Support NeoGAF

[Lowmelody]

All this algorithm scapegoating.

It's like, you can't blame Twitter because the algorithms are always running, except when Nazi's victimize folks then you can't blame Twitter because the algorithms happen to miss it every single time. Then Twitter SILL gets the benefit of the doubt because the algorithms work in mysterious ways and that's that.

Sounds like another fucking sink hole of accountability and excuses that has victimized women for millennia.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Do we really think someone at twitter put a plan in place to limit her acces to her account for 12 hours in order to make this all blow over?

Really?

A dumb automated script causing the ban makes way more sense.

So if I tweet “Steve is starting his own business call him on his personal cell @ xxx-xxx-xxxx for more details!” I’m going to be banned?

 

[Ratrat]

Do we really think someone at twitter put a plan in place to limit her acces to her account for 12 hours in order to make this all blow over?

Really?

A dumb automated script causing the ban makes way more sense.

Probably.
Didnt a lot of people freak out when feminist frequency was suspended on youtube and it turned out to be nothing.

Otherwise this doesnt make sense.

 

[JonathanEx]

as someone with direct experience with this kind of thing, I know it's not ideal to have to wait so long for a response but things with this level of scrutiny usually require multiple levels of revision and possibly even involvement with the legal team before giving an official reply. and this was outside of normal working hours if I'm not wrong.

Very true - and the '12 hour ban / delete it please' is something that is demonstrably normal process that the account was put through, you can find countless other examples.

But also of note - Twitter previously has said they don't comment on individual accounts. So this is some form of progress - but still not good at all for their perception. Especially when you'll find countless examples of them taking less action on worse things. But hey that's Twitter for you.

 

[Glass Shark]

.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

Would not be shocked if bots flooded twitter support over that tweet.

 

[Surfinn]

But if I'm understanding this correctly, she was suspended because she posted a private number, not because she posted too many times. Right?

Either way it looks weird and kinda sketchy

 

[Volimar]

So if I tweet “Steve is starting his own business call him on his personal cell @ xxx-xxx-xxxx for more details!” I’m going to be banned?

It's probably prompted by a complaint.

 

[sflufan]

And Twitter executives/shareholders probably wonder why no reputable buyer goes beyond "expressing interest" in doing so.

 

[GreyWind]

Do we really think someone at twitter put a plan in place to limit her acces to her account for 12 hours in order to make this all blow over?

Really?

A dumb automated script causing the ban makes way more sense.

If that's the case how come other people who have done the same thing don't get banned?

 

[KHarvey16]

So if I tweet “Steve is starting his own business call him on his personal cell @ xxx-xxx-xxxx for more details!” I’m going to be banned?

Maybe? I’m not sure how it works. The alternative, a concerted effort to silence her by...limiting access for 12 hours(?), is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Red]

Whose number was posted and in what context?

 

[Surfinn]

Whose number was posted and in what context?

Seems like this is something that couldn't be handled by a bot. If what others are saying is true and you can just post random numbers, seems like someone would have to actually verify the number and the context and make a suspension that way

 

[Lowmelody]

Maybe? I’m not sure how it works. The alternative, a concerted effort to silence her by...limiting access for 12 hours(?), is pretty ridiculous.

It's a warning, a chilling effect.

 

[KHarvey16]

Twitter does not automatically suspend accounts of posting a phone number. Try it yourself. Something else happened.

If that's the case how come other people who have made the same thing don't get banned?

How does it work? When was it implemented? We haven’t even seen the tweet as far as I know.

 

[Shadow Puppetry]

No explanation. I remember one of my accounts got suspended because I told Trump to do his job and apparently that's abuse material.

 

[CookTrain]

So if I tweet “Steve is starting his own business call him on his personal cell @ xxx-xxx-xxxx for more details!” I’m going to be banned?

Just search for "Call me on" on Twitter and you'll see how diligent and accurate their "automated" system isn't.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Maybe? I’m not sure how it works. The alternative, a concerted effort to silence her by...limiting access for 12 hours(?), is pretty ridiculous.

I mean I have no clue either. Seems like Twitter loves to hide behind a selective enforcement of their policies.

 

[Raptomex]

Twitter does not automatically suspend accounts of posting a phone number. Try it yourself. Something else happened.

A personal phone number?

It's probably prompted by a complaint.

That's what I'm thinking if any of this is accurate.

 

[KHarvey16]

It's a warning, a chilling effect.

A warning that whatever you were saying will now be amplified to more people when we abuse our moderation policies? I certainly wouldn't consider that a chilling effect.

 

[Scuffed]

Maybe? I’m not sure how it works. The alternative, a concerted effort to silence her by...limiting access for 12 hours(?), is pretty ridiculous.

It's more of a chilling effect and it does work. Short bans will temper the person who was banned. It backfired here though.

 

[Glass Shark]

.

 

[JonathanEx]

How does it work? When was it implemented? We haven't even seen the tweet as far as I know.

If we take this at face value - my guess would be that she posted the tweet, someone reported it (probably to try and get the account taken down, the usual troll move). It then went in to Twitter's usual process, whoever slogs through thousands of reports got to it, they saw a phone number, hit it as a breach and it hit the usual action (request delete + timeout).


From previous stories about how social media moderation worked, it's not too unlikely that the person who did that was just going through their normal flow of checking reports and isn't in a position information or power wise to know that it might look bad on Twitter. The standard outsourcing-style moderation issues?

 

[Raptomex]

How would they know the difference? I’m saying Twitter does not automatically flag phone numbers and suspend accounts that post them. If someone posted a personal phone number and it got reported a bunch, then perhaps a real person stepped in and triggered the suspension. Or maybe it’s even automatic based on a tweet with a phone number getting a certain number of reports. But what I’m saying is it’s not automatic if you post a phone number at all.

