He demands that you shoot him now!

    39. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by JustOK · · Score: 1

      It's all purpose season. You can use it on meat or fish, accidentally, or on porpoise.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    40. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do you think that people are not entitled to their opinion? The irony is that you complain about 'political correctness' while complaining viciously about 'other people's language'. I can only come to the conclusion that they aren't 'politically correct' for your tastes

      In reality, what you seem to think are earnest 'self righteous' (let me use the word you almost said) 'Social Justice Warriors', are simply a new version of trolls.

      They're welcome to their opinion. Though their viewpoints end when they decide that their version of letting other speak, doesn't exist. The thing is, they're not trolls. They see themselves as "doing the right thing" or "the right side of history." You'll find that many of those SJW's subscribe to the "no bad tactics, only targets" theory of doing things. And would rather shut down any speech that's contrary to their narrow viewpoint on the world. See the university protests for example, or pulling fire alarms to stop people from speaking, or the most recent examples of no-platforming BS with Rutgers with Milo Yiannopoulos. Or Dawkins, Peter Tatchell, or Julie Bindel and so on. That's only a small sampling of the BS going on. And all the while, they're engaging in overt racism, such as safe spaces...for anyone but those whites or asians. Any place except for those hetrosexuals...or gays that don't do what we tell them, and so on. That moves them from trolls right into authoritarians.

        People just see the writing on the wall with Twitter, the second they put a bunch of groups in place that have a history of shutting down speech because it hurts their feelings, or the feelings of other people it was enough. Especially groups that believe that dissenting viewpoints are harassment like Feminist Frequency.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    41. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by jewens · · Score: 1

      The world has ALWAYS been full of self righteous assholes.

      Wait, are you referring to Stephen Frye or the other people?

      'The Room Had Started To Smell. Really Quite Bad'

      This could easily be one of those "If you can't identify who the sucker is...then it's you." moments.

      --
      That group of bovine standing over there appears quite portentous. That's right it's an ominous cow herd.
    42. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by AbRASiON · · Score: 2

      They can now unite, online and shout together as one group of politically correct extremists, not only allowing them to fuel deeper and deeper thought processes into what is NEW and politically correct but allowing them to harass others to join them or harass business and government to make policy changes and think of "the children" (or rather, any unique snowflake)

      It's becoming quite worrying and there's beginning to be more and more people sick of their shit online it seems. The more of these articles I see on Reddit, Slashdot and other forums, the more I see people decry the SJW clique. I wonder how big a head it's going to become in the next couple of years, it's quite significant now.

    43. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by ultranova · · Score: 1

      In other words, the old cunts were hecklers, the new cunts are self-righteous assholes.

      And there's nothing more annoying than a self-righteous asshole who's right.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    44. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I hope people appreciate the irony here that I was modded down for not agreeing with the "PC haz gones Maddd" crowd.

      It seems they aren't rallying against Political Correctness as much as trying to enforce a form of "Political Correctness" of their own where they're free to be insulting and rude but don't want anyone to do the same to them.

      All the mods have done here is demonstrate their hypocrisy.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    45. Re:These people don't stop existing, though by el_chicano · · Score: 1

      Well this is a whole new breed of cunt... In other words, the old cunts were hecklers, the new cunts are self-righteous assholes.

      Hmm... are you totally oblivious to the irony of this statement? That complaining about "self-righteous assholes" makes you one too?

      In fact, here's a video of what it's like to be assaulted by a hoard of these cunts:

      So who actually is collecting and storing these so-called cunts? Oh you meant horde!

      Funny, maybe. Insightful? Definitely not!

      --
      A man who wants nothing is invincible
  2. Who's Steven Fry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who is he?

    1. Re:Who's Steven Fry? by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1, Funny

      I have no idea, but I'm happy he chose to leave Twitter. For whatever reason.

      --
      -SR
    2. Re:Who's Steven Fry? by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's the guy from Futurama

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:Who's Steven Fry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's like a shitter, but made especially for twats. Hence the portmanteau, twat shitter -> twitter.

    4. Re:Who's Steven Fry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Now that we have that cleared up, what's Twitter?

      It's a website which works kind of like a mass, public text message. Originally it was meant as a way for people or businesses to send tidbits of information, such as status updates or brief PSA's, to a mass audience, and for people to provide direct feedback in return.
      These days, it's only real purpose seems to be a mechanism for SJW's to publicly troll, bully, shame, or otherwise attack companies and personalities who have not yet left the platform.

    5. Re:Who's Steven Fry? by FFOMelchior · · Score: 3, Informative

      He's a delightful person, much beloved in the UK, but definitely not as known in the US. He's known for being 1/2 of the comedy sketch duo "Fry & Laurie" (Laurie being Hugh Laurie, aka Gregory House, M.D.) and for being the current host of the British program Q.I.

    6. Re:Who's Steven Fry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I thought I read that statistically Poles were smarter than the rest of Europe. Marie Curie, those guys that broke the Enigma before the war started, and so on.

      My uncle was tending bar at one point in Chicago when a friend of his walked in. "John! I just heard the best joke ever! You have to hear this, it's great! So this Polack is trying to buy a watermelon, right? And—"
      "Hey buddy, what's the big idea? Don't you know I'm Polish?"
      "Oh! I'm so sorry! I had no idea. Okay, I'll tell it slow..."

