7 ms·

I work at twitter and wasn’t able to find out immediately, but have been collecting responses like these + the article and communicating with someone who knows

I work at twitter and wasn’t able to find out immediately, but have been collecting responses like these + the article and communicating with someone who knows what to do. I only found out about this over twitter and I am personally deeply frustrated and working to understand whatever led to this.

kaeawc 8y ago
Sorry to hear that, can imagine the frustration.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ta1357 8y ago
I don't really think there's any polite way to put this: Your employers are simply assholes.
- dang 8y ago
  This is the sort of informationless pile-on comment that damages HN regardless of what you're talking about. Please don't post those here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
philipov 8y ago
To be honest, this reads less like an attempt to integrate anti-harassment measures and more like an attempt to completely destroy a business trying to offer them. It further solidifies Twitter management as complicit in aiding and abetting the harassers by using its capital to eliminate a threat from the market. After the speed with which Twitter went after the ICE employees list, the evidence is clear that Twitter only has a problem tackling harassment when it's against marginalized populations.
- dang 8y ago
  That's a pretty extreme leap when virtually no information is available yet. The HN guidelines ask you to "assume good faith" for a reason: people are all too ready to take such charges as givens and then pile more on top of them. It's a behavior that harms the container here, and it's not hard to wait until actual evidence appears.
  - philipov 8y ago
    That's fair, I will suspend judgement until further evidence appears, but the well of beneficial doubt is running low. I think a long past history of suspicious behavior is a good reason to update our assumptions.
    - dang 8y ago
      I don't disagree. But the real reason for having an "assume good faith" rule is what it does to this community when people don't. Therefore it needs practicing even when it feels undeserved.
      - tedivm 8y ago
        Here's the whole guideline you're talking about- > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. It's talking about how we all talk to each other. I think it's main purpose is not to lessen criticisms for corporations so much as to keep the discussion constructive.
        pvg 8y ago
        You're probably not going to win an argument with a moderator by explaining to them the subtle logical error in the interpretation and purpose of their own guidelines.
        cjbprime 8y ago
lightedman 8y ago
"I work at twitter and wasn’t able to find out immediately" Sweet, please tell Jack I'm done with Twitter violating my copyright and it's game-on now.
brongondwana 8y ago
As someone down thread said - this smells like the long arm of GDPR unintending some consequences.

kaeawc 8y ago

Sorry to hear that, can imagine the frustration.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ta1357 8y ago

I don't really think there's any polite way to put this: Your employers are simply assholes.

dang 8y ago
This is the sort of informationless pile-on comment that damages HN regardless of what you're talking about. Please don't post those here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

philipov 8y ago

To be honest, this reads less like an attempt to integrate anti-harassment measures and more like an attempt to completely destroy a business trying to offer them. It further solidifies Twitter management as complicit in aiding and abetting the harassers by using its capital to eliminate a threat from the market. After the speed with which Twitter went after the ICE employees list, the evidence is clear that Twitter only has a problem tackling harassment when it's against marginalized populations.

dang 8y ago
That's a pretty extreme leap when virtually no information is available yet. The HN guidelines ask you to "assume good faith" for a reason: people are all too ready to take such charges as givens and then pile more on top of them. It's a behavior that harms the container here, and it's not hard to wait until actual evidence appears.
- philipov 8y ago
  That's fair, I will suspend judgement until further evidence appears, but the well of beneficial doubt is running low. I think a long past history of suspicious behavior is a good reason to update our assumptions.
  - dang 8y ago
    I don't disagree. But the real reason for having an "assume good faith" rule is what it does to this community when people don't. Therefore it needs practicing even when it feels undeserved.
    - tedivm 8y ago
      Here's the whole guideline you're talking about- > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. It's talking about how we all talk to each other. I think it's main purpose is not to lessen criticisms for corporations so much as to keep the discussion constructive.
      - pvg 8y ago
        You're probably not going to win an argument with a moderator by explaining to them the subtle logical error in the interpretation and purpose of their own guidelines.
        cjbprime 8y ago

lightedman 8y ago

"I work at twitter and wasn’t able to find out immediately" Sweet, please tell Jack I'm done with Twitter violating my copyright and it's game-on now.

brongondwana 8y ago

As someone down thread said - this smells like the long arm of GDPR unintending some consequences.