Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Announces New Blocking and Filtering Features (wired.co.uk)
Twitter just began rolling out "new ways to control your experience," promising the two new features "will give you more control over what you see and who you interact with on Twitter." An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes a report from Wired UK:
First up, notification settings will allow those using Twitter on the web or on desktop to limit the notifications they receive for @ mentions, RTs, and other interactions to just be from people they follow. The feature can be turned on through the notifications tab. Twitter is also expanding its quality filter -- also accessible through notifications. "When turned on, the filter can improve the quality of Tweets you see by using a variety of signals, such as account origin and behavior," the company's product manager Emil Leong said in a blog post.
In December 2015, the company changed its rules to explicitly ban "hateful conduct" for the first time, while back in February last year, Twitter's then-CEO Dick Costolo admitted the network needed to improve how it handled trolls and abuse. In a leaked memo he said: "I'm frankly ashamed of how poorly we've dealt with this issue during my tenure as CEO. It's absurd. There's no excuse for it. I take full responsibility for not being more aggressive on this front. It's nobody else's fault but mine, and it's embarrassing."
Meanwhile, the Twitter account of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales was hacked on Saturday.
In December 2015, the company changed its rules to explicitly ban "hateful conduct" for the first time, while back in February last year, Twitter's then-CEO Dick Costolo admitted the network needed to improve how it handled trolls and abuse. In a leaked memo he said: "I'm frankly ashamed of how poorly we've dealt with this issue during my tenure as CEO. It's absurd. There's no excuse for it. I take full responsibility for not being more aggressive on this front. It's nobody else's fault but mine, and it's embarrassing."
Meanwhile, the Twitter account of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales was hacked on Saturday.
but they will have to start throwing the violent element off Twitter, or they will be regarded as the dumpster fire of social media.
And what exactly is this "hateful conduct."
It is slider, ranging from 0-100, which controls the percentage of messages that will be randomly discarded.
Preliminary test have already shown the tweet quality to linearly improve with the slider's setting.
Seeing as they are shifting from a decentralized communication/discussion system to centralized advertising/propaganda delivery system, you have to wonder will the rubes using it keep using it ? Or even notice.
Nyberg is not only a vicious troll but also a self-admitted child predator who's openly been given pictures of people's children for sexual gratification, and Quinn along with most of the others spend their entire time on twitter spewing racist and sexist hate at people inbetween rounds of doxings.
Or is this actually about policing opinions and politics and not trolling and hate speech.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Can the rest of us et a setting where passive aggressive "Blocked" replies get automatically filtered.
These tools are NOT meant to let me block Twitter.
I'm disappointed
Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
"When turned on, the filter can improve the quality of Tweets you see..."
This works better than you might guess. I tried it out by sending a bunch of tweets from Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton through the filter. Out the other side came tweets from Neil deGrass Tyson and Stephen Hawking.
I'm sold.
blocking Twitter.
Freedom of Speech doesn't mean people have to listen to you (even though it doesn't apply on private webservers)
Welcome to Whack-A-Mole, where you get to try to keep the entire internet from saying things that other people find objectionable.
I understand their goal (and I even agree with it), but I suspect it's going to be a losing battle.
The real problem is that there are a million billion trolls and they have nothing better to do than find ways to get around twitter bans and the algorithms that try to detect unwanted behavior.
The tragedy of the commons, in other words.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I'm not asking you to believe anything. I'm asking you to prove the extraordinary claims you are making.
Surely you don't expect people to take then on faith do you? Maybe you do, GamerGate has turned into a kind of religion.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Best of luck with this :-/
I once had Disqus account. I made a very mild defence of the guy who makes the Minions movie who made an offhand joke about how he'd always assumed all Minions were male because they acted too stupidly to be female. (An obviously ironic, self-deprecating joke, considering he's well known to voice literally all of them.) And then all of a sudden I have MRAs -- including those suspicious ones with female account names and private comment histories -- dragging me into their various angry nonsequiturs about women, tracking down my previous comments to dissect them, and accusing me of all sorts.
I got to the point where I realised there was no winning with the discussion, that you cannot argue with those who insist on creating a caricature for the purposes of arguing with it, and that I would forever be followed around Disqus by these tedious, angry tools with an endless capacity for illogic and clearly no grasp of compassion or irony.
Deleted my account. And so began my understanding; I'd always felt I was a feminist and been lucky to have strong friendships with women, but I'd never grasped quite how farcically, desperately exasperating misogynists can be.
And then, Brexit and Trump. And now I'm seeking a better way to respond.
What does violence mean?
With regard to attacks, are we talking about individuals or groups? Are attacks on groups acceptable? (e.g., Catholic priests are pedophiles., Muslims are homophobic scum.)
