Blu's dashboard

Ariel works for Pounce? now I get what is going on.. ... yeah she blocked me on my first day ever using twitter. she isn't nice. I could see why a stalker would want a piece of her. Motive with a capital "M"... she is probably telling the truth. I was angered enough by her behavior to spiral out of control. I think it is time we start blaming the victim... just a bit. come on people. bring out the inner "Nelson" is all of us and go "HA HA"

Carter: I am confused as to how your Web site relates to this conversation. Is there something I am missing? – Eric Suesz, on June 05, 2008 21:10

HARASSMENT she is saying I can't read and probably secretly thinking the typical European comment "Stupid American." Thats basically racism! BAN! Oh and did I mention I started a website? www.whatisitmadeof.com BOO-YAH! – Carter, on June 05, 2008 15:47

Well then, I stand corrected. Biz lied about his business practices and Twitter will be flooded with people calling each other vulgar names and ads for penis enlargement. Guess it's time to close my account now before that happens. Everyone move to Pownce. They block spammers and stalkers better than Twitter.

Sorry to be so sarcastic about this, but I still don't see the major issue here. If Biz lied and didn't follow his own companies' ToS, then shame on him. But all of this for one person? C'mon. And I don't care that she disclosed the fact that she works for Pownce AND that all of this happened BEFORE she worked at Pownce, that's now a factor hanging in the balance.

Seriously, I hope Twitter does respond better, but it sounds like no matter what Twitter/Biz does here, it will never be good enough for the users. Meanwhile, the true slippery slope that will happen will be censored comments from every person who was stalked, offended, called a "cunt", etc etc... Twitter will be reacting more to answering to complainers than they will fixing their network. It will be down more than up.... wait a minute... if they are down, people can't send threatening or vulgar tweets to others. Problem solved. Move to Pownce. – martymankins, on June 04, 2008 20:50

People who actually *read* what this is about don't see conflict of interest because this started long before Ariel was an employee of Pownce. – Marjolein Katsma, on June 04, 2008 18:09

Marty, the first account was apparently closed before they even could do something - we'll have to accept that statement because we can't verify it. The second account (confession) they said was closed before they could check it -- which was either just blatantly "saying something" without /actually/ looking if they could check, or simply a blatant lie, because it was up there with very obvious "libelous, defamatory, obscene or otherwise objectionable" content that many of us have seen long after Biz stated the account was closed and they could not check it. It was not /actually/ removed until I complained about that both here and on the Twitter blog. I'm sorry, but such a blatant lie, or simple neglect to even check whether such content is still on their server for all to see (and archive on other websites!), is not something that fits in my definition of "responding professionally". THAT behavior is the slippery slope that will make Twitter a spammers' haven and a free-for-all platform to spew objectionable (etc.) content -- unless such behavior is amended soon, and visibly, very clearly. – Marjolein Katsma, on June 04, 2008 18:06

Marjolein, if Twitter had done absolutely nothing, then I could see your point. But since they responded professionally (just not to Ariel's satisfaction), your ending statement is simply a slippery slope. – martymankins, on June 04, 2008 15:07

I see conflict of interest, Ariel works at pownce which is basically a twitter xerox. Boo-hiss. I mean, this is as well timed as campaign slam downs. I work at a competitor, I talk about this with colleagues, I elbow drop twitter and make my company more well known.

They do, however qualify as "libelous, defamatory, obscene or otherwise objectionable" - all of those, in fact - quote from the TOS. (Yes, and I have read the part that says "We may, but have no obligation to, remove Content and accounts containing...").
The fact that the TOS is already weak on "Spam" (they apparently haven't realised there are many other types of spam than email spam - and that capitalization is hilarious) and their "sole discretion" in this case is to do nothing at all, is sending a powerful message that anything goes at Twitter. Keep it up, and Twitter will become a spammers' haven and a free-for-all platform to spew "unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene or otherwise objectionable" content. Keep that up for a little more and there won't be any scaling problems left. – Marjolein Katsma, on June 03, 2008 05:15

I have to side with Twitter on this. Ariel is not being stalked or threatened. This is nothing more than a thin-skinned little girl who can't handle a little name-calling. Although the names are crude and rude, they do not qualify as cyberbullying or harassment.

