4 ms·

run vicious media smear campaigns and organize automated blacklists of people on Twitter What are you referring to here?

angersock 12y ago
A good example of this: https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker I'd rather not talk about that subject too much, because it's such a clusterfuck. That said, there's an example for you. EDIT: A similar setup, for the curious. http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=2 http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=2
- strangecasts 12y ago
  That doesn't really explain much, sorry.
  - angersock 12y ago
    So, the tools in question (as I understand their use, and I am happy to reconsider my position if my understanding is incorrect!) basically create blocklists based on the edges of known "bad actors" in the Twitter social graph. These users are effectively hidden unless you are already following them for some reason (Block Bot does this, as memory serves). Whoever is subscribed has their potential feed manipulated by...some group? For reasons? It's certainly easier than manually removing trolls, but imagine finding yourself on the wrong end of one of these bots or a more aggressive descendant, just because you happened to follow somebody who was controversial or deemed controversial. The entire point of these things is to make a safe space--where safe is defined as not merely keeping out dissenting thought but indeed making it appear as though it never existed, very much like a memoryhole. On some places (like HN or Something Awful or whatever) you'll see a post downvoted or annotated with "User was banned for this post. Reason: User is a mansplaining shithead". We're a bit down the rabbit hole here. I'm curious if there are such bots created by the folks on the other side of the issue, or intended for use by people on the other side of the aisle. I suspect not, but I simply haven't checked yet.
    - obstinate 12y ago
      > just because you happened to follow somebody who was controversial or deemed controversial. Presumably you'd either unfollow that person and appeal your inclusion on the list, or else get over it. You are not entitled to push your thoughts to someone else's feed if they don't want to hear you. If you don't like it, join a platform where such an entitlement exists. > appear as though it never existed Nobody is confused about whether the dissent exists. Similarly, nobody has forgotten that creationists exist. The question is whether hearing the dissent is useful. It isn't, and for some it causes anything from annoyance to pain.
      - angersock 12y ago
        Presumably you'd either unfollow that person and appeal your inclusion on the list, or else get over it. You are not entitled to push your thoughts to someone else's feed if they don't want to hear you. The point is that, even if I only ever tweeted about sandwiches, these tools will effectively silence me because of my association. And your solution that I remove myself and appeal my ban, caused just because someobdy found one of the people I follow offensive? That solution is exactly the sort of thing that violates my right to freedom of association and that makes everyone proposing that solution look closed-minded. The question is whether hearing the dissent is useful. It isn't, and for some it causes anything from annoyance to pain. One could make the exact argument about any number of things, and it would sound just as close-minded. I'm not defending the abuse and death threats and whatnot, mind you, but you aren't winning any prizes for "most tolerant of other ideas". I understand the reasoning, I understand with where it's coming from, but
        Frondo 12y ago
        Twitter is a private service. You have no right to compel a private company to let you do anything with that service. And more than that, Twitter itself isn't maintaining the blocklists. The people who want to use blocklists are. Freedom of assocation has never meant, "I get to walk into -your- meeting and do whatever I want." It means you can set up your own meeting. You can't force your way into the blocklist users' field of view, and while that may be personally frustrating for you, it is entirely within the entire world's right to ignore you if the entire world chooses.
- AlexMax 12y ago
  I don't get what this is. Is usage of either blacklist compulsory in some way?
  - BlackAura 12y ago
    Nope. Completely opt-in. Most of the people on these block lists are... I'm going to charitably describe them as "trolls". Generally, accounts are added for harassment, abusive or threatening behavior, outright hate speech, deliberately triggering someone's PTSD symptoms, encouraging specific suicidal people to commit suicide, and that kind of thing. Oh, and trying to evade a block, or encouraging others to harass someone. On any even lightly moderated discussion forum, these users would have been banned. Most of this is actually against Twitter's TOS, and theoretically could be grounds for suspending an account, but Twitter doesn't really do anything about it. They know it happens, but haven't come up with any kind of workable solution yet. Most of the users of the block lists are people who have been targetted by those same trolls, and who have chosen to just ignore them. The people using the block lists tend to be women (especially feminists), various racial minorities, LGBT people (and related activists, especially transgender people), and various other marginalized groups. They are pretty much universally harassed for what they are, and for standing up for themselves against the standard pervasive sexism / racism / whatever.
- magicalist 12y ago
  > A good example of this: > https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker how is that an example of a blacklist the "the enemies of liberty" would employ? Is an ad blocker blacklist an egregious attempt to stifle free speech just because you don't want that shit running in your browser?
pjc50 12y ago
The thing is, shared killfiles predate twitter by decades. It's not a new idea and it's not a new controversy. If a communications medium doesn't have functioning anti-spam, it drowns in spam. If it doesn't have functioning anti-abuse, it now appears that there will be a wave of harrasment and abuse. The most recent victim of this I can name is Sue Perkins, after the rumour went round about her being a replacement presenter for Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear. This was nothing to do with her and had no truth in it, but nonetheless resulted in a misogynist hate campaign.

