9 ms·

Twitter's enforcement of their rules is so arbitrary and selective I wonder why they even have them. Innocuous accounts get banned over banter, people get their

Twitter's enforcement of their rules is so arbitrary and selective I wonder why they even have them. Innocuous accounts get banned over banter, people get their "Verified" status stripped from them if they say the wrong thing (shouldn't it just mean "this person is who they say they are"?), and yet there are accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers that doxx people and tell their followers to harass them. It's still a useful platform for now, but they seem to be trying their hardest to be anti-user.

tptacek 9y ago
It does not simply mean "this person is who they say they are" and never has. Everybody knowledgeable about Twitter (including Twitter themselves) who makes this claim is gaslighting. Twitter's own documentation explains that the blue checkmark is reserved for accounts of "public interest". The checkmarks are displayed prominently in the avatar photo of accounts, rather than simply as an element of a user's profile. Verified Twitter accounts are promoted Twitter accounts. Twitter does the blue checkmark thing as a perk to attract noteworthy people to their platform, and to draw the attention of ordinary users to those noteworthy people.
- Crontab 9y ago
  > It does not simply mean "this person is who they say they are" and never has. I was under the same impression that OP was, so I looked up the verified account announcement from the Twitter in 2009[1]: "To prevent identity confusion, Twitter is experimenting (beta testing) with a 'Verified Account' feature. We're working to establish authenticity with people who deal with impersonation or identity confusion on a regular basis." [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20090615114316/http://twitter.com/help/verified https://web.archive.org/web/20090615114316/http://twitter.co...
  - ben1040 9y ago
    Meanwhile when they opened up the application process for anyone to request verification, they made the implication that a verified account was a "high quality" account you might want to follow. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-application-process-for-verified-accounts-300300831.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-a... >We hope opening up this application process results in more people finding great, high-quality accounts to follow This seems to be where the line started blurring between "this is who they say they are" and "this account is an asset to our platform."
    - Crontab 9y ago
      Oh, without a doubt, it has morphed over time. It probably should be called something else now. But to say it was never about identity is false.
    - acangiano 9y ago
      Case in point, Assange is not verified.
  - just2n 9y ago
    It's interesting seeing tons of "journalists" who aren't well known, of public interest, or in any way prominent being given this status. Specifically if you're a new journalist straight out of school for certain publications, have penned maybe a few articles which nobody has read, and have a Twitter account with a few hundred followers if that (most likely friends/family and acquaintances), apparently this badge is warranted, because a LOT of people matching that description have it. It clearly doesn't follow from any need to be correctly identified, your "credibility" on anything, whether Twitter necessarily endorses you, whether you're being promoted, or whatever reason anyone claims. Tim Pool recounted how his account got verified a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67nFNUPQaeI&t=1m25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67nFNUPQaeI&t=1m25s. TL;DW: His employer, VICE, instructed Twitter to verify him, and they did. Ultimately that's what this badge comes down to: for most people it's a mark of being on the inside, knowing the right people. The right agency, the right employer, maybe just having a friend working at Twitter. There are some other certain criteria that aren't publicized, and they have in the past randomly given it out to "high profile" people on Twitter, even though that seems to be totally random as well. This is a special club, Twitter has on and off said it means many things, but there's no consistency. Just like there's no consistency with how they enforce their rules, there's no consistency with this special privilege either.
    - rtpg 9y ago
      You say there's no consistency, but you've just stated the consistent rule. Twitter gives the status to people who have good connections to Twitter. Given we all agree on this being the actual state of things, getting mad at them for giving this status to white nationalists makes complete sense. Twitter is boosting these people with this verification process that serves to boost their friends. If we think that the blue checkmark makes you belong to the country club, who you let in is a signifier of Twitter's beliefs.
  - jackweirdy 9y ago
    The purpose of and process around Verified status has changed a lot since 2009
- noahth 9y ago
  Also worth noting that verified accounts have access to exclusive features.
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    What are these features?
- ericdykstra 9y ago
  My point is that it's not consistent. Why would they leave serial rapist Harvey Weinstein verified on Twitter, meanwhile "unverifying" idiot Laura Loomer? They also don't verify popular people on other platforms who have hundreds of thousands of followers on both YouTube and Twitter who might actually be the target of some fake Twitter accounts. Foreign terrorist association the Muslim Brotherhood is also verified, is that a tacit endorsement? I've seen notable accounts permanently suspended from Twitter for arguing with actual neo-Nazis. Absolutely no consistency or transparency is part of what is killing the platform for large swaths of users.
- whatyoucantsay 9y ago
