Prokofy's dashboard

You've repeated this so many times here that you're the spammer now. And it is *only your notion* that what is required here is "an enforcement of terms of service*. That's your subjective read on it, one I don't share. I tend to think you just need to read your vanity feed less *shrugs*. – Prokofy, on May 04, 2008 21:20

Loudmouthman,

Duh, Twitter is a private agency. And duh, private non-state actors do not HAVE to enforce the First Amendment precisely because they are non-state actors. Gosh, do you think someone like me who has been following these issues for 30 years is not going to get that? Geez. Your notion that everyone who disagrees with you needs a smarmy little homily and a lecture about corporations is *severely*misplaced. Get over yourself.

No, what I'm doing rather than "speaking from ignorance about how private corporations work" DUH is I'm inviting you (or rather, hoping, while looking over your shoulder, as you are close-minded on this) to think outside the box.

Government and media are in a state, if not of dissolution and disintegration, at least severe compromise, and severe questioning.

In that sort of situation, the new media/the social media start-ups pretending to large audiences and huge participation *become like governments*.

They affect and influence huge swathes of people and their responsibilities to behave as responsible corporate citizens, and as keepers of the public commons grow exponentially to their level of participants.

In the U.S., the Supreme Court or higher courts have ruled, say, that the Boy Scouts get to keep out gays, because they are a private club. The right to freedom of expression of gays doesn't trump the right of association of this private club.

But in other cases, the Mall of America didn't get a ruling enabling it to keep out people with political T-shirts critical of Bush. And that's because it's right to be a private corporation *when it holds the public space* isn't absolutist, and cannot trump free expression.

So it's a balance, and one being *refought and reconsidered and reestablished daily* whether you realize it, or wish for it or not.

When something like Twitter becomes the chief form of news and not just the chief form of noise for a lot of people, it has huge social implications.

Many people will form or reassert their notions of whom to vote for in the elections based on Twittering.

In that context, the right to free expression and the second part of the First Amendment becomes relevant: where will the people go to petition their grievances to the keepers of social media, the owners and coders? You want government regulation?

If old media is dying, if it's ad revenue is drying up, if nobody watches it, how is the public to be informed? By its precious little Twitter girlfriends and emoms who pitch only one point of view?

If government is discredited and in transition, who will mediate the media?! Who will watch the watchers?

Social media, only in its embryonic stages now, will grow more vast, more pervasive, more all-knowing and all-seeing. And that's why you have to care NOW, while it is being shaped, how it behaves with First Amendment values.

Where will the First Amendment be enforced and be available, especially its second part about petitioning those in power, if private corporations owning social media, and their coder dev friends in Silicon Valley, get to run it completely? It's no good saying "go to one of the blog companies owned by the Silicon Valley companies" -- they may block/ban you and use some master shit list.

These are real issues, a facile reaffirmation of corporate privileges isn't sufficient to address the real concerns.

One of the inane memes of this "support our troops" stuff is that you can derail any pro-war or anti-war movement by emotionally and manipulatively invoking it. And that's got to stop. I've checked my facts. And the presence/ideas/sentiments of these soldiers, while something you can invoke as an emotional tripwire, is frankly immaterial to the larger issue of the suffering of many thousands more Iraqi people, and the larger problem of how to end the war so they stop suffering, and our people aren't killed ineffectually unable to stop their suffering. The whole "support our troops" meme is used like a chloriformed cloth to suffocate any debate on the war's solutions or wider effects. The military isn't apolitical in a context like the world's top power deploying it. It would be naive to suggest that. This isn't a war forums, but the notion that you can enforce you take on this is troublesome. Tweeter needs to remain free to counter views like yours, and not have them declared "stalking" and "spam" when they do. – Prokofy, on May 04, 2008 21:08

Michael, they aren't as different as you imagine, that is, there are people who very much do NOT support the war and use the "support our troops" meme to infiltrate an anti-war perspective into innocent and superficial patriotic movements. That sort of infiltration is what the offender here has responded to. It's on topic only as a good example of how dissent against the prevailing politically-correct view leads some to cry "stalker" and "spam" when that may be too blunt an axe.

