Support NeoGAF

[diaspora]

Your post sounds like a client deliverable with a bunch of jargon.

Clear up two points:
Explain how Twiiter enables abuse
Explains the financial incentives behind their actions

It doesn't moderate threats, or racial abuse. Moderating their platform would result in the removal of people from the platform viewing ads.

Actual conservatives aren't worried about being banned from Twitter, it's not like Rick Wilson is shaking in his boots because he isn't openly attacking people online with or without coded racial or sexist nonsense.

 

[John Dunbar]

It doesn't moderate threats, or racial abuse. Moderating their platform would result in the removal of people from the platform viewing ads.

and the abuse doesn't result in people leaving twitter?

 

[aeolist]

Your post sounds like a client deliverable with a bunch of jargon.

Clear up two points:
Explain how Twiiter enables abuse
Explains the financial incentives behind their actions

enabling abuse is pretty clear, it's one of the primary use cases for a lot of people (milo). they're incentivized to maximize tweet impressions and interactions between users because it gives them more data for ads, and if they gave users better tools to curate their experience on the site it would go directly against that. that's not even mentioning how much engineering time (money) it would take to create those tools in the first place.

it's not hard. i'm not saying they're malicious, i'm saying that an unrestricted social media platform is fundamentally susceptible to this problem and they're doing everything they can to avoid dealing with it.

 

[Sblargh]

https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-banned-8d1b6e0b2932#.po2eft12d

yeah, I was reading this earlier, even thought about creating a thread.

While the writing itself is fantastic, I fear people will take the wrong lesson from this. I think the key is this part:

According to the law of the wild web, the spoils go to those with fewest fucks to give.

The problem with Milo or Trump isn't really themselves, but the culture that got them to where they are. Part of this culture is racism, misoginy and so on, but a big part is simply this trend we have of rewarding sociopaths. And we do this because we, ourselves, are not sociopaths.

I have no answers, the world is fucked, but I am getting increasingly tired of being stuck in this empty game of who is the better at shutting up other people.

 

[aeolist]

and the abuse doesn't result in people leaving twitter?

this is an argument that doesn't go far with the kind of people who run twitter because it does not jive with their personal experiences

 

[Gattsu25]

Not surprised tbh.

Yeah, that was the least surprising revelation ever.

 

[Tuffty]

I assume the comment was made from a free speech/anti-censorship angle. Don't think Notch is a gamergater/MRA/Milo fan.

I find it hilarious seeing people die on a hill for this piece of shit being banned from a privately owned website because he broke the rules.

Same with these kind of people who fight for something like DOAX3 not being released in the West as some kind of censorship. You'll find that the two groups are pretty well linked together.

 

[diaspora]

and the abuse doesn't result in people leaving twitter?

No, not in the same tangible sense. Banning people is literally permanently removing them from the platform, whether or not people leave from abuse is a less concrete thing.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Double standards? Empathy? Empathy for Milo?

LMAO whatever you say dumbass.

Don't you know: The racist White dude is the real victim!

 

[Darryl M R]

It doesn't moderate threats, or racial abuse. Moderating their platform would result in the removal of people from the platform viewing ads.

Actual conservatives aren't worried about being banned from Twitter, it's not like Rick Wilson is shaking in his boots because he isn't openly attacking people online with or without coded racial or sexist nonsense.

Twitter does moderate its users and posts and depends on the report function from other users as well.

And wouldn't the abuse remove other people? So either way people are leaving and Twitter is not getting that extra page click/view.

enabling abuse is pretty clear, it's one of the primary use cases for a lot of people (milo). they're incentivized to maximize tweet impressions and interactions between users because it gives them more data for ads, and if they gave users better tools to curate their experience on the site it would go directly against that. that's not even mentioning how much engineering time (money) it would take to create those tools in the first place.

it's not hard. i'm not saying they're malicious, i'm saying that an unrestricted social media platform is fundamentally susceptible to this problem and they're doing everything they can to avoid dealing with it.

How is your experience on Twitter not already curated? It depends on who you follow. I do not see Milo supporters or alt-right individuals because I don't follow them. I'm confused what more Twitter can do on this front.

 

[diaspora]

Twitter does moderate its users and posts and depends on the report function from other users as well.

