3 ms·

Their twitter account needs to be suspended. It's being used to distribute the proceeds of criminal activity.

by palish 15y ago

mattdeboard 15y ago
To what end? So they can create another? And another? And another? I'm quite sure they can create new accounts faster than Twitter can delete them, and the last thing Twitter wants to deal with is MORE spam. Smarter to contain the issue.
- palish 15y ago
  Surely they could red-flag the term "LulzSec"? Yes, I'm advocating some well-thought-out censorship in this case. Anonymity + audience = lulzsec. If we remove the audience, we remove LulzSec.
  - mattdeboard 15y ago
    This is a profoundly short-sighted and ignorant position for many reasons. 1. You will give far more publicity to LulzSec than they are already getting by acknowledging them as such a severe concern you've pulled your engineers off other more valuable tasks to enact draconian and totally meaningless interdiction efforts 2. It won't actually shut them up. LulzSec is an example the ultimate asymmetrical enemy. They have fewer numbers, fewer financial resources and less technology, but have a mastery of the terrain. You don't defeat a guerrilla by pretending they don't exist. You do not attack them where they are strongest. 3. You're not actually achieveing anything here. Twitter isn't exposing itself to legal vulnerability here, and you certainly wouldn't shut up LulzSec for even a split second by just taking away their Twitter account. I mean, honestly, have you thought this through at all? Have you paid attention to anything in the last 20 years? This kind of short-sighted feel-good finger-in-the-dyke measure is exactly why we're all sitting here screaming into the wind about copyright and piracy. What a shame that there are so many people who think this is the way to handle serious issues on the Internet.
    - palish 15y ago
      I mean, honestly, have you thought this through at all? Have you paid attention to anything in the last 20 years? Nope. You're correct. When I'm presented with a problem, I tend to point out the first solution that comes to mind. If there are secondary problems, I refine the solution until the problem is solved. In this case, the secondary problems would be that LulzSec would gain more audience, rather than be effectively censored, due to the Streisand effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) Do you have any ideas for a solution?
  - nakkiel 15y ago
    Let's put it another way. What you said really upset me and I'm just totally against that kind of statement/behaviour. I'm advocating some well-thought-out censorship in that case. Those things just depend on which side of the fence you stand; that's why they shouldn't be considered. As Voltaire said or Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

Their twitter account needs to be suspended. It's being used to distribute the proceeds of criminal activity.

by palish 15y ago

Their twitter account needs to be suspended. It's being used to distribute the proceeds of criminal activity.

To what end? So they can create another? And another? And another? I'm quite sure they can create new accounts faster than Twitter can delete them, and the last thing Twitter wants to deal with is MORE spam. Smarter to contain the issue.

palish 15y ago
Surely they could red-flag the term "LulzSec"? Yes, I'm advocating some well-thought-out censorship in this case. Anonymity + audience = lulzsec. If we remove the audience, we remove LulzSec.
- mattdeboard 15y ago
  This is a profoundly short-sighted and ignorant position for many reasons. 1. You will give far more publicity to LulzSec than they are already getting by acknowledging them as such a severe concern you've pulled your engineers off other more valuable tasks to enact draconian and totally meaningless interdiction efforts 2. It won't actually shut them up. LulzSec is an example the ultimate asymmetrical enemy. They have fewer numbers, fewer financial resources and less technology, but have a mastery of the terrain. You don't defeat a guerrilla by pretending they don't exist. You do not attack them where they are strongest. 3. You're not actually achieveing anything here. Twitter isn't exposing itself to legal vulnerability here, and you certainly wouldn't shut up LulzSec for even a split second by just taking away their Twitter account. I mean, honestly, have you thought this through at all? Have you paid attention to anything in the last 20 years? This kind of short-sighted feel-good finger-in-the-dyke measure is exactly why we're all sitting here screaming into the wind about copyright and piracy. What a shame that there are so many people who think this is the way to handle serious issues on the Internet.
  - palish 15y ago
    I mean, honestly, have you thought this through at all? Have you paid attention to anything in the last 20 years? Nope. You're correct. When I'm presented with a problem, I tend to point out the first solution that comes to mind. If there are secondary problems, I refine the solution until the problem is solved. In this case, the secondary problems would be that LulzSec would gain more audience, rather than be effectively censored, due to the Streisand effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) Do you have any ideas for a solution?
- nakkiel 15y ago
  Let's put it another way. What you said really upset me and I'm just totally against that kind of statement/behaviour. I'm advocating some well-thought-out censorship in that case. Those things just depend on which side of the fence you stand; that's why they shouldn't be considered. As Voltaire said or Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]