Twitter CEO: "We Suck" At Dealing With Trolls, Vows To Kick Them Out 467
AmiMoJo writes "We suck at dealing with abuse and trolls on the platform, and we've sucked at it for years," wrote Twitter CEO Dick Costolo in a leaked internal post. "We lose core user after core user by not addressing simple trolling issues that they face every day." Gamergate is only the latest and loudest example of harassment. Robin Williams' daughter, Zelda Williams, left the service last August because of the disturbing images and attacks she received after her father's suicide. Advocates have offered numerous suggestions for fixing the problem, including improving responsiveness to reports and better blocking tools.
slashdot? (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose they should copy the slashdot moderation system. =)
Re:slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot moderation isn't web scale ;)
Re:slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot moderation isn't web scale ;)
It's a damn sight better than the nothing that exists today.
Re: (Score:2)
while i disagree with the tone of emphasis of the parent, i don't disagree with the sentiment. that's horrific.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, the slashdot moderation system works well for what it moderates: a bunch of threads which each get a couple of hundred replies that you see mostly at the same time.
Those who actually read articles accumulate points that let them moderate up to 5 or 15 posts in a 3-day period every month or so, and (something I would implement if I set up a blog, because of all the "thanks for your post!" spammers) all threads are closed after two weeks. It's not trivial to get mod points on multiple accounts, and you also don't know exactly when you'll get points.
Meta-moderation is a good idea too, but it's been fucked since they changed it from Agree/Disagree to +/- about five or so years ago without ever updating the FAQ to say whether +/- means Agree/Disagree or Good post/Bad post. Actually it was fucked much, much earlier than that when there was a bug that prevented the "Have you meta-moderated today?" from ever showing up on certain accounts (like mine) and the only way to meta-moderate was to go to metamod.pl manually.
Twitter is basically just a bunch of random posts (like "Hey, I just pooped!") that are loosely linked with # and @ characters in free-form text. It's like in the old BBS days when you would post a message to "All", with nothing like a "thread" with a root post. You just poop out your "hashtag BowelMovement" into the Twitter-space, where you might get as few as zero readers. Try to crowd-moderate that. Frankly, I'm surprised Twitter ended up as popular as it is for having basically no structure other than "fits in an SMS message" and "# and @ mean something". Really, the only significant thing added beyond that original idea is attaching an image.
Re: (Score:3)
Frankly, I'm surprised Twitter ended up as popular as it is for having basically no structure other than "fits in an SMS message" and "# and @ mean something".
That is exactly why it became popular; brevity and free structure. If you concentrate on sent messages (@recipient) I suspect that the trolls (actually rather death and rape threat-sending harassers) are largely repeat offenders. If everyone has a chance to flag them (something akin to karma), and responses/notifications from those troll accounts do not show up anymore, the problem is largely solved(?).
Re:slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree except opinions often get moded up/down. I've been an offender and the offended. I've recently moded up a number of posts moded down due to disagreeing opinions even if the opinion was worth a read (positive comments towards MS or Apple often get moded down). There's a difference between disagreeing and actually having an invalid, inaccurate or flaming comment.
That other Twitter (Score:2)
That depends. Was Slashdot's moderation responsible for kicking out the sockpuppets of that other Twitter [slashdot.org]?
Re:slashdot? (Score:5, Informative)
Be careful how you define Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Be careful how you define Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather lose those few (allegedly) "good" posts than read any more trolls. If it's too hard tell the difference between an semi-literate rant over "how angles save my sole" and a troll, the world isn't any worse off for not having the rant.
Despite the apparent similarities, Twitter is not a legally protected soap box in the public square. It's a private service, and they can censor anyone they want for any reason. Trolls can run off and join trolltalk.com if they want their own voice.
Re: (Score:2)
So who decides what's a good post? What defines good? Posts that don't criticize your religion? your politics?
No it's not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage them to keep it open. Walled gardens of self feeding belief is not a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the ultimate social problem of the web, and something we've lost with the failings of broader outlets such as city newspapers. There are too many completely politicized sites where people are only exposed to their own groupthink. The Democrats gather on democratsRus.com, the Christians gather on christiansRus.com, the Seahawks fans gather on seahawksRus.com, etc. They fuel their own fires, and don't accept news or input that challenges their opinions. Anyone who stops by with a dissenting opinion
Re:Be careful how you define Troll (Score:5, Interesting)
I went to trolltalk.com just now and was disappointed.
