Twitter Working on Anti-Harassment Tool With Keyword Blocking Abilities

[cfedu]

In your Elliot case, he was harassing multiple people - he didn't tweet something and end up in an argument that offended someone. You don't have to threaten to harass and just because it's a first doesn't make it a ridiculous case. He made it his mission to destroy them but then tried to throw his hands up and obsolve himself of accountability because Internet but was actually held accountable.

That is not what the judge said, he was found not guilty. "An investigating officer later testified that he found that none of Elliott's messages were sexual in nature or threatened harm against any of the women" You claiming this is harassment just proves my point that everything that hurts your feels is harassment to people like you. Gregory Allan's entire point was that the people Doxing the person who made the punch a feminist game were just as bad as the person that made it.

The only people that made it a mission to destroy anyone were the rabid feminists who were doxxing people and then crying to the police with hurt feels. Nice try!!!

 

[0098386]

That is not what the judge said, he was found not guilty. "An investigating officer later testified that he found that none of Elliott's messages were sexual in nature or threatened harm against any of the women" You claiming this is harassment just proves my point that everything that hurts your feels is harassment to people like you. Gregory Allan's entire point was that the people Doxing the person who made the punch a feminist game were just as bad as the person that made it.

The only people that made it a mission to destroy anyone were the rabid feminists who were doxxing people and then crying to the police with hurt feels. Nice try!!!

Hmm, I'm a feminist much like all the folk I know IRL and my "friends" on social media. None of them, or myself, want anyone doxed. Was having this conversation with my partner in the car just this very morning, she told me there are some people who like to twist things around to make it seem that "all feminists support [insert something a feminist has done in their own name]".

I'm seeing that with you and your comments now. I generally keep out of online arguments so I'm quite new to all this.

However; I'm not going to paint all anti-feminists as "people who twist the words from their desired rivals". I will see you as that for sure, but not all anti-feminists. Why do you seek to do that? Does it make arguing easier? I see that a lot on biased news outlets, I tend to avoid them as they tend to be gross. But right now just dial it all back... why do you group the actions of individuals to a group? Has that ever benefited your online arguments? Does it make it easier for you? Is a way to simplify discussion to be less taxing on you?

I mean, gosh, I don't even consider "all republicans like Donald Trump" and I'm a fairly left-wing person. Because I gain nothing from that assumption. I dunno.

Do you see how that works?

 

[cfedu]

Hmm, I'm a feminist much like all the folk I know IRL and my "friends" on social media. None of them, or myself, want anyone doxed. Was having this conversation with my partner in the car just this very morning, she told me there are some people who like to twist things around to make it seem that "all feminists support [insert something a feminist has done in their own name]".

I'm seeing that with you and your comments now. I generally keep out of online arguments so I'm quite new to all this.

However; I'm not going to paint all anti-feminists as "people who twist the words from their desired rivals". I will see you as that for sure, but not all anti-feminists. Why do you seek to do that? Does it make arguing easier? I see that a lot on biased news outlets, I tend to avoid them as they tend to be gross. But right now just dial it all back... why do you group the actions of individuals to a group? Has that ever benefited your online arguments? Does it make it easier for you? Is a way to simplify discussion to be less taxing on you?

I mean, gosh, I don't even consider "all republicans like Donald Trump" and I'm a fairly left-wing person. Because I gain nothing from that assumption. I dunno.

Do you see how that works?

No, Not really.

The only people that made it a mission to destroy anyone were the rabid feminists who were doxxing people and then crying to the police with hurt feels.

If you took time to read the case in question, you would know that I'm talking about a self proclaimed feminist Stephanie Guthrie and her friends, I am talking about a very specific feminists in this case and NOT All feminists at no point did I say all feminists . I'm happy you are a feminist that does not like to doxx people, but you confirm to me that feminists have a reading comprehension problem and then attack peoples character based on a faulty analysis.

Was having this conversation with my partner in the car just this very morning, she told me there are some people who like to twist things around to make it seem that "all feminists support

I would take your partners advice and stop twisting things around, she sounds like a very smart person.

