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.
I can see banning harassers, etc., but trolling is one of the cornerstones of the internet.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The over under on how many posts till trump was 7. You made a lot of people a lot of money.
>> Ed Ho
Yes, if this guy went through high school, I could imagine he knows what it means to be a target of abusers.
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.
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.
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.
Old man waves his cane.
I can't wait for him to hear about/encounter snapchat. That should be hilarious.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
. . . . 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.
I can't wait for him to hear about/encounter snapchat. That should be hilarious.
Follow me on Twitter and you'll be the first to get the benefit of my insightful opinions.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
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
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.
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. . .
whatever we're calling worthless hateful fucks
Funny, you're the only one I see spewing hate in this conversation.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
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!