What if it was a complaint?

 

[FlutterPuffs]

Do we really think someone at twitter put a plan in place to limit her acces to her account for 12 hours in order to make this all blow over?

Really?

A dumb automated script causing the ban makes way more sense.

It's not the first time this shit has happened, while vitrol filled twitter handles get away with more.

So yes, this is most likely the case.

 

[KHarvey16]

It's more of a chilling effect and it does work. Short bans will temper the person who was banned. It backfired here though.

Banning famous people from speaking on a huge platform has never ever worked and I can’t believe that someone tried and thought that would work is a more likely explanation than some poorly implemented automated script did something dumb. It doesn’t make sense.

 

[Lowmelody]

A warning that whatever you were saying will now be amplified to more people when we abuse our moderation policies? I certainly wouldn't consider that a chilling effect.

Victims will think twice about using Twitter as a platform to come out now. Everyone else just says "twitter being twitter, algorithms watcha gonna do?" and moves on but that does not remove the impact of banning a victim when abusers run rampant on the platform and the message that sends to other victims.

 

[Kin5290]

MSNBC reported this morning that it was an automatic suspension based on too many tweets in rapid succession. Could be corporate bullshit though.

Occam says shitty system over malicious bullshit, especially when the person in question is a high profile celebrity.

 

[Slayven]

It's not the first time this shit has happened, while vitrol filled twitter handles get away with more.

So yes, this is most likely the case.

Yeah, this shit doesn't happen in a vacuum. Hell we got evidence of twitter fuckery of just 2 weeks ago with Alex Jones. Twitter benefit of the doubt is way passed gone

 

[KHarvey16]

Victims will think twice about using Twitter as a platform to come out now. Everyone else just says "twitter being twitter, algorithms watcha gonna do?" and moves on but that does not remove the impact of banning a victim when abusers run rampant on the platform and the message that sends to other victims.

Oh c’mon. You honestly think twitter believes that silencing victims of sexual abuse is a good strategy going forward? That it’ll work and nothing bad will happen to them or their bottom line?

 

[Scuffed]

What if it was a complaint?

Oh it was a complaint alright. Big Wig - "Is there some technicality you can get her on to shut her down for a bit?"

 

[Glass Shark]

.

 

[Kickz]

Threats of rape? Meh.
Threats of murder? Meh.
Literally threatening WW3? Meh.
Expose sexual abuse? WHOA. Stop that!

Shows how much power HW has damn..

 

[Mindwipe]

A personal phone number?

Allegedly Lindsey Lohan's private cell.

That's what I'm thinking if any of this is accurate.

Yeah, I mean, I can imagine Lohan's people have a private line to Twitter's abuse centre and rang literally that minute tbh.

 

[Lowmelody]

Occam says shitty system over malicious bullshit, especially when the person in question is a high profile celebrity.

Twitter gave out two different excuses which makes them both bullshit. This is about protecting high profile male celebrities from women.

 

[KHarvey16]

Twitter gave out two different excuses which makes them both bullshit. This is about protecting high profile male celebrities from women.

They gave two reasons?

 

[Scuffed]

They gave two reasons?

Yes. Multiple tweets in succession was the first reason. Now it's a phone number. Unless NBC just made up the first reason and didn't get it straight from Twitter but that is doubtful.

 

[Lowmelody]

They gave two reasons?

Too many tweets in succession and the phone number shit.

Oh c’mon. You honestly think twitter believes that silencing victims of sexual abuse is a good strategy going forward? That it’ll work and nothing bad will happen to them or their bottom line?

Why would you think that Twitter or any Silicone Valley firm gives a flying fuck about victims? They are still men with shit to hide and people to cover for.

 

[KHarvey16]

Yes. Multiple tweets in succession was the first reason. Now it's a phone number. Unless NBC just made up the first reason and didn't get it straight from Twitter but that is doubtful.

Where does the article say they got it from?

 

[Raptomex]

Oh it was a complaint alright. Big Wig - "Is there some technicality you can get her on to shut her down for a bit?"

Allegedly Lindsey Lohan's private cell.



Yeah, I mean, I can imagine Lohan's people have a private line to Twitter's abuse centre and rang literally that minute tbh.

Ok then.

 

[Mivey]

If it is algorithmic based, it's remarkable how they managed to code it so that it incorporates sexist attitudes. Impressive engineering.
I mean, Microsoft can't even write a Twitter bot that doesn't turn full nazi in a minute, so handling such precise minutia, without blocking people left and right for nothing, but still handling this case in proper scumbag fashion. Remarkable programming.

 

[Mindwipe]

Too many tweets in succession and the phone number shit.

Too many tweets in succession was speculation by others. Twitter have only said one thing, which is the phone number thing.

Yes. Multiple tweets in succession was the first reason. Now it's a phone number. Unless NBC just made up the first reason and didn't get it straight from Twitter but that is doubtful.

It's extremely likely it was speculation, or from someone at Twitter who wasn't involved and simply guessed when asked off the record.

 

[stump sock]

Where does the article say they got it from?

probably some underpaid support person working the overnight shift before they got the official statement out

 

[Volimar]

Too many tweets in succession was speculation by others. Twitter have only said one thing, which is the phone number thing.

This AFAIK.

 

[Funyarinpa]

what the fucking hell

 

[Red]

What theory are we going with? That twitter is acting maliciously, aligned with misogynists and Nazis, or that they are a clueless bunch of dolts with no social awareness?

 

[Marvie_3]

Fuck off twitter

 

[SurrenderDorothy]

But many other notorious folk who are more worthy of a suspension can carry on tweeting.
Twitter's a mistake.

 

[Glass Shark]

.

 

[Ominym]

This is wrong. Like really, really wrong.