I actually very much like the idea of the internet being a place, or, at least having places, where there is no authority, no oversight, and no rule makers. Where if you say something that upsets people, you are mercilessly attacked -- with speech.
I think of my very early days on IRC - and all of the new ideas I was exposed to.. all of the people who said extremely offensive things... and there was nobody to do anything about it (except perhaps encourage it)... I had to learn to adapt, and I had to learn that other people's words were just that - words -- and that there wasn't any fairy angel to come and save me from not having to hear things I didn't like.
Society needs places like that.
You are correct that what twitter does is twitter's choice. I don't use or care about twitter, because very few people have the talent to say anything at all, much less say it well in 100 characters.
It seems that people are endeavouring to make the internet like the "real world" - where speech codes exist, where stupid people flourish, and where idiots expect others to put up with their idiocy.
I was hoping that the real world would become a bit more like the internet - where there are no rulers, no more identity than one wishes to have, and people come and where they please as they please.
I prefer the online company of intelligent people who are purposefully offensive much more than I prefer idiots who are purposefully offended.
Re: (Score:3)
I prefer the online company of intelligent people who are purposefully offensive
uh, we're talking about Twitter here. emphasis on the "twit".
Re: Be careful how you define Troll (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather lose those few (allegedly) "good" posts than read any more trolls. If it's too hard tell the difference between an semi-literate rant over "how angles save my sole" and a troll, the world isn't any worse off for not having the rant.
Despite the apparent similarities, Twitter is not a legally protected soap box in the public square. It's a private service, and they can censor anyone they want for any reason. Trolls can run off and join trolltalk.com if they want their own voice.
sorry bro you're in the wrong country then LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Be careful how you define Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
After they get rid of all those Christian, Muslim, Athiest, Gay, whatever trolls and all you hear is crickets. Yeah I'm being extreme but I'd rather a few trolls slip through rather than a lot of good posts getting pulled.
There is a whole lot to that.
Because different people have different definitions, and because the people with the least ability to put up with trolls will not be happe unless all we hear is those crickets.
Some examples to my point
Quite a few years ago, AOL (it figures) had a spam reporting system that blacklisted addresses that sent spam. Problem was, a lot of users decided that anyone who disagreed with them was spamming them. Results? chaos, as the most intolerant ended up blocking completely legit emails and group activity.
A year or so back, in the commentary section of a Yahoo news story, a Devout Christian turned in everyone who disagreed with his posts as a TOS violation.
I am a moderator of a usenet newsgroup. I had a policy of letting posts go through unless they were really nasty. "Fuck off and Die!" would get rejected, but as long as things were on topic I was pretty lenient. Nothing wrong with spirited discussion in my book.
But I haven't been moderating much lately, as a less tolerant group has taken over. It would appear that spirited discussion is not allowed, and many one time posters just stopped. Now it's a collection of links to reddit and some blogs.
And now even the linkfarms are getting heavy scrutiny and many rejections.
And there is the rub. AFAIAC, the group has been destroyed. Others may find that system just wonderful. Like a nicely manicured lawn with snipers keeping the kids off of it.
It all boils down to the inescapable fact that whatever you try to do, it will not appease the most sensitive and intolerant, who will continue to be outraged by the "trolls". Which to them means any disagreement. Or profanity. Or even humor. Defined them of course.
So good luck with that, trollstoppers. Success means no postings.
Re: (Score:3)
This is hard censorship, not the kind of soft self censorship that gets "encouraged". This is actual stifling of voices because someone disagrees with what is being said.
Twitter can do whatever they want because they are a private company. However, we the people can also do whatever we want and find another service. If they start censoring, people will leave for s
Re: (Score:3)
So how would you handle the Gamergate thing? The female programmer was Doxed, I guess her Doxers should be banned, but she also Doxxed, Harassed, and even got one guy fired. Shouldn't she get a ban too?
Re: (Score:3)
AniMojo is an SJW troll that either pretends the doxing and death threats sent to gamergate supporters doesn't exist or supports it depending on what's politically convenient at the moment. In short: "one law for thee another for me".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Be careful how you define Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously it hasn't occurred to you that there would be a lot more 'good posts' if there weren't so many trolls around.
The only thing I use twitter for is as an RSS feed for certain companies I want to pay attention to. I sure as hell have no interest in posting random thoughts on there and waiting to become a target.
