4 ms·

>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 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.
- hnnewguy 12y ago
  >You are still dismissing the role of emotional trauma in your fairness equation. I'm not dismissing anything. They are separate issues. >Even if you freely decide to leave twitter due to experiencing trauma you will likely still have that scarring for a long time. I agree, you might. It's terrible. And even after the abuse perpetrator is banned from Twitter, those scars remain. The ban itself doesn't solve that problem. That's why they are separate issues. The point of contention is the mentality that driving a few innocent people off Twitter is okay in the name protecting other innocent people's ability to use the system. You're just shifting the harm around, and aren't even affecting the real problems. The bullying will, in all likelihood, continue (especially if these are real, determined, sociopathic trolls), and you have more, self-inflicted, victims. Anyway, getting a bit far down this rabbit hole.
- current_call 12y ago
  Being unfairly banned from twitter will give me emotional trauma.

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.

hnnewguy 12y ago
>You are still dismissing the role of emotional trauma in your fairness equation. I'm not dismissing anything. They are separate issues. >Even if you freely decide to leave twitter due to experiencing trauma you will likely still have that scarring for a long time. I agree, you might. It's terrible. And even after the abuse perpetrator is banned from Twitter, those scars remain. The ban itself doesn't solve that problem. That's why they are separate issues. The point of contention is the mentality that driving a few innocent people off Twitter is okay in the name protecting other innocent people's ability to use the system. You're just shifting the harm around, and aren't even affecting the real problems. The bullying will, in all likelihood, continue (especially if these are real, determined, sociopathic trolls), and you have more, self-inflicted, victims. Anyway, getting a bit far down this rabbit hole.
current_call 12y ago
Being unfairly banned from twitter will give me emotional trauma.