Twitter would have been well within its right to tell her to take a flying leap, but they humored her, and that speaks well for them.

http://www.michaelcrook.net/2008/06/0...

Point taken. I think the line between "harassment" and someone being a jerk is blurred here, which is why this is such a contentious issue. – Bonsmots, on June 01, 2008 19:44

It would be different. That would be a communication directed at the insulted person. This [twitter] is a broadcast medium, she can just not follow his tweets, you do not chose what phone calls or emails you receive. Its no different than Howard Stern calling Paris Hilton a whore on the radio. Or calling someone these names on a website. Is it bad (especially if its untrue). Yes. Is there some legal remedy....maybe. In my example, in order to win a defamation of character suit, Paris would have to prove she isn't [a prostitute]. But is it "harassment"? No. And for twitter to shut down an account over these tweets would be offensive to my sense of free speech. What would be the difference between Ms. Waldman's complaint, and Walmart asking to have a twitter account shut down for calling their stores "sewers", "whore houses", "piles of useless cheap crap on shelves". The only difference is that as a community, we like a popular cute young blogger girl working at a web 2.0 company. We don't like walmart. so we would call that free speech, not harassment. I re-state, I am assuming these are general broadcast tweets, not personal messages directed at her via "@" that she cannot just chose not to follow. – ebetancourt, on May 29, 2008 14:04

Hmmm...smells like harassment to me. If I was going through the same thing, I would certainly call it that.

Would it make a difference if the "abuser" called her on the phone instead of posting it on Twitter? What if he sent her letters in the mail? Does it make it any less damaging because it's done on the web?

Just as a reminder: We do have community guidelines that asks everyone to refrain from name calling. I think we can make our points without going for the jugular. – Eric Suesz, on May 28, 2008 04:06

I would not consider this "harassment". Maybe defamation of character. Unless someone is actively persuing you to communicate their hate of you in a threatening manner, I don't see how this is harassment, especially on a medium like twitter. Unless they are spamming you with private messages, they can't harass you through twitter. Be an adult, stop following him on twitter and ignore him. This smells to more like a "victim" promoting herself to internet fame.

A well written response, Chris H. If the authorities are involved, then Twitter needs to respond accordingly. Otherwise, their response was professional and concise. – martymankins, on May 27, 2008 21:04

Bravo, Prokofy. Well stated. – martymankins, on May 27, 2008 21:00

Wow, this is unacceptable. I doubt very seriously I would employ Twitter without them doing some serious upgrades to their TOS violation response. Sad. You aren't small enough a company to ignore stalking!

From the common carrier wikipedia page: "A common carrier must further demonstrate to the regulator that it is "fit, willing and able" to provide those services for which it is granted authority." All other arguments aside, in its current state Twitter would not be able to prove that it is fit to be depended upon by anyone. – Lisa Brewster, on May 27, 2008 18:39

I understand the backlash that most people have been placing on Twitter, but I have to say that even given the verbage, rants and words that were used from one Twitter user to another, I see why Twitter isn't "reacting" as everyone would want them to. As Jason said above, Twitter is not in the business of content moderation. It's not a private forum. Sure, the TOS can be interpreted to support just about everything. There are tons of people that are offended by the word "fuck", yet that word gets tossed around thousands of times a day in various twitter posts. People shout "fuck you" to others a lot, without nary a threat or a banning. I really don't want to see a trend where Twitter becomes too much of a big brother entity, where the term "ambulance chaser" gets applied to anyone that deems another Twitter post a threat. I feel bad that Ariel had to go through this and anyone that slandered or threatened her needs to stop. But I also don't want to see Twitter turned into a mass of "that person called me a name" complaints that have the higher ups enforcing each and every post. – martymankins, on May 27, 2008 16:49