    7. Re:Who's Steven Fry? by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      Implying that Trump is an Evangelical? I doubt that he claims that and I'm pretty sure that few Evangelicals would claim him.

    8. Re:Who's Steven Fry? by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      The guy with the red stapler on Office Space

    9. Re:Who's Steven Fry? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Pfft... We post on Slashdot nearly every day, we're used to it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re: Who's Steven Fry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      For those who live outside the U.K It's hard to explain what Steven Fry means to a large proportion of the population and the esteem he is held in. We have the term national treasure to apply to people of Steven Fry's standing, a term that is not applied to many people. Steven Fry leaving Twitter will make the main news bulittins in the UK, and the question that will be asked by the media is what does this mean for the future of Twitter, does this mark the beginning of the decline of Twitter.

      Those outside the UK will stuggle to believe that one man leaving Twitter could bring its prospects into question. However in UK when Twitter was starting to be know about, Steven Fry's presents on it was used to bolster its reputation. People took Twitter seriously because Steven Fry was on it. Steve Fry for a long time was the most followed person on Twitter, and every time the media mentioned Twitter Steven's bane followed shortly after.

      I would frankly be amazed if questions are not raised in parliament about this matter. Again outside the UK some poeple will scream how stupid I am for saying this, however every time Steven has drawn attention to an Issue questions have been raised in parliament. If these statement surprise you in any way you've simply failed to appreciate how those of an intellectually bend in the UK regard Steven Fry.

    11. Re:Who's Steven Fry? by wwalker · · Score: 1

      He was Dr.House's butler.

    12. Re:Who's Steven Fry? by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

      A famously funny bugger Jew (hereditary) from London, so that would make the "bag lady" a "fag hag" too. i.e. He is the victim of the sort of political correctness that is supposed to protect him. To further the irony one famously stupid and narcissistic fasionista called his conduct twattish, thereby degrading people who have twats by suggesting they were something that should be disproved of, and that would include herself.

      This is why we need multiple Internets where people are separated by IQ bands. At the very least people should be able to put filters on their accounts so that if you wish to read their comments, or comment on it yourself you must first be subjected to an IQ test, and perhaps a set of psychological tests to determined various faculties such as, having a sense of humour.

    13. Re:Who's Steven Fry? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      You try taking the onslaught of hundreds of blithering morons sometime. Let me know how long you stand up to their relentless stupidity before giving up on humanity.

      He's on Slash Dot he should take it in his stride

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    14. Re:Who's Steven Fry? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      He's the UK equivalent of Cecil the Lion

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    15. Re: Who's Steven Fry? by johnsie · · Score: 1

      Only the BBC consider him to be a "national treasure". They report about his every movement or opinion. To the rest of us he's just a quiz show host who gets more media attention than he deserves.

    16. Re:Who's Steven Fry? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      What is "Office Space"?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    17. Re: Who's Steven Fry? by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      *outside Europe

      --
      This is blinging
  3. Twitter, like the internet, is the mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And it's readily apparent that unfiltered access into the aggregate human psyche has proven time and again that despite the oft-cited belief that humans are fundamentally good -- they are really not.

    1. Re:Twitter, like the internet, is the mirror by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      They are the living expression and proof of the existence of memeplexes, or groups of memes working together to spread to more human brains.

      The brains form a polished mechanism to attack the brain units that do not form another instantiation of the memeplex.

      The danger historically came when a critical mass of the brain population could seize physical control over all brain units, memeplex instantiators or not.

      As with religions, modern political ones do so with righteous fury.

      Here, though, they remain somewhat limited, with their greatest power being limited to "only" social ostracism.

      At some point, though, Fry, star of V for Vendetta, will get prosecuted, not for being gay, as in V, but for some other left wing article of righteous fury, instead of right wing.

      How sad. It has come full circle on the V for Vendetta crowd, eating their own as the memeplex evolves beyond them.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Twitter, like the internet, is the mirror by TheReaperD · · Score: 2

      Sadly, one side effect of internet anonymity is that people feel they can be complete assholes without consequence. They tend to take out their frustrations about their spouse, boss or family on some random victim on the internet because it makes them "feel better." Not that I'm for removing anonymity, it just the burden we bear for it.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    3. Re:Twitter, like the internet, is the mirror by rbrander · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More like they are 10% not - but 10 cutting words can do more harm than a hundred "Oh don't listen to that jerk" hugs can repair. So it's not that humans aren't good, it's that enough of them are bad to make groups bad unless policed by good people. Twitter has no police. Every large group with no police becomes toxic, either physically or emotionally.

    4. Re: Twitter, like the internet, is the mirror by firewrought · · Score: 1

      It's more complicated than that. To touch on but one aspect, the abstract/disconnected nature of the medium leads us to interpret people 2 dimensionally, like stick figures in a cartoon universe with a simplistic good versus evil plot. And it's easy to play hero when all you have to do is gush righteous indignation onto the keyboard. Outside of the internet, we've developed other mechanism/norms for getting along sensibly. It's impolite to bring up religion and politics at work for instance... unless you know the group well enough to get away with it. Couple, families, coworkers, etc., frequently agree to just quietly disagree. Old folks are indulged their rants. Friends from opposite sides of the political spectrum vacillate between sincere discussion and light-hearted poking fun at themselves. Spouses rein in their too-tipsy others before they make too much an ass of themselves. No, it doesn't happen everywhere all the time, but in watching myself, I've found it fascinating how often my real-world responses deviate from my internet responses. And part of that is that you are seeing the whole person and part of it is that you work, live, or fraternize with that person and you don't want to harm the relationship.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    5. Re:Twitter, like the internet, is the mirror by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      He quit because people reacted to a poor in-joke. Thats it.