The issue is about calls to block your name out of track, and it's system-wide implications. – Prokofy, on May 04, 2008 21:00

My mentioning of the vanity-feed problem and the suggestion to stop tracking yourself is a solution, albeit imperfect, to the problem of you being harassed by this guy.

It's on topic, and I'm sorry if YOU don't feel that it's on topic, but not reading your vanity feed, and not insisting on "your usage of Twitter trumping all" COULD INDEED be a solution to your problem -- albeit imperfect.

As for "not enforcing the TOS," we'd have to be persuaded that a) there's something really libelous here (that's a subjective concept often overused and very overbroad on Internet forums and is not rooted in actual libel law about "malicious intent" etc.) AND we'd have to really be convinced that expression, as vulgar as it is, really is the abuse you say. You believe they "need to enforce their TOS" but they are obviously simply *not agreeing with you* that a TOS violation even took place. That's the problem. Is it about Twitter's negligence and "taking no action" or is it that they simply disagree with YOUR interpretation? I'd bank on the latter myself. – Prokofy, on May 04, 2008 20:40

Sorry, but I do get to comment on MailourMilitary *as it is being used as a campaign on Twitter by the e-moms* -- I sure do. Without having to go to other sites. Your notion that we can't be politically correct unless we first imbibe doctrine from other site is misplaced. Sure, I get all the caveats and FAQs there are to get about emoms, which I got long ago, that they aren't "unsolicited" but "solicited" because the soldiers sign up to receive emom stuff. BUT the problem is when you have a public service like Twitter than massively beginning to participate, and when you haev so many exploiting this campaign to flog their own particular brand of Obama support and anti-war rhetoric, it not only threatens to overwhm the system, it creates this fake sense of a popular movement involved only superficial in "troop support" when in fact it's very much a hidden agenda. – Prokofy, on May 04, 2008 20:33

No. 1, this person disagrees with your politics. and they have a right to. And it's a needed dissent, let me tell you.

Their manner of delivering this message is despicable, crude, and vulgar. But to start screeching about stalking and libelling may be premature when you can *just not follow your name on Twitter and not have a vanity feed*. You seem to want to insist on the vanity-feed cake, and to be able to eat it too, i.e. make it flavourful with only what you want to see in it.

I wouldn't look to Twitter management to solve this problem of stalking and libel if you really believe it to be a severe problem. Call your lawyer and get them working on it. A letter from counsel to the Twitter management as a provider might prompt at least a temporary suspension of the account, or you can press it further through discovery and try to get the real-life coordinates of this person and go through a court with it if you feel strongly.

But it's hard to insist on the nerfing of Twitter and making it less an open system just from this guy's antics. It seems like overkill.

I oppose the war, and I voted for Obama in the primaries. But I really hate the extreme leftists around the campaign being so insensitive to dissent against them, and being so arrogant and orthodox-minded, because they could well lose us the elections, and that's just awful!

I see exactly what this guy is talking about -- a smug, self-referential group of mommy-bloggers and Silicon Valley blogging A-listers and techlibs who were very uncritical of Rev. Wright, who push Obama to the left; who have their own agenda and are hugely insensitive to others objecting to either their views of tactics. Mailourmilitary is indeed something troublesome in their hands.

The manner in which this guy has put forward his beef with these people is retarded, stalking, re-tweeting, being vulgar and crude. We all get that.

But...just how is *anybody* who doesn't like the smarmy blanketing of Twitter with these big emommy influencers able to dissent, if we can't write about them?

Oh, of course it's very, very political in a hundred ways. The entire concept of "support our troops" is something that the extremist anti-war movement, which couldn't get traction with their usual political agenda, has invaded in order to try to co-opt it and use it as a cover.

Some using the "mail our military" concept now are definitely trying to inject a certain viewpoint on the war. This can readily be seen. And it does raise disturbing issues about showering troops in combat with these messages. There's the simple, personal concern that troops with limited time on email shouldn't have to wade through a shower of "wellwishers" who are Obama supporters in order to see their real loved ones' mail. These wellwishers on the Internet are merely looking for a facile social movement to infiltrate, in order to percolate their views up through social media and communications tools. I find that very creepy, and I don't think they should get away with this lightly.