 

[Mascots]

That is not what the judge said, he was found not guilty. "An investigating officer later testified that he found that none of Elliott's messages were sexual in nature or threatened harm against any of the women" You claiming this is harassment just proves my point that everything that hurts your feels is harassment to people like you. Gregory Allan's entire point was that the people Doxing the person who made the punch a feminist game were just as bad as the person that made it.

The only people that made it a mission to destroy anyone were the rabid feminists who were doxxing people and then crying to the police with hurt feels. Nice try!!!

So his life is ruined and it cost him 100k? Or is it that he was found not guilty? Because you seem to be using it as ammo for whatever ideal you want to push when really they're conflicting and it shouldn't have even been brought up in the first case lol.

Edit: LOL Actually, the judge said: "There is no doubt that Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly were harassed by Gregory Alan Elliott over several months in 2012, either due to the volume or content of his tweets, but that alone does not meet the legal threshold for a conviction" - Ontario Court Judge Brent Knazan.

So basically, there was no reason for you to bring up this case as:
A: He harassed them
B: It wasn't criminal
C: Twitter has room to step in to deal with intermediate harassment or people will leave
D: This harassment has an affect on people and it's beyond the stupid Special Snowflake crap like conflicting opinions.

 

[thekev]

So basically, there was no reason for you to bring up this case as:
A: He harassed them
B: It wasn't criminal
C: Twitter should step in to deal with intermediate harassment or people will leave

If I could find some of their old tweets, I would link them. He was accused of harassing twitter trolls who frequently harassed others.

Hmm, I'm a feminist much like all the folk I know IRL and my "friends" on social media. None of them, or myself, want anyone doxed. Was having this conversation with my partner in the car just this very morning, she told me there are some people who like to twist things around to make it seem that "all feminists support [insert something a feminist has done in their own name]".

I'm seeing that with you and your comments now. I generally keep out of online arguments so I'm quite new to all this.

You and your friends may be exceptions or possibly the quiet majority. One survey suggests 18% of American women identify as feminists[1]. Their sampling sounds pseudorandom, but this is still an informal poll. If it's even remotely close, you could find a lot of vocal crazies over a small percentage. The reason I personally dislike feminism in general is that people with (generally) better reasoning still support the lunatics.

At a more general level, feminists frequently misrepresent statistics (sexual assault and gender pay gap) and assign feminist reasoning to them in place of actual research. Feminists refer to problems in India or Pakistan when they need to win an argument. The rest of the time they don't care. On the gender wage, they leave out all context, but they also ignore the disparity between minority women and White women. In all cases that I have personally come across, they refer to sexism or patriarchy as the cause. Its definition suggests it's a good thing, but it has too many bad practitioners, and the good ones still support the bad ones (because....feminism).

It shouldn't surprise you that natural allies break off into their own various movements and don't want to be associated with the feminists. Of course a lot of them attract ****** people as well.

[1] http://www.vox.com/2015/4/8/8372417/feminist-gender-equality-poll

 

[Mascots]

If I could find some of their old tweets, I would link them. He was accused of harassing twitter trolls who frequently harassed others.

So we are just affirming that harassment and abuse happens on Twitter, and now the oppositions response is:
Harrassing and trolling is a solution to harassing and trolling and Twitter shouldn't do anything because Special Snowflakes have the right to say whatever they want without accountability and everyone has to tolerate it and shouldn't even have tools to hide it.

Got it.

I wonder why people are leaving that platform 8)

 

[thekev]

So harassing and trolling is solution to harassing and trolling and Twitter shouldn't do anything.

Got it

Nooo.... sorry. I didn't mean to phrase it that way. That particular case irritates me, as the trial proceedings were actually quite punitive. The lack of conviction doesn't matter. In that case he was banned from twitter and couldn't even delete any of the tweets. Twitter has terrible cleanup on banned accounts, but this actually sounds like a decent solution.

 

[Mascots]

Nooo.... sorry. I didn't mean to phrase it that way. That particular case irritates me, as the trial proceedings were actually quite punitive. The lack of conviction doesn't matter. In that case he was banned from twitter and couldn't even delete any of the tweets. Twitter has terrible cleanup on banned accounts, but this actually sounds like a decent solution.