Please no more censorship. (Score:5, Insightful)
The web doesn't need more heavily censored platforms. One persons troll is another persons dissident.
Re:Please no more censorship. (Score:5, Insightful)
The web doesn't need more heavily censored platforms. One persons troll is another persons dissident.
I agree in principle, but what happened to Zelda Williams was not "dissent."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
trolls will be trolls. don't like, don't use, and block.
Re: (Score:2)
when it's one person, using one account. sure. block away
When it's a numerous people heaping shit on you, well, I hope you've got a good therapist.
Re: (Score:2)
Or one person with too much time on their hands who doesn't mind creating a hundred different accounts and hopping from one to another as you block them.
Re: (Score:2)
then stop using it.
if your employment involves social media to the degree that you can't stop using it, then learn to hack it. i have no sympathy for those that subsist on public attention but cannot handle the darker aspects associated with it.
think of them as mini journalists, think of them as mini radio announcers, think of them as mini-anchors. all of which get, got and will continue to receive hatemail. this is little different. Those that can't deal with the criticism and negative attention will f
Re: (Score:3)
then stop using it.
That's an incredibly moronic thing to say. This is about how Twitter can prevent people from doing that very thing. They don't like the fact that trolls are driving other users away. Particularly when it's the good users who post things other people want to read. Without those users, twitter literally has nothing but trolls and terrorists. So the very last thing they want is for people to "stop using it". Every time someone does it costs Twitter some of their future profits.
Re: (Score:3)
Why doesn't Twitter let users collectively rate other users either positively or negatively depending on their own words? Each twitter user gets a fixed number of mod points over time, increasing both with longevity and positive moderation of their own account. Twitter users can then set the level that they wish to see (default to a neutral moderation).
Most people know a troll when they see it. Most people are fundamentally decent. Harness this property to properly mark the trolls on Twitter. Everyone
Re: (Score:2)
i can imagine that disagreeing with someone with a lot of followers could get you downvoted into oblivion at that point.
Re:Please no more censorship. (Score:5, Interesting)
My problem with block are the users who keep making new accounts to get around blocks (or in response to being kicked off).
I, and a bunch of other people, were harassed by this individual on Twitter who thought herself a prophetess of god. She claimed that god told her that we were criminals and so she was determined to report us - or at the very least make our lives as hellish as possible. Arguing that she was wrong was pointless. Her source was god and you can't argue with that logic. (Seriously, there's no way to argue against someone who sincerely believes "God told me so." You're just wasting effort if you try.)
She would get reported for harassing behavior, get banned, and then re-appear under a new username. Rinse and repeat. Sometimes several times a day. Of course, when she came back under a new username, our previous blocks were useless and we needed to block her new account. Twitter seemed either powerless to stop her or not interested in stopping her.
Re: (Score:2)
it's unenforceable, the only solution i can think of is for them to get better at ignoring abuse reports to your accounts. or privacy settings... but that kinda defeats the purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
trolls will be trolls. don't like, don't use, and block
Well, that's the thing, she did leave Twitter. Since twitter depends on people using the service, I imagine that they'd rather have people like her on who lots of people follow than the service dengenerating into a cesspool of a few thousand extremely prolific people being extremely nasty to each other.
So it's not in Twitter's interest to tell people who don't like it to go away. It makes much more sense for them to get rid of people spewing rape threat
Re: (Score:2)
nope, i'm very cognizant of the fact that it's a private corporation. It's profit driven and can impose any speech restrictions it wants. I do however think that twitter can't really do anything about a dedicated troll that won't also decrease their accessibility significantly. In light of the fact that i don't think they can do anything about it, in an economical fashion at least, these will be the only way to deal with trolls for the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps someone should create a filter that filters everyone using this filter as they are the pro censorship crowd rather than the pro stopping troll crowd.
Disagreeing is not trolling.
Also, if you have a problem with the behavior of the pro GG crowd, I have to ask, do you have a problem with the behavior of the anti GG crowd too? The anti GG crowd used the same tactics against the pro GG people that were used on them. Heck, the female developer at the center of the whole thing (I don't remember her name)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah the Chairman of IGDA Puerto Rico and KFC were totally harassing people. Sorry but I'm not buying it, the person that coded GGautoblocker has repeatedly supported doxing and death threats and is one of the most vitriolic trolls out of a group comprised of neonazis, domestic abusers, and violent racists. You don't get to pretend to be a victim of "dogpiling based harassment" when your entire shtick is getting people (mostly women and non-whites) fired by targeting them for doxing and harassment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The web doesn't need more heavily censored platforms. One persons troll is another persons dissident.
