4 ms·

I agree that it sounds fantastic, but they've jumped into the muck before. For example, they removed Milo's verification checkmark just to punish him (I tend t

by stvswn 10y ago

I agree that it sounds fantastic, but they've jumped into the muck before. For example, they removed Milo's verification checkmark just to punish him (I tend to think he deserved his eventual banning for violating rules, but it's strange to "unverify" him as a punishment -- seems petty). When certain hashtags (usually conservative) start trending, they are often missing from the autosuggest service. I find it really strange that Twitter does this sort of thing, but I don't have any other explanations.

monksy 10y ago
I would disagree that the last ban for Milo was justified. I would say it's hardly justifiable (without proof) that he was leading an army of trolls to attack Leslie. The only reason Twitter responded so harshly was that it was against a celebrity and not an ordinary user. (Those kinds of attacks hit everyday users as well.. but nothing this public/drastic happens to them)
- 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
  I read all of the tweets back-and-forth between milo and leslie jones (and I would encourage anyone to do the same). Now, I do like milo (I find him hilarious), and I'm not such a fan of jones but I do understand he exists to be a provocateur so I knew that it was highly plausible that he was did really say something that was inappropriate. After having read them all, I came across strongly with the opinion that while supporters (probably a lot of sock puppets) did say really terrible things about jones, that nothing milo himself said was inappropriate. Also, at no point did milo incite his followers to attack or otherwise harass jones directly. To the contrary, jones was the one who said things to the effect of telling her supporters to "get him". Ultimately I think it came down to the fact that twitter is making money off of movie studios and celebrities being on twitter (not just jones) and twitter realizes that most of their users are there (and probably an even larger portion of their growth) comes from the presence of people like jones and other celebrities on twitter. Remove them and you remove users who are looking at paying ads. Its a very big stick for a PR agency or her agents to wield.

by stvswn 10y ago

monksy 10y ago

I would disagree that the last ban for Milo was justified. I would say it's hardly justifiable (without proof) that he was leading an army of trolls to attack Leslie. The only reason Twitter responded so harshly was that it was against a celebrity and not an ordinary user. (Those kinds of attacks hit everyday users as well.. but nothing this public/drastic happens to them)

464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
I read all of the tweets back-and-forth between milo and leslie jones (and I would encourage anyone to do the same). Now, I do like milo (I find him hilarious), and I'm not such a fan of jones but I do understand he exists to be a provocateur so I knew that it was highly plausible that he was did really say something that was inappropriate. After having read them all, I came across strongly with the opinion that while supporters (probably a lot of sock puppets) did say really terrible things about jones, that nothing milo himself said was inappropriate. Also, at no point did milo incite his followers to attack or otherwise harass jones directly. To the contrary, jones was the one who said things to the effect of telling her supporters to "get him". Ultimately I think it came down to the fact that twitter is making money off of movie studios and celebrities being on twitter (not just jones) and twitter realizes that most of their users are there (and probably an even larger portion of their growth) comes from the presence of people like jones and other celebrities on twitter. Remove them and you remove users who are looking at paying ads. Its a very big stick for a PR agency or her agents to wield.