Does the progressive stack apply to these categories? That is, can a person of color attack a white person without repercussion?
What does harm mean?
Great, but we must hold you to the same standard, yes? Since the social justice crowd initiated this, they can go first. If they're going to accuse whole groups of mass oppression in various communities, they should bring forth some evidence beyond "outcome is not equal, therefore bigotry = true".
Religion? I would say gamergate has nothing on third wave feminism and black lives matter. They are the progressive counterparts to Ken Hovind and his banana. Unlike Hovind, though, their broken arguments and hypocrisy are still taken seriously.
I'm not making any claims here. I'm certainly not alleging mass oppression. I'm just asking you to support your position.
Stop avoiding the question. Support your position with evidence or abandon it, or just admit it's a religion and all done on faith.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Interesting that you deem it ok to make jokes about men that would not pass feminist muster if they were made about women.
Creating a caricature? How does 'toxic masculinity' fit that concept? quite well I think.
Calling people names doesn't invalidate their arguments.
oh look another SJW story where AmiMoJo posts dozens of times defending the bad behavior of SJW's through a long series of logical fallacies and the ostrich head maneuver.
"His name was James Damore."
No, you're defending the positions of those who are, however, and they have not provided facts or reasoned arguments for their positions. Since you defend them, it should be easy for you.
What do you want evidence of? shitty blog/video posts with bad argumentation and hypocritical statements? Try feminist frequency's videos for starters. Of course I am sure you are already aware of the content..
...when "hateful" is defined by a people with a certain set of beliefs.
The DOJ should crush Twitter as tacitly accepting responsibility for their content.
-Styopa
AmiMoJo is asking for evidence regarding Shadow of Eternity's claims about Zoe Quinn. Curiously, nobody can provide it. Funny, huh?
Every time proof is put up it's ignored. Every damn time. We have had this same comment thread dozens of times and the result is the same. AmiMoJo makes claims that he can't prop up while expecting citations from everyone else. If they manage to take the time and cite sources, AmiMoJo ignores it and asks again on the next thread.
And people like you are either willfully ignorant or are morons that don't see this plain-as-AGW pattern. Funny, hun?
Just keep repeating that, and maybe someone will believe you.
But the evidence? If it's so easy why don't you post it, it will instantly shut down that response from your "SJWs".
You don't, so we keep asking.
And now I'm seeking a better way to respond.
I had a similar experience on disquis, except in my case I merely pointed out that Nathan Grayson consumating his relationship with the protagonist of his article on a failed game jam called into question the veracity of piece I had thought quite interesting at the time and that in the grand scheme of things it was a small thing but that obviously video game journalism had an ethics problem
This was, of course, in response to a post repeating a common trope on the current affair that is still repeated, as if it is some kind of magical protective mantra, of no review, no problem
Bear with me here it is relevant to what you are looking for even if it may seem as tangental at first
Imagine if I had concluded from my experience the same realisation about feminists as misandrists as you concluded on MRAs as mysoginists
Think for a moment on how absurdly stupid and ridiculous this conclusion of mine would be
But why is it so absurd? Because whatever abstract idealist nonsense notions here such as feminists, MRAs etc we use as mental shortcuts, what is truly happening is material. Individual people typing with their fingers, laboring to produce text with which they are attempting to communicate with you and others
Consider the case of Lysenko. We all know him as Stalin's scientist who was wrong on evolution, but what we don't remember was his and Stalin's surprisingly modern ecological plans for Soviet agriculture or the discreditation and abandonment of these plans after Stalin's death due to destalinization
The points here being that just because someone is incorrect on one thing does not mean they are incorrect on others and to be wary of discreditation
One way of taking this into account is to post anonymously when possibleto avoid personalization of the issues, and secondly to assume that there is a sincere effort to communicate no matter how bizarre or stereotyped IE. To read charitably and respond sincerely to what is meaningful or perhaps even true despite one's prejudices over provocations since time and patience can be limited
Finally it is said that Stalin when asked on which is worse, the left deviation or the right deviation, responded that they are both equally bad due to the left deviation's positions although superficialy in opposition to the right deviation's ultimately support it
Before you scoff consider the parlous state of ethics in modern journalism, if leftists are the ones to deny the obvious collusion, corruption, and censorship in the broad sense, or to offer such conservative defenses such as this is just the way things have always been. Then ultimately are they not assisting the right?