Okay - I edited my comment quite heavily since you originally quoted it so it may make more sense why I was throwing my arms up in rage - I find that case particularly bothersome as there's a lot of highly polarized information surrounding it that doesn't make sense. But undoubtedly one thing was confirmed: Harrassment and abuse is possible, and happens on Twitter.

It's beyond the tough skin argument for many circumstances - that is all I was initially attempting to say. Someone not agreeing with you, okay, I get it. But when you have a disagreement, and someone RTs that response to 300k followers with intent for harassment on a level that can't be easily avoided now, then feigns all responsibility after others actually do the dirty work in order to repeat the cycle – that is real crap and it leads to real life implications for everyone. Doxing is the next step, then trying to destroy someone's personal life... it happens in both sides quite frequently and it happens to everyday people as well as the celebrities that have been in recent media.

Twitter needs to do something about that, and maybe the first step is muting words that are often found in that stuff so a person doesn't have to sort through it just to interact with mentions

 

[thekev]

Okay - I edited my comment quite heavily since you originally quoted it so it may make more sense why I was throwing my arms up in rage - I find that case particularly bothersome as there's a lot of highly polarized information surrounding it that doesn't make sense. But undoubtedly one thing was confirmed: Harrassment and abuse is possible, and happens on Twitter.

You mentioned polarizing information. When I originally came across that case, a lot of information was still available online. Now it's no longer there, either archived, edited, or taken down. I didn't go into low level details, because I couldn't find many of the earlier sources. I agree that harassment is possible over Twitter, but the court system is a bad place to handle cases that do involve libel. The lack of legislation makes it difficult to deal with social media. Precursors such as message boards did not typically result in court cases, so the matter lacks established case law.

I don't think you'll ever see me support harassment, but it irritates me to see twitter trolls waste court time when someone trolls them. Most of what I saw looked more like back and forth trolling than actual harassment. It surprised me that they had enough to actually justify investigation.

It's beyond the tough skin argument for many circumstances - that is all I was initially attempting to say. Someone not agreeing with you, okay, I get it. But when you have a disagreement, and someone RTs that response to 300k followers with intent for harassment on a level that can't be easily avoided now, then feigns all responsibility after others actually do the dirty work in order to repeat the cycle – that is real crap and it leads to real life implications for everyone. Doxing is the next step, then trying to destroy someone's personal life... it happens in both sides quite frequently and it happens to everyday people as well as the celebrities that have been in recent media.


Twitter needs to do something about that, and maybe the first step is muting words that are often found in that stuff so a person doesn't have to sort through it just to interact with mentions

Muting words isn't a perfect strategy, but it's probably a reasonable one here. As I mentioned, it's not feasible to send each of these cases through the court system. It costs a lot of money, and it's much slower. If someone uses Twitter to incite mob rage on a particular person, muting that person resolves the matter in less time with a much lower cost.

 

[cfedu]

So his life is ruined and it cost him 100k? Or is it that he was found not guilty? Because you seem to be using it as ammo for whatever ideal you want to push when really they're conflicting and it shouldn't have even been brought up in the first case lol.

Edit: LOL Actually, the judge said: "There is no doubt that Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly were harassed by Gregory Alan Elliott over several months in 2012, either due to the volume or content of his tweets, but that alone does not meet the legal threshold for a conviction" - Ontario Court Judge Brent Knazan.

So basically, there was no reason for you to bring up this case as:
A: He harassed them
B: It wasn't criminal
C: Twitter has room to step in to deal with intermediate harassment or people will leave
D: This harassment has an affect on people and it's beyond the stupid Special Snowflake crap like conflicting opinions.

And Steph did the exact same to him, the only thing is he did not cry like a baby. They were is a political disagreement, and steph help spread rumours that he was a pedophile

Yet Guthrie and Reilly didn’t behave as though they were remotely frightened or intimidated: They convened a meeting of friends to discuss how Elliott should be publicly shamed; they bombarded their followers with furious tweets and retweets about him (including a grotesque suggestion from someone pretending she was a 13-year-old that he was a pedophile); they could and did dish it out.

Even though they knew this was not true, and never tried to correct it, well at least that is what she said in court.

