alt-left Twitter purges many alt-right accounts

[Razer]

On 11/19/2016 01:07 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 11:25:19AM +0000, Ben Tasker wrote:
>
>

> But I can still include you in mentions which'll end up in your
> notification area. As an added "bonus" those mentions are visible to anyone
> who is following you, so they can reply to them (which'll also ping me). A
> DM would, at least, be hidden from your followers
>
> If you look at Razers tweet earlier, you'll probably find he's not
> following any of those
> His ability to create such "non-following" is perhaps above the ability
> of "the average Twitter user"?

I don't understand what you mean by non-following. I simply block people who troll me and take a look at new follows and Rt'ers Favoriters etc I've never seen before (especially if the profile pic's a 'twitter egg' or a girl taking a selfie (the same selfie girl pics get used over and over and over again by various trollbot accounts) or a cute cat (et al)

I spot marketers by taking a look at their timeline to see what they post. Take a quick look at the other people they follow and who follows them to see if they're just middlemen collecting handles for others to market with (Why you'll see in many account's sidebar descriptions "No Lists"). I simply don't want certain accounts to have access to viewing my followers (persec for them and minimizing the potential for spamming or marketing at them b/c they follow me etc), or as I said disabusing the intent of my tweets which should be pretty clear. 

No magic. I just do a quick check and use common sense and compare some things... Like you can tell something about accounts by their tweet activity. How many followers they have in relation to following (Twitter also uses that as a spammer flag if someone follows way more people than follow them Twitter will cap the #). Is everything a retweet or favorite but they never actually have an original thought? She looks like a nice intelligent girl but all her followers are prongirlz... Then once a year or so I go over accounts I don't remember and see if they're dead wood inactive or have changed their tenor.

some hashtags attract bots. Mention ANYTHING regarding the stock market and you'll be swarmed by investment advisorbots. Tweet anything to do with social media and you get all kinds of SEObot accounts retweeting favoriting and following. It's a hashtag jungle oot deh folks

Regarding 'replies'... If I put your handle at the beginning of a tweet it's directed at you (not a direct message, public and visible in my replies tab). If I put your nick at the end it's the equivalent of a Cc:.

If any character appears before a tweet directed at you (at the beginning), typically a period, one doesn't have to go to my replies tab to see it. It appears on my main time-line. 

Twitter has been 'threatening' to make all direct replies visible on the main timeline but I haven't seen that yet albeit I have noted that when I tweet a direct reply (without the period in front) it does initially appear on my timeline but disappears to the replies tab on page refresh. 

I'm not aware of what happens at another user's end if they view my timeline immediately on posting that direct reply but I suspect it's only visible to me until page refresh to allow for ease of access if I'm writing a series of nested replies Such as using up all 140 in text in the reply and leaving it visible temporarily to addend or add a link or somesuch.


