6 ms·

Just last week someone got doxed and swatted by Twitter as well. People get cancelled on an hourly basis by Twitter's narcissistic collective of soulless wretch

Just last week someone got doxed and swatted by Twitter as well. People get cancelled on an hourly basis by Twitter's narcissistic collective of soulless wretches that they call a userbase. Twitter should be globally nullrouted for the crimes its users commit on an hourly basis. Jack Dorsey is absolutely knowledgeable about this as well totally complicit in it happening.

avs733 5y ago
So you are suggesting that we cancel Twitter for cancelling people? Every time I see “cancel” used like this I feel compelled to remind that if this was a real issue preexisting terms indicative of bad behavior would be used…e.g., censorship…and they aren’t used because they don’t apply and cancel culture is made up to absolve people of consequences for their actions.
- theHIDninja 5y ago
  You are saying that publicly shaming someone, making them lose their current job and making them un-hirable is a fair punishment for making an off-color joke, or holding beliefs that even slightly differ from Twitter's collective, or any number of innocuous things that people have had their lives ruined over. Cancel culture IS a problem. You are part of the problem for not acknowledging it.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    "Cancel culture" is nothing. We've long warned about how privacy online, using pseudonyms and being conscious of the data you present to others. If you're saying something that platform users dislike, they're probably going to stop engaging with it or dogpile the topic. It's a reality distortion field, a cause with no effect.
  - avs733 5y ago
    These arguments always attribute causality to someone with very little agency in those situations and minimize/victimize the actions of someone who did something problematic. Let’s walk through it… Person A says something bad (your ‘off color joke’) Person B dislikes that and says so on the internet, loudly Person C sees what B said and decides not to hire A Your argument is that B is more responsible for Cs actions than A or C is. This particular brand of American individual freedoms is bought into by one end of our political spectrum in particular and is nonsense.
    - theHIDninja 5y ago
      My argument is that Twitter is 100% complicit and aware of what person B does, as well as the consequences of it (in this case, indirectly murdering someone). This phenomenon of ruining multiple people's lives in this fashion is also almost entirely localized to Twitter. This is why I believe Twitter should be forcibly shut down. Their entire business model depends on them memory holing the atrocities its users commit.
weakfish 5y ago
How is this related to cancel culture? It seems they just wanted the handle - fucked up, but not cancelling. Stop flamebaiting please.
valtism 5y ago
This seems like an overreaction
- stevenhuang 5y ago
  It is. And ironic, considering the vitriol displayed is what he's criticizing.
Tenoke 5y ago
I hear people swat using phone calls a lot, too so we should really do something about Alexander Bell.

avs733 5y ago

So you are suggesting that we cancel Twitter for cancelling people? Every time I see “cancel” used like this I feel compelled to remind that if this was a real issue preexisting terms indicative of bad behavior would be used…e.g., censorship…and they aren’t used because they don’t apply and cancel culture is made up to absolve people of consequences for their actions.

theHIDninja 5y ago
You are saying that publicly shaming someone, making them lose their current job and making them un-hirable is a fair punishment for making an off-color joke, or holding beliefs that even slightly differ from Twitter's collective, or any number of innocuous things that people have had their lives ruined over. Cancel culture IS a problem. You are part of the problem for not acknowledging it.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  "Cancel culture" is nothing. We've long warned about how privacy online, using pseudonyms and being conscious of the data you present to others. If you're saying something that platform users dislike, they're probably going to stop engaging with it or dogpile the topic. It's a reality distortion field, a cause with no effect.
- avs733 5y ago
  These arguments always attribute causality to someone with very little agency in those situations and minimize/victimize the actions of someone who did something problematic. Let’s walk through it… Person A says something bad (your ‘off color joke’) Person B dislikes that and says so on the internet, loudly Person C sees what B said and decides not to hire A Your argument is that B is more responsible for Cs actions than A or C is. This particular brand of American individual freedoms is bought into by one end of our political spectrum in particular and is nonsense.
  - theHIDninja 5y ago
    My argument is that Twitter is 100% complicit and aware of what person B does, as well as the consequences of it (in this case, indirectly murdering someone). This phenomenon of ruining multiple people's lives in this fashion is also almost entirely localized to Twitter. This is why I believe Twitter should be forcibly shut down. Their entire business model depends on them memory holing the atrocities its users commit.

weakfish 5y ago

How is this related to cancel culture? It seems they just wanted the handle - fucked up, but not cancelling. Stop flamebaiting please.

valtism 5y ago

This seems like an overreaction

stevenhuang 5y ago
It is. And ironic, considering the vitriol displayed is what he's criticizing.

Tenoke 5y ago

I hear people swat using phone calls a lot, too so we should really do something about Alexander Bell.