I agree in principle, but what happened to Zelda Williams was not "dissent."
Indeed. What happened is non-issue. She should just have left while still mourning and return to the public space when she was ready. Which is basically what she did but twiter is making a story about it because they lost a bit of revenue.
Re:Please no more censorship. (Score:5, Interesting)
Some might call it 'millenial cognitive dissonance' because they don't seem to understand that you own your public identity, for better or worse.
Every time you put your opinions out into the world, some people are going to disagree with you. Like me posting this.
Some people are going to strongly disagree with you. The bigger or more controversial your opinion, the bigger the reaction. Hell, I get hatemail because I dare to dispute all sorts of conventional wisdoms.
And a certain percentage of the populace are crazy assholes.
Now, if you're a narcissist, and YOU complete the circle by putting your real identity out there, don't you bear some of the blame if a shitstorm falls on you? It's the old public-figure libel issue: if you are a public figure, the CONSEQUENCE of that is that you are voluntarily giving up some protections to which private citizens are otherwise entitled.
That used to be why we used avatars. But I truly believe for the current generation, that doesn't provide the attention and adulation that putting their real selves out there does.
I'm not exonerating her harassers, btw. Being a public-figure doesn't give people a blank check to threaten you. But at a certain point, we have to live in the world as it IS, not as we wish it was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA would like to subscribe to your newsletter :-)
It's always been a question of "who will watch the watchers?" If you don't like a service, leave it. If you don't like a user, ignore them. People feel that if they don't read everything in their "virtual world" they're missing something. Of course, in the meantime they're missing so much that's going on around them in the real world without even noticing it.
one man's troll is another man's treasure (Score:2)
the fun of trolling is riding the line between legitimate and absurd. you can't tell with the best trolls. that's what makes them the most exciting
Re: (Score:2)
especially when they say Shut up or I'll rape you at 123 Jefferson St, Palmdale CA 93002, and I'll kill your dog Smoochy as well. And then if you block them they make a new account and keep saying the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Or they themselves lay the groundwork for that claim of victimization by, say, retweeting offers to pay WII U demo codes and up to $20 cash for fake threats sent to their account. Or just make a second account themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
So our rights end where your feelings begin? Yet you still want a platform to express your opinions, right? It's ok for you but not for others who disagree? It's ok for you to use something popular like twitter to express yours, but not ok for those who disagree to do the same?
What if 8chan wasn't run by a neo nazi? Would you be ok with it then? If not, then it doesn't matter what he is.
I find it ironic that you post anonymously here while bitching about anonymous speech.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Go try to read one of those threads APK shits all over and then come back and tell us you don't see a need for censorship.
Or you can use it as an excuse to exercise your creativity and watch him descend into personal attacks [slashdot.org] :-) If I were to take the more than 1,000 posts he's made attacking me in the last 6 months to heart I'd be a wreck.
But back to Twitter... it's the Internet! It's a free-speech zone. The threats are NOT REAL. Learn to laugh at them instead of getting upset. Or just ignore them! If you can't do that, if you have to compulsively read every post when you KNOW some are going to upset you, then maybe the In
Color me surprised... (Score:5, Funny)
I thought trolls WERE Twitter's core users.
Bots (Score:5, Insightful)
If you removed all of these two types of accounts, I have no doubt twitter's "user base" would drop by 80%. It's functionally useless IMHO.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought being functionally useless was a feature of Twitter.
Re:Bots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Spammers and malware pushers have been using Twitter's "t.co" links for ages to link to sites, malware and so on, yet Twitter simply doesn't care.
Which is hilarious, since as I understand it, the entire reason t.co exists is precisely to deal with "bad links" like links to malware.
Right now, any link you post to Twitter goes through t.co, even if your original link was shorter. You can't not use t.co if you use Twitter. The stated reason for that was to allow Twitter to police "bad" links.
On the plus side, you can pretty much guarantee any email with a "t.co" link is spam and score it accordingly (or just reject them outright since the FP rate is so low), but it would be nice if they did something about that too.