Rr

>> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
>>> At what userbase level would you consider a communication platform to
>>> have crossed the line into "service provider"?
>>>
>>> 100 million? More? Less?
>> I think, to an extent, it depends as much on how the provider behaves as it
>> does on userbase level. Although actual function would need to come into it
>> too.
>>
>> The platform that twitter provides is one that lets you "reach" millions of
>> people. In some ways, it's almost unrivalled, in the sense that it's (IMO)
>> far easier to stumble across someone new on Twitter than it is on FB etc.
>>
>> Whether that's an essential service, obviously, is up for debate.
> Please try to avoid shifting ground, or further twisting my words.
> I don't mind genuine efforts to explain a corporation's position to the
> world in a functional way, but massaging the questions is fundamentally
> deceptive, and ought be avoided.
>
> "Essential service" would be something like water, or electricity (for
> cooking). Internet access is not an 'essential service', yet ISPs are
> "service providers", Internet Service Providers to be precise. Like a
> telephone.
>
> I'm sure it called be argued that Twittering on Twitter makes one a
> Twit, but it's also easy to say that once any communication platform
> reaches a 100,000,000 user base, it has become a utility, a service
> provider, albeit not an essential utility.
>
> Arguing otherwise is arguing -for- a feudal corporatist world,
> ESPECIALLY given that these corporations (in particular in this instance
> the one you're spruiking for) build themselves to such heights with
> statutory corporate and monopolistic protections, defended by government
> and the courts. Zuckerberg is protected from personal legal attack by
> the corporate veil of protection(ism) provided by the 100% artificial
> corporation entity. "Twitter" in the "communications domain" at least
> but possibly "all domains" is (presumably) a "protected" (for exclusive
> use of Twitter Inc) trademark.
>
>>> Do you agree that "Twitter" has become a communication platform/
>>> conduit?
>> To some extent, yes.
> Would be difficult to argue otherwise.
>
>>> And do you agree that no one is obliged to "follow" anyone else?
>> Yes. But, not following you doesn't mean that you can't dump stuff into my
>> notifications by simply including an @. If you've got many hundreds of
>> people doing that, are you going to sit and block all of them?
> OK, so Twitter does have an "email" type of targetting function. I didn't
> know that.
>
> Sounds like the technology is flawed - it's centralised, and a walled
> garden - at least you can set up your own email server.
>
>
>>>> Don't forget these guys weren't banned for being right-wing, or for
>>>> expressing "alt-right" views. Most (if not all) had a habit of directly
>>>> harassing people for race, gender, whatever.
>>> So you say. This is Twitter we're talking about - where the only way you
>>> can be "attacked" (you should at least be saying 'verbally' attacked)
>> Yes, I should have been saying verbally, you're right
>>
>>
>> is
>>> if you "follow" the person "attacking" you.
>>>
>> Untrue. Depending on your settings, you'd need to be following me to for me
>> to send you a direct message.
> Ok. Didn't know that (as above).
>
>
>> But I can still include you in mentions which'll end up in your
>> notification area. As an added "bonus" those mentions are visible to anyone
>> who is following you, so they can reply to them (which'll also ping me). A
>> DM would, at least, be hidden from your followers
>>
>> If you look at Razers tweet earlier, you'll probably find he's not
>> following any of those
> His ability to create such "non-following" is perhaps above the ability
> of "the average Twitter user"?
>
>
>>>> The TL:DR is, there isn't a good answer that works in the world we
>>>> currently live in. Those that were banned (or at least those I've
>>>> bothered to look up) were assholes. Not because of their speech, but
>>>> of their actions.
>>> So now "speech == actions".
>> At what point, in the online world, would you consider something becomes
>> analogous to a real-world action?
> When either:
>  a) it has criminal consequences
>  b) it falls subject to civil claim of damages
>
> Other than that, Rayzer's (personal) approach seems reasonable.
>
> ISTM that Twitter Inc perhaps ought make it easy for "common folk" to
> ban individuals or groups algorithmicly, sort of how Razer does this.
>
> But for Twitter Inc to get into the business of completely banning
> individuals for using a communications platform, when that platform is
> essentially a walled garden, is not acceptable.
>
> This could also expose Twitter Inc to a class action lawsuit if there
> are some motivated bunnies around - as others have been saying, the
> "statutory privileges" that corporations have, give rise to certain
> obligations to the rest of society, in particular when those
> corporations become large and dominant, or extremely dominant, in their
> particular "market" (and yes, even if they are the original creator of
> that market) - you cannot ethically have the protectionist benefits of
> being "a corporation", with no consequential obligations and duties to
> the wider society commensurate to those protections.
>
> Thus, class action lawsuit against Twitter Inc.
>
>
>> Their action was that they verbally attacked someone (and encouraged others
>> to do so) - obviously doing that requires speech but the two are not the
>> same thing.
> The same can happen with email. Or telephone. Or text messages. Or
> Facebook "friends".
>
>
>>> The Ministry of Truth congratulates you; take notice that
>>> the Ministry's cheques take up to 48 hours to arrive.
>> Please ensure it's made out to CASH ;)
> What? Twitter Inc's HR/accounts department not paid you last month?
> Shoddy...

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 11549 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20161119/b3663b78/attachment.txt>