In November 2012, a few weeks before Elliott was charged with criminal harassment, Guthrie and others started spreading misinformation that Elliott was a Pedophile. Guthrie testified that she knew rumours about Elliott propositioning an underage girl weren’t true, but neglected to tell Detective Banglid because “I wasn’t trying to harm him unduly, but I was not trying to help him.”

Stephanie and her supporters are disgusting human beings.

 

[Mascots]

Stephanie and her supporters are disgusting human beings.

Everyone was disgusting in this and therefore proves the point: Twitter should be the entity to step in and manage this. Or else people will leave. People are getting harassed on both sides.

 

[cfedu]

Everyone was disgusting in this and therefore proves the point:

And the feminist who was spreading rumours of pedophilia and doxing people got butt hurt and called the police.

Twitter should be the entity to step in and manage this. Or else people will leave. People are getting harassed on both sides.

I agree, I just don't think it will have the result that you are looking for.

 

[32828870]

It's political because regressive leftists like to censor any speech they do not agree with. Jack thinks this will help grow Twitter but IMO it will do the opposite, I closed my account when they banned Milo.

What is going on with the world? Leftists? Rightists? Over the past decade I've seen presumed adults refer to each other as "Lib-tards" or "Republicons". What happened to civil discourse? What happened to respect? Assuming someone's beliefs by labeling them with political rhetoric only serves to distance us further. What happened to basing decisions on the merits of each topic instead of towing party line rhetoric? We're so on edge and ready to fight that we don't even realize we've already lost the war. The political discord in the States is exactly what shouldn't be happening. The anonymity of the internet doesn't help, either. We all want the same things, we may disagree on how to get there but this isn't the way.

Read John Dean's "Broken Government", a brilliant non-partisan examination of what's happened to our sociopolitical landscape since the mid-20th century.

*Huh, I didn't know one of the terms used is blocked on Macrumors. It's not even bad language, I was just referencing it as an example of what has happened, which actually substantiates my point.

 

[cfedu]

What is going on with the world? Leftists? Rightists? Over the past decade I've seen presumed adults refer to each other as "Lib-tards" or "Republicons". What happened to civil discourse? What happened to respect? Assuming someone's beliefs by labeling them with political rhetoric only serves to distance us further. What happened to basing decisions on the merits of each topic instead of towing party line rhetoric? We're so on edge and ready to fight that we don't even realize we've already lost the war. The political discord in the States is exactly what shouldn't be happening. The anonymity of the internet doesn't help, either. We all want the same things, we may disagree on how to get there but this isn't the way.

Read John Dean's "Broken Government", a brilliant non-partisan examination of what's happened to our sociopolitical landscape since the mid-20th century.

*Huh, I didn't know one of the terms used is blocked on Macrumors. It's not even bad language, I was just referencing it as an example of what has happened, which actually substantiates my point.

Maybe you should read what I wrote again, not sure why you were triggered. I have not problems with liberals (which I am) and no problems with conservatives as long as they do not force religion onto me. Jack is a regressive leftist, he is not progressive. Not sure why you get triggered so easily, does me calling Trump a nutcase also offend you?

 

[WordsmithMR]

What exactly does his do? It doesn't punish the harassers. People can still see all of the comments. People will then start going back and forth arguing over these comments... This does nothing that most Twitter clients can do and that's muting mentions, but in this case just hiding it from their timeline instead of not notifying them. That's not exactly groundbreaking.
[doublepost=1472439930][/doublepost]And why is there a debate on where this post was posted rather than discussing the article. Is that really such a big deal? TBH, there was nothing political until the conservatists got defensive over topic placement. As usual blowing things up out of proportion and lashing out because... Well because of nothing that makes any sense.

 

[charlituna]

No one asked for this.

On the contrary, a lot of folks have asked for it. Or rather some kind of response from Twitter. There are folks posting rape and death threats and it seems to get no reply from Twitter. That's not really cool
[doublepost=1472509265][/doublepost]

Also, people don't know what "censorship" vs "right to free speech" means.

Free speech means you are legally allowed to say something. It doesn't mean private companies have to give you a platform for it, and it doesn't mean anyone has to hear you. Start a competing company that is more flame-friendly if you like—and don't expect anyone to be forced to join.

Yep. GOVERNMENT shall make no laws. Private forums can do whatever the heck they want.