And wouldn't the abuse remove other people? So either way people are leaving and Twitter is not getting that extra page click/view.

You're factually wrong here, there are demonstrated instances where people report literal threats and are told by Twitter that it's not abuse so they won't do anything. And banning people is Twitter tangibly removing people from the platform versus someone who may or may not leave for an indeterminate length of time.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

and the abuse doesn't result in people leaving twitter?

Well that's just it, isn't it? Obviously someone at Twitter is starting to realize that if they enable harassment and abuse that runs off celebrities (which draw tons of users to follow them), then they might suffer. It sucks that they obviously give very few fucks about the average person, but if that's what it takes for them to realize that allowing largely unmoderated access to their users by all other users isn't working well, then so be it.

Twitter can and should be an amazing tool and frankly, fun. But until they find a way to make the people who misuse and abuse it stop, it's never going to be the environment that it could be.

 

[Valhelm]

Wait, Palmer Luckey is down with alt right clowns? Is this confirmed by Luckey?

I'm gonna guess yes

 

[PopeReal]

I am socially liberal. I think we still have a ways to go in providing every person a fair opportunity without their race or gender holding them down. I think it's bullshit that these people are more likely to get trolled and harassed. I'm probably more pro-free-speech than most on GAF, but Twitter is a private platform that gets to set their own rules, and by my estimation there was plenty of evidence Milo had broken Twitter's weak ToS a long time ago, so I'm surprised it took them this long.

If you're going to hold the moral high ground, though, the onus is on you not to be the hypocrite. If you want to stop abuse, the onus is on you to make sure you're not participating in the same behavior that's the problem. "Well the right is doing it more! The right is doing it worse!" may be entirely true, but its a morally bankrupt excuse. I'd be pissed as hell if some commentator started calling out feminist activists women who just couldn't get laid and needed a dick to set them straight, and the Medium article is the moral equivalent of it.

I agree with what you are saying about abuse and other dumb social media behavior. Too many witch hunts gone wrong, etc.

But as far as the article goes, I will have to read it again. I just skimmed through it the first time.

 

[Darryl M R]

You're factually wrong here, there are demonstrated instances where people report literal threats and are told by Twitter that it's not abuse so they won't do anything.

Moderating is not just banning and removing posts.

 

[Sblargh]

I agree with the idea of what you're saying but what specifically in that medium article does that? It's mostly one person's recounting of their impressions and interactions with specific individuals. The only thing that could be taken as a ad hominem for an entire group is "The news draws cheers from the assembled Gamergate goons whose masculinity is so fragile that they believe the new Ghostbusters film to be an active identity threat" which is hardly a scathing insult.

Well, it is a scathing insult because their masculinity is so fragile that they believe that this is an insult, but that's a bit of the point.
They are fragile, broken, sad, helpless people, just like we are, but we usually manage to find communities that embraces us despite our flaws and who are patient with us because, say, me being depressed and thinking I'm the worst piece of shit academic in the whole planet is not threatening. If I were to act out in more outward-destructive way instead of my good old fashioned self-destructivesness, people would, rightly so, out of justified fear, push me way.
I would be just another bullet of weaponized insensitivity.
That's tough, how do you invite someone into your house that you know will try to enter into your bedroom and kill you at night? At the same time, how do you fix this person by leaving them abandoned on the street? Especially when there is this very justified sense that it is not "your job" to teach some angry kid some manners?
It's all fucked up.

 

[sasliquid]

I did not know this about Palmer Luckey

Well one more reason not to by a rift

 

[diaspora]

Moderating is not just banning and removing posts.

Moderating their platform requires they do just that.

 

[Darryl M R]

Moderating their platform requires they do just that.

And they do. But it does not just include the action of just banning and removing posts.

They have a history of banning certain individuals, and they have shown to look into user reports. Sounds like moderating.

Are you trying to say that they do not do enough or that their moderation is bias?

