131–140 of 155 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If "engage" means "HA HA U SUK TRUMP UR AZZ MAKE ME A SANDWICH" then maybe Twitter isn't a good place for them.
What if engage means "I want to blow the whistle on something, can you get me in touch with a journalist?" for 0.01% of blocked messages and "u suk vote yrump" for the rest?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Metafilter? > What's the difference between 10 people telling you to kill yourself and just 1, because the other 9 got blocked? Is that not still an unacceptable level of harassment? "We can do something, but it won't be completely effective, so we shouldn't do anything." What's the use in vaccination? After all, it doesn't completely eliminate disease. Unless used very consistently for a lifetime.
>"We can do something, but it won't be completely effective, so we shouldn't do anything." Nice straw man. Again, where did I say that twitter shouldn't do anything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that you're not forced to be on Twitter means that victims can leave, but it also means that bullies can be banned. Why prefer the first option?
I'm not preferring either option. Of course they can be banned. But they will come back. They always do. Why subject yourself to that continuous cycle of stress?
Trying to signup and use Twitter using Tor is practically impossible.
I understand the spam problem on Twitter is out of control,but I wish there was a way to use it anonymously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but I definitely have -- it's unbelievably annoying to deal with. I had tweeted something pretty innocuous to a journalist after the election. I wasn't screaming about an illegitimate president or anything of the sort, it was something like, "Maybe we should look at adding more members of congress, it would smooth out the electoral college and make for better representation." Several months later, some random…
>Twitter was basically unusable for a week afterwards. Can you imagine that shit all the time? I can't, because in such a situation I would just delete my account. Spending your time responding to or blocking and reporting all of them would be maddening, for sure, but that is what gives them their "power". It's easier to click only one or two buttons and just be done with it all. Let them have their little victory. D…
This particular issue seems ripe for a technological fix from Twitter. It should be possible to tweak your privacy settings in such a way that you can turn down noise and only focus on the tweets you are interested in. Maybe it's just my naivete as a non-user, but it seems like adding a couple of settings would help you weather such a storm:
- allow tweets only from people you follow
- allow tweets only from people you've already tweeted at
- temp-block all non-followed accounts that tweeted you in the last X hours
I think asking Twitter to fix the much larger problem of "eliminating assholes from the Internet" is counterproductive. Twitter's inherent design is flawed as it is essentially a single loud public forum, but they can at least provide you tools to handle the worst cases of spam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I relate to this 100%. I'm a lifelong Democrat, but in the last 2 years the culture has changed so drastically, I am being pushed to the center. I'm not alone in this, and it's bad for democrats. They don't realize it just yet. The over use of "Bigot", "Racist", "Nazi", etc completely devalue the words. They take away their power. 10 years ago nobody wanted to be called a Nazi but now people laugh it off. That's dang…
> When Suzy soccer mom says she wants some stricter vetting for refugees I don't disagree with most of your post--but in the land of the real, it is very difficult to say that vetting for refugees in the United States is not already an intensely strict process. The people asserting it's not are self-described nationalists who wish to stop immigration...or are sourcing what they're saying from them. That's where the m…
Agreed.
> The people asserting it's not are self-described nationalists who wish to stop immigration...or are sourcing what they're saying from them.
Here I disagree. A big chunk of it is people who think that nothing bad should ever happen, and if any refugee ever does anything bad, that proves that refugees are not adequately vetted, and we have to do something. They may then listen to the self-described nationalists, but that's not where they start.
And it seems to me that writing off all the people who disagree with you is not a winning strategy. (A whining strategy, perhaps, but that's not the same thing...)
You're going to have to persuade them, or you're going to have to live with them (and their votes). And you don't like the consequences of their votes.
> Because we are in a real bad place and the literal fascists are actually at the gates. And in the White House.