I say this as someone who opposes the war in Iraq and would like to find more effective ways to have a peace movement around it than using this sort of hidden-agenda tactic, invading an innocent concept like "mail our military" which could have been sparked (although wasn't entirely) by people just following a long-time American concept of sending postcards to military through USPO.

Wired, I tried to read your blog discussion but it just has gotten way too long and cumbersome with far too many sub comments in the thread.

I totally get the obnoxiousness and even unhinged nature of this guy. We can agree on that for sure.

But you don't get to dictate how the whole system can be used, either, just because of your individual need to filter out your vanity feed.

I can only suggest that the "fear of missing a tweet" is misplaced. You can catch up by reading www.tweetscan.com Please explain why putting your settings at "see all replies with @ in them" instead of "see just those replies with @ that are people I follow" doesn't go a long way to fix your problems, given your phone limitations, and why another workaround can't be just sitting down and reading the web version of Twitter now and then in addition to the limited capacity your phone has. – Prokofy, on May 04, 2008 20:17

Your point is understood, but the reason this isn't an "automatic" is that it has real repercussions to the system. It means newbies can never find people to follow and talk back to them because of the skittishness of oldbies who might wrongfully axe them as stalkers or spammers when in fact they are not. If you don't want the public to read your tweets, *protect* your tweets, don't insist on having the public admire you, insist on a vanity feed, and then demand to be able to filter your vanity feed and make it impossible for some people not to become visible to your or top-level aggregators. – Prokofy, on May 04, 2008 20:14

Here are the existing tools that the Twitter management supplies to you to control your Twitter experience *outside of track, which is a separate issue". Your selection of "track my own name" means "user experience may vary".

Existing tools OUTSIDE OF TRACK are all available under:

https://twitter.com/account/notificat... in "Settings"

No. 1: If you don't want to see all "@ replies" i.e. people you don't know, don't follow, and may not like, don't check this off.

If you only want to see @ replies from people you already follow and want to see, select that option -- again, this is unrelated to 'track' functions.

If you never want to see @ replies -- again, unrelated to track -- just select that options.

Now, go to this page:
https://twitter.com/account/settings

And check off "protect my updates" to get this effect:

"Only let people whom I approve follow my updates. If this is checked, you WILL NOT be on the public timeline."

This translates as follows:

*Don't put yourself in the public timeline if you do not want Internet strangers ever seeing you, with their possible negative behaviour*.

So take this person, for example, who decided to deal with the problem of undesirable communications recently:

https://twitter.com/PurpleCar

She made all her updates "protected," and that means unless she clears me personally to see her updates, *I cannot see them*.

If I go to a third-party application and type in "PurpleCar" *I cannot see her updates because they are protected. Full stop. THAT is what you need to do if you are worried about "strangers" seeing your expression and reacting to it in ways that make you uncomfortable.

All that can be seen in Tweetscan then is the *replies* to PurpleCar. That includes Panopticon.

UNLESS you track *your own name* in your vanity feed, and then you will see the @yourname. THAT is the problem.

@panopticons may be over the top, unhinged, vulgar, etc. But I'd have to agree with his point about the "emoms tyranny" and this strange campaign to "Mail our Military. I find it merely a facile leftist meme to try to create a fake social movement that "looks" patriotic and "looks" like "support our troops" but is basically a Trotskyist bore-from-within tactic typical of these extremists.

I had never thought of the problem of people who are against the war, subtly trying to infiltrate the popular support our troops concept by feigning to support people with emails.

I guess I think that political groups shouldn't be emailing soldiers they don't know -- most soldiers have plenty of their own near and dear they'd like to hear from.

I have another point about this of my own: that by making an e-mom tyranny and mail-our-military meme with the use of Twitter, these leftists are fueling another problem of American selfishness, not focusing on the war itself, the deprivations of the Iraqi people, and the need to email Congressmen, not just soldiers.

Kosso, make no mistake about it: those are vulgar, ugly, nasty comments and understandably distressing. It's a classic case of one of these losers on the Internet who uses anonymity to be crude and disgusting. You have three choices with something like this: a) ignore it b) expose it c) use the same kind of crude vulgarity right back, adding to it a promise to get the RL police involved.