 

[MrHoot]

vita means mischief

Don't you dare bring vita into this ! Vita is PURE

 

[aeolist]

How is your experience on Twitter not already curated? It depends on who you follow. I do not see Milo supporters or alt-right individuals because I don't follow them. I'm confused what more Twitter can do on this front.

they could allow people to auto-block accounts with less than a specified number of followers or accounts that follow another account they've blocked or any tweets with specified keywords

they could actually ban people who send death threats instead of taking weeks to reply to abuse reports with a non-statement saying those tweets don't violate their terms of use (this does happen, a lot)

they could try to algorithmically determine when someone is being brigaded and slow down the rate of tweets that others are allowed to send them

this is all just off the top of my head, lots of unfortunate souls who have had to endure a lot of shit on the platform have given it a great deal more thought than I have

 

[diaspora]

And they do. But it does not just include the action of just banning and removing posts.

They have a history of banning certain individuals, and they have shown to look into user reports. Sounds like moderating.

Are you trying to say that they do not do enough or that their moderation is bias?

I'm saying they don't have a history of moderating threats or harassment, and I'm right, they don't.

Like the best thing anyone can say about them is they're only half-assing it, not whole-assing it.

 

[aeolist]

And they do. But it does not just include the action of just banning and removing posts.

They have a history of banning certain individuals, and they have shown to look into user reports. Sounds like moderating.

Are you trying to say that they do not do enough or that their moderation is bias?

i have personally seen any number of people (mostly women) who have endured torrents of actual threats on their accounts post evidence that twitter support refuses to ban their abusers. this is not an isolated few incidents, @support is extremely reluctant to ban anyone unless it's a high-profile case like this one.

 

[Darryl M R]

1. they could allow people to auto-block accounts with less than a specified number of followers or accounts that follow another account they've blocked or any tweets with specified keywords
   
2. they could actually ban people who send death threats instead of taking weeks to reply to abuse reports with a non-statement saying those tweets don't violate their terms of use (this does happen, a lot)
   
3. they could try to algorithmically determine when someone is being brigaded and slow down the rate of tweets that others are allowed to send them
   
4. this is all just off the top of my head, lots of unfortunate souls who have had to endure a lot of shit on the platform have given it a great deal more thought than I have

1. Or users can make their account private? How would this be different than that. Just because I follow @FLOTUS and she is blocked by, let's say, Trump--I shouldn't be allowed to follow him?
   
2. Is there a known number of how many reports Twitter receives a day. I would argue a lot and that this process of handling abuse reports is being looked into constantly; similarly to how it took FB to become better in this effort.
   
3. This doesn't make sense. So if @POTUS tweets something and people want to give their response (a lot will and a lot will be positive) people won't be able to?
   
4. Fair, I know this is on the top of your head
   

i have personally seen any number of people (mostly women) who have endured torrents of actual threats on their accounts post evidence that twitter support refuses to ban their abusers. this is not an isolated few incidents, @support is extremely reluctant to ban anyone unless it's a high-profile case like this one.

I'm not arguing that it doesn't happen A LOT, I repeat: A LOT, of women.

Twitter doesn't do enough and I'm not arguing that they do. What I think is important is to understand that it is better to allow them to roll out a comprehensive effort to address this than to rush this out because of Milo and other "high profile" accounts. Yes they will get noticed easier and faster because they bring crowds with them.

 

[ClosingADoor]

How is your experience on Twitter not already curated? It depends on who you follow. I do not see Milo supporters or alt-right individuals because I don't follow them. I'm confused what more Twitter can do on this front.

The thing about Twitter is that it allows conversation with people you don't follow also. They mention you, you get to see that. That is actually one of the major reasons Twitter is popular, since suddenly you can have your favorite movie star seeing your message and respond.

So when someone with 300.000 followers sends his racist friends after you, they will continue spamming disgusting things your way and you will notice and see that.

It would be pretty easy to prevent those things. For example, if your account is reported too much within a set period, until a Twitter manager looks at it, people don't see your mentions showing up. Couple this with a trust system and it can be pretty effective I think.

When someone gets mentioned a lot suddenly, hide those when they include certain words.

If someone gets a death threat, actually take measures. Ban the account. Prevent new accounts from sending mentions for a day or two to people with irregular activity.

Twitter has a ton of data and the capability to use it. Yet they won't for these cases and that is strange.

 

[MHWilliams]

And they do. But it does not just include the action of just banning and removing posts.

They have a history of banning certain individuals, and they have shown to look into user reports. Sounds like moderating.

