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.
Trump's and JK Rowling's accounts.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
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.
I can see banning harassers, etc., but trolling is one of the cornerstones of the internet.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
the more Pepe memes will slip through your fingers.
>> Ed Ho
Yes, if this guy went through high school, I could imagine he knows what it means to be a target of abusers.
It will be accidental, but it will happen. The problem is that the political extremists on Twitter's side of the Political Divide don't really understand that views which oppose their own aren't all the product of "Hate Speech" or horse-blinder'ed religious zeal. That "Brooklyn Bubble" effect extends way beyond Brooklyn, I'm afraid...
Apparently you have no clue what censorship is.
Nobody's saying you have freedom of speech on Twitter.
That doesn't mean you still can't have issues with censorship.
And Twitter most definitely DOES.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Twitter? You mean the internet company that doesn't understand the internet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No Thank You. I don't need a Trust and Safety council anymore than a Ministry of Truth.
First of all, it's a private company doing it, so it's not censorship - you don't like Twitland, go back over to Faceplace - it's not like there aren't other alternatives. Same with the second comment - people who like the service will keep using it. Those who don't will find another platform for their trolling - I'm sure 2chan or something like that is still available. Free market in action, baby...
Twitter being a private company does not mean that they can't censor, in fact we know that Twitter and places like "Faceplace" as you so kindly put it, they do censor. The question is whether or not a private company can legally censor and should protections be put in place to ensure people know that information is censored.
I believe that they have the legal right to censor, but also believe that they should be required to provide legal notification on what they censor and why. There is a difference between free speech and propaganda, and it should be obvious to people which the platform supports. Paid advertisements have to do this today, and I believe its within bounds to demand the same for any social media platform.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Who need Twitter if they are not allowed to troll Trump? It is a political tool already.
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.
... right because impartiality of public accommodations is for chumps amirite?
How much influence on our political system does twitter have if that is the preferred means of communication of the POTUS? At what point does that platform need to be as impartial as a baker to ensure our public accommodations uphold the law and our values?
Twitter likes to hide behind the "we private company can do what we want" but then play the "we're a free speech platform we don't have to be impartial". It's a bad joke that a baker is forced by law to be impartial yet the preferred platform of POTUS doesn't impact society enough to be held to the same standard.
Twitter: The Confetti of The Internet
I just wish I had the inclination to piss away my time spurting out pearls of wisdom 140-characters at a time. Oh, wait, no I don't.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
It IS censoring...it's just not against the law for a private company to do it on their private platform.
People should call them out on it because it is at odds with the intent of the platform.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
. . . . more users to Gab, where the only filters on what you see, are the ones **you** set on your own account
I can't believe that no law firm has tried to organize a shareholder lawsuit yet. I bet it would be fascinating to see the discovery period when Twitter has to show how much it spent in money and manpower to implement these features at the behest of SJWs and then explain to a jury how they planned to meet their responsibilities to shareholders by openly attacking half of their potential users. It is not an exaggeration to say that this is now in the same sport, if not league, as what was done to Nokia.
FFS, they have been suspending accounts with literally no activity, but Islamic extremists are nowhere near as policed as "trolls."
It'll be even more lulz-inducing when the plaintiffs bring up the countless examples of Twitter tolerating trending hash tags calling for the extermination of white people, the assassination of the President and such and then say "Mr. Dorsey, please explain how you protected Twitter's good will, reputation in the market through this obvious double standard where you tolerated literally felonious speech in violation of the terms of service.
Except they're not going after all racist users. Just users with different political views, some of which are indeed racist. But their racists, they don't touch. @GaziKodzo comes to mind.
Are they blocking trolls or just people they disagree with? Also, why aren't the twitter users just ignoring accounts they don't like?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Hey. The right got rid of the equal time rule in broadcast media a long time ago. Here you go and try to bring it back online. Doof.
That is all.
no more twitter messages from The Donald.
. . . . more users to Gab, where the only filters on what you see, are the ones **you** set on your own account
The average celebrity has an order of magnitude more twitter followers than Gab has users.(Heck, even a spoof account does ) As much as I'd like there to be an alternative, a service with 0.04% the users doesn't feel like a challenger.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
it's a private company doing it, so it's not censorship
Another one who doesn't understand the difference between free speech and the 1st Amendment.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
they better, its how trump lives.