    6. Re:Twitter, like the internet, is the mirror by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Humans ARE fundamentally good. The good outweighs the bad by a huge margin or there wouldnt be 7 billion of us. That doesnt mean that the good can 100% suppress the bad. We are still part beast, and are often driven by base animalistic desires. Until we admit that, there will be little progress in this area.

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:Twitter, like the internet, is the mirror by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Most people i know choose to live constructive lives, not destructive. Ignorant and docile is probably better than knowledgeable but impotent.

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re:Twitter, like the internet, is the mirror by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Humans ARE fundamentally good. The good outweighs the bad by a huge margin or there wouldnt be 7 billion of us. That doesnt mean that the good can 100% suppress the bad. We are still part beast, and are often driven by base animalistic desires. Until we admit that, there will be little progress in this area.

      If 'good' means doing what it takes to get ahead. Humans, like all living things, depend on such qualities as greed and selfishness to survive and reproduce. Survival and reproduction are at a meta-level, beyond good and evil.

      Yet, at the same time, the human race is on a journey from the bestial to the superhuman. But I don't think that the superhuman will be quite as altruistic as you might like... They will be to us as we are to the apes. We will be an embarrassment to our descendants.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    9. Re:Twitter, like the internet, is the mirror by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I thought it was a good joke. It made me laugh.

      I didn't even know that he was friends with the lady in question; she really did just turn up at an award ceremony looking dressed for the streets.

    10. Re:Twitter, like the internet, is the mirror by skam240 · · Score: 1

      The case that most people lead constructive lives is obvious just looking at human history. Would we have advanced so far from hunter / gatherers had everyone been tearing everything down?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    11. Re: Twitter, like the internet, is the mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not simple, think of this as the straw that broke the camels back. When Steven Fry was first on Twitter (back when he was the most followed person on it) exchanges on Twitter where less likely to be troll like in nature. Now most comments by any one we'll know are likely to result in hate filled respones. In the next few days I dare say Steven Fry will explain his reasons, and will do so with the eloquence he normally does.

    12. Re:Twitter, like the internet, is the mirror by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      No humans ARE fundamentally selfish, that's why the planet is all fucked up.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  4. Yeah sure... by wbr1 · · Score: 1

    Twitter has always smelled like a drive by after burrito night. It just depends on whether your own stink overpowers others, as you can handle your own.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  5. The ironic thing here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The ironic thing here is that it's very unlikely that Twitter's "Trust and Safety Council" would have sided with Stephen Fry. Remember, he insulted a Protected Class of individual, and it's therefore just as likely that he would have been banned for his remarks. He pissed off SJWs and couldn't deal with the fallout, which I can completely understand. SJWs are nasty individuals who will never stop harassing people in their supposed crusade against harassment.

    Still, this is just yet another example of what we all know: Twitter is pretty much just a platform for anonymously trolling famous people. Once it finally fails (and it's circling the drain, the Trust and Safety Council is just one example), the world will be a better place.

    1. Re:The ironic thing here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The ironic thing here is that it's very unlikely that Twitter's "Trust and Safety Council" would have sided with Stephen Fry.

      That isn't ironic, that's his whole point. He's had it with this nanny nonsense where you aren't allowed to joke about anything lest someone get their poor little feelings hurt. And good on him for standing up to it.

    2. Re:The ironic thing here by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yes but they called you that because you were yelling it on the street corner while wearing nothing but a plant pot and a lobster bib.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  6. Look at the pictures by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

    She was dressed pretty meh for a costume designer.

    1. Re:Look at the pictures by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      I'd hazard a guess that her bag lady chic cost a pretty penny. That shiny leather jacket alone would probably cost several hundred pounds.

  7. Your offense-by-proxy offends me and I reject it! by aicrules · · Score: 1

    And I choose to reject your offense and substitute it with my own. Boring. Like watching any number of my friends that I am connected with on facebook go through the cycle of "OMG I LOVE HIM" to vague "WHY CAN'T YOU TRUST ANYONE" to "XYZ is single and just focusing on myself" to "OMG I LOVE HIM IDC WHAT ANYONE SAYS" over and over. It is really perpetuating the kindergarten/elementary communication style that I would hope most people would grow out of, but all the social media outlets allow a person too easy an outlet for. Things they probably wouldn't say directly to one of their friends because they'd immediately realize how juvenile it is, they will say 1000 times a day on facebook or twitter etc... Then you see celebrities acting the same way and that validates your little safe zone triggered feelings and eventually you may even start actually saying those stupid things out in public...at which time you'll find out just how much no one cares. Anyway, slashdot comments is just another social media platform and here I am blasting out my disdain for something I'm essentially doing right now.

  8. Do we care? by Egg+Sniper · · Score: 2

    Are we caring about that?

