Slashdot Mirror
Twitter To Get Even Harsher On Trolls (cnbc.com)
Twitter is cracking down even harder against trolls, including temporarily barring accounts that are harassing other users. From a report: In a blog posted Wednesday, Twitter's vice president of engineering, Ed Ho, announced more safety measures to stop abuse on its platform. One of the methods includes using the company's internal algorithms to identify problematic accounts and limiting certain account functions -- such as only allowing the aggressor to see their followers -- for a set period of time if they engaged in troublesome behavior. Twitter said it was also open to further action if the harassment continued. Other anti-trolling tools include new filters to let users see what kinds of content they want to view from certain accounts and well as allowing people to "mute" tweets based on keywords, phrases or entire conversations.
I'd like to see the business that identifies "problematic accounts". In fact, if I were them I'd be very open about it. Otherwise it's censorship.
They can't be transparent, because they're targeting the political opponents of the twitter admins. The second they admit that -- openly or accidentally -- shit is going to hit the fan.
It's hard to monetize trolling, there's a maximum cap on how much profit can be derived from it.
Unfortunately once you grow to maximum-troll, the only way to remove that to attempt to keep growing is to prune hard, which will harm the business in the short to medium term. Just look at what happened to Reddit, their attempts to remove unsavory elements that were preventing growth caused the business to shrink. Perhaps they'll be able to grow, but I haven't been back to Reddit since the 2016 presidential election cycle got going, and I expect that it's still a wretched hive of scum and villany.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Leave your dissenting opinion at the door please.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So, Twitter can do "anything they please", huh? Let's examine your premise a bit.
First, censorship can happen on a lot of levels and in a lot of places. Just because the Constitution forbids only the Federal government (and, by extension in later amendments as well as by state government Constitutions, state governments) from creating laws to censor speech, doesn't mean that what Twitter is doing here (and Facebook, Google, et.al.) isn't censorship. It is. Let's be clear about that. These companies are engaging in censorship, and they can do a great deal of it. If you're unclear just how pervasive it can be, here is a primer for you on how Google censors voices.
Next question, can they really do anything they want? Twitter and Google and other ISPs have certain protections from torts (lawsuits) through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, a federal law. It basically says that sites like Twitter cannot be held responsible for user-generated content hosted or available from their site or services. That's a HUGE benefit provided to these companies, that individuals do not get. But, the more an operator edits or manages the user content on their site, the more they expose themselves to being liable for that content.
It leads one to wonder: If government has provided this awesome protection from liability to Twitter, wouldn't it be the responsibility of government to ensure they are providing an open platform (that is, NOT engaging in damaging censorship). The censorship Twitter and especially Google engages in is certainly damaging. There are many cases, and many lawsuits about Google silencing people. In Europe and other places with less protections for free speech, Twitter must comply with guidelines that require them to censor content, and they do just that. Governments have recognized that Google is so large and so pervasive that it is one of the few companies they can go to that can effectively censor content in their country. So clearly Twitter is much more than just some private entity among a large set of competitors. And for Google, using their "malicious website" lists, they can basically censor content at user's client computers.
Think about something else. The US government imposes a large number of regulations on businesses. Using the "public accommodation" definition, business are banned from discrimination, are required to accommodate the needs of the disabled, provide specific services for patrons on an equal basis, and much more. The FCC requires broadcasters to submit ways that they are of benefit to the community. We have common carrier rules that prohibit censorship over some communication channels. In many ways, Twitter is identical to a common carrier, but with even greater influence over communications.
With only 6 corporations controlling most of the media, and only 3 companies controlling most of the Internet, I think it's time we were a little more realistic about what is happening and what can be done about it. These companies can control the narrative and basically mind-control vast portions of the public.
Do we really want to just throw up our hands and declare "Well they're private companies they can do anything they want?" Even when the result could be controlling the opinions and minds of most of the country?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia