4 ms·

This seems ripe for abuse. So I just need to flag someone's account as abusive (and god knows there's always a way to frame something as abusive) a few times an

by anon4 12y ago

This seems ripe for abuse. So I just need to flag someone's account as abusive (and god knows there's always a way to frame something as abusive) a few times and they can never register with that email and/or phone number? Didn't we already have an article here about a woman who posted a somewhat tasteless joke which cost her her entire career? Would the people that piled on her be considered abusers or not? Would she be considered abusive or not? (In that case, I think the answer is both - her joke was abusive and she suffered abuse in return) I do like that people at twitter are at least trying to think of something.

arrrg 12y ago
The big problem here are the horrific amounts of harassment and abuse on Twitter, not a couple of false positives. Why do people in these parts always zero in on that right away? So what, some people can’t use Twitter anymore even though they didn’t do anything wrong. If this can still be somewhat effective in reducing abuse it does much more good than harm – and by god, Twitter really has to at least try stuff, like, yesterday.
- eropple 12y ago
  Y'know, I've noticed that too. I have people who don't like me on Twitter. Strangely enough, I don't fear a hissing cabal spam-flagging me off of it. Maybe because I don't do things that people don't like, like send rape threats to an academic because she's going "hey, games are kinda shitty about women, can we talk about this?". My hunch is that certain folks around here concentrate on the hypothetical false positives (which, frankly, I doubt exist in any significant numbers, but boy can I point at abuse victims on Twitter!), by and large, because the people doing those shitty things look and act more like your average tech nerd than the people actually getting hurt. If you look at the GamerGate jerks, it looks like tech, you see most of the same subgroups represented within it. It's tribal crap writ large.
  - MollyR 12y ago
    I notice you talk about gamergate alot, but have you dealt with anti-vaxxers,militant atheists/christians/muslims, or justin bieber/one direction/ taylor swift fans? One wrong comment might get you targeted by the crazy amount of subgroups on twitter who do harass and bully people. I actually don't use twitter, because it's too easy to get harassed by so many different groups who will bully you over tons of things. I think twitter on the whole, is great study of human tribal behavior. The 140 characters, lack of context,followers, everything about the very core of twitter enables narcissism ,in-group/out-grouping, and abuse. I think its time twitter goes away.
  - lkbm 12y ago
    People are responding to this as if it's automatic, though. In that case, the people currently sending rape threats will also send false reports. So, yes, you don't have to fear mass-flagging and people sending Anita Sarkeesian rape threats will be mass-flagged and removed. These are both good things. The issue is will this result in Anita Sarkeesian being mass-flagged and automatically banned? Will this turn into another method of attack for the army of trolls? I'd guess it's not automatic and Twitter admins will be able to tell that people sending rape threats should go and people arguing against sexism shouldn't, but I can understand the concern that it won't be so intelligently determined.
  - philh 12y ago
    > Maybe because I don't do things that people don't like, like send rape threats to an academic because she's going "hey, games are kinda shitty about women, can we talk about this?". Or like being an academic who is going "hey, games are kinda shitty about women, can we talk about this?"? You seem to be suggesting that if we don't say anything to upset anyone, we don't have anything to worry about. That doesn't seem satisfactory, to me.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - Torgo 12y ago
    Before gamergate was even a thing, some jerks in the atheist/skeptic community created a blockbot whose explicit purpose was to game the Twitter automatic suspension algorithm to boot people off Twitter they didn't like (usually other people in the atheist/skeptic community they didn't like.) So it's not hypothetical, if Twitter creates anti-abuse mechanism, other people will find a way to game that mechanism to punish other people. So it is always worth talking about.
    - roguecoder 12y ago
      For me that blockbot is the only thing that made Twitter usable, and it turned it into the best community on the internet. I don't care if the purpose was some nefarious scheme anymore than I care if Uber was intending to destroy cab companies: both are useful, and so awesome.
- hnnewguy 12y ago
  >So what, some people can’t use Twitter anymore even though they didn’t do anything wrong. How is this outcome any different than telling people who have been abused on Twitter to just stop using the service altogether? In either case, an innocent party is prevented from using Twitter. How is one "more fair"?
  - zaphar 12y ago
    In one case someone is prevented from using the service by experiencing emotional trauma. In the other someone is prevented from using the service by a ban. One of those is strictly worse and calling them equal does a disservice to the individual being bullied. People can live without twitter and not suffer a lower quality of life. But being bullied can leave a permanent mark on your psyche.
    - hnnewguy 12y ago
      >One of those is strictly worse and calling them equal does a disservice to the individual being bullied. There's no justification for online bullying, but in one case the person is able to make a choice as to whether using Twitter is a positive or negative experience for them, and decide if they want to continue to use it. In the case of the false positive ban, they do not. Now, I'm sure your argument would be, "Why should some internet bullies dictate whether I get to enjoy my Twitter experience?" And I wholeheartedly agree with that. They shouldn't. Why should those same bullies dictate my experience on Twitter by forcing a policy that gets me banned as a false positive? This idea that "a few false positives are fine" is such an easy position to take, until you're one of the false positives. >People can live without twitter and not suffer a lower quality of life. That's precisely what I'm saying.
      - zaphar 12y ago
        You are still dismissing the role of emotional trauma in your fairness equation. Even if you freely decide to leave twitter due to experiencing trauma you will likely still have that scarring for a long time. A lack of choice in using twitter doesn't even compare.

by anon4 12y ago

arrrg 12y ago

The big problem here are the horrific amounts of harassment and abuse on Twitter, not a couple of false positives. Why do people in these parts always zero in on that right away? So what, some people can’t use Twitter anymore even though they didn’t do anything wrong. If this can still be somewhat effective in reducing abuse it does much more good than harm – and by god, Twitter really has to at least try stuff, like, yesterday.

eropple 12y ago
Y'know, I've noticed that too. I have people who don't like me on Twitter. Strangely enough, I don't fear a hissing cabal spam-flagging me off of it. Maybe because I don't do things that people don't like, like send rape threats to an academic because she's going "hey, games are kinda shitty about women, can we talk about this?". My hunch is that certain folks around here concentrate on the hypothetical false positives (which, frankly, I doubt exist in any significant numbers, but boy can I point at abuse victims on Twitter!), by and large, because the people doing those shitty things look and act more like your average tech nerd than the people actually getting hurt. If you look at the GamerGate jerks, it looks like tech, you see most of the same subgroups represented within it. It's tribal crap writ large.
- MollyR 12y ago
  I notice you talk about gamergate alot, but have you dealt with anti-vaxxers,militant atheists/christians/muslims, or justin bieber/one direction/ taylor swift fans? One wrong comment might get you targeted by the crazy amount of subgroups on twitter who do harass and bully people. I actually don't use twitter, because it's too easy to get harassed by so many different groups who will bully you over tons of things. I think twitter on the whole, is great study of human tribal behavior. The 140 characters, lack of context,followers, everything about the very core of twitter enables narcissism ,in-group/out-grouping, and abuse. I think its time twitter goes away.
- lkbm 12y ago
  People are responding to this as if it's automatic, though. In that case, the people currently sending rape threats will also send false reports. So, yes, you don't have to fear mass-flagging and people sending Anita Sarkeesian rape threats will be mass-flagged and removed. These are both good things. The issue is will this result in Anita Sarkeesian being mass-flagged and automatically banned? Will this turn into another method of attack for the army of trolls? I'd guess it's not automatic and Twitter admins will be able to tell that people sending rape threats should go and people arguing against sexism shouldn't, but I can understand the concern that it won't be so intelligently determined.
- philh 12y ago
  > Maybe because I don't do things that people don't like, like send rape threats to an academic because she's going "hey, games are kinda shitty about women, can we talk about this?". Or like being an academic who is going "hey, games are kinda shitty about women, can we talk about this?"? You seem to be suggesting that if we don't say anything to upset anyone, we don't have anything to worry about. That doesn't seem satisfactory, to me.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- Torgo 12y ago
  Before gamergate was even a thing, some jerks in the atheist/skeptic community created a blockbot whose explicit purpose was to game the Twitter automatic suspension algorithm to boot people off Twitter they didn't like (usually other people in the atheist/skeptic community they didn't like.) So it's not hypothetical, if Twitter creates anti-abuse mechanism, other people will find a way to game that mechanism to punish other people. So it is always worth talking about.
  - roguecoder 12y ago
    For me that blockbot is the only thing that made Twitter usable, and it turned it into the best community on the internet. I don't care if the purpose was some nefarious scheme anymore than I care if Uber was intending to destroy cab companies: both are useful, and so awesome.
hnnewguy 12y ago
>So what, some people can’t use Twitter anymore even though they didn’t do anything wrong. How is this outcome any different than telling people who have been abused on Twitter to just stop using the service altogether? In either case, an innocent party is prevented from using Twitter. How is one "more fair"?
- zaphar 12y ago
  In one case someone is prevented from using the service by experiencing emotional trauma. In the other someone is prevented from using the service by a ban. One of those is strictly worse and calling them equal does a disservice to the individual being bullied. People can live without twitter and not suffer a lower quality of life. But being bullied can leave a permanent mark on your psyche.
  - hnnewguy 12y ago
    >One of those is strictly worse and calling them equal does a disservice to the individual being bullied. There's no justification for online bullying, but in one case the person is able to make a choice as to whether using Twitter is a positive or negative experience for them, and decide if they want to continue to use it. In the case of the false positive ban, they do not. Now, I'm sure your argument would be, "Why should some internet bullies dictate whether I get to enjoy my Twitter experience?" And I wholeheartedly agree with that. They shouldn't. Why should those same bullies dictate my experience on Twitter by forcing a policy that gets me banned as a false positive? This idea that "a few false positives are fine" is such an easy position to take, until you're one of the false positives. >People can live without twitter and not suffer a lower quality of life. That's precisely what I'm saying.
    - zaphar 12y ago
      You are still dismissing the role of emotional trauma in your fairness equation. Even if you freely decide to leave twitter due to experiencing trauma you will likely still have that scarring for a long time. A lack of choice in using twitter doesn't even compare.