    (Why is this appearing on Slashdot?)

    1. Re:Do we care? by Howitzer86 · · Score: 2

      Love it or hate it, Twitter, and whether or not it sucks, is very much a Slashdot thing in both social, political, and techie respects.

  9. Listen to George by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    1. Re:Listen to George by wwalker · · Score: 2

      He was actually quoting Mark Twain.

  10. Re:You Be the Judge by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    I think Ralph McTell wrote about her in his song, Streets of London!

    "Have you seen the old girl
    Who walks the streets of London
    Dirt in her hair and her clothes in rags?
    She's no time for talking,
    She just keeps right on walking
    Carrying her home in two carrier bags."

    Yes! That's her!!

  11. DNA by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

    BATFAs (British Academy of Film and Television Arts)

    Brought to you by DNA (National Dyslexics Association).

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  12. Re:He Should have been Banned Anyway by TheReaperD · · Score: 2

    I so hope you're being sarcastic. If not, please burn your computer in fire and never plague the internet again.

    You know, I was against a [sarcasm] tag at first but, the idea is growing on me.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  13. Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As the politically correct SJW crybullies slowly destroy Twitter, it will be interesting to see if Silicon Valley's shallow cultural leftist elite finally wake up and start pushing back. A lot of them like Twitter and some of them invested money in it.

    The media like Twitter too, but the media are unreformable; a lost cause in every way.

    1. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      elite SJW progressive left

      I don't quite get your point. Perhaps you need to use more adjectives.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      From Stephen Fry:

      It doesn't matter whether they think they're defending women, men, transgender people, Muslims, humanists... the ghastliness is absolutely the same. It makes sensible people want to take an absolutely opposite point of view. I've heard people shriek their secularism in such a way as to make me want instantly to become an evangelical Christian.

      If you're using the phrase "SJW" without irony (or quoting) then you're liable to be getting dangerously close to one of the categories in the list he gives. IOW, screeching "SJW SJW SJW" is just as bad as screeching anything else.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah, the politically correct cryvictims continue, lamenting how terribly they are bullied by the SJWs, and persecuted, and abused.

      You'd be screaming holy murder if Fry had said something to upset your apple cart, and you know it.

      In fact, you are, because you do want to censor somebody yourself, stamp them out, and never have to be challenged again. You hate them, and want them destroyed. Yet somehow, you want to portray yourself as better.

      No, the lost cause is you, you have no redeeming value. You'll just go on fuming and venting and making yourself a martyr.

    4. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by Kohath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you're using the phrase "SJW"

      Versus what? What's the correct term?

    5. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Versus what?

      Frankly by this point just about anything. "SJW" has become nothing more than a first class example of ad-homenim, i.e:

      1. SJW are responsible for dystopia in scifi/child molestation/being worse than Hitler[*].
      2. You are an SJW because you disagree with me.
      3. Therefore you're associated with all those awful things and therefore you're the enemy and your argument is invalid.

      Classic ad-homeninm. It's used to shout down and nothing else. It's also used for basically everything the user hates. Now "SJW" pretty much seems to mean "shit I hate on the internet and by the way you're just as bad as Hitler". That's why people who use the term have no credibility.

      [*] Those are all things that "SJW" have actually been blamed for on slashdot. I'm not kidding. Even the Hitler bit. I literally had an argument with someone who claimed that life under SJW would be worse than under Hitler.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by Woldscum · · Score: 1

      OK how about the San Francisco/Silicon Valley "Fondations" like the some ones listed here. Which includes greats like Feminist Frequency and Anita Sarkeesian.

      https://about.twitter.com/safe...

    7. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And... you didn't answer the question. It was a really simple question. You object to the term. What's a better term?

    8. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by Ken+D · · Score: 1

      "person"

    9. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Person is way too specific. How about "unit"? Henceforth, all nouns will be replaced by the word "unit" to avoid offending all the units on the unit's unit.

      The unit has spoken! Units would be wise to heed this unit.

    10. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's interesting about Twitter is how they have never made a cent, they have now lost billions, yet "investors" keep buying up the shares.

      Based on number of accounts and tweets, it looks like it is very close to, or already has, peaked. Not a good position to be in when still losing hundreds of millions after 9 years of operation.

      Twitter will be front runner for the inevitable social media bubble collapse.

    11. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      And... you didn't answer the question. It was a really simple question. You object to the term. What's a better term?

      Commienazipaedoterroristboogiemanfluoridator.

      Because that's pretty much what people mean when they use it. What do *you* mean when you use it?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Commienazipaedoterroristboogiemanfluoridator.

      SJW is easier to spell.

      What do *you* mean when you use it?

      People who take offense (assume a posture of being offended) aggressively, as a means to exert control over others. Usually the offense is taken on behalf of some set of people who organize with leftists based on some real or imagined grievance.

      Since controlling others is the goal, any discussion that isn't some sort of agreement to being controlled is considered Irrelevant at best. And at worst, discussion is considered an existential threat or sometimes even a direct injury, depending on whatever maximizes the ability to exert control over others.

      Most people understand the term SJW fairly well when it is used in context. It's not surprising that SJWs take offense to it.

    13. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The SJW mindset is characterized by several specific and observable traits. You do not need to see all of them to identify an SJW -- but I think it's fair to say that you will see at least a couple in any genuine case, of which there are many.

