Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Censorship The Internet Twitter Your Rights Online

Twitter Clampdown Could Impede Anonymous Tweets 93

judgecorp writes "Twitter is going to clamp down on abuse and 'trolling' according to its CEO Dick Costolo. Actions could include hiding replies from users who do not have any followers or biographical information. The difficulty is that moves to stop trolling could also curtail the anonymous Tweets which have been useful for protest in repressive regimes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Twitter Clampdown Could Impede Anonymous Tweets

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 01, 2012 @08:06PM (#40513249)

    If the owners of a private technology like Twitter decide they should do something about the 'abuse' of their system, so be it. Hopefully they aren't hobbling its usefulness. I'm sure they're aware of the problem.

    Perhaps it's better to allow users the ability to set their own levels of counter-community communications, and let the trolls continue to inhabit the dark spaces under the bridge. We all know they're there, and they need a place to lurk, otherwise they'll be tempted to come out into the light where they will surely shrivel under the scrutiny.

    Maybe that's a better way to ensure civil behavior, if that's what you really want, start a 'troll tracker' and see what you can do to out the bastids!

    Just remember, when you try to build a more fool-proof system, you are asking for nature to counter your efforts with a better fool.

    Personally, I'd much rather be free of commercial solicitations than worry about the occasional troll.

  • by Alimony Pakhdan ( 1855364 ) on Sunday July 01, 2012 @08:37PM (#40513479)
    Some time ago some sensible folks pointed out that there is no such thing as "cyber crime" just "crime". For the very same reasons, there really is no such thing as "your rights online", just "your rights" and I'd like to remind everyone that the concept of "rights" is not the same everywhere.
  • by Oxford_Comma_Lover ( 1679530 ) on Sunday July 01, 2012 @08:59PM (#40513611)

    From the summary, it sounds like Twitter's efforts--purportedly to clamp down on abuse--can be easily bypassed by setting up two accounts instead of one, and entering a few fake fields.

    So basically, it sounds like a way to artificially bump the number of accounts. So they may be looking to sell the company, or someone may be looking to artificially pad their resume.

  • but you disproved your point deeply by saying that

    among a certain set, it is attractive to privatize everything

    of course, in industries with a network effect (electricity, cable, telephone) and huge startup costs (power plants, car manufacturing) the effect is that a few large players dominate, an oligarchy. this is true of google and twitter and facebook as well

    an oligarchy is not the same thing as a free market where consumers can easily and freely switch providers

    this being true, there is no easy and obvious alternative. if i dislike the sandwich my deli made me, i can walk down a block to another deli. but there is no other twitter. well, there is, but, the network effect being what it is, it's like saying i'm going to drop verizon and take up cardboard cups on strings

    so, in response to your comment, i say this: for fields dominated by a few large players, the government has the right, in your name, to regulate those players as if they were part of your government, and that it is not at all illogical to say that rights you hold your government to, such as free speech, be imposed on the private enterprise, because it is, after all, basically serving a public interest with no real competitors

    you can't have it both ways: either the situation is truly like a free market, or it is like a government service. you can't point at an oligarchy and a monopoly and say the rules of walking down the street to another deli applies. there are no other choices, it's not really a free market

    just because you privatized a service to a few huge players is not the same thing as a free market. you're just playing silly games because you believe capitalism is some sort of religion that answers all things, when it clearly doesn't

...there can be no public or private virtue unless the foundation of action is the practice of truth. - George Jacob Holyoake