Similarly, there is the notion that a loss of privilege is not oppression that has been spreading around left circles like dysentry recently. However if one examines these so called white and male privileged one soon comes to the realization that they should not be privliges but rather basic human rights
Framing these as privliges not rights of course aids the rightist position, and further dividing the people by the color of their skin on whether the lack of these basic rights constitutes oppression or no
To sum, aim for two way communication with efficiency, diligently avoiding both the leftist and rightist deviation, aim towards a fully automated luxury communism world where nobody is oppressed or exploited no matter what their sex, or skin color like Papa Stalin wants you to
Hope this helps
You need to get raped you fucking cunt.
Instead of helping users close their eyes and ears, Twitter needs to help users kick people out of their cocktail parties.
Twitter can fix Twitter with just a few lines of code
https://jesterscourt.cc/2016/08/15/twitter-can-fix-twitter-just-lines-code/
tl;dr:
If you block someone that should also prevent them from @mentioning your user name
No no, it happened, it just wouldn't be ethical to provide evidence of accusations.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Twitter has gone from openness to protection of the leftist message with these updates.
If you're a minority, a certain leftist bent, or even a terrorist, they will let you harass to your heart's content. If you're anyone else, you get called on it.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Doesn't work that way. Oh, and get your facts straight, since Nyberg is a different person.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Traditionally unreliable sources (like blogs and social media) are treated like gospel when it comes from leftists. Same sources, same material, same conversation, wrong person == unreliable in the SOCJUS world, even if it is fact.
It's been played the same time over and over. Perhaps it's you that should reconsider repeating your lies a thousand times.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Ouch. I had a very similar experience, but all I said was that sexual liberation doesn't mean that sexism is over. It all went downhill from there very fast, ending a week later with me being called a multitude of ableist and racial slurs by people who consider changing box art a threat to free speech.
I never, ever use blog posts as evidence. I only link to them when they lay out an argument in greater detail than a comment allows, or when they have multiple reliable references.
Provide some evidence, or at least show where I have used blogs and social media as evidence in the way you suggest.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If Twitter wants me to use it more they need to up the 140 character limit. I don't need 5000 characters, but 1000 feels reasonable. As a 49 year-old I'm incapable of writing like a 15-year-old. Nt only cn I nt wrt twts lik ths, I cant rd them eithr.
I never, ever use blog posts as evidence.
He said "leftists", not you.
Just because you don't do it, doesn't mean leftists don't. You know, kinda like how even though not all men are rapists and misogynists, feminists will tell you that there are soooo many rapists and misogynists out there that it's a serious problem that society should focus on.
Hey, they're free to do that. Freedom of speech right? But freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. The actions and words of other leftists and feminists have tainted those labels, and anyone (e.g. you) who associate with them will be judged accordingly.
It's really no different than how you treat GamerGate, MRA, and other labels YOU don't like.
All the shitty treatment you're getting, from people down modding you to people accusing you of stuff you may not have personally done, is simply a consequence of your own behaviors, and the collective behaviors of ideology you associate yourself with.
Basically, all the shitty treatment SJWs and feminists have dealt out is coming back around. The rise of Donald Trump is also a consequence of years of political correctness.
This is a bed YOU laid for yourselves. Enjoy.
Yes, in fact, you never use evidence at all, only hearsay from sycophants. Or do you have absolute proof to back up any of your beliefs? Cite them.
I had a similar experience, except all I did was suggest that after 30 years of getting away from labeling each other, suddenly doubling down on racism and sexism while trying to claim those terms don't apply to you because of a failed hypothesis from the 80's was not the best way and that maybe perhaps one should question why you are being taught this.
I mean after all, all they need to do now is say a movie is a feminist movie and people will swamp to defend it.
Was any of this supposed to make sense, or is it the output of a markov chainer?
Or ban everyone doing what they claimed he was doing.
It doesn't matter how often AmiMoJo is shown the evidence, s/he dismisses the source as it isn't a SJW media source (which of course would not publish about the issue). The evidence is incredibly easy to find, and claiming it doesn't exist because you don't like the source is what the poster above is pointing out.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The evidence I have provided previously was of the exact type you just spoke of, yet you dismissed it. You don't want evidence of the bad behavior, you just want to stick your head in the sand and at like it doesn't exist. I have provided all the evidence needed, yet you continue to act like it doesn't exist.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Twitter is losing users. The company thinks it's because people say nasty things to feminists. I think they are misdiagnosing the problem. The real problem with Twitter is that its primary function these days is social signaling because that's really all you can do in 140 characters. That, and it also functions as a status symbol among minor celebrities, who like to increase their notoriety and number of followers through fake controversies and trolling. For both of those functions, it is actually essential for people to be able to get angry about something. Stop people from saying mean things on Twitter and Twitter users will lose interest even faster.
I think Twitter is basically a lost cause: even without heavy-handed attempts at censoring content, the political bias and shallowness of the platform has already turned it into little more than an echo chamber.