Yup. At least as advisors. (I'm not willing to place Trump himself in that literal category, at least not yet.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When Suzy soccer mom says she wants some stricter vetting for refugees I don't disagree with most of your post--but in the land of the real, it is very difficult to say that vetting for refugees in the United States is not already an intensely strict process. The people asserting it's not are self-described nationalists who wish to stop immigration...or are sourcing what they're saying from them. That's where the m…
> I don't disagree with most of your post--but in the land of the real, it is very difficult to say that vetting for refugees in the United States is not already an intensely strict process. Agreed. > The people asserting it's not are self-described nationalists who wish to stop immigration...or are sourcing what they're saying from them. Here I disagree. A big chunk of it is people who think that nothing bad should…
Those people may exist. I don't think, if that's their base axiom, they are practically (in a world where we have scarcity of time and effort) reachable. Convincing somebody to change their axioms is...well...not a particularly good investment of time.
> And it seems to me that writing off all the people who disagree with you is not a winning strategy.
This is pretty much what Republicans have been doing for a very long time, and doing pretty well at the levels that matter (i.e., state legislatures and Congress). They have not tacked to the middle, they have not tried to drum up moderate voters. They've kept their people and they have whipped them into a frenzy to vote to the point where gun-to-head obstinacy (the debt ceiling comes to mind) is a positive that rewards them even when moderates are aghast.
Turnout fights aren't won from the middle. You can have the occasional figure who appeals to the middle--Obama, I think, is one such figure--but I don't think that is replicable at scale. And the problem is at scale. There really are more of us than there are of them; ours just don't get out and vote. (And there are efforts by the party in power to make that continue.)
> At least as advisors.
To be clear, I agree. (I don't think Trump has a political position. I know Bannon and Miller do.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That got me banned a couple of weeks ago. I wrote an application that recommended an event to the user once he\she would tweet "I am bored". I made the mistake by giving providing a fall back once the location could not be determined. This lead to ~40 tweets with identical texts. Twitter quickly pulled out the banhammer. Not to spam, but here is a write-up if there is an interest in what and how it happened: https://…
Any chance of sharing/providing the source code of the listener bot that auto responds?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't disagree with most of your post--but in the land of the real, it is very difficult to say that vetting for refugees in the United States is not already an intensely strict process. Agreed. > The people asserting it's not are self-described nationalists who wish to stop immigration...or are sourcing what they're saying from them. Here I disagree. A big chunk of it is people who think that nothing bad should…
> A big chunk of it is people who think that nothing bad should ever happen Those people may exist. I don't think, if that's their base axiom, they are practically (in a world where we have scarcity of time and effort) reachable. Convincing somebody to change their axioms is...well...not a particularly good investment of time. > And it seems to me that writing off all the people who disagree with you is not a winning…
On reflection, I may have to agree with you here. It's an emotional axiom, not a rational one, and so you can't fix it by rational argument. (You might be able to fix it by emotional argument, but I'm not sure even that would work, nor do I know how to go about trying.)
> This is pretty much what Republicans have been doing for a very long time, and doing pretty well...
But it seems to me that the Democrats (or at least the left wing of the party) has been doing the same. The message has been, if you don't agree with us, you're a racist, sexist bigot, and you should just shut up and crawl in a hole (or die). And it turned out that (pick one): The Republican base was bigger, or the Democrats alienated more people, or the Republicans alienated them less.
> There really are more of us than there are of them; ours just don't get out and vote.
If by "ours" you mean Democrats (as opposed to centrists), then I'd say that Hillary was a very uninspiring candidate. Also, when the DNC chose to hinder Bernie, it turned off a lot of Democratic voters.
> I don't think Trump has a political position.
I don't, either. I hope that's good news - if Bannon and Miller prove to be political albatrosses, Trump is somewhat likely to jettison them. (The bad news is that Trump, not having positions of his own, is more susceptible to the positions of those around him.)
What I don't understand: Why doesn't twitter take moderation seriously? On reddit it's left up to the moderators of each sub. It does very. But having a very "up to interpretation" but yet not politically biased set of rules and enforcement is great. We don't have a code of conduct or any of the nonsense. Someone violates it and we catch it, they're gone. (Also that's subjective to time based on how many times we cau…