They already filter for swear words, yet now the abstract idea of "trolling" is on the table and you will be able to filter any tweet containing a word you don't like. This is literally exactly the way China will not let you speak badly about politicians, except now people will not see any opposing views to their party of choosing. If the country wasn't split evenly it could soon turn into a one party system because you can't even debate or criticize those who would disagree with you on one of those widely used methods of expressing opinion. Instead of announcing you opinion to the world you will soon be announcing it to only people who already agree with you. Not good for any kind of debate, political or otherwise. That is how you create opposite extremists.
They use terms to mean whatever they want anyway.
Disagreement is now harrassment.
Mockery is now hate speech.
Offense is now trauma.
Criticism is now abuse.
Compelling criticism is now violence.
Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll.
Anyone at random is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc if they say so.
The use of this alarmist (and usually, simply wrong) language is ubiquitous and deliberate. It's all a pretense to justify a disproportionate censorial "response," especially when they know no response is warranted at all. It's also a brazenly transparent tactic, especially since Twitter/Reddit/etc rarely seem to use it against users that properly align with their politics.
Jack Dorsey, that liberal motherfucker loves banning people he disagrees with. It's not trolls, it's stifling free speech from conservative elements in America. Milo was banned, but Leslie Jones was not, even though her feed was just as, if not more, racist than Milo's.
So, yeah, I'm looking forward to Twitter vanishing like a fart in the wind this year when no one will buy this pathetic excuse for social media.
Pax Vobiscum
First of all you don't want a troll going underground. Bad for them to not vent - could lead to more damaging behaviour if they are bottled in. It crushes our freedom of speech. Don't we already have enough of that? News reporters, newspapers, and magazine folk are being kept out of White House meetings and are also threatened on what to say during NEWS casts.
Because twitter is anything like a radio or broadcast television? Hint; it isn't.
There is a difference when you say something compared to when you enable someone else to say something. Just like there are different rules when you drive a bus for the city compared to driving yourself around the city. The bus driver is a steward for the safety of the passengers and as such is operating under similar yet different rules (CDL v DL).
First of all, it's a private company doing it, so it's not censorship - you don't like Twitland, go back over to Faceplace - it's not like there aren't other alternatives. Same with the second comment - people who like the service will keep using it. Those who don't will find another platform for their trolling - I'm sure 2chan or something like that is still available. Free market in action, baby...
Assuming you are black and you go to a private "whites only" establishment only to get kicked out, is that fair? After all, you could just go down the street to the black run establishment. "There is nothing wrong with this" /sarcasm
Who else would want this but the crybully?
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
It isn't even theoretically possible to formulate an objective definition of "abuse," and when all definitions are subjective, all decisions on who is abusive are subjective. There is literally nothing that anyone can say that won't offend someone.
There is only one thing they could possibly do to "stop the abuse," and that is to shut Twitter down.
I'd be fine with that.
If you have something to say that can be said in 140 characters, you have nothing to say.
One of them being Scott Adams. Welp, all the people claiming he was paranoid sure are looking like morons.
First of all, it's a private company doing it, so it's not censorship
Let's put this myth to rest. Free speech is a bigger concept than the 1st Amendment (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters).
The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:
https://www.aclu.org/other/wha...
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
Was there a "Second of all"?
As a 5-digit Slashdot user. . . .I'm amused. Slashdot wasn't originally a Thing, either (and honestly, no longer as much of a thing as it was in the days of Peak Slashdot).Gab is still in beta and has a waitlist. . .
Soon enough they will wake up and say, wow we just took 10 years to re-invent all the features of email clients.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
But they don't punish racism. If you post "kill whitey" they won't do a thing to you.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
If they were actually booting Nazis, that wouldn't be so bad. The problem is the left's Nazi detector has completely lost calibration and now identifies anyone to the right of the love child of Jane Fonda and Joseph Stalin as "literally double mega hitler." This makes them look insane to normal people.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
No, that makes it a publicly traded company among private individuals and companies. A publicly owned company is a company owned by the government.
Yes, more centipedes in the den of centipedes, and less on Twitter. Everyone wins!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Not to mention its overt political bent, both in intent and in user base. A site with a pepe-lookalike for a mascot infested with far-right wingnuts will never gain mainstream support.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
First of all, it's a private company doing it, so it's not censorship
False. Nothing else you write is worth reading.
The BBC is the government.
I'll bet if you think about it, you'll see why the distinction is important.
You are welcome on my lawn.