Considering that t.co isn't "really" a URL shortening service and that the only way to create them is to link to something via Twitter, you might as well. It's not
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I consulted for a company that had permission from twitter to create accounts in mass to blast out advertising. Hell, Twitter had a department for it at the time. They didn't care how many fake followers there were, the just wanted numbers to report to the press. They've known for a long, long time that their users were mostly fake and that the vast majority of truly active users were spammers or advertisers--all blessed with their permission.
Re: (Score:2)
I retweeted a debian feed thing recently and had a richard stallman bot tell me that his thing was better.
I have not been the same since i have upset his hollyness..Should i consider migrating to microsoft products ?
Downvotes (Score:5, Interesting)
6000 downvotes might not make you happy, but it's better than personal threats.
That would allow people to vent their emotions. Or show that they are the only person who has a certain opinion.
It's not a silver bullet, but would make me personally very happy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Downvotes without metamoderation just lead to downvoting mobs. Imagine the whole gamergate fiasco, with large groups of people downvoting each other. It's pretty terrible.
And twitter being so broad, metamoderation is just completely out of the question.
So ultimately, downvoting doesn't scale, and is only something you will like if you are the one with the popular opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that would work, why Disqus has that, and nobody's ever seen Disqus threads full of blatant trolling! ;-)
But you have to log in to down-vote Disgust posts, which means you actually have to (ewwwww) create a Disgust account. Just thinking about it makes me feel icky. (And I do from time to time up-vote good posts.) I would never use it without a user blacklist feature that can block hundreds of users. But at least they let you hit the report button without logging in, unlike a lot of other similar message thread services.
Re: (Score:3)
Well intentioned? Harper's "tool" blocked the IGDA Chair of Puerto Rico and KFC even as she and her peers were screaming racist slurs at women, doxing and swatting, getting people (mostly women and non-whites) fired through targeted harassment at their employers, and mailing people knives, syringes, and dead animals.
Here's a novel theory for you: Maybe hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world, who've raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for everything from radical feminists to suicide prev
Re:Downvotes (Score:5, Informative)
it's amazing... (Score:2)
that this amazes anyone... what is this new thing we're seeing on this internet thing? people being dicks to one another when completely anonymous? wtf? why has no one told me of this before?
free speech on twitter is a right because the alternative is unenforceable without tamping down on the very features that draw people to it.
and when you can say anything at all you want to anybody else, people are going to be dicks.
people need to grow a thicker skin
also, don't particularly like the biased slant of the a
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? Grow a thicker skin? Although I agree in general that people have no right not to be offended, If someone and their friends send repeated threats to me saying that they were going to kill me (like Sarkeesian got), it appears to go past the "grow a thicker skin" stage. Just sayin'. If you can't say you disagree with someone without making threats, you're probably too fucking stupid or emotionally out of control to be online anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that having received a death threat, Sarkeesian and her allies feel they should be able to silence anyone who criticizes them on the grounds that those people contribute the environment in which death threats occur.
Re: (Score:2)
meh, perhaps the wrong word to describe what it is, but you get my idea. it's basically a behavior that cannot be regulated properly. "being a dick"
Gamergate forced liars off of Twitter? GOOD (Score:2, Interesting)
Crybaby celebs leaving in a huffy when (social) media wasn't able to protect them from the truth is the best Twitter news I've heard in years. I almost feel sorry Twitter got stuck in the middle of it, but if people stopped sleeping around for jobs, pretending the internet can "forget" what happened, and manipulating the media then there would certainly be fewer scandals getting blown wide open.
Trolls may make some shit posts, but shit people are what attract them.
Re: (Score:2)
The celebritards need to learn what we here have known for years: The Internet is Serious Business[tm].
Stick with TV appearances if you want a one-way hug-box.
So very slippery (Score:2)
Metamoderation really helps. In before jokes: For all its sins Slashdot comments tend to be of higher quality than most other places on the internet.
I think an organization with a solid pro-free-speech, pro-neutrality platform could
Hang on (Score:2)
It's Twitter - shouldn't their memos be 140 characters or less?
Re:Hang on (Score:5, Informative)
They should be 140 characters or fewer.
Re:Hang on (Score:5, Informative)
They should be 140 characters or fewer.
Er. No, not quite.
Reference: http://www.oxforddictionaries.... [oxforddictionaries.com]
Less is also used with numbers when they are on their own and with expressions of measurement or time,
Leaving something out (Score:2)
Odd however for someone who "left twitter", Looks like Zelda came back
https://twitter.com/zeldawilli... [twitter.com]
Also, what is considered a 'core user'? Is the point of using Zelda Williams as an example mean she was a core user?