I believe strongly in 3) thinking that people like this only understand force and vulgarity, and experience has shown that they usually back off once they realize their shock value of their vulgarity isn't working.

You may not like that option, so you're working with 2), trying to expose it. I understand your concern, and it's a great thing to block this guy so his ugliness doesn't have to show up in your feed.

However, while recognizing the creepy vulgarity and violence of this thug. I can only ask you to zoom out from this understandably nasty experience, and think about the system-wide consequences of enabling everbody to block from their vanity feed -- their track of their own name and the @s at them -- of anyone they just feel like, or don't like.

-- It means lots of innocent people who merely find you interesting and retweet you to their own circle are axed clumsily with your block

-- it means people who happen to see you in the public feed and follow you and try to comment to you are axed clumsily in a block

-- it means people who aren't creepy stalkers but just people who disagree with you never are seen by you, and you remain in your own complacent circle.

-- and finally, if you are a big social media makker with a huge influence factor, it means nobody ever gets to talk back to the bosses *and be heard* -- they are insured of being kept under a pillow for ever.

I realize these larger issues may be hard to think about when you are understandably angered at this guy. But I can also point out again: don't read your vanity feed if this is so upsetting. Stop tracking your name!

If you are following someone, and they are following you, just talk to each other.

You do not need to use track/your own name to see someone whom you are following write to you -- again, as far as I know, reading the features pages of Twitter. Correct me if I'm wrong. – Prokofy, on May 04, 2008 19:55

Seriously, I find the readiness with which some of the very overbearing male geek types like "loudmouthman" come on and try to discredit objections to people changing the open nature of Twitter, *really disconcerting*.

MDY, thanks for answering my concerns.

You originally said this: "Before Twitter imposed the 250/week sms limit for non-US users (like me), I had device notifications on for most of the people I was following, and was easily receiving 80+ sms messages every hour."

If you weren't trying to make something out of the fact that Twitter imposed limits, why talk about these imposed limits? If it costs you nothing, that's great, thanks for clarifying, but why would you *need to* and *have to read* 80 plus messages and hour? In other words, I do have to wonder if Twitter was rational in imposing these limits -- I just don't know its issues, or the mechanical issues at stake.

Re: your comment, "I don't see why I have to receive my tweets the way you want to receive your tweets. Don't I have a right to choose how I want to receive the information?"

Um, I'm not trying to "impose the way you receive your tweets" or "impose my way of receiving tweets on you". I'm asking the question: why not do this? If you face *phone* limitations, isn't the obvious workaround to go on the *web* when you can log on? After all, if you're like most people, you sit in front of the computer X hours a day anyway. If you're out and about with only a mobile, I understand. But I'm suggesting a *workaround* to your expressed problem.

You said: "Twitter made it possible for its users to receive tweets by phone. Why must I limit myself to the mechanisms that you deem to be appropriate for yourself?"

To which I can only say, why make it personal? Why make it about me "deeming appropriate"? Hell, I'm not the one who deemed it was appropriate for you to receive only X messages -- *that was the Twitter management*. I'm *suggesting a workaround*.

I said: "It sounds to me like you're another avid vanity-feed reader that is trying to find a way to sound like your vanity-feed isn't what it is, but something else."

You said: You're entitled to your opinion. Here's mine: It sounds to me like you're trying to impose your own values and belief system on other people. I'm failing to understand why all of Twitter has to use Twitter the way you use Twitter.

Um, again, this isn't imposing some "way of reading Twitter" on you -- when YOU are the one imposing YOUR way by urging certain accounts you don't like deleted; by urging the Twitter managers to put in a block-track function and so on.

And I'm right to point out the crux of the matter here: you need for a vanity feed. There isn't anything *wrong* with needing a vanity feed. None at all. But admit that's what is driving this concern. Once you stop watching what other people you don't follow are saying at you, once you stop worrying about missing some @ that putatively may be missed in the direct stream to you, you will stop feeling the need to restrict/eject/expel/suppress other accounts.

4. You said: "Also, point of information: if you block those two accounts... they... won't show up in your feed on your mobile. So... block them?"

