9 ms·

Yep. Yep, yep, yep. And Twitter's response is to ban some, but not all harassers, using the algorithm of "whoever is high profile and we don't like politically.

Yep. Yep, yep, yep. And Twitter's response is to ban some, but not all harassers, using the algorithm of "whoever is high profile and we don't like politically." That gives said harassers surprisingly legitimate reasons to claim censorship by Twitter as a company, despite the fact that they were in clear violation of Twitter's ToS and deserved to be banned. I refer of course to the Milo Yiannopoulos situation (edit: I said the article didn't mention. I missed the mention.). The man deserved what he got, but there are dozens of accounts that were his "executors" - doing the actual harassment for him in many cases - who got off scot-free, while he remains banned. There is no consistency. I think there's a possibility that the arbitrary enforcement is partially because Twitter knows that if it were consistent in enforcing its own rules, so much of its population of users would disappear that it would be hobbling itself. The only "safe" way to use Twitter now is as an echo chamber - only follow people you like, only talk to people who think the same way you do. That's a waste.

dyeje 10y ago
The article does mention Milo, it has an entire section dedicated to it actually.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  You're right, I missed it somehow. Sorry.
Daviey 10y ago
I created a parody account for a celebrity, which was getting quite popular. Without discussing it first, they just removed the account and ignored 3 x emails asking them why. I was gutted.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  Well, like any good social media platform, they have no actual support. It's impossible by design to ever speak to an actual human who works at Twitter except via form-email smoke signals.
  - intoverflow2 10y ago
    >It's impossible by design to ever speak to an actual human who works at Twitter There absolutely is, if you have a friend of a friend work there in which case you can get special backchannel treatment and they'll ban whomever tweets something unpleasant at you.
    - dabockster 10y ago
      Isn't this the case at most of the "trendy" tech companies?
    - makemoniesonlin 10y ago
      *whoever
  - TorKlingberg 10y ago
    Well, having people answer phones costs money, and you are not paying for Twitter. Your "data" and "eyeballs" aren't actually worth much. Would you be ok with a premium rate number where you pay per minute?
    - ivraatiems 10y ago
      Actually, that's... not a terrible idea. It's not the best idea, but pulled off right, a simple "we'll help you but if it's not a security issue, site downage or a serious harassment incident you gotta pay" is way better than current help models for social media/large sites.
      - dabockster 10y ago
        I agree with the overall idea, but let's keep it affordable. Something like $10-15 per call.
        Domenic_S 10y ago
        Why not a 900 number (remember those?), pay per minute.
- retox 10y ago
  I tried to sign up and went through the horrible sms gateway check only to find that the username I wanted wasn't available. I stopped the sign up process at that point without an account but I wanted to be sure my phone number was no longer in their database. I've filed a handful of requests to clarify the situation but ive been ignored every time. Really terrible experience, will never make an account now.
- projectramo 10y ago
  Same thing happened to me! Though mine was not getting popular.
gaius 10y ago
The only "safe" way to use Twitter now is as an echo chamber - only follow people you like, only talk to people who think the same way you do. That is by no means safe, when brigaders are actively looking for opportunities for whipping up a mob.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  True. I should add "and use copious blocklists and never look at your mentions" to that list. Basically, you'd get the same experience by having an email list of your friends.
  - ajacksified 10y ago
    Or Facebook.
    - dabockster 10y ago
      Or [insert 2016 social network] for that matter.
bballer 10y ago
> "I think there's a possibility that the arbitrary enforcement is partially because Twitter knows that if it were consistent in enforcing its own rules, so much of its population of users would disappear that it would be hobbling itself." This x100. If you have no followers and no one is re-tweeting your vitriolic slime, why should twitter care, they simply want you to stay on the platform. Now if your circle has reach and you are a known public name, they must act as if they care. They play politics to please the masses, without subjecting the masses to the same politicking.
- visakanv 10y ago
  The inverse can also sometimes work. If you're a newsworthy public figure (say, the President of the USA), you get away with violating the rules, shilling your product, etc: https://www.quora.com/Whats-it-like-to-play-basketball-with-President-Obama/answer/Barack-Obama https://www.quora.com/Whats-it-like-to-play-basketball-with-...
  - bballer 10y ago
    The inverse only works when you are a public figure with greater power/sway than those who enforce rules, ToS, standards et cetera, or if you have an insider track with those who enforce the rules who can elevate you above them (the rules), ignore them, or give you a free pass (ie you are friends with a high up employee at twitter).
  - vectorpush 10y ago
    > shilling your product I'm not sure that a plug/PSA about a government program really counts as "shilling your product", we're talking about a program that was enacted by the congress and signed into law by the president, at a minimum it's totally distinct from plugging a product that you own or profit from.
gadders 10y ago
The article says that Milo didn't deserve what he got, and I agree. You may not agree with his politics but people of all stripes have done worse. I guess we'll end up with a conservative twitter clone, and a liberal twitter, and no-one will ever face the "danger" of seeing viewpoints they disagree with.
- snaky 10y ago
  Conservatives are ok with freedom of speech, 'safe zones' are invented by progressives.
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    Definitely not true of current neocons. They use freedom of speech as a cover for "let me say whatever I want to say" while ignoring it when it suits them. As a live-right-now example, the mods of /r/The_Donald on Reddit are preemtively banning users before Trump's AMA to prevent dissent, and have stated plainly they will delete any unflattering questions.
    - MustardTiger 10y ago
      That sub has never had anything to do with free speech. It is an incredibly restricted hubox/circlejerk, and is very clear about this. They don't use freedom of speech as a cover, they outright say they don't value it at all.
    - michaelbuddy 10y ago
      yeah and that's a Trump specific forum and they have RULES on the side for what is banned. Contrast that with r/news where it's purported to be 'news' not some partisan subreddit. You will get banned for having an opinion mods don't like. Not only that but those same mods will simply ban you from other subreddits they are mods for. r/news and r/worldnews was hit with that the other day. You're example is false equivalency. And what you call a preemptive ban, you'll actually discover that they are quite used to being brigaded on that subreddit and they know who participates. And bans aren't necessarily permanent there.