Are you trying to say that they do not do enough or that their moderation is bias?

Twitter itself has said it does not enough. So there is your answer.

 

[BrokenFiction]

Leslie Jones was on Seth Meyers last night - she mentioned that having met Jack, she got Milo banned, plus a lot of his followers too? I hadn't heard about the latter.

 

[aeolist]

1. Or users can make their account private? How would this be different than that. Just because I follow @FLOTUS and she is blocked by, let's say, Trump--I shouldn't be allowed to follow him?
   
2. Is there a known number of how many reports Twitter receives a day. I would argue a lot and that this process of handling abuse reports is being looked into constantly; similarly to how it took FB to become better in this effort.
   
3. This doesn't make sense. So if @POTUS tweets something and people want to give their response (a lot will and a lot will be positive) people won't be able to?
   
   

.

your points 2 and 3 are not really a response, and "make your account private" is not an option for people who need a twitter account for their professional life (which again is a lot of people these days). making your account private is a nuclear option, there needs to be several steps between total openness and total privacy.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

they could allow people to auto-block accounts with less than a specified number of followers or accounts that follow another account they've blocked or any tweets with specified keywords

they could actually ban people who send death threats instead of taking weeks to reply to abuse reports with a non-statement saying those tweets don't violate their terms of use (this does happen, a lot)

they could try to algorithmically determine when someone is being brigaded and slow down the rate of tweets that others are allowed to send them

this is all just off the top of my head, lots of unfortunate souls who have had to endure a lot of shit on the platform have given it a great deal more thought than I have

An important note is that Twitter has a lot of these functions.

They just won't give it to most users, only accounts that are verified. So if you're someone who gets harassed a lot but don't have a requisite number of followers? Get fucked. They're not going to give you their already-made and easily deployable tools to deal with it.

 

[aeolist]

I'm not arguing that it doesn't happen A LOT, I repeat: A LOT, of women.

Twitter doesn't do enough and I'm not arguing that they do. What I think is important is to understand that it is better to allow them to roll out a comprehensive effort to address this than to rush this out because of Milo and other "high profile" accounts. Yes they will get noticed easier and faster because they bring crowds with them.

"rush this out"? this stuff has been going on for years, and honestly they should have been working on technical platform-wide solutions since before they first launched. there is no excuse for them.

 

[collige]

Twitter does moderate its users and posts and depends on the report function from other users as well.

And wouldn't the abuse remove other people? So either way people are leaving and Twitter is not getting that extra page click/view.

The issue with relying on reports and moderator bans is that they can only happen after the abuse. Twitter needs to implemented a content-based mention filter the same way emails have spam filters.
The solution needs to be automated and it need to lessen the harm of potential abusers proactively rather than reactive.

 

[Darryl M R]

Twitter itself has said it does not enough. So there is your answer.

And I agree, but to say that they do not do anything is false. I would want Twitter to roll out an effort that is comprehensive to address this and have other social media website join them in this effort.

If Twitter just says "screw it we are banning EVERYONE that does X without context" then "movements" like alt-right will attack it and say they are just blindly smothering voices. It should be automated and right now those that harass others online are just shouting "look at Twitter banning all of us for no reason. They are caving to liberal media." And that is stupid to even allow them to get on other platforms and spew that nonsense.

Twitter acknowledge they need to do more and I'm looking forward to them following up with that statement (I believe they made it last week). I think a reasonable time frame would be 3 months to see what rolls out

 

[D4Danger]

And they do. But it does not just include the action of just banning and removing posts.

They have a history of banning certain individuals, and they have shown to look into user reports. Sounds like moderating.

Are you trying to say that they do not do enough or that their moderation is bias?

I guarantee nobody looks at the reports. The few times I've seen people complain they just get back a robot message and nothing happens.

The only time they ban people is when something gains enough mainstream attention outside of the echo chamber.

 

[Wrestlemania]

I just had a look through Palmer Luckey's favourited tweets. Oh boy.
The Wiki Leaks tweets, Trump, pro-Brexit, some weird stuff about Michelle Obama's speech writer not being black. Gross.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I think I was happier before knowing most of the nice, personable personalities in the games industry were alt-right loons.