      1. Their motive is primarily political, based on ideas from progressive sociology and/or feminist critical theory. Specifically, concepts of "privilege," "rape culture," and "oppression" will be invoked.

      2. Their progressive ideology is expressed with an intense and absolute "with us or against us" mindset. Specifically, they believe that they are entitled to your agreement because their ideas are correct (in their own assessment); if you don't agree with what they say, then this is not because of any fault of theirs, but your fault for failing to see what they consider to be an obvious moral absolute. There's a website called "geekfeminism" that acts as a sort of SJW encyclopedia of rebuttals to people who ask feminists to argue their point. If you see someone shouting and arguing at people and ask them to be more respectful, you're "tone policing." If you make a rebuttal that includes relevant information they either weren't aware of or chose to omit, you are "derailing." If you correct misinformation, and you happen to be male while doing so, you're "mansplaining." If you ask for citations of claimed facts, then you are being unreasonable, since it's "not the job of the oppressed to educate the oppressor."

      3. They express a philosophy which discounts the role individuals have in protecting their own safety. Rape is held to be the absolute worst offense a person can ever endure, from which recovery is nearly impossible; it is also held to be nearly universal, with the term "rape" being taken to a generalized context to include "sex involving non-verbal consent," with no change in the perceived consequences to the rape victim ("survivor") regardless of the context of rape. That said, rape is also held to be something that women are either powerless to prevent as individuals, or have no individual responsibility to defend themselves against, and it is immoral to suggest otherwise. To suggest that someone took actions that increased the likelihood of a rape considerably is "victim blaming."

      4. They emphatically support policies that are explicitly racist and/or sexist, such as blacks-only spaces or mandatory quotas for certain genders or races, while redefining the terms "racism" and "sexism" to specifically only refer to discrimination perpetrated by men against women, or by whites against non-whites.

      5. They take the view that the intent of message is irrelevant compared to the potential interpretation of message; which is to say, a thing is offensive if anyone can take offense to it. Furthermore, they believe that it is possible to take offense to a thing on behalf of others, and that this is a morally virtuous thing to do. The result is that they wander around looking for things to be offended about.

      6. Once offense is taken, there is never "enough" consequence for the offense that is taken by the offender. Leaking someone's personal information to interfere with their employment or their business is fair game if done in the name of social justice. By contrast, attempting to contact or reply to an SJW in any way is harassment, emotional abuse and evidence of patriarchy.

      7. They reject the value of open dialogue, and will actively seek to shut down speakers who present contrary views -- even if those speakers have historically fought for the very progressive causes that SJWs now claim to support. They will claim that presentation of this speech threatens the safety of certain minority groups, and incites violence against them, even if the speaker has no history or intention of doing any such thing.

      Because of the consistency of these traits, and the fact that they are combined with a political movement, I would say that "SJW" is a real and useful term that meaningfully distinguishes people. I would also characterize that politica

    14. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > SJW means person on the internet with whom I Disagree.

      No, SJW means person on the internet who thinks I shouldn't be ALLOWED to disagree.

    15. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Well, quite a few idiots derailed the term, but SJW, at least when it was originally used described a very, VERY specific kind of individual with a very specific behavior.
      It's not even just "progressivist", but a very specific kind of evil power hungry "progressivist", that use the "social justice power words" as means to gain power and "win internet discussions", generally twisting and warping it to benefit itself and/or close knitted social group, and using any sort of power they gain to do so, be moderation, or journalism etc etc etc..
      Let's just say that if a game developer inside one of those cliques did a game about shooting black people, the clique media would still praise it as "ironic and cunning", while someone outside of the group would suffer for merely not having a black character ingame.

    16. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Why the hell assign -a- term for a laundry list of many grievences, all of which are actually different? Pro-gay, Anti-harassment, Pro-feminist, Anti-Masculine, etc.. Each have their talking points and generally ad -some- context to what you're trying to say. I'd say event they're too general depending on the topic they're bandied about in.

      Its like the 99% standing up and screaming to bring down the 1% as if they were somehow trying to accomplish the same goals. They weren't and they fell apart because 'the 1%' isn't a problem. Its a large group of problems that need to be decomposed in isolation. You will NEVER win an argument with someone pulling a SJW card. Its like saying fuck you, I'm done. You're just a SJW. Yes, the Nazi comparison card of slashdot. Its the conversation killing pointless slogan thown by the lazy or simply uneducated commentor.

      --
      Bye!
    17. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      SJW means person on the internet with whom I Disagree.

      No, "SJW" means someone who has made social justice their cause. The term "social justice warrior" started out as a positive self-identification. It acquired its negative connotations because of the way social justice activists behaved while wearing that moniker.

      Of course, the part that is really offensive about "social justice" and its activists is their misuse of the term "justice"; what they are advocating isn't "justice", it is oppression and totalitarian government, often driven by selfish motives.

      Rather than debate the meaning and origin of the term "SJW", it's easier just to call these people "social justice activists" and then call out their hypocrisy and condemn them and their activism.

    18. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Conservative Americans play this game all the time by calling anyone who stops short of advocating complete freedom for corporations to rape and pillage as they will a "socialist".

