GeekMommy's dashboard

A very good point @tsanth. I don't know where this will go or what will happen - but without more evidence I'm disinclined to take sides, and more inclined to sympathize with BOTH Ariel and Twitter. It's amazing how all it takes is a few bad apples to spoil the experience for so many. :( – GeekMommy, on May 23, 2008 21:35

"5. It may or may not be Twitter's job to police the community, but it is the community's job to reject abuse of this sort. 750 followers? This is what I find most appalling in this whole story."

Actually, the 750 followers account is @confessions - which is sort of the 'post secret' account of Twitter. It allows people to post anonymous tweets through the website http://kosso.co.uk/twitter/confess/ -- so it's not like 750 people were following one abusive asshole so much as they are following a service that he posted on.

Just to clarify. – GeekMommy, on May 23, 2008 07:03

@kohlmannj - a) I'm not "siding" with Twitter. I'm trying to remain rational about a situation that looks at first glance outrageous, but then again, is only being told from one side of the story.
I don't know Ariel from Eve, but as you see in the first comment (if you actually read - which I'm beginning to doubt) I've been where she is, and she has my sympathy. But I don't know that 'banning' and 'censorship' are the answers here, because - and I'll say it one more time so maybe you'll hear it - *there is no evidence being offered other than one person saying I was harassed and the service provider saying we don't deem it as harassment*
You have yet to offer anything other than hysteria to the conversation.
If you'd like to link something showing the harassment, I'd be happy to consider it. But otherwise you are just being irrational.
b) I live in Colorado, so I think I'll pass on your offer - but not because I'm intimately familiar with the terrain so much as because I've already shown you that I'm not the type to "buy" anything without examining it. Something I'm afraid you are rather guilty of.

@kevwil - try re-reading the entirety of what I wrote would you? Latching on to one sentence out of context is a little disingenuous.
You might want to look at the irony of saying "the rules are too vague - but if they change them to be less vague and the result is something I don't like, I'm offended." – GeekMommy, on May 23, 2008 06:53

Um, did you suddenly get insight into the actual situation that the rest of us don't have? Do you have the examples that you can, yourself, determine that the TOS were violated? If so, please post them... because honestly, you are claiming they aren't following their TOS, but I don't see examples.
Sorry, but it sounds like you're being guilty of exactly what I was describing. Judging without enough evidence. – GeekMommy, on May 23, 2008 05:26

One of the biggest problems here is that a lot of people are taking sides without having much more to go on than Ariel's blog post... we don't have the account to look at, the examples of the harassment, or even the backstory outside of "Ariel is being harassed via twitter, she has filed a complaint, and twitter has replied that they don't believe the circumstances in this case warrant banning."

Twitter does seem to be hitting some bumps lately in it's Community Relations... but I think we need to kind of cut them a little slack, folks. There are 16 of them and millions of us. There are a couple of examples of vicious, obnoxious people using twitter to stalk, harass, and abuse others - yes, it will be happening more frequently as our community keeps growing - but it's fortunately a pretty rare event at the moment.

You can't really expect Twitter to know instinctively how to handle these situations... they aren't a bigger company. They're working on it. But they're not going to please everyone all the time.

My heart goes out to Ariel, because I've had my own share of internet stalkers and harassment - and I've found myself on the side of being told 'there's really nothing we can do about that' by other services. It often seems like the service in question is somehow not only 'siding with' but even becoming an accomplice in the abuse. It's not really what's happening, but it is how it feels.

That said... can we step back a bit here? Flinging insults at twitter and saying things like "if you don't decide this the way I want you to, your service is doomed!" are a little extreme.

Noah, Noah, Noah.
I'm so not sure what you're trying to do here.
Is calling me names - unwarranted ones at that - going to fix whatever YOU see at the problem?
In my experience - that never achieved any goal other than to piss off those who cared about your opinion of them.
I don't know you from Adam - you are, often times, annoying - but intentionally. I just have yet to figure out what you think will result from that behavior... If there's anyone who has been employing "NazI" tactics, I'm afraid that would be you. I've done nothing to you whatsoever, yet you are now attacking me.
That's not only bizarre, it's useless.
And I'm not at all hysterical - you're a pale shadow of those who used to troll Usenet threatening others with doom and despair regularly...
And yes, I'm sure you'll be "upping" your efforts due to the fact that I pointed that out.
Sadly, I'm afraid you have nothing better to do. – GeekMommy, on May 18, 2008 20:47

Aren't you a sweetheart? :) I didn't break Twitter... I leave that to the high volume folks! ;) – GeekMommy, on May 12, 2008 07:24

perfect, thank you. – GeekMommy, on May 08, 2008 02:14

Ah. Okay, thanks for the clarification. My error, I apologize for misunderstanding the thrust of your arguments. – GeekMommy, on May 08, 2008 02:13

Actually, they have weighed in. Just not here.
They do now have a policy of deleting accounts that violate the TOS not just freezing them.
I'm afraid you'll see that the 21 accounts NDS created no longer exist.

