3 ms·
In this case the service provider - Twitter - should define it, since they are responsible for implementing any measures against harassers. Personally, I think
by paublyrne 12y ago
In this case the service provider - Twitter - should define it, since they are responsible for implementing any measures against harassers.
Personally, I think any threat of violence - whether this is a realistic threat, or not - should constitute harassment.
A lot of the tweets in that link would qualify. I won't repeat them here, but there are a lot of threats that basically say the tweeter will rape and/or kill the receiver.
- nailer 12y ago> In this case the service provider - Twitter - should define it, since they are responsible for implementing any measures against harassers. Agreed 100%. The Verge has a different concept of harassment from Twitter's - you can't report someone on Twitter for merely calling you a 'bitch'. If The Verge wants this changed, they should say so explicitly. They should consider whether they ever insult anyone else. Agreed about threats of violence. Whether to block unrealistic or not, I'm not too sure: Tweets labelled as harassment by The Verge: - 'You're a bitch'. Sorry, insults aren't against Twitter's ToS. - 'You're a waste of oxygen' - not a threat. - 'You deserve to die' - yup. Banhammer.
- chazu 12y agoNot sure why this is being downvoted - diluting the meaning of 'harassment' could have very unfortunate consequences for both victims of REAL harassment as well as the general usefulness of social media. It seems reasonable people should be able to agree on what constitutes harassment and what clickbait factories like gawker and the verge are casting as harassment in the name of ad impressions.