4 ms·

>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 mo

>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.
  - gluelogic 10y ago
    So Twitter's verification is more about access to this socially elitist feed? That may be a feature, but I think the primary function is to avoid people impersonating well-known public figures on the platform. Removing Milo's check out of politically-driven spite definitely undermines the validity of the entire verification system.
    - scholia 10y ago
      I didn't say it was the primary feature. I simply pointed out that verification wasn't as simple as is generally assumed. > Removing Milo's check out of politically-driven spite definitely undermines the validity of the entire verification system. That sounds like a prejudiced opinion expressed in prejudicial language. However, you might consider this section from I’m With The Banned https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-banned-8d1b6e0b2932 https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-ba... QUOTE >> Milo is excited. This is his night. How does he feel about his suspension? “It’s fantastic,” he says, “It’s the end of the platform. The timing is perfect.” He was planning for something like this. “I thought I had another six months, but this was always going to happen.” Milo shows no remorse for the avalanche of misconduct he helped direct towards Leslie Jones, who is just the latest victim of the recreational ritual abuse he likes to launch at women and minorities for the fame and fun of it.
      - michaelbuddy 10y ago
        > Milo shows no remorse for the avalanche of misconduct he helped direct towards Leslie Jones. He shows no remorse because she clearly didn't suffer from anything he said. Like I said before. Other people actually harassed, he didn't. Trolling a celebrity star of a bad movie isn't harassment by any measure. His comments were intelligent and funny. His article on Breitbart was scathing, which is why Jack targeted him, to set an example. Also stated before, She was happy to leverage it for publicity. So much for being traumatized. And another thing, Milo doesn't launch abuse at Minorities. In fact, since he's in love with british black men, your comment has no value there because you're clearly uninformed on his background. Milo attacks ideas and does sophisticated trolling. Judging by Twitter's crashing stock price right when this incident occurred, it can't be denied that Twitter's censoring of an minor media celebrity proved it made a bad move. So much so, Jack's been trying to put out the fire, even where he addressed it for a canned question during the investor phone call. He just wants it to go away.
scholia 10y ago
> Milo's tweets weren't anywhere NEAR harassment level. Trolling a famous person on twitter is not harassment and brigading. Milo had tens of thousands of flying monkeys to troll and harass people on his behalf. He knew this perfectly well, and used it all the time. His tweets didn't need to be particularly harassing: all he had to do was point the finger. Which he did.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  So what, when you gain over some arbitrary amount of followers, you're not allowed to ever tweet about another person? What's the magic number at which you're not allowed to speak about anything but generalities? That's an plainly insane rule. How about Twitter actually ban people who actually break the site rules, act with some small measure of maturity, and stop moderating with a political bias that a child could see?
  - scholia 10y ago
    You're ignoring the context. Milo knew what he was doing. It was deliberate harassment. And thanks to his thuggish role in gamergate, he had plenty of "previous".
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      Milo knew what he was doing. What objective facts do you base this on? The tweets themselves are completely innocuous. And meanwhile, people who post actual harassment and threats are left unscathed (I've personally reported a few myself), and while I'm not privy to what happens in Jack's office, it definitely quacks like it's okay to to harass if you subscribe to one political mindset, but not another.
      - scholia 10y ago
        We followed each other on Twitter, and have mutual acquaintances. I also know personal stuff about Milo that not many people know. If there were meanings that weren't obvious to you, that doesn't mean they weren't there.

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.
- gluelogic 10y ago
  So Twitter's verification is more about access to this socially elitist feed? That may be a feature, but I think the primary function is to avoid people impersonating well-known public figures on the platform. Removing Milo's check out of politically-driven spite definitely undermines the validity of the entire verification system.
  - scholia 10y ago
    I didn't say it was the primary feature. I simply pointed out that verification wasn't as simple as is generally assumed. > Removing Milo's check out of politically-driven spite definitely undermines the validity of the entire verification system. That sounds like a prejudiced opinion expressed in prejudicial language. However, you might consider this section from I’m With The Banned https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-banned-8d1b6e0b2932 https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-ba... QUOTE >> Milo is excited. This is his night. How does he feel about his suspension? “It’s fantastic,” he says, “It’s the end of the platform. The timing is perfect.” He was planning for something like this. “I thought I had another six months, but this was always going to happen.” Milo shows no remorse for the avalanche of misconduct he helped direct towards Leslie Jones, who is just the latest victim of the recreational ritual abuse he likes to launch at women and minorities for the fame and fun of it.
    - michaelbuddy 10y ago
      > Milo shows no remorse for the avalanche of misconduct he helped direct towards Leslie Jones. He shows no remorse because she clearly didn't suffer from anything he said. Like I said before. Other people actually harassed, he didn't. Trolling a celebrity star of a bad movie isn't harassment by any measure. His comments were intelligent and funny. His article on Breitbart was scathing, which is why Jack targeted him, to set an example. Also stated before, She was happy to leverage it for publicity. So much for being traumatized. And another thing, Milo doesn't launch abuse at Minorities. In fact, since he's in love with british black men, your comment has no value there because you're clearly uninformed on his background. Milo attacks ideas and does sophisticated trolling. Judging by Twitter's crashing stock price right when this incident occurred, it can't be denied that Twitter's censoring of an minor media celebrity proved it made a bad move. So much so, Jack's been trying to put out the fire, even where he addressed it for a canned question during the investor phone call. He just wants it to go away.

scholia 10y ago

> Milo's tweets weren't anywhere NEAR harassment level. Trolling a famous person on twitter is not harassment and brigading. Milo had tens of thousands of flying monkeys to troll and harass people on his behalf. He knew this perfectly well, and used it all the time. His tweets didn't need to be particularly harassing: all he had to do was point the finger. Which he did.

Karunamon 10y ago
So what, when you gain over some arbitrary amount of followers, you're not allowed to ever tweet about another person? What's the magic number at which you're not allowed to speak about anything but generalities? That's an plainly insane rule. How about Twitter actually ban people who actually break the site rules, act with some small measure of maturity, and stop moderating with a political bias that a child could see?
- scholia 10y ago
  You're ignoring the context. Milo knew what he was doing. It was deliberate harassment. And thanks to his thuggish role in gamergate, he had plenty of "previous".
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    Milo knew what he was doing. What objective facts do you base this on? The tweets themselves are completely innocuous. And meanwhile, people who post actual harassment and threats are left unscathed (I've personally reported a few myself), and while I'm not privy to what happens in Jack's office, it definitely quacks like it's okay to to harass if you subscribe to one political mindset, but not another.
    - scholia 10y ago
      We followed each other on Twitter, and have mutual acquaintances. I also know personal stuff about Milo that not many people know. If there were meanings that weren't obvious to you, that doesn't mean they weren't there.