On 02/13/2017 01:05 PM, jim bell wrote:



From: Razer <g2s@riseup.net>

On 02/12/2017 11:45 PM, jim bell wrote:
But I'm still waiting for a  definition of "harassment".  Do you have your own?

               Jim Bell

>What Juan and Zen do is a kind of a 'harassment' according to most moderators.. Adding unwanted, often entirely off-topic, inflammatory, ad >hom garbage to threads to attempt dissuading people from reading threads they want to suppress and targeting certain individuals with garbage >posts so when they post, the Harasser hopes everyone on the list *groans* because they know garbage will follow and wish the poster targeted >goes away...  Sort of like what you're doing here Jim. Querying me about it. Making it personal. Hoping a flame war results. 


I'll confess that I would find it hard to define "harassment", too.  
The problem is that people use the word to justify knocking people off of public communication systems (Twitter), as if the definition of "harassment" is clear.  I don't see it.

             Jim Bell


The way it seems to work is if you earn enough reports for whatever, twitter half-automagically rejects you with a snap review by someone who spends, if I recall correctly from a discussion of Facebook's auto-moderation, less than 30 seconds deciding whether the automagically created suspend sticks.

IF the suspended party contacts support they review it more thoroughly and may lift the suspension.

What *I* want to see is a system in place so if someone's repeatedly falsely reported and blocked, twitter or FB  goes after the people false reporting the innocent account

That's another way of leveling the playing field and would help keep sociopathic scumbuckets like Richard Spencer permanently gone... ....gone, To a streetcorner to rant with the nutcase xtians, where speech is free and they will finally find their true echochamber and cult following.. Ahahahahhhaa!

Rr