  >the blue checkmark is reserved for accounts of "public interest" >Everybody knowledgeable about Twitter (including Twitter themselves) who makes this claim is gaslighting. Absolutely so! Tptacek has spoken truth, albeit in a jumbled manner. The claim that the blue checkmark signifies people of public interest is ridiculous given how major world actors such as Julian Assange have been denied it.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  The logic then seems bizarre to rescind the blue checkmark for people who misbehave in real life. Is Harvey Weinstein/Kevin Spacey more or less noteworthy because of their alleged abuses that came to light recently?
  - caseysoftware 9y ago
    They are certainly noteworthy regardless - and seems in part - due to their awful behavior. That said, both have a long documented history of abuse ranging from verbal to physical to sexual. If Twitter keeps to their new policy, both should lose their endorsement in 5.. 4.. 3..
    - jabretti 9y ago
      But in all cases it's just allegations, nothing that's been proven in a court of law. And in that case, then Bill Clinton, who has been credibly accused of rape, should also be losing his endorsement. Hoo boy, twitter really made problems from themselves when they made a blue checkmark mean anything other than "famous person, identity verified".
- jblow 9y ago
  I’ve noticed the word “gaslighting” being increasingly used. I’ve also noticed that my brain responds to use of this word by decreasing its expectation that the text or utterance is worth listening to. Looking at the way it’s used in this comment, I would say it is ascribing malice where malice is unlikely, and would be implausible in the first place. So maybe my brain’s heuristic is justified.
  - makomk 9y ago
    I've noticed the word "gaslighting" has increasingly come to mean "believing that something happened which is inconvenient to my argument but did actually happen".
tehwebguy 9y ago
Report the bad guys like I do, my reports constantly result in punitive action. Twitter notifies you when they take action on a report, including the user you reported. It’s pretty great!
- itbeho 9y ago
  What’s an example of what you report?
  - tehwebguy 9y ago
    These are fish in a barrel, obviously some are much harder to pin down. https://twitter.com/h0usew1fe/status/932645874747846656 https://twitter.com/h0usew1fe/status/932645874747846656 https://twitter.com/moloian_thomas/status/932645063615660033 https://twitter.com/moloian_thomas/status/932645063615660033 https://twitter.com/bo_rigga/status/932605065696866304 https://twitter.com/bo_rigga/status/932605065696866304 https://twitter.com/legnon_j/status/932570415913930752 https://twitter.com/legnon_j/status/932570415913930752
zghst 9y ago
A rule is one thing, enforcement is another. No rule or law is 100% enforceable, nor is the discretion at which punishment prescribed is equal and constant. It is quite an endeavor to regulate a platform with the population of the US with much fewer resources. Twitter isn't perfect, however I applaud their efforts.
cisanti 9y ago
Professor who tweeted that he wants white holocaust is still active and spreading its propaganda with very hurtful communist regime symbols https://twitter.com/ciccmaher https://twitter.com/ciccmaher Why is Twitter not doing anything?! They even verified him to him a more legitimate voice.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  Maybe you should consider that he was actually mocking the very idea of "white genocide", which is a paranoid fantasy dreamed up by racist reactionaries, and not actually a real thing. And "very hurtful communist regime symbols". Do you need a trigger warning or something?
  - cc81 9y ago
    Tweeting "All I want for Christmas is white genocide" and then defending it with that his academic colleagues would have understood that it was a joke because he does not believe white genocide exists kind of requires that everyone that reads the tweet is in on that joke. I think it is really difficult to draw the line and I do think twitter would be worse off if you drowned every voice that might be controversial. However it does require that you are consistent so if you allow the first tweet then you should allow "All I want for Christmas is black genocide" as well.
    - pron 9y ago
      The problem isn't controversy, but actual harm inflicted by dehumanizing others, as I explained in my other comment. As to your other statement, you seem to be under the impression that laws or rules should exist as a formal system independent of actual empirical reality; in other words, they should be the laws of the world you think we should have (e.g., one where all ideologies are morally equivalent) rather than the world we actually do have. However, jurisprudence (the theory of laws and legal systems) usually sees most laws as normative regulations within an actual living society, as determined by empirical observation (although some laws may be "universal"). So, while no one wants white genocide, some do actually want black genocide, and, moreover, such genocides or similarly horrific crimes have actually occurred. Not only have they occurred in the distant past, but their effects still exist with us today. This is why, while white and black may be equivalent in a tabula rasa world, they are not equivalent in our actual world, and that is the world laws try to address. Therefore, there is no equivalence (as measured in our actual society), between "I want a white genocide" and "I want a black genocide". Likewise, whether a specific reader is "in on the joke" or not doesn't matter, as we're not talking about personal, subjective offense. That black genocide and white genocide (when mentioned in statements) are completely inequivalent in our actual society is an objective, empirical fact. One of them dehumanizes and therefore causes actual harm, while the other does not, and so the laws address the one and not the other. As usual, this is not universal. If, for example, the legal system determines that statements made by a black preacher encourage and promote actual harm, as measured factually, they may well (depending on the legal system) sanction that preacher.