I take it you didn't read my entire reply because I already said that Track doesn't recognize Blocks.

No, you're just like Steve Gillmor in your persistence in not hearing my point about this.

I totally understand that this is about TRACK. Not about FOLLOW and your DIRECT FEED OF FOLLOWS.

That's very easy to "get," and your persistence in believing I'm not intelligent to get this is like Loudmouthman's, and Steve Gillmor's. I do get it. This is about *your tracking of your own name using track," however. That IS what it is about.

So I will suggest again to you: stop tracking your own name if you are bothered by what happens in that track when you do that. Just follow those you want to hear from directly, and block those you dont' want to hear from.

Believe me, I totally got (and got this before the News Gang show) the problem with your need to track yourself in your track (as distinct from your follow) and your hatred of things appearing in your self-track that you don't like being there. You want then therefore for the managers to make track possible to "unfollow" *within track". Trust me, I got all that.

But I can only come right back you and urge you to a) understand the ramifications of that system-wide b) petition you to stop being so obsessed about the "wrong" use of track. After all, in the absence of this "feature", you feel the need to bang on everybody like me who doesn't agree with you about this.

And my not agreeing isn't "trolling," which is silly: it's simply a failure on your part to persuade me.

Re: "Heck, I even linked to a thread in this forum where other people have already tried Blocking as a way to stop receiving tracks alerts from specific accounts and it doesn't work. Here is that link again for your convenience."

Yes. I got all that. And got it weeks ago and re-got it again and again as it was banged on me. Read my blog about this here:

Yes, we all got it that a proposed concept of trying to use "block" as a way to get unwanted people out of your "track" *does not work*. We got all that. Totally. So...the question is why, however, you, with this obsessive desire to make sure that when people talk about you, it is sanitized, and no one can *ever* talk back to you if you haven't *pre-decided that they can*, there are some really serious implications for a *public dialogue* like this. After all, if you hate people's talkback and dissent to your expression, then this may not be the place for you. Go back to AIM or YM, I guess.

I said: "Live in the moment. Hear what people are doing *right now*. Talk to them *right now*. "

You said: That is precisely what I am trying to do by tracking my username and receiving the tweets via sms in real-time. I want to receive @replies to me *right now* so I can respond and talk to the senders *right now*.

Here's the problem. You want only people who *you yourself have agreed to follow and never your followers* ever, ever, ever to type @your name.

And that's wrong. Your followers responding to you with @ should not be blockable. After all, they are your followers. Most followers are not spammers, marketers, or creepy stalkers. They only make a percentage of the system. So they are just other normal people like yourself.

By insisting on the ability to block any of these @ responders, you are using too heavy an axe. You see one person retweet you? You decide they are an evil psychotic creepy stalker and block them from view. You tell others to do the same. It's sick, and spreads weird paranoia based on snap judgements over chance impressions.

I can only recommend this to you, since you express the same sort of neuralgia that Steve Gillmor expresses for even one talkback with @ that he didn't solicit and didn't love: don't track yourself.

If you are *following* someone, their @ should be visible. It is only your tracking of the @ of the non-followED that appears to be a problem.

Again, if I am factually and mechanically wrong about that last point, please correct.

Um, no, Roy, I am *not trolling* because I am persistent in disagreeing with you, and persisting in demanding proper answers to the concerns raised here.

The idea that somebody is a "troll" and you can just shut down their legitimate concerns is just sheer bull@#$!, it's just a hangover of this male geeky MMORPGy culture with which so many forums and social media are now infected.

Stop it. I have a right to contribute to this discussion as much as anyone, to express my skepticism and disagreement with others, and to seek clarity. Persistence in not agreeing with you and refusing to take your explanations is just that, not some putative "trolling". – Prokofy, on May 04, 2008 19:10

I'm failing to understand why all of Twitter has to adapt to your phonebill problems of limitations on SMS. Don't track *yourself* if this is the problem. Then your feed contains only people talking to you normally, not your obsession about what they are saying to you. Worried about missing some @s in the stream? Well, people just talk enormous amounts on Twitter, and they can't expect it to serve as a real communications device for urgent matters. If someone has to tell you to get home because your children are burning, I hope they'll use your cell phone *itself* rather than the twitter function on it.

