31–40 of 155 posts
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?
So because I see no reason to upload a photo my 7 year old twitter account is now considered second rate whereas the bot account created last week is not because it was updated to upload a random profile image. Seems a bit like trying to claim they are doing something while nothing important gets done.
Interested to see how penalizing accounts for 'repeatedly tweeting at non-followers' is going to work when most of what I see on the platform is people messaging celebs who don't follow them back
Yea thats pretty much all twitter is. I think of all the people tweeting politicians etc.
Dammit. I thought I could now remove any tweet that had the word 'trump' in it[^2], which meant I could refollow a bunch of people and make twitter much more useful, but it seems that it only works for notifications in which you are mentioned[1], which means the feature is pretty pointless, at least for most people. [1]: https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175032 [^2]: this is a complaint I have with almost any so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't just about blocking those that haven't uploaded avatars. Egg users stick out because they have other properties such as New account follows a lot quickly, but doesn't have followers New account that with time never ever tweets, only retweets and follows New account that starts and then immediately follows just a single person ever. All of those are suspicious
>New account follows a lot quickly, but doesn't have followers >New account that with time never ever tweets, only retweets and follows Both of these are also the behavior of people who use Twitter simply as a content stream. They pretty accurately describe how I use Twitter.
I get that Twitter is focusing on harassment in order to make people feel safe when using their platform, but I hope the solution will also effect this other aspect of bot use/account abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having concerted bombs of right-wing harassment drop on one's head for having the temerity to do something like "be a woman with political opinions" is not part of being an adult. And that's the reality of Twitter right now. This isn't nearly enough; actually showing the trackable legions of smurf-account harassers the door might be beyond Twitter's meager capabilities at the moment (after all, they only have a small…
The question then becomes is the necessity of having a twitter account "part of being an adult"? I'm not saying the harassment is right, mind you, and certainly doxxing and real physical threats should be treated as the criminal acts that they are, but I don't think it's something that can ever really be remedied unless the victim removes themselves from the situation. As I see it there is a sort of give and take rel…
Today, the egg, tomorrow, unverified account names. Are they going full Facebook? And filtering out keywords in messages... I suppose that's ok, and certainly their prerogative, but talk about creating more social bubbles. As much as I disagree with the random twits on the site, it reminds me that not everyone is a left-leaning political hobbyist. Hearing things you don't necessarily like is part of being an adult.
It doesn't matter what side they are on, all that gets shared on twitter that would qualify as political is absolutely nauseating waving that sides flag and telling the world how stupid the other side is.
It would be better if it was blocked, preferably by default.
Interested to see how penalizing accounts for 'repeatedly tweeting at non-followers' is going to work when most of what I see on the platform is people messaging celebs who don't follow them back
If you tweet 100s of times the same text at accounts that don't follow you, you're a bot.