Neetpeople 10y ago
I have personally lost the belief that you can actually change someone's opinion on almost anything. So an echo chamber doesn't have to be a bad thing. I think people overestimate the value of having your beliefs challenged, does it ever really change someone's mind? If that's the case, you might as well view twitter as entertainment and to clue into the things you care about, in which case it can be pretty useful.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  You can change somebody's opinion, just not through one direct interaction. An opinion change requires time, internal rationalization, and repeated exposure. An echo chamber is bad because it not only repeatedly re-broadcasts beliefs, it also amplifies them. "The President is wrong and should be voted out of office" can turn into "The President is wrong and ought to be shot" in an echo chamber environment much faster if there's nobody around to say "wait, hold up, maybe don't."
  - TheOneTrueKyle 10y ago
    Most likely at that point, they are making the opinion for themselves and you probably have very little in the decision making
    - ivraatiems 10y ago
      Yes, that's exactly what is happening. You can't reach into somebody's brain and make them change, but you can plant little idea-seeds that grow into change.
      - asQuirreL 10y ago
        Recent studies [Nolan 2010] have shown this method to be tricky and dangerous, but effective. [Nolan 2010]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception P.S. Sorry... couldn't resist ;)
  - Spellman 10y ago
michaelbuddy 10y ago
>The man deserved what he got No. Twitter incorrectly used him as some kind of example. They had also did temp bans on him in the past and also the immature move of removing his check mark. The harassment was happening WELL before Milo was tweeting the ghostbuster. Milo wrote the article. Milo's tweets weren't anywhere NEAR harassment level. Trolling a famous person on twitter is not harassment and brigading. And as many have already shown the ghostbuster herself was just as guilty in the past of attempts at brigading. There's even some communication from her where she was actually thrilled the incident would give exposure to her and the movie. Whatever people think of this, Milo didn't cause her any suffering or feeling of being 'unsafe' Other harassers were deplorable. Milo was not in that category.
- gluelogic 10y ago
  Removing his blue check was especially ridiculous to me. "Because you are who you are, you can no longer be verified."
  - scholia 10y ago
    If you're Verified, you have access to a Verified Twitter stream, which means you can avoid seeing anything from people who are not verified. This provides a civilized version of Twitter that is mostly populated by smart and funny people. So Twitter removed a professional jerk from the Verified streams while allowing him to continue as a rabble-rouser.
    - dabockster 10y ago
      > This provides a civilized version of Twitter that is mostly populated by smart and funny people. Twitter circa 2009 before Kutcher vs CNN? This still exists?
      - scholia 10y ago
        Only if you are Verified ;-) I did suggest some time ago that Twitter could monetize by charging a high fee for verification (with, say, passport scans and other personal details). Sadly, they do it free.
munificent 10y ago
> The only "safe" way to use Twitter now is as an echo chamber "Echo chamber" is a deliberately pejorative term, which I think is unfair here. If you use Twitter to discuss your beliefs, then, yes, it functions like an echo chamber, and that can be a bad thing because when your beliefs are wrong, they won't be constructively challenged. But I generally use Twitter to discuss my interests. Sure, the line between the two is fuzzy, but I think there is a difference. I love pixel art, and follow a lot of pixel artists. Does that make my feed a "pixel art echo chamber"? I guess so? But that seems to me about as harmless as joining model railroad club.
- jackmott 10y ago
  My beliefs are all right now though, so I prefer an echo chamber.
- pawn 10y ago
  "because when your beliefs are wrong, they won't be constructively challenged." Does this ever happen? It seems to me like every time someone says something unpopular, the world goes on a witch hunt to destroy that person's life. That's not what I call "constructively challenged". I call it "just short of hanging them, which is what people really want to do." I'd love to see a world where I could debate a matter with someone without everyone getting so emotionally charged that logic gets thrown out the window, and ideas that are incorrect can be pointed out to a person without everyone hating one another.
  - davidivadavid 10y ago
    I must say I'm similarly perplexed by this notion. Every time I've witnessed a "debate" where people "constructively challenge" people who have opposite views, it ended in a shouting match. I'm happy to avoid any such "debate." In my experience, the kind of debate you describe tends to happen far more often between people who have (paradoxically?) similar views, and who just like to explore ideas and challenge each other. That intellectual trait is completely orthogonal to the views themselves. The closest thing I tend to compare it to is the charity principle, but that may not encapsulate everything quite right.
pbreit 10y ago
Are there approaches like silent bans or usage of degrees of separation that would help matters?
the_economist 10y ago
"The man deserved what he got" If Milo deserved to be banned, then so does 30-40% of Twitter. He did nothing wrong, and certainly nothing worse than this: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/756219192878268416 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/756219192878268416
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Saying he did nothing wrong is ignoring the entirety of the situation. At the very least, you have to agree that falsifying tweets from another user was against the ToS, and thus earned him his ban.
dustingetz 10y ago
I think this is caused by chilly US legal climate, not inherent to Twitter, fwiw
cubano 10y ago
Milo's ban was perhaps the best thing that could have ever happened to him, and while I agree he didn't deserve it, serendipity often works in odd backhand ways.
hasenj 10y ago
> The only "safe" way to use Twitter now is as an echo chamber - only follow people you like, only talk to people who think the same way you do. That's a waste. Which is what Facebook is right now.
rabboRubble 10y ago
I "safely" follow the @theRealDonaldTrump comedy show. I don't like him or think like him, but it's sure fun to have a firsthand view on the dumpster fire that is the 2016 election.
- boneheadmed 10y ago
  Funny, I thought the comedy show was the DNC Convention! #Fake #Corrupt #"Missing emails" #BuyInfluence #Pander #DelfectToRussians #LOLOL! http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/06/donkey.jpg http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2014...
  - sctb 10y ago
    Please do not comment like this here.
    - boneheadmed 10y ago
      Why? Truth hurts. If you really want a place with highly regulated comments, go back to FB.

