On 2/13/2017 3:29 PM, Razer wrote:

I would guess it's what their policy always was. If you think their policy is 'inconsistent' that's because it depends on who gets harassment complaints against them that are verifiable.

Some people have been suspended for seeking information about the man who sucker punched Spencer. On the other hand, leftists make death threats with no apparent consequences. You can use Twitter to organize physical attacks on "fascists", but not use Twitter to discuss people organizing physical attacks.

On 02/13/2017 01:53 AM, James A. Donald wrote:

On 2/13/2017 3:29 PM, Razer wrote:

...

I would guess it's what their policy always was. If you think their policy is 'inconsistent' that's because it depends on who gets harassment complaints against them that are verifiable.

Some people have been suspended for seeking information about the man who sucker punched Spencer.

On the other hand, leftists make death threats with no apparent consequences.

You can use Twitter to organize physical attacks on "fascists", but not use Twitter to discuss people organizing physical attacks.

Yep. That's the way it is and it is the way it should be. Please - more nazi tears.

From: Razer On 02/12/2017 05:16 PM, jim bell wrote: From: Razer

...

...

Accounts created specifically to harass. But they aren't saying how:  https://blog.twitter.com/2017/an-update-on-safety                       ...and no one writing it up seems to know either

...

What I want to know, is:  What is their definition of the word, "harass"? >>Contradict?  Disprove?  Argue against?  Make unhappy?   Is Twitter going to adopt a consistent policy that political statements aren't allowed?   >> Jim Bell

Ask @Support or @jack. Maybe they can tell you.

I would guess it's what their policy always was. If you think their policy is 'inconsistent' that's because it depends on who gets harassment complaints against them that are verifiable. But I'm still waiting for a  definition of "harassment".  Do you have your own?                Jim Bell

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 repeat. Ask @Jack or @Support. Rr

On 02/13/2017 10:33 AM, !@#$%^&*()_+ wrote: .....

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:26:48 -0800 Razer wrote:

"...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 Juan... Everyone knows your gig. Rr

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

*From:* Razer

...

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

On 02/12/2017 11:45 PM, jim bell wrote: 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

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 04:55:04PM -0500, Joshua Case wrote:

...

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 repeat. Ask @Jack or @Support.

Rr

Ha, This from the mouth of the individual/s that refused to even speak about how he defines or identifies the “fascists” he would like to abuse, instead calling me “stupid” and literally “Semen on the ground.”

Raze, do you even talk to the other trolls that use this email account?

It's called Multiple Potijuana Disorder - he can't be sure if he's looking at a joint, a OrangeJuicy Bottle or a Hookah, and every time he asks to try and find out, all that comes back from his roomies is "duuuuude!"

On 02/13/2017 08:29 AM, Razer wrote:

I've seen sites that appear to use the mac address of you computer to effectively keep you from creating another account

Websites can't see your mac, only the mac of the nearest router, which is not enough to identify the visitor even on small site. Flash cookies was a very common practice some time ago, though.

On Feb 13, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Razer wrote:

...

On 02/13/2017 09:27 AM, Aivon Gnaiden wrote:

...

On 02/13/2017 08:29 AM, Razer wrote: I've seen sites that appear to use the mac address of you computer to effectively keep you from creating another account Websites can't see your mac, only the mac of the nearest router, which is not enough to identify the visitor even on small site.

Flash cookies was a very common practice some time ago, though.

Ok then. Maybe they block the mac of the nearest router. At the time it happened to

Not trying to be pedantic, but a web server (any ip server) is going to only see the mac address of IT'S nearest hop, probably it's default gateway. Anybody (including all the web clients hitting the site) will show up in the arp cache with the same mac as the local default gateway... so blocking this way wouldn't work. More likely your source IP address was blocked, or it was a hidden cookie or something like that.

me (4-5 years ago) I was always working over the same wireless connection. Also, Computer 'names' are transmitted. One can see that on IRC. I broke out of an email relay's black hole once by changing my computer name (windows, a decade ago). Flash cookies are still quite common even with the advent of cleaners that remove them. Hidden ones might be harder to find unless you physically go searching for them.

Rr