--
I have seen commentary from 'advocates' for better block tools. It consisted of feeding a program in which you fed precreated blacklist you got from a 3rd party.
If you are going to choose to let others decide who you communicate with on social media, you need to re-evaluate why you are usin
Empty threat (Score:2)
They'll just buy a couple of hundred accounts and go on.
http://buytwitaccounts.com/ [buytwitaccounts.com]
So Twitter's finally going to ban the SJWs? (Score:3, Informative)
Does this mean Twitter's finally going to ban the SJWs? I mean, they've done a ton of damage to legitimate businesses by getting accounts banned for disagreeing with them in the name of "harassment". Look at what's happened to Rogue Star Games.
Oh, wait, I forgot, getting "little people" fired from their jobs by harassing their employers is A-OK as long as SJWs do it. Getting small companies banned from social media is A-OK as long as it's the companies the SJWs don't like. It's the people complaining about the people causing real economic damage on Twitter that are the "trolls". My bad!
Karma to burn? (Score:4, Informative)
You're a perfect example of a SJW. You wrap everything up in emotion and oppression to make yourself look like a martyr. ("I've got karma to burn.") And then when people stop taking you seriously because of your outbursts, you complain people are just indoctrinated slaves of the system. ("I'll take a sweepstake on whether I get troll or flamebait.")
It took all of 30 seconds to find that Slade Villena of RogueStar Games leaked sensitive financial records [zenofdesign.com] from Polytron and IFG as retaliation for some form of SJW infighting.
So they point he's getting at, while not perfectly written, is not some intentional deception. Don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance. The point he's getting at is that the SJW-side of Gamergate is using fascist tactics [thoughtcatalog.com] against their enemies. And everyone is afraid to stop them for fear of being their next victim. It's domestic terrorism, and it's gotten so vehement that they're starting to do what all terrorists do... fight each other over who is a bigger martyr. And now they're beginning to use their own despicable tactics of doxxing, shame, getting people fired from their jobs, and emotional outbursts against each other.
The SJW movement will be remembered as a terrorist wing that delayed the feminism movement. And everyone is keeping their heads in the sand lest they be the next victim of a career-killing bomb.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're a perfect example of a SJW.
Sure thing. I don't, nor do I want to live in a world where social justice is considered a bad thing, notwithstanding the efforts of a loud minority to redefine social justice as a rando collection of things they hate on the internet.
So, SJW and proud of it.
You wrap everything up in emotion and oppression to make yourself look like a martyr. ("I've got karma to burn.") And then when people stop taking you seriously because of your outbursts, you complain people are just in
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure thing. I don't, nor do I want to live in a world where social justice is considered a bad thing, notwithstanding the efforts of a loud minority to redefine social justice as a rando collection of things they hate on the internet.
The thing is that SJWs don't care about social justice. They care about being outraged about social justice. Being outraged is the goal, not any sort of promotion of any kind of social justice agenda.
When did you last participate in a real protest? Write your senator? Do anything that might actually promote real, actual "social justice" in this world?
Or do you just posted smug comments on Slashdot, feeling wonderful about how you're showing how much more you care than those silly gamer trolls, while acc
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're misunderstanding Crowdrise. Lo Ping didn't donate all that money, it was donated by people who selected him as the "Team Member" to get credit for soliciting them.
"we suck" (Score:2)
translation (Score:2)
What he means is: "We suck at censoring opinions that disagree with our particular upper middle class intellectual left coast views."
the best way (Score:2)
The "fix" for Twitter (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with Twitter is that people think it's valuable. It's not valuable at all. The press is forced to pretend its valuable because their jobs require them to have Twitter accounts. So this had led to the situation where people in the press quote random users on controversial subjects as if their opinions are really important just because they were said on Twitter.
All Twitter is is a way to behave like an ass and say stupid things, sometimes with consequences, sometimes with no consequences. The greatest trick Twitter pulled is convincing people that it's actually important and worth caring about and paying attention to. I still firmly believe that in a not too distant future it will be about as meaningful as My Space is today and future generations will be absolutely baffled that anybody actually thought Twitter was important or useful in the past.
From TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Twitter CEO:
If you don't understand the difference between trolling and cyberbullying, you already fail.