dyeje 10y ago

The article does mention Milo, it has an entire section dedicated to it actually.

ivraatiems 10y ago
You're right, I missed it somehow. Sorry.

Daviey 10y ago

I created a parody account for a celebrity, which was getting quite popular. Without discussing it first, they just removed the account and ignored 3 x emails asking them why. I was gutted.

ivraatiems 10y ago
Well, like any good social media platform, they have no actual support. It's impossible by design to ever speak to an actual human who works at Twitter except via form-email smoke signals.
- intoverflow2 10y ago
  >It's impossible by design to ever speak to an actual human who works at Twitter There absolutely is, if you have a friend of a friend work there in which case you can get special backchannel treatment and they'll ban whomever tweets something unpleasant at you.
  - dabockster 10y ago
    Isn't this the case at most of the "trendy" tech companies?
  - makemoniesonlin 10y ago
    *whoever
- TorKlingberg 10y ago
  Well, having people answer phones costs money, and you are not paying for Twitter. Your "data" and "eyeballs" aren't actually worth much. Would you be ok with a premium rate number where you pay per minute?
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    Actually, that's... not a terrible idea. It's not the best idea, but pulled off right, a simple "we'll help you but if it's not a security issue, site downage or a serious harassment incident you gotta pay" is way better than current help models for social media/large sites.
    - dabockster 10y ago
      I agree with the overall idea, but let's keep it affordable. Something like $10-15 per call.
      - Domenic_S 10y ago
        Why not a 900 number (remember those?), pay per minute.
retox 10y ago
I tried to sign up and went through the horrible sms gateway check only to find that the username I wanted wasn't available. I stopped the sign up process at that point without an account but I wanted to be sure my phone number was no longer in their database. I've filed a handful of requests to clarify the situation but ive been ignored every time. Really terrible experience, will never make an account now.
projectramo 10y ago
Same thing happened to me! Though mine was not getting popular.