Looks as though Twitter didn't agree with you on this one. – GeekMommy, on May 07, 2008 19:49

I don't think either "side" has won anything.
You know as well as I do that Noah isn't going to stop messing with those he sees as worthy of his wrath... he just won't be doing it using the panopticons reposting feed.
I think you have some very valid points about the difference between violating TOS and violating someone else's comfort level.
My objections are only the ones I've stated in the other thread - it seemed as if what he was doing - in particular instances - violated the TOS.
Either Twitter needed to respond to the violation if there was one - or say that there wasn't - or say that the TOS needed rewriting.
At this point it would seem that the determination was "in some instances, some of the accounts violated the TOS and will be dealt with accordingly" (although how is yet to be mentioned I note) and that some do not and therefore there isn't any action that needs to be taken.
I already know from above that you disagree with the first part - and I knew from the other thread that there will be people who don't think it goes far enough.
The touchstone of a good compromise is often that all parties feel equally unsatisfied with the result... (and I suspect you know the source I'm paraphrasing there based on previous interaction with you.)

If you think I'm gloating? It would be ill-conceived gloating - as I had nothing to either win or lose personally. I'm neither the 'victim' of any of this, nor the perpetrator of any of it.

I really do believe it's nice to have an official position. It was getting just a bit silly over in the other thread rehashing the same points over and over when the only real position that mattered was that of those in power to enforce a judgment.

Hope that makes sense to you.
I don't think anyone "wins" in a case like this... the sad part is that the entire incident caused everyone to lose something.
And honestly? Yeah, I'm kind of angry at Noah for putting us all in a position to lose what we did. This sort of drama-fest should never have gotten to this point... and I do find his actions those of an instigator, not just a participant.

Sad, because if he hadn't done it, neither you nor I would be here writing any of this. – GeekMommy, on May 06, 2008 08:47

Thank you for clarifying the position.
I know this solution will make some people unhappy - prokofy has already voiced her disappointment with this above - and will probably leave others with the feeling that it perhaps didn't go far enough.

Either way, it's nice to at least have an official position from the company at this point.

Thanks for letting us know what the company's position is at this point. It will be interesting to see what actions are taken (or not) as a result of this.

We're in the process of reviewing the accounts mentioned in this thread and taking appropriate action where needed. We believe that some of the actions taken by the owner of these accounts do constitute a breach of the terms.

I want to emphasize, however, that this is not a judgement about the content posted from these accounts. We do not see it as our job to adjudicate disputes about content between users. That is, we do not think we will be good or effective at determining what is harassing or offensive. Nor do we think these judgements should be left up to majority rule. We think we should provide the tools that allow users to engage or ignore as they see fit.

We believe these accounts are in violation of the terms because the cross posting of updates from multiple accounts is a way to undermine the block and unfollow functions. Twitter is a recipient-driven service and when abusers seek to negate the ability for users to choose what content they receive from other users, they degrade our service. This is the stated intent of the abuser in question in this thread.

Not all of our tools are perfect - we have improvements to make on a number of fronts. And not all of these polices are as transparent as they should be. I've started a separate thread about the policy we intend to support. It lives here.

Thanks for taking a look and helping us think about these issues.

That said, I will re-read again in the morning - when I can give it an honest appraisal. Thanks for your reply. – GeekMommy, on May 05, 2008 06:27

I met @QueenofSpain thru Twitter - which is, after all, the best way to meet other people no matter what your geographic location! We have become friends, and I'm really enjoying helping to produce her show.
That makes me Jane Q Public who knows someone who may or may not be. :) – GeekMommy, on May 05, 2008 06:25

Oh, but I'm also not a nobody or a nothing - I'm just not a Valley insider or even denizen. My spheres of influence are entirely elsewhere. And presently, I suppose, on one small corner of Twitter. :) – GeekMommy, on May 05, 2008 02:50

I will look again, but it appeared to me that you were trying to tell people not to hold these opinions or express them.

I seldom buy into "go with the group" mentality. Occasionally, the group's mentality seems to align with my own - and I can see where that might be taken for the opposite.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if Twitter says "that doesn't violate our TOS" that's where the matter ends.
Or if they say "well, yes, technically it violates our TOS, but we feel it is better to err on the side of caution and change the TOS rather than restrict speech"? Works for me.

But at present, they are remaining conspicuously silent in the face of much conflict.
That's an issue. – GeekMommy, on May 05, 2008 02:49