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    19. Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I wish you hadn't posted AC (though you may be running into the same issue as I did, and can't help it) so I could credit you for this. Instead, I'll just say "beautifully put", and notify you that I'm shamelessly stealing it.

  14. This is why Twitter is "write only" for me by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I work in a job where (as a "thought leader") I'm supposed to tweet regularly, but I never, ever find time to read anything from Twitter. It's a write-only assignment as far as I'm concerned - it could be /dev/null for all I know or care.

    I'll bet there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people like me out there too, all dumping regularly scheduled 140-character tweets into a space probably half populated with advertiser's bots using keyword-based algorithm to retweet, favorite and react to my stuff, all for the benefit of even more robots.

    1. Re:This is why Twitter is "write only" for me by cardpuncher · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wouldn't worry about Twitter, I'd be more concerned about having a job description of "thought leader". That's just a pink slip waiting to happen.

  15. John Gabriel's Greenboard Theory: by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    Sadly, one side effect of internet anonymity is that people feel they can be complete assholes without consequence.

    obligatory xkcd: https://www.penny-arcade.com/c...

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:John Gabriel's Greenboard Theory: by martinX · · Score: 1

      Brilliant summation. As true now as it was then.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
  16. Some humans by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    And it's readily apparent that unfiltered access into the aggregate human psyche has proven time and again that despite the oft-cited belief that humans are fundamentally good -- they are really not.

    #NotAllHumans

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  17. commentSubjectsAreDumbTheArticleIsTheSubject by Falos · · Score: 1

    >Fry's latest exit from Twitter (there have been several over the last few years for numerous reasons)

    The fucks not given kinda remind me of his Gordon Deitrich. It sounds like when he gets fed up he simply walks off. Like he doesn't believe in the power that pixels on a screen have. Which we all know is wrong, angry internet words warrant five-figure support stipends.

    I'm guessing "bag lady" is supposed to be some mudblood namecalling, but I'm still pretty sure I've seen darker friend roasts.

  18. No one bothered to define "bag lady"? by guises · · Score: 1

    I've read through the comments hoping that someone would explain what a bag lady is. No luck. Apparently it's just a homeless person.

    I'd kinda like to read what got people so up in arms about that, but not enough to actually go to Twitter and find out for myself.

    1. Re:No one bothered to define "bag lady"? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 3, Informative

      A stereotypical homeless woman who wanders around the streets with bags of "stuff" she has collected, frequently recovered from garbage cans. The bags are frequently piled high in shopping carts, with other bags being held in a free hand and often even attached to her back. When the police crackdown on the homeless these women can be seen obsessively gathering up their bags and hauling them off to some other place. It's a real thing if you spent any time in a big city like New York. (Often in this case, the bags are full of recyclable cans and bottles, which return $.05/unit returned at recycling centers...or did 10 years ago when I lived there)

      It's probably rude in polite company to use this term about an actual bag lady, it's ruder still to apply this to someone's appearance. But in the past one can be rude and crude and you simply ignored and avoided him. Now it seems as if a portion of the population feels empowered to make their own random comments based largely on ignorance and a misguided sense of judgement via Twitter. Turn-about is fair play I guess, but whatever happened to "taking the high road"?

    2. Re:No one bothered to define "bag lady"? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If someone is 'dressed like a bag lady', only a real friend will tell them.

      Everybody else just laughs privately.

      If one of your friends decided that 'dressing like an ancient Egyptian' was the next big thing, you'd tell them they were being an idiot wouldn't you?

      Bag lady chic is the same thing. Too many drugs make people think stupid things are clever.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:No one bothered to define "bag lady"? by Cederic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you'll find Stephen Fry is fully aware of the stereotypical homeless woman described as a bag lady.

      Using the term to be rude about someone's description could be nasty, or it could be a joke. It could be both.

      In context it was clearly a joke, especially given its reference to her profession.

      Turnabout is not fair play. If they'd mocked Fry for his clothing it would have been misplaced (given what he wears when presenting QI, quite apart from anything else) but fair game. Harassing him for making a funny joke? Fuck that.

    4. Re:No one bothered to define "bag lady"? by johnsie · · Score: 1

      He puts stuff out there, he should expect some criticism, even from the nutjobs.

    5. Re:No one bothered to define "bag lady"? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Well, yes. How dare he take money to host a televised award ceremony and seek to actually provide entertainment at the same time.

      Terrible error of judgement that.

    6. Re:No one bothered to define "bag lady"? by phorm · · Score: 1

      Or in short: a somewhat malodorous (smelly) homeless cat-lady, possibly minus the cats but with the majority of the other attributes including what may be a mental illness.

  19. It's the G.I.F.T. by drew_kime · · Score: 2
    --
    Nope, no sig
    1. Re:It's the G.I.F.T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Shitcock

  20. There is no upside to social media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is more fun to troll anonymously. Suppression of speech has manufactured Donald Trump's candidacy.

  21. second-hand sanctimony by epine · · Score: 2

    From his blog post:

    A stalking ground for the sanctimoniously self-righteous who love to second-guess, to leap to conclusions and be offended — worse, to be offended on behalf of others they do not even know. It's as nasty and unwholesome a characteristic as can be imagined.