gaius 10y ago

The only "safe" way to use Twitter now is as an echo chamber - only follow people you like, only talk to people who think the same way you do. That is by no means safe, when brigaders are actively looking for opportunities for whipping up a mob.

ivraatiems 10y ago
True. I should add "and use copious blocklists and never look at your mentions" to that list. Basically, you'd get the same experience by having an email list of your friends.
- ajacksified 10y ago
  Or Facebook.
  - dabockster 10y ago
    Or [insert 2016 social network] for that matter.

bballer 10y ago

> "I think there's a possibility that the arbitrary enforcement is partially because Twitter knows that if it were consistent in enforcing its own rules, so much of its population of users would disappear that it would be hobbling itself." This x100. If you have no followers and no one is re-tweeting your vitriolic slime, why should twitter care, they simply want you to stay on the platform. Now if your circle has reach and you are a known public name, they must act as if they care. They play politics to please the masses, without subjecting the masses to the same politicking.

visakanv 10y ago
The inverse can also sometimes work. If you're a newsworthy public figure (say, the President of the USA), you get away with violating the rules, shilling your product, etc: https://www.quora.com/Whats-it-like-to-play-basketball-with-President-Obama/answer/Barack-Obama https://www.quora.com/Whats-it-like-to-play-basketball-with-...
- bballer 10y ago
  The inverse only works when you are a public figure with greater power/sway than those who enforce rules, ToS, standards et cetera, or if you have an insider track with those who enforce the rules who can elevate you above them (the rules), ignore them, or give you a free pass (ie you are friends with a high up employee at twitter).
- vectorpush 10y ago
  > shilling your product I'm not sure that a plug/PSA about a government program really counts as "shilling your product", we're talking about a program that was enacted by the congress and signed into law by the president, at a minimum it's totally distinct from plugging a product that you own or profit from.

gadders 10y ago

The article says that Milo didn't deserve what he got, and I agree. You may not agree with his politics but people of all stripes have done worse. I guess we'll end up with a conservative twitter clone, and a liberal twitter, and no-one will ever face the "danger" of seeing viewpoints they disagree with.

snaky 10y ago
Conservatives are ok with freedom of speech, 'safe zones' are invented by progressives.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  Definitely not true of current neocons. They use freedom of speech as a cover for "let me say whatever I want to say" while ignoring it when it suits them. As a live-right-now example, the mods of /r/The_Donald on Reddit are preemtively banning users before Trump's AMA to prevent dissent, and have stated plainly they will delete any unflattering questions.
  - MustardTiger 10y ago
    That sub has never had anything to do with free speech. It is an incredibly restricted hubox/circlejerk, and is very clear about this. They don't use freedom of speech as a cover, they outright say they don't value it at all.
  - michaelbuddy 10y ago
    yeah and that's a Trump specific forum and they have RULES on the side for what is banned. Contrast that with r/news where it's purported to be 'news' not some partisan subreddit. You will get banned for having an opinion mods don't like. Not only that but those same mods will simply ban you from other subreddits they are mods for. r/news and r/worldnews was hit with that the other day. You're example is false equivalency. And what you call a preemptive ban, you'll actually discover that they are quite used to being brigaded on that subreddit and they know who participates. And bans aren't necessarily permanent there.

Neetpeople 10y ago

I have personally lost the belief that you can actually change someone's opinion on almost anything. So an echo chamber doesn't have to be a bad thing. I think people overestimate the value of having your beliefs challenged, does it ever really change someone's mind? If that's the case, you might as well view twitter as entertainment and to clue into the things you care about, in which case it can be pretty useful.

ivraatiems 10y ago
You can change somebody's opinion, just not through one direct interaction. An opinion change requires time, internal rationalization, and repeated exposure. An echo chamber is bad because it not only repeatedly re-broadcasts beliefs, it also amplifies them. "The President is wrong and should be voted out of office" can turn into "The President is wrong and ought to be shot" in an echo chamber environment much faster if there's nobody around to say "wait, hold up, maybe don't."
- TheOneTrueKyle 10y ago
  Most likely at that point, they are making the opinion for themselves and you probably have very little in the decision making
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    Yes, that's exactly what is happening. You can't reach into somebody's brain and make them change, but you can plant little idea-seeds that grow into change.
    - asQuirreL 10y ago
      Recent studies [Nolan 2010] have shown this method to be tricky and dangerous, but effective. [Nolan 2010]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception P.S. Sorry... couldn't resist ;)
- Spellman 10y ago

michaelbuddy 10y ago

>The man deserved what he got No. Twitter incorrectly used him as some kind of example. They had also did temp bans on him in the past and also the immature move of removing his check mark. The harassment was happening WELL before Milo was tweeting the ghostbuster. Milo wrote the article. Milo's tweets weren't anywhere NEAR harassment level. Trolling a famous person on twitter is not harassment and brigading. And as many have already shown the ghostbuster herself was just as guilty in the past of attempts at brigading. There's even some communication from her where she was actually thrilled the incident would give exposure to her and the movie. Whatever people think of this, Milo didn't cause her any suffering or feeling of being 'unsafe' Other harassers were deplorable. Milo was not in that category.