There's another simple solution there: stop trying to get Twitter on your phone. Just read it on the web. Use tweetscan to catch up on vanity feeds.

If you're a fireman, you don't *really* need Twitter as you have your own internal communications. If you are otherwise a very busy and important person, and Twitter doesn't work for you in vanity-feed mode, due to this person following you, use AIM or YM with just a group you've selected to hear from. Wait for awhile, the person will grow bored and you may be able to start again.

I don't use Twitter on my mobile precisely because it's a firehose of messages, most of it noise, even from those I *wish* to follow. I tune in on the web; I also tune into the vanity feed as needed through www.tweetscan.com

It sounds to me like you're another avid vanity-feed reader that is trying to find a way to sound like your vanity-feed isn't what it is, but something else.

Making up a doctor's excuse and crying poor about limitation of non-US users -- just not a persuasive argument, sorry.

Also, point of information: if you block those two accounts...they...won't show up in your feed on your mobile. So...block them? And then they won't be charged as messages. Correct me if I haven't understood something mechanically here.

If you stop following your vanity feed, your problem will be solved. Live in the moment. Hear what people are doing *right now*. Talk to them *right now*. It's the vanity feed that is the problem.

I read the guy's site, and I fail to see why following people and retweeting them, unless it's in some huge massive amounts of spam, is the problem everyone thinks. I see him in my feed, and I merely skip over him.

I understand he's doing something to "play with" Twitter, but I fail to see the problem, and think this is more about the issue of others wishing to control usage and control expression.

Roy, first, you have to persuade me that the behaviour is bad. I'm not persuaded. That's what due process in a democratic society *is*. If you expect me to believe that "just because you say so" and "don't you know who I am?!" then you are playing into the characteristics of an authoritarian society.

If someone is following you with various aliases and it bothers you, ignore him? I find that with griefers, logging off, not giving them attention, not festering about it can be one kind of tool.

Publicizing their bad behaviour is an equally valid tactic, I'm all for that. But you fail to persuade me that seeing a few re-tweets or even 50 re-tweets is the problem you claim it to be.

If someone you don't know or suspect is a stalker is trying to "friend" you on Facebook, why can't you just say "no"?

See, it's this idea that you can cede power to this anonymous griefer that's annoying. You can ignore him. Not follow him. Block him and his aliases, and also just not friend him on Facebook and move on.

I fail to see how this individual is "dangerous" and "repugnant". Maybe that's because he's following and re-tweeting me, and I see him clutter up my vanity feed now and then, but I *just ignore him* Lots of people re-tweet. The ability to re-tweet shouldn't be killed over this.

Again, you can only know this guy is doing this *if you follow your vanity feed*. Can you concede that? Is there something I'm not getting here?

If you are uncomfortable with a social network where vast amounts of personal data are available, then leave it. I think that's a given these days. That's why it's a good idea not to give out your personal info. If you work site as a marketer or contractor has to give out a lot of this and you feel uncomfortable having critical eyes on it, then don't participate and use YMs for your friends. You can't advertise -- and yet also not expect criticism.

I don't find authority "oppressive" -- that would be silly. Authority is a good thing when it operates under the rule of law. You aren't doing that, when you set up yourself or other arbiters of what is "right" on social media as the authority. I don't accept you because you aren't making your case.

Kosso, it seems to me that because you engaged repeatedly with this individual, you can expect that he will now target you. Surprised? I know what that's like. But then be prepared for the consequences. Don't whine. Can you give me a URL to his "hurtful" tweets so I can understand what you are saying and whether it has merit?

Ultimately, I think the guy is doing a kind of conceptual art statement about the propensity of so many smarm marms on here to block people whose ideas they don't like, or block people on the bases of various hysterical prejudices, instead of just scrolling past them.

I imagine there is far too much blocking on Twitter. The way I can tell that is that @techcrunch, a Twitter A-lister and all round Internet A-lister, blocks his fellow A-listers if they criticize him. He blocks me if I criticize him in a few lines, with nothing like the techniques, spam, or comments that you ascribe to this Panopticons fellow.