OK, you just called them out. Now what?
You are welcome on my lawn.
People should call them out on it because it is at odds with the intent of the platform.
I doubt that. They're probably making MORE money when they dump the trolls.
I don't respond to AC's.
Government censorship is a kind of censorship.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Government censorship is illegal. That's the big distinction.
Twitter users are not customers of Twitter. They are freely giving content. Nobody is forced to pay for Twitter or to use Twitter. You are forced to pay for the government. Nobody will stop you from creating an alternative to Twitter. If you want to form an alternative government, well, it was tried in the 1860s and didn't work out so well.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you drive them away, and get more non-racist users a a result, then that is just what you want as a company.
Thing is, Pepe isn't a racist meme. If you drive them away, you lose the creative and interesting element of your platform,but the actual racists are still there. Don't #GasTheJokes
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I'll only believe their intentions are good if they ban Trump. He's the biggest troll on there right now.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Everyone loses. The value of resolving disagreement through frank discussion instead of violence is quite high. It's also a core liberal value.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I don't know how it could ever be enforced.
"Ok, we have now spent half an hour on that informed and well-researched lecture on the issue. Now, to speak for the other side, here is Professor McFartypants, who we picked up from the street and gave ten minutes to prepare. Half an hour each, fair and balanced!"
Yes. But it's possible for Twitter to still censor, even when the stuff being censored meets its criteria for acceptable content.
Simply because they're a private company doesn't mean they can't also be censorious outside of their AUP.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Hurling abuse at black celebrities etc. isn't a form of frank discussion. That's what these people are being banned for, for the most part. And you can't resolve anything through discussion when one party has "alternative facts" that they're sticking to despite the best evidence that they're wrong. At that point, it's like fighting with a pig: you'll both get dirty while achieving nothing, but the pig will enjoy it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Government censorship is illegal. That's the big distinction.
That's a distinction. Other interesting distinctions are: desirable, moral, etc.
Twitter is a big platform. Their censorship is generally harmful and undesirable. We'd be better off without their blatant political bias, for all that they're legally entitled to it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Sure, there's a tiny percentage of the banning that makes sense. Most of it is blatant political bias, though.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"Their censorship is generally harmful and undesirable. We'd be better off without their blatant political bias"
But how can I tell if what you are saying is true if you can't point to the comments that you say were unjustly pulled.
Well, go start your own web forum. If you don't like what Twitter does, there's a whole world out there. Go to it. But I guarantee you, if you simply allow the cranks to control your medium, it will fester into nothingness.
Someone did, it's called Gab.ai, and it's specifically a haven for free speech.
Their version of censoring is to let everyone censor what *they* see on the site. An individual can "mute" other users or specific words, so if someone keeps posting things that bother you you can "mute" them so that you don't see them. If individual words trigger an unpleasant memory for you, you can mute individual words and you'll never see them.
The thing about calling people racist/sexist/nazi is definitely real.
Kellyanne Conway typing on her cell phone during a meeting of black dignitaries is definitely racist!
From that facebook post:
I sincerely doubt that Kellyanne Conway would be on the couch, shoes off, on her knees, looking at her phone, if the room was full of white dignitaries or CEOs that she actually actually respected.
Here's the full context which shows that she was setting her phone to take a group photo.
People are seeing racism everywhere right now, even where it doesn't exist!
It's not "harassment", it's all about controlling the narrative against political opponents of Twitter's owners.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Yes, and those distinctions are best made by people's decisions.
So, we're back to, "If you don't like how Twitter works, don't use them."
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yes, it means exactly that. The accepted use policy can be changed or interpreted by them at will.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yeah right, like they are going to do anything about real trolls.
Or, another approach, "if you think Twitter serves a valuable role, but is screwing that up, be very vocal about that in hopes they'll listen to their user base". Yeah, yeah, trying to get a tech company to listen to its user base may be a lost cause, but still, maybe it's worth the attempt?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I saw this happen over and over again, from several different political positions, from several instances, it's always the same.
The moderation starts to listen too much to the users, the "fragile" users take control, they inject themselves inside the moderation board and they start to get harsher and harsher and harsher until the thing gets dead.
The funniest part is generally when the grammar nazi start to take over and you get banned over some stupid typo.
So, a baker can refuse to write the words "Stan and Dan" on a wedding cake than? It is against their policy to bake cakes for homosexual weddings, so it is all good.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?