tptacek 9y ago

It does not simply mean "this person is who they say they are" and never has. Everybody knowledgeable about Twitter (including Twitter themselves) who makes this claim is gaslighting. Twitter's own documentation explains that the blue checkmark is reserved for accounts of "public interest". The checkmarks are displayed prominently in the avatar photo of accounts, rather than simply as an element of a user's profile. Verified Twitter accounts are promoted Twitter accounts. Twitter does the blue checkmark thing as a perk to attract noteworthy people to their platform, and to draw the attention of ordinary users to those noteworthy people.

Crontab 9y ago
> It does not simply mean "this person is who they say they are" and never has. I was under the same impression that OP was, so I looked up the verified account announcement from the Twitter in 2009[1]: "To prevent identity confusion, Twitter is experimenting (beta testing) with a 'Verified Account' feature. We're working to establish authenticity with people who deal with impersonation or identity confusion on a regular basis." [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20090615114316/http://twitter.com/help/verified https://web.archive.org/web/20090615114316/http://twitter.co...
- ben1040 9y ago
  Meanwhile when they opened up the application process for anyone to request verification, they made the implication that a verified account was a "high quality" account you might want to follow. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-application-process-for-verified-accounts-300300831.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-a... >We hope opening up this application process results in more people finding great, high-quality accounts to follow This seems to be where the line started blurring between "this is who they say they are" and "this account is an asset to our platform."
  - Crontab 9y ago
    Oh, without a doubt, it has morphed over time. It probably should be called something else now. But to say it was never about identity is false.
  - acangiano 9y ago
    Case in point, Assange is not verified.
- just2n 9y ago
  It's interesting seeing tons of "journalists" who aren't well known, of public interest, or in any way prominent being given this status. Specifically if you're a new journalist straight out of school for certain publications, have penned maybe a few articles which nobody has read, and have a Twitter account with a few hundred followers if that (most likely friends/family and acquaintances), apparently this badge is warranted, because a LOT of people matching that description have it. It clearly doesn't follow from any need to be correctly identified, your "credibility" on anything, whether Twitter necessarily endorses you, whether you're being promoted, or whatever reason anyone claims. Tim Pool recounted how his account got verified a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67nFNUPQaeI&t=1m25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67nFNUPQaeI&t=1m25s. TL;DW: His employer, VICE, instructed Twitter to verify him, and they did. Ultimately that's what this badge comes down to: for most people it's a mark of being on the inside, knowing the right people. The right agency, the right employer, maybe just having a friend working at Twitter. There are some other certain criteria that aren't publicized, and they have in the past randomly given it out to "high profile" people on Twitter, even though that seems to be totally random as well. This is a special club, Twitter has on and off said it means many things, but there's no consistency. Just like there's no consistency with how they enforce their rules, there's no consistency with this special privilege either.
  - rtpg 9y ago
    You say there's no consistency, but you've just stated the consistent rule. Twitter gives the status to people who have good connections to Twitter. Given we all agree on this being the actual state of things, getting mad at them for giving this status to white nationalists makes complete sense. Twitter is boosting these people with this verification process that serves to boost their friends. If we think that the blue checkmark makes you belong to the country club, who you let in is a signifier of Twitter's beliefs.
- jackweirdy 9y ago
  The purpose of and process around Verified status has changed a lot since 2009
noahth 9y ago
Also worth noting that verified accounts have access to exclusive features.
- danieltillett 9y ago
  What are these features?
ericdykstra 9y ago
My point is that it's not consistent. Why would they leave serial rapist Harvey Weinstein verified on Twitter, meanwhile "unverifying" idiot Laura Loomer? They also don't verify popular people on other platforms who have hundreds of thousands of followers on both YouTube and Twitter who might actually be the target of some fake Twitter accounts. Foreign terrorist association the Muslim Brotherhood is also verified, is that a tacit endorsement? I've seen notable accounts permanently suspended from Twitter for arguing with actual neo-Nazis. Absolutely no consistency or transparency is part of what is killing the platform for large swaths of users.
whatyoucantsay 9y ago
>the blue checkmark is reserved for accounts of "public interest" >Everybody knowledgeable about Twitter (including Twitter themselves) who makes this claim is gaslighting. Absolutely so! Tptacek has spoken truth, albeit in a jumbled manner. The claim that the blue checkmark signifies people of public interest is ridiculous given how major world actors such as Julian Assange have been denied it.
oh_sigh 9y ago
The logic then seems bizarre to rescind the blue checkmark for people who misbehave in real life. Is Harvey Weinstein/Kevin Spacey more or less noteworthy because of their alleged abuses that came to light recently?
- caseysoftware 9y ago
  They are certainly noteworthy regardless - and seems in part - due to their awful behavior. That said, both have a long documented history of abuse ranging from verbal to physical to sexual. If Twitter keeps to their new policy, both should lose their endorsement in 5.. 4.. 3..
  - jabretti 9y ago
    But in all cases it's just allegations, nothing that's been proven in a court of law. And in that case, then Bill Clinton, who has been credibly accused of rape, should also be losing his endorsement. Hoo boy, twitter really made problems from themselves when they made a blue checkmark mean anything other than "famous person, identity verified".
jblow 9y ago
I’ve noticed the word “gaslighting” being increasingly used. I’ve also noticed that my brain responds to use of this word by decreasing its expectation that the text or utterance is worth listening to. Looking at the way it’s used in this comment, I would say it is ascribing malice where malice is unlikely, and would be implausible in the first place. So maybe my brain’s heuristic is justified.
- makomk 9y ago
  I've noticed the word "gaslighting" has increasingly come to mean "believing that something happened which is inconvenient to my argument but did actually happen".