The mental-health meme isn't effective argumentation on forums.

If this person is being vulgar and abusive, then I understand your concern, but can't you just block/unfollow?

Why is it that you even see him being vulgar and abusive unless *you are Tweetscanning your own name or following the use of your name on a vanity RSS feed of some kind or using track?"

That's the part I'm not getting.

Use of foul language is very appropriate at times. For example, with the problem I had with @jesatiu, a very cunning an unhinged type who threatened me not only with RL stalking and intrusion into RL and said he'd beat me up, but continues to obsess, comment on my tweets to others, says he's "researching me" to see if *I* have violence issues (this after *he* has threatened to send people to "straighten me out" in RL.

What do you do about an unhinged obsessive like that who is stalking you m merely because you disagree with him, and finally pronounce him "broken" because of the constant way in which he is trying to get you to conform to his wacky extremist views? You can abuse report him to mods -- but that either goes nowhere, or feeds into an insidious police-informant system. You can publicize him, or get friends not to follow him -- but that, too, is like vigilantism.

I think a nice, robust very foul-mouthed retort to such an individual is very much in order, because they only understand force and vulgarity, as they threaten violence. You may find that sinking to their level; I think it helps establish boundaries. Usually it gets them to stop.

But to then go beyond that, and make up little lists and neighbourhood committees and vigilante groups -- why bother? It's just a public conversation. Turn it off and go do something else if it bothers you so. That need to "strongly object" to everything is really overreach and is a boundaries issue of its own, no? – Prokofy, on May 04, 2008 04:39

Employees of Twitter watching! I hope your founder of Armenian heritage (if I have understood correctly) will ponder the roots of the police state, which the Armenian people know all too well from their mistreatment at the hands of Turkey and the Soviet Union, and think about the ramifications of caving to self-policing KGB-style police informants cropping up on Twitter.

If you need to cave to A-list bloggers and influencers and power mommybloggers and marketing mavens and such due to your VC capital tie-ins, we understand, but say so. Say that's what you're doing, so we get it, and the social demand for a free public conversation space can move elsewhere to another platform or group of more free minded developers.

Please don't be hasty about putting in the controls these people are asking for -- based on hysterical notions of their reading -- over the Internet (?!) of someone's mental state, their family origins, their possible intent, etc.

And think about the high-level implications of anything that makes people be able to control their vanity feeds in the granularity they wish *if they are influencers and aggregators*.

The control of track on vanity feeds and the control of re-tweeting and following people who "don't want to be followed by you" all have to be seen not as a mere end-user problem, but a high-level system problem when it becomes to create a very powerful group of power users of Twitter who then decide who gets to follow or dissent or talk about them and who gets scrubbed from their influential top-level view.

You have many competing interests to satisfy on Twitter. Try to keep a balance and keep the system open, and urge people to use just unfollow/block and not fuss about their vanity feeds. Let them put deletion/banning/muting controls on their vanity feeds within their personal Gmail, Google-reader, or other third-party aps rather than to make it possible within the Twitter system, with Twitter commands, and as a build-in to any use of Twitter by third-party APIs.

If that's a contradiction in terms, ask them to be less fussy about their vanity feeds : )

Set the tone : )

RSS helps me keep track of @ replies I may have missed.

PurpleCar, what you mean to say is -- go ahead, it's ok, everybody does it -- you have a vanity feed. You have a vanity feed not just to "check @s I may have missed* but *to see what other people are saying about you*. Go on, admit it! It's ok! Everyone does it, dear.

Now, in that vanity feed, you apparently find that it burns your eyeballs to see somebody re-tweet your tweets, talk about you when you don't wish them to talk about you, and so on. I would say...let your eye just not fall on subject posts, and keep scrolling. Don't RSS your vanity feed in real time -- there's no objective need for that, say, even if you are running a nerve-pulse Internet Twitter Social Media News Aggregation Hub like Steve Gillmor! Get an intern to watch it, if you are the irritable type : )

Whenever I see panopticons on my Tweetscan view of my vanity need to see my name and the "@s I missed" (i.e. what people are saying about me : )
I just skip over him. He's retweeting me. God knows why. I don't care about him : )