    An old friend of his might have commended him thusly: @Fry sinister bullshit bullseye

  22. Nothing really new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People getting outraged over stuff that doesn't concern them isn't new with twitter...

    http://www.gocomics.com/bloomc...

  23. comments in subjects are a perfectly good idea. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    commentSubjectsAreDumbTheArticleIsTheSubject

    No, they're a fine idea, just like usenet and email. And the subject isn't apparently the article any more.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  24. Hey, Stephen by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    I feel for you, I really do, but dude... It's Twitter. It just doesn't matter much. Really.

  25. Is that news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    99.9% of the internet is a smelly pit full of shit. That's the ugly truth. Far from being the greatest human invention ever, the internet is a mirror of what mankind really is: an open sewer where turd icebergs float on an ocean of piss swarming with fecesfishes. In this stinking, putrid environment of everdefecation what can one do but extraniate oneself from the overbearing fecalism and simply flush the shitverse away?

  26. Hopefully a trend by wjcofkc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am no social media guru, but I am seeing a slow trend toward abandoning social media. I myself eradicated my facebook account several years ago. Why? So much endless bullshit and a total waste of time. From there I migrated to a young, sparsely populated Google+. It was good for awhile. A few weeks ago I deleted my G+ account. Why? So much bullshit and a total waste of time. Never had a twitter account and never will. I will admit that I am as of recently on Diaspora, and while I have reservations of it turning into so much shit, it is actually pretty easy to tune out what you don't want and most people only post casually and not so frequently since there is no model for a popularity contest in place. It's decentralized, federated model is pretty unique to. Yet I suspect that at some time in the future I will abandon it over... so much bullshit. I know a lot of people from many walks of life who, reluctantly, dropped social media. I know the likes of Facebook and Twitter have massive user bases, but it is a start and the citizens of the internet like trends. Social media is a blight on human civilization, I can only hope that at some point it will in fact come to an end.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:Hopefully a trend by mindwhip · · Score: 2

      My facebook is still usable, mainly because I only "friended" people I actually know and care about, and they did the same, and when anyone posts its normally about something worth sharing without overdoing it, for instance weddings of people most of us actually know, visits to other friends and things that have meaning like a house move.

      As far as twitter goes.. I have an account, but never post (well maybe about twice a year but normally for some specific reason), don't follow friends as neither do they, and the only reason I have an account is becuase it makes it easier to follow meaningful posts such as posts by the local transport authority about travel disruptions, show announcements from a few comedians,bands I like and not much more.

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    2. Re:Hopefully a trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Social media is not a blight on human civilization. Humans are a blight on civilization.

      I never signed up for Facebook, Twitter, any of it. Why? Sure, I have no friends. But also, because I'd seen all this wackadoodle stuff happen decades before on Usenet and mail groups. Some people need drama, and they need to feel at the center of the drama. They will use whatever means are available to do this.

      The world is full of idiots. The only escape is the grave.

  27. The best use of twitter by tgibson · · Score: 3, Informative

    Stealth Mountain is a Twitter bot that tersely informs Twitter users when they mistakenly write “sneak peak": @___ I think you mean sneak peek.

    The enraged, frothing responses confirm that this is an exemplar of how Twitter should be used.

  28. Slashdot by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    I used to read Slashdot but I quit in 1993 when I realized its downward spiral. However I programmed a bot that occasionally posts this answer to random comments. Sometimes (like in the present case) it is even related.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  29. Like Everything else, it can be Good or Bad by InfectedPacket · · Score: 2

    I was a late adopter to Twitter, and social media in general, mostly because I used to see them only as a mean for teenagers to share pictures of them eating doritos or doing duck kisses selfies. But then, as in anything created, I'm always trying to see how I could use things for meaningful purpose, and I found Twitter to be like a RSS feed on steroids. It allows me to get the latest activities from researchers, or quick knowledge on the latest vuilnerabilities without browsing 10-12 different websites. Yeah you have the occasionally shitpost or cat video, but every website have their low quality content, including Slashdot. I also find out it was a great way to share events, news and tutorials with my team quickly, as anyone reading something worthwhile would be able to share it without composing yet another email in my inbox with only a link.

    Twitter, like any other social media can become toxic, mostly due to which topics you decide to follow or discuss. Especially topics that relies on belief rather than facts or data. Politics, religion, and pretty much any "-ism" are attracting loud and emotional participants for which the "feeling" of being right based on whatever show or blog they read, is good enough. No amount of logic will change their opinion. Unless you're ready to lose time and energy on these particular subjects, limit your connections to quality people and topics. I'd rather put my resources in place I can actually contribute something, which these people will never do.

    Twitter or Facebook might go the same way as MySpace is now, however social media will survive in some form or another, especially as South-East Asia countries continue to connect to the Internet. They may become more regional such as Cloob, Weibo or BKontakt: people still need to communicate, despite the large increase of noise in the past decade. Like in anything else, it's a matter of adjusting your SNR.

    --
    @cyberrecce
  30. Re:Freedom of Speech? by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

    He's not saying anything of the sort. He's saying that Twitter is full of thoughtless and rude trolls, and he closed his account in consequence. Rather exactly what one is supposed to do. He couldn't stand the heat (who could? Twitter is awful), and so he got out of the kitchen. Smart move. No mention of 'freedom of speech' either directly or obliquely in his subsequent comments, as far as I can tell. Added to which, is the fact that Stephen Fry is English, where 'freedom of speech', isn't even a protected concept.