tehwebguy 9y ago

Report the bad guys like I do, my reports constantly result in punitive action. Twitter notifies you when they take action on a report, including the user you reported. It’s pretty great!

itbeho 9y ago
What’s an example of what you report?
- tehwebguy 9y ago
  These are fish in a barrel, obviously some are much harder to pin down. https://twitter.com/h0usew1fe/status/932645874747846656 https://twitter.com/h0usew1fe/status/932645874747846656 https://twitter.com/moloian_thomas/status/932645063615660033 https://twitter.com/moloian_thomas/status/932645063615660033 https://twitter.com/bo_rigga/status/932605065696866304 https://twitter.com/bo_rigga/status/932605065696866304 https://twitter.com/legnon_j/status/932570415913930752 https://twitter.com/legnon_j/status/932570415913930752

zghst 9y ago

A rule is one thing, enforcement is another. No rule or law is 100% enforceable, nor is the discretion at which punishment prescribed is equal and constant. It is quite an endeavor to regulate a platform with the population of the US with much fewer resources. Twitter isn't perfect, however I applaud their efforts.

cisanti 9y ago

Professor who tweeted that he wants white holocaust is still active and spreading its propaganda with very hurtful communist regime symbols https://twitter.com/ciccmaher https://twitter.com/ciccmaher Why is Twitter not doing anything?! They even verified him to him a more legitimate voice.

KozmoNau7 9y ago
Maybe you should consider that he was actually mocking the very idea of "white genocide", which is a paranoid fantasy dreamed up by racist reactionaries, and not actually a real thing. And "very hurtful communist regime symbols". Do you need a trigger warning or something?
- cc81 9y ago
  Tweeting "All I want for Christmas is white genocide" and then defending it with that his academic colleagues would have understood that it was a joke because he does not believe white genocide exists kind of requires that everyone that reads the tweet is in on that joke. I think it is really difficult to draw the line and I do think twitter would be worse off if you drowned every voice that might be controversial. However it does require that you are consistent so if you allow the first tweet then you should allow "All I want for Christmas is black genocide" as well.
  - pron 9y ago
    The problem isn't controversy, but actual harm inflicted by dehumanizing others, as I explained in my other comment. As to your other statement, you seem to be under the impression that laws or rules should exist as a formal system independent of actual empirical reality; in other words, they should be the laws of the world you think we should have (e.g., one where all ideologies are morally equivalent) rather than the world we actually do have. However, jurisprudence (the theory of laws and legal systems) usually sees most laws as normative regulations within an actual living society, as determined by empirical observation (although some laws may be "universal"). So, while no one wants white genocide, some do actually want black genocide, and, moreover, such genocides or similarly horrific crimes have actually occurred. Not only have they occurred in the distant past, but their effects still exist with us today. This is why, while white and black may be equivalent in a tabula rasa world, they are not equivalent in our actual world, and that is the world laws try to address. Therefore, there is no equivalence (as measured in our actual society), between "I want a white genocide" and "I want a black genocide". Likewise, whether a specific reader is "in on the joke" or not doesn't matter, as we're not talking about personal, subjective offense. That black genocide and white genocide (when mentioned in statements) are completely inequivalent in our actual society is an objective, empirical fact. One of them dehumanizes and therefore causes actual harm, while the other does not, and so the laws address the one and not the other. As usual, this is not universal. If, for example, the legal system determines that statements made by a black preacher encourage and promote actual harm, as measured factually, they may well (depending on the legal system) sanction that preacher.