gluelogic 10y ago
Removing his blue check was especially ridiculous to me. "Because you are who you are, you can no longer be verified."
- scholia 10y ago
  If you're Verified, you have access to a Verified Twitter stream, which means you can avoid seeing anything from people who are not verified. This provides a civilized version of Twitter that is mostly populated by smart and funny people. So Twitter removed a professional jerk from the Verified streams while allowing him to continue as a rabble-rouser.
  - dabockster 10y ago
    > This provides a civilized version of Twitter that is mostly populated by smart and funny people. Twitter circa 2009 before Kutcher vs CNN? This still exists?
    - scholia 10y ago
      Only if you are Verified ;-) I did suggest some time ago that Twitter could monetize by charging a high fee for verification (with, say, passport scans and other personal details). Sadly, they do it free.

munificent 10y ago

> The only "safe" way to use Twitter now is as an echo chamber "Echo chamber" is a deliberately pejorative term, which I think is unfair here. If you use Twitter to discuss your beliefs, then, yes, it functions like an echo chamber, and that can be a bad thing because when your beliefs are wrong, they won't be constructively challenged. But I generally use Twitter to discuss my interests. Sure, the line between the two is fuzzy, but I think there is a difference. I love pixel art, and follow a lot of pixel artists. Does that make my feed a "pixel art echo chamber"? I guess so? But that seems to me about as harmless as joining model railroad club.

jackmott 10y ago
My beliefs are all right now though, so I prefer an echo chamber.
pawn 10y ago
"because when your beliefs are wrong, they won't be constructively challenged." Does this ever happen? It seems to me like every time someone says something unpopular, the world goes on a witch hunt to destroy that person's life. That's not what I call "constructively challenged". I call it "just short of hanging them, which is what people really want to do." I'd love to see a world where I could debate a matter with someone without everyone getting so emotionally charged that logic gets thrown out the window, and ideas that are incorrect can be pointed out to a person without everyone hating one another.
- davidivadavid 10y ago
  I must say I'm similarly perplexed by this notion. Every time I've witnessed a "debate" where people "constructively challenge" people who have opposite views, it ended in a shouting match. I'm happy to avoid any such "debate." In my experience, the kind of debate you describe tends to happen far more often between people who have (paradoxically?) similar views, and who just like to explore ideas and challenge each other. That intellectual trait is completely orthogonal to the views themselves. The closest thing I tend to compare it to is the charity principle, but that may not encapsulate everything quite right.

pbreit 10y ago

Are there approaches like silent bans or usage of degrees of separation that would help matters?

the_economist 10y ago

"The man deserved what he got" If Milo deserved to be banned, then so does 30-40% of Twitter. He did nothing wrong, and certainly nothing worse than this: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/756219192878268416 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/756219192878268416

st3v3r 10y ago
Saying he did nothing wrong is ignoring the entirety of the situation. At the very least, you have to agree that falsifying tweets from another user was against the ToS, and thus earned him his ban.

dustingetz 10y ago

I think this is caused by chilly US legal climate, not inherent to Twitter, fwiw

cubano 10y ago

Milo's ban was perhaps the best thing that could have ever happened to him, and while I agree he didn't deserve it, serendipity often works in odd backhand ways.

hasenj 10y ago

> The only "safe" way to use Twitter now is as an echo chamber - only follow people you like, only talk to people who think the same way you do. That's a waste. Which is what Facebook is right now.

rabboRubble 10y ago

I "safely" follow the @theRealDonaldTrump comedy show. I don't like him or think like him, but it's sure fun to have a firsthand view on the dumpster fire that is the 2016 election.

boneheadmed 10y ago
Funny, I thought the comedy show was the DNC Convention! #Fake #Corrupt #"Missing emails" #BuyInfluence #Pander #DelfectToRussians #LOLOL! http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/06/donkey.jpg http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2014...
- sctb 10y ago
  Please do not comment like this here.
  - boneheadmed 10y ago
    Why? Truth hurts. If you really want a place with highly regulated comments, go back to FB.