4 ms·

So you've gone from "Twitter mostly only bans people throwing around death threats" to, "well this one guy once wrote some bad stuff under a pseudonym in ano

So you've gone from "Twitter mostly only bans people throwing around death threats" to, "well this one guy once wrote some bad stuff under a pseudonym in another forum, and this other guy has rude followers" Do you see why people might not exactly trust Twitter's commitment to being a content-neutral platform, or why they might be reluctant to give them huge amounts of free content and network effects that can be taken out at a whim?

eropple 10y ago
I asked seany if they should unban people who make death and rape threats. I didn't assert that Twitter bans only people who make death and rape threats. So, no, I'm not "going" anywhere. Now, as to your eliding of actual malicious intent: pointing the Eye of Sauron at people, when you know-and-can't-not-know that your followers will deluge whoever you point at with death and rape threats, is not, in my book, merely "having rude followers". It is intentionally trying to harm somebody. And this is what Milo did, regularly, on Twitter--while he finally picked on a celebrity who had the social standing to hit back, he would regularly retweet some nobody who never said anything to him to his followers and let the head-hunting commence. You should be judged for that, and you shouldn't be allowed to continue harming people. So yeah, I'm OK with him being kicked to the curb. But I'm gonna be honest: given the way you're writing about all of this, you should be reluctant to use Twitter. You should leave Twitter. I think that's a great idea. I entreat you to definitely, without a question, leave and start your own thing. And maybe you'll prove me wrong, that this land of ponies is so much better for everyone, instead of just the swarms of abusers--but I doubt it. So go get started! I look forward to seeing it.
- h4nkoslo 10y ago
  I'm impressed by your ability to ignore the banning of people like RSM for apparently no reason other than having wrote wrongthink in another forum. I suppose that was "harmful" too? Given the left's continuing efforts to restrict freedom of association, I don't find myself under any obligation to respect their desire to exclude people of my ideological persuasion from any given platform. Ironically Twitter's censorship efforts are just barely effective enough to drive respectable, real-name conservatives off of their platform, but laughably underpowered against dedicated trolls. If anything it's giving them a nice lesson in disposable identities and minor opsec.
  - eropple 10y ago
    I cannot find any information regarding McCain from any source that I find credible. The sites that are covering this are ones like Breitbart and Infowars, which are so incredible that, yes, I assume they're reporting from an alternate dimension until something is corroborated by somebody. And I certainly suspect that he probably did something nasty, because--and I know this will shock you deeply--that's what neo-Confederate white-supremacist gay-haters do. And since my experience with Twitter is that I have never seen somebody banned whose banning did not make the service a better place to be, and the names you drop that I do know are abject cancerous people who get off on harming other people, yeah, I will certainly give Twitter the benefit of the doubt. If they overstep those lines, yes, I'll certainly reevaluate. And given actual proof, I'd be willing to revise my weakly-held stance even on a neo-Confederate, white-supremacist gay-hater like McCain. There's a reason that elsewhere in this thread I've made a point of saying that people who, say, threaten Donald Trump should be treated the exact same way because I don't believe that that kind of abuse is acceptable from any quarter. But that proof will never, ever be forthcoming. . I'm getting kind of tired of this dance, though, so let's be really real here for a second. 'Cause I have this sneaking suspicion that this is about a very Southern flavor of "freedom", the freedom to do unto others. 'Cause I remember the hair-shirt conservative screams about BlockTogether when that rolled out, the idea that block lists were an attack on the right. You won't go make Your Own Twitter not because you feel contrary, it's not because you're going to be a gadfly just because you Don't Respect The Left. It's because you will have nobody there who you can scream at. That's really the genesis of this complaint. It's the perceived right that other people have to listen to you. And they don't. And that's why I'm done with you here. HAND.
    - h4nkoslo 10y ago
      It's a shame that we had to get this deep into the thread to get you to admit your preferred policy (and Twitter's, apparently) is that straightforward ideological purges by default make the platform better (unless you can prove a negative and establish that no one ever had a sad as a result of their writing). Instead of leading with spurious claims of abuse, next time you should go with that on top.

eropple 10y ago

I asked seany if they should unban people who make death and rape threats. I didn't assert that Twitter bans only people who make death and rape threats. So, no, I'm not "going" anywhere. Now, as to your eliding of actual malicious intent: pointing the Eye of Sauron at people, when you know-and-can't-not-know that your followers will deluge whoever you point at with death and rape threats, is not, in my book, merely "having rude followers". It is intentionally trying to harm somebody. And this is what Milo did, regularly, on Twitter--while he finally picked on a celebrity who had the social standing to hit back, he would regularly retweet some nobody who never said anything to him to his followers and let the head-hunting commence. You should be judged for that, and you shouldn't be allowed to continue harming people. So yeah, I'm OK with him being kicked to the curb. But I'm gonna be honest: given the way you're writing about all of this, you should be reluctant to use Twitter. You should leave Twitter. I think that's a great idea. I entreat you to definitely, without a question, leave and start your own thing. And maybe you'll prove me wrong, that this land of ponies is so much better for everyone, instead of just the swarms of abusers--but I doubt it. So go get started! I look forward to seeing it.

h4nkoslo 10y ago
I'm impressed by your ability to ignore the banning of people like RSM for apparently no reason other than having wrote wrongthink in another forum. I suppose that was "harmful" too? Given the left's continuing efforts to restrict freedom of association, I don't find myself under any obligation to respect their desire to exclude people of my ideological persuasion from any given platform. Ironically Twitter's censorship efforts are just barely effective enough to drive respectable, real-name conservatives off of their platform, but laughably underpowered against dedicated trolls. If anything it's giving them a nice lesson in disposable identities and minor opsec.
- eropple 10y ago
  I cannot find any information regarding McCain from any source that I find credible. The sites that are covering this are ones like Breitbart and Infowars, which are so incredible that, yes, I assume they're reporting from an alternate dimension until something is corroborated by somebody. And I certainly suspect that he probably did something nasty, because--and I know this will shock you deeply--that's what neo-Confederate white-supremacist gay-haters do. And since my experience with Twitter is that I have never seen somebody banned whose banning did not make the service a better place to be, and the names you drop that I do know are abject cancerous people who get off on harming other people, yeah, I will certainly give Twitter the benefit of the doubt. If they overstep those lines, yes, I'll certainly reevaluate. And given actual proof, I'd be willing to revise my weakly-held stance even on a neo-Confederate, white-supremacist gay-hater like McCain. There's a reason that elsewhere in this thread I've made a point of saying that people who, say, threaten Donald Trump should be treated the exact same way because I don't believe that that kind of abuse is acceptable from any quarter. But that proof will never, ever be forthcoming. . I'm getting kind of tired of this dance, though, so let's be really real here for a second. 'Cause I have this sneaking suspicion that this is about a very Southern flavor of "freedom", the freedom to do unto others. 'Cause I remember the hair-shirt conservative screams about BlockTogether when that rolled out, the idea that block lists were an attack on the right. You won't go make Your Own Twitter not because you feel contrary, it's not because you're going to be a gadfly just because you Don't Respect The Left. It's because you will have nobody there who you can scream at. That's really the genesis of this complaint. It's the perceived right that other people have to listen to you. And they don't. And that's why I'm done with you here. HAND.
  - h4nkoslo 10y ago
    It's a shame that we had to get this deep into the thread to get you to admit your preferred policy (and Twitter's, apparently) is that straightforward ideological purges by default make the platform better (unless you can prove a negative and establish that no one ever had a sad as a result of their writing). Instead of leading with spurious claims of abuse, next time you should go with that on top.