Trolling: "Global warming is bullshit"
Cyberbullying: "I'm going to chain you to the radiator and grape you in the mouth for decades and decades.*
*I recognize that I'm out of the norm by having a pretty high standard here limited to libel or actual threats, which ARE illegal already; I have very mixed feelings about the whole American societal thing about bullying in general today (of which "cyber" bullying is just an element). But that's tangential to my point here.
I thought trolling was the point. (Score:3)
Best just to use social networks in moderation (Score:2)
It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. (Score:3, Insightful)
The week-long gaming press news blackout and user comment/forum censorship didn't work.
The coordinated, ongoing smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Over" articles hasn't worked.
The doxxing and harassment of pro-GG folks hasn't worked.
The endless train of embarrassingly desperate counter-hashtags [minus.com] hasn't worked.
The Wikipedia and Nightline hit pieces only damage those outlets' credibility for short-term effect.
PC Gamer is the latest games journalism site to update its ethics policy in the wake of Gamergate [techraptor.net], joining IGN [blogjob.com], the Escapist [escapistmagazine.com], and of course Kotaku/Gawker [blogjob.com] (though in Gawker's case, they put up more of a fight and the Gamergate pressure to be ethical had to be routed through the FTC [reddit.com]). And there are probably more I'm forgetting.
Gamergate also got Brad Wardell (CEO of Stardock) some long-overdue apologies for hit pieces run against him:
https://twitter.com/iamDavidWi... [twitter.com]
http://www.gamepolitics.com/20... [gamepolitics.com]
http://www.zenofdesign.com/in-... [zenofdesign.com]
Ask yourself how much of this you've seen reported in the corrupt media (which at this point, sadly, clearly includes Slashdot). Of course none of it ever had a chance of appearing in the Wikipedia article. Nothing enrages anti-Gamergaters more than someone covering both sides of the story [youtube.com], and that should tell you something.
Their side thrives only in an environment of propaganda and censorship, and evaporates when faced with integrity and transparency. They prove the need for Gamergate every time they write an article based on the assumption that terrorism and child porn^W^W^W^W misogyny and harassment have become the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How's the weather on your planet?
AmiMoJo, the SJW Troll (Score:3)
Turns out the source of this summary is The Verge and it is one of the corrupt medias Gamergate is fighting. TheVerge regularly post anti-gamergate articles. So it's only fair they carried on by linking the leaked memo to GamerGate. It is in the interest of the corrupt media to silence their critics. How else will they sell their bullshit lies if there are loud critics on Twitter and Youtube?
P.s. You do not have to be in Gamergate to hate TheVerge, they are the people who brought you and fuelled #ShirtStorm.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every time I think of Gamergate, I'm reminded of that scene in PCU where the protestors break out the blank placards and start writing the latest liberal cause-of-the-moment slogans on them. Some people are just always looking for an oppressor to blame for all their problems, and some cause to give their pathetic lives some meaning. And being the drama queens they are, they feed on any criticism as further evidence that they're being oppressed.
More Than a Cause of the Moment (Score:3)
Of course people are going to care now that they threaten Twitter, which has been second only to Youtube as a major thorn in the censors' sides.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
tbh i enjoyed the tropes vs women video series. I found them to be +1 interesting and +1 insightful. I didn't agree with everything, but I found them reasoned and well documented. I suspect that the people with the most hate never actually watched the videos.
Re:The only people who consider GG as trolls are.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I enjoyed the one about the "smurfette syndrome" where there's a large group of male characters and a single female who's basically the same as the males but they put on a wig. I also enjoyed the "ms pac man" episode showing how in many instances the female character is the same sprite or design as the male character except for a pink bow.
I have no problem being exposed to ideas that I may not agree with 100%, but are presented in a well thought-out manner. that's what +1 interesting means!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you're posting pictures of you in front of someone you don't like's work place because they said something you don't like counts as something. Maybe not trolling. But it's abusive and shitty and stalking like that happens fairly regularly on the internet.
Re:Troll = Anyone who disagrees with our groupthin (Score:4, Insightful)
So where's their equal, if not worse, condemnation?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use my real name on the Internet, yet I contribute intelligently to discussions and don't troll.
Be careful with that strategy; you may be throwing out a lot of baby with the bathwater. Not everyone refuses to use their real name online for nefarious purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
"I didn't speak up when they came for those of poor grammer (sic), I said nothing because I communicate propperly (sic)."
They didn't get you when they came for those with bad spelling?