 

[The Technomancer]

I think I was happier before knowing most of the nice, personable personalities in the games industry were alt-right loons.

Yeah the Notch thing was such a fucking curveball. I felt like I hadn't heard from him and then suddenly one day...garbage

 

[Mung]

Good. Long overdue too.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

And I agree, but to say that they do not do anything is false. I would want Twitter to roll out an effort that is comprehensive to address this and have other social media website join them in this effort.

If Twitter just says "screw it we are banning EVERYONE that does X without context" then "movements" like alt-right will attack it and say they are just blindly smothering voices. It should be automated and right now those that harass others online are just shouting "look at Twitter banning all of us for no reason. They are caving to liberal media." And that is stupid to even allow them to get on other platforms and spew that nonsense.

Twitter acknowledge they need to do more and I'm looking forward to them following up with that statement (I believe they made it last week). I think a reasonable time frame would be 3 months to see what rolls out

There's basically two major things Twitter needs: better moderation of its users and their behavior, and better tools for users to block/mute/etc the tweets/accounts that they don't want to see (whether it's due to harassment or something as simple not wanting it to pop up in their feed).

 

[Par Score]

I just had a look through Palmer Luckey's favourited tweets. Oh boy.
The Wiki Leaks tweets, Trump, pro-Brexit, some weird stuff about Michelle Obama's speech writer not being black. Gross.

Fucking hell.

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, the whole techno-libertarian thing and all. But still. Fuck.

 

[mclem]

I think I was happier before knowing most of the nice, personable personalities in the games industry were alt-right loons.

We've still got Tim Schafer.

 

[jusufin]

I just had a look through Palmer Luckey's favourited tweets. Oh boy.
The Wiki Leaks tweets, Trump, pro-Brexit, some weird stuff about Michelle Obama's speech writer not being black. Gross.

i've made a huge mistake supporting the rift.

 

[Risette]

Fucking hell.

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, the whole techno-libertarian thing and all. But still. Fuck.

Yeah, I've had a weird feeling about him for a while. But I'm sad it wasn't just a feeling now.

Why can't big name gaming people not be... bad. Damn.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

and better tools for users to block/mute/etc the tweets/accounts that they don't want to see (whether it's due to harassment or something as simple not wanting it to pop up in their feed).

And again, the biggest tragedy is that they have this. It is built into the twitter API. You just can't use it unless you're verified.

That makes me angrier than them not having it at all. I have a modest number of followers, but I get an inordinate number of death threats, so I will simply never have the means to deal with it. Meanwhile, game journalists literally down the street from me can just prevent replies from accounts below a certain age if they want. I can, theoretically, literally stand next to someone while some fuckbird named NeoGAFFuckYou tweets us both and the verified person will never have to see it and it will be all up in my mentions.

It's one thing for them to plead ignorance or a lack of capability, it's a complete other thing for them to Rorshach it.

 

[Nabs]

I just had a look through Palmer Luckey's favourited tweets. Oh boy.
The Wiki Leaks tweets, Drumpf, pro-Brexit, some weird stuff about Michelle Obama's speech writer not being black. Gross.

Yuck.

 

[FlyinJ]

I just had a look through Palmer Luckey's favourited tweets. Oh boy.
The Wiki Leaks tweets, Trump, pro-Brexit, some weird stuff about Michelle Obama's speech writer not being black. Gross.

Pretty sure he's a GamerGater as well.

 

[FloweryMarston]

i can't understand how people are defending this guy.

 

[HStallion]

i can't understand how people are defending this guy.

Assholes like other assholes.

 

[Palette Swap]

It's embarrassing for them to see wikileaks go out of their to defend harassment by throwing around words they apparently don't understand like feudalism.

I guess these idiots are fine with hate and harassment.

 

[Wrestlemania]

Pretty sure he's a GamerGater as well.

Given there are several favourited Mike Cernovich tweets, seems pretty certain.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

Fucking hell.

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, the whole techno-libertarian thing and all. But still. Fuck.

You just gotta love it when people who are dependent on the Internet, one of the largest undertakings of humanity as a collective group and something that was and still is totally dependent on government funding, international standards, distributed maintenance, etc., call themselves libertarians. It's just so fucking funny.