angersock 12y ago

A good example of this: https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker I'd rather not talk about that subject too much, because it's such a clusterfuck. That said, there's an example for you. EDIT: A similar setup, for the curious. http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=2 http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=2

strangecasts 12y ago
That doesn't really explain much, sorry.
- angersock 12y ago
  So, the tools in question (as I understand their use, and I am happy to reconsider my position if my understanding is incorrect!) basically create blocklists based on the edges of known "bad actors" in the Twitter social graph. These users are effectively hidden unless you are already following them for some reason (Block Bot does this, as memory serves). Whoever is subscribed has their potential feed manipulated by...some group? For reasons? It's certainly easier than manually removing trolls, but imagine finding yourself on the wrong end of one of these bots or a more aggressive descendant, just because you happened to follow somebody who was controversial or deemed controversial. The entire point of these things is to make a safe space--where safe is defined as not merely keeping out dissenting thought but indeed making it appear as though it never existed, very much like a memoryhole. On some places (like HN or Something Awful or whatever) you'll see a post downvoted or annotated with "User was banned for this post. Reason: User is a mansplaining shithead". We're a bit down the rabbit hole here. I'm curious if there are such bots created by the folks on the other side of the issue, or intended for use by people on the other side of the aisle. I suspect not, but I simply haven't checked yet.
  - obstinate 12y ago
    > just because you happened to follow somebody who was controversial or deemed controversial. Presumably you'd either unfollow that person and appeal your inclusion on the list, or else get over it. You are not entitled to push your thoughts to someone else's feed if they don't want to hear you. If you don't like it, join a platform where such an entitlement exists. > appear as though it never existed Nobody is confused about whether the dissent exists. Similarly, nobody has forgotten that creationists exist. The question is whether hearing the dissent is useful. It isn't, and for some it causes anything from annoyance to pain.
    - angersock 12y ago
      Presumably you'd either unfollow that person and appeal your inclusion on the list, or else get over it. You are not entitled to push your thoughts to someone else's feed if they don't want to hear you. The point is that, even if I only ever tweeted about sandwiches, these tools will effectively silence me because of my association. And your solution that I remove myself and appeal my ban, caused just because someobdy found one of the people I follow offensive? That solution is exactly the sort of thing that violates my right to freedom of association and that makes everyone proposing that solution look closed-minded. The question is whether hearing the dissent is useful. It isn't, and for some it causes anything from annoyance to pain. One could make the exact argument about any number of things, and it would sound just as close-minded. I'm not defending the abuse and death threats and whatnot, mind you, but you aren't winning any prizes for "most tolerant of other ideas". I understand the reasoning, I understand with where it's coming from, but
      - Frondo 12y ago
        Twitter is a private service. You have no right to compel a private company to let you do anything with that service. And more than that, Twitter itself isn't maintaining the blocklists. The people who want to use blocklists are. Freedom of assocation has never meant, "I get to walk into -your- meeting and do whatever I want." It means you can set up your own meeting. You can't force your way into the blocklist users' field of view, and while that may be personally frustrating for you, it is entirely within the entire world's right to ignore you if the entire world chooses.
AlexMax 12y ago
I don't get what this is. Is usage of either blacklist compulsory in some way?
- BlackAura 12y ago
  Nope. Completely opt-in. Most of the people on these block lists are... I'm going to charitably describe them as "trolls". Generally, accounts are added for harassment, abusive or threatening behavior, outright hate speech, deliberately triggering someone's PTSD symptoms, encouraging specific suicidal people to commit suicide, and that kind of thing. Oh, and trying to evade a block, or encouraging others to harass someone. On any even lightly moderated discussion forum, these users would have been banned. Most of this is actually against Twitter's TOS, and theoretically could be grounds for suspending an account, but Twitter doesn't really do anything about it. They know it happens, but haven't come up with any kind of workable solution yet. Most of the users of the block lists are people who have been targetted by those same trolls, and who have chosen to just ignore them. The people using the block lists tend to be women (especially feminists), various racial minorities, LGBT people (and related activists, especially transgender people), and various other marginalized groups. They are pretty much universally harassed for what they are, and for standing up for themselves against the standard pervasive sexism / racism / whatever.
magicalist 12y ago
> A good example of this: > https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker how is that an example of a blacklist the "the enemies of liberty" would employ? Is an ad blocker blacklist an egregious attempt to stifle free speech just because you don't want that shit running in your browser?

pjc50 12y ago

The thing is, shared killfiles predate twitter by decades. It's not a new idea and it's not a new controversy. If a communications medium doesn't have functioning anti-spam, it drowns in spam. If it doesn't have functioning anti-abuse, it now appears that there will be a wave of harrasment and abuse. The most recent victim of this I can name is Sue Perkins, after the rumour went round about her being a replacement presenter for Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear. This was nothing to do with her and had no truth in it, but nonetheless resulted in a misogynist hate campaign.