  31. Oh the Pleasures... by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

    ...of a platform from which to savage celebrities or those with greater achievement.

    Never understood the point of Twitter. It sounds worse and worse. Good riddance.

    --
    Don't step on the baby.
  32. Twitter has a major problem with SJWs by mfearby · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If someone like Stephen Fry is fed up with the social justice warriors ruining Twitter with their rabid offence taking, then that's got to be a major sign that Twitter is on the decline. If Jack Dorsey continues to capitulate to the feminazis then Twitter will end up like MySpace. It's already heading in that direction.

  33. Re:He Should have been Banned Anyway by mfearby · · Score: 2

    You know, I don't think he was being sarcastic, actually. Which is very sad because people who believe in "safe spaces" and "triggering" (ROFLMAO) are ruining free speech, and the media are enabling them. We need a replacement for Twitter, one whose founding principle is the protection of free speech.

  34. SJW Tyranny at its finest by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The tyranny of the terminally offended special snowflakes....

    Seriously, you could tweet "I like kittens" and you would probably get 1000 SJWs berating you for triggering them or appropriating "animal culture" or contributing to the objectification of animals.

    The fact that a guy like Stephen Fry up and left the festering cesspool known as twitter gives me hope for the human race.

    He's a hell of a nice guy, yet that was no defense against the perpetually offended crybullies that infest twitter.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  35. Politically correct bullies at it again by AbRASiON · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You know, the same group which is anti-harassment, the SECOND you cross these motherfuckers they will hound the shit out of you, doxx you, try their darndest to hurt you (normally your place of employment) etc.
    Say something they disagree with and instead of them saying "fuck you cunt" they say, what I think is much worse, lies : "you're a racist!" "you're a homophobe!" etc, they'll try to spin things about you which are obviously not positive things (I'm not endorsing racism / homophobia)

    There is an endless race it seems to be the most politically correct, it's quite literally (literally!) the current 'fad' right now. Who can be the most offended? Who has the most empathy? It's ME! It's ME! (stamps foot!) I am the one who cares the most about .
    Thing is, there's nothing inherently wrong with being for peoples rights, obviously. It's the methodology used, the cultish "with us or against us, outright!" attitude, the censorship of those who don't just disagree but dare to even begin to ask questions.
    Furthermore, I'm truly not convinced a lot of these people actually believe all this, DEEP DOWN. On the surface they do but they don't know why. I get the impression many of the people in the extremist PC group are white, straight and somewhat well off.

    I see it on my facebook feed, I can think of 2 people out of my mere 55 friends who have both made a point of posting pro gay rights stuff or chiming in on other topics which I know for a FACT these people have said quite harsh things about these groups previously and not that long ago.

    To wind back on topic, poor Stephen Fry thinks twitter is fully of bullies, the same dipshits (or similar dipshits) who abused him off of twitter will again, point their fingers and angrily shout "see it's bullies!! we need even more politically correct tools, censorship, filters and algorithm based tweets to hide these angry people" not seeing the irony of the behaviour within many of the extremist PC ranks.

    Honestly I tire of it. Try and have a rational discussion with them though and sooner or later they'll find the ammo to label you something or other awful.

    1. Re:Politically correct bullies at it again by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Mod it down as much as you like, it's completely true as evidenced by the vast majority of replies to this article.

    2. Re:Politically correct bullies at it again by sciengin · · Score: 1

      You comment is modded 2 Troll.
      I honestly did not think that the SJW had already invaded Slashdot.
      I fear for the worst...

  36. Unfortunately, it's an Iron Law of Progressivism: by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 2

    There is no one so far to the left that, eventually, they will not be attacked -- from someone even *farther* to the left.
    Go ahead and laugh. You'll laugh, you good progressive -- until the surreal moment when it happens to you.

  37. Trust and safety council? by dudpixel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was of the understanding that the Trust and Safety Council was specifically invented to protect the "offended" crowd.

    These people seem to turn "being offended" into a profession.

    --
    This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
  38. Regressive Leftist by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

    Though more frequently used in other contexts (controversies involving Islam), I believe the new term "regressive left" is apt. These are people who exaggerate anti-bigotry ideals to the point where they end up contradicting the very foundations of liberalism: liberty, individualism and tolerance.

    It's a handy way of pointing out that progressivism can be taken to the point of self-contradiction, without necessarily damning the very ideal of progressivism. On the other hand, "SJW" as a pejorative can carry an ambiguous implication that the speaker disapproves of the entire (admittedly ill-defined) concept of social justice.

  39. It is funny to me how people are just now by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    becoming aware that social media is more akin to a middle school playground than some sort of modern and progressive kind of way to communicate.

    I mean, come on people, social media is paid for the same shitty ways regular media is - by manipulating you into buying shit that you do not need.

    And you wonder why your most remarkable technological achievements always turns to shit. You keep doing the same tired horse shit and expecting something different.

  40. Funny by koiduadoi · · Score: 1

    Addmefast Imacros script 2016 - Working 100% Hello everyone, I just find a lot of addmefast imacros on google but mostly don't work. So i decided to fix some code. Here the result. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... It's working good for me. I hope it works good for you too.