tpauly's dashboard

Verizon FiOS complaint

BAD customer service (CS)..service techs great, direct mger stupid lies to get install Signed up June 21 now 24 July 08 no install CS unsympathetic Very Unhappy DO NOT GET FIOS
nlemere

don't do it. verizon is awful. at least comcast has a place you can go in person to fix your problems/ pay bills. verizon is awful

You're better off with Comcast. We bundled our service in Feb. with a free TV as promotional incentive. Bill still not bundled and no free TV. We have spent hours on the phone and each time been guaranteed that everything is okay. New bill yesterday and still a mess. It's like no one listens!

Surely changing the TOS won't make a difference, Ariel and the abuser signed up to the previous TOS. This is what they should be working against. This is what Twitter can use against the abuser. Twitter needs to get its act together.

This is the best comment I've read on this thread, or anywhere, in a long time, on the threat to our freedoms. It gives me hope. – Prokofy, on May 27, 2008 07:19

This isn't twitter, lmnop. There's no need to resort to name calling simply because you disagree with someone. Be civil, mayhap? – Thomas, on May 27, 2008 07:03

Prokofy, I think the dumb !@#$ would be you, actually. But then again that wouldn't be harrassment because Twitter doesn't think so. Absolute ignorance mofo. – lmnop, on May 27, 2008 06:45

No ,Prokofy, we are *not* using a "public utility" - we are using a private one. But by claiming they are merely a communications utility they are forgetting that they are, indeed, in public space. – Marjolein Katsma, on May 27, 2008 05:51

Um, where is that place where the !@#holes can go? And who's to say you can define *the other* people who are in that category, and that you are not in it yourself? We are not "guests in a house". We are using a public utility in a public space -- a public commons -- on the Internet. We're not over at Ev's for a barbeque. We're on his mall, and as such, we have the right to some reasonable protection of the right to freedom of expression if it does not incite imminent violence or libel a private person. As Ev has already explained, he could not prove that an actual tweet was put out that actually specifically called Ariel Waldman directly by this term. And even if he had found such a tweet, by itself, while offensive, it is not actionable under real law; it's doubtful it's actionable even under a good-faith reading of the admittedly overbroad TOS.

Smart service providers had better NOT move quickly to dispense justice according to thin-skinned prima donnas and their incited mobs. – Prokofy, on May 27, 2008 05:14

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. – Thomas, on May 27, 2008 05:10

concerned tweeter, your analysis is merely the narrow analysis offered repeatedly in different forums by a tiny segment of tekkies who create and rule social media and Internet sites and think that their notion of what is just and proper should prevail. That doesn't mean it serves the public interest; it doesn't mean that it will remain this way forever.

There's nothing to say this "way things are" should last -- it won't.

Here's what it's about for you, Waldman, and other people like you -- power.
"Speaking as someone who consistently bans people on a weekly basis in communities I moderate - being afraid of a banning of a user who has broken your terms is a wee, well... disingenous sounding to me. Sorry."

And here's the message you need to hear: a) your TOS is unconscionable; b) your power is not legitimate, c) your behaviour is unjust, and more and more, people will be challenging your rule.

I'm quite sure a knowledgeable lawyer could take a look at all this and just as easily find that Twitter *is* a common carrier -- indeed, this topic is widely and heatedly debatedly all over, and your conviction that you can pronounce "the truth" on it is misplaced. It will be changing, and adapting to the needs of the public -- not to the needs of Silicon Valley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_c...

If harassment rises to the test where you'd actually have a case in real life in person with a lawyer and court -- then go for it, and ask Twitter to cooperate. If it doesn't, then don't follow your vanity feed if you don't want to see criticism or nasty stalking of yourself. It's just that simple. Threatening the service with boycotts and smearing it all over town just don't work to persuade or impress.

I guess you aren't comprehending what the Twitter devs have written now repeatedly: it isn't that they didn't enforce their TOS, which I'd argue is arbitrary and overbroad anyway. They did in fact take a look at the material, *made a determination that it was not abusive* and moved on, responding to the customer. In this case Waldman tried to leverage her position to keep banging on Twitter and keep hollering on her blog and incite people like you to high dudgeon and self-righteous indignation. But again -- it's all vapour. It doesn't matter. They didn't find abuse. She needs to stop reading her vanity feed.You need to stop spouting outrage on behalf of your illegitimate and unconscionable occupation.

So again, what happened here is that Waldman made a false charge. It's not true that "Twitter refuses to uphold its TOS"; it's that Twitter refuses to interpret the TOS *the way that thin-skinned and petulant Internet prima donas think they should uphold it*. Let's be clear on the distinction.

meh, Twitter is *not* a communications utility, it is NOT an ISP. It is a website - a publishing platform, an online service - though a free one. It's a microblogging site, generally used in tandem with blogs for short updates and quick updates with friends. It is for PUBLISHING. Let's get that straight. Twitter does not provide any internet access, it's not a UTILITY like the freaking phone company! It's not even like the online services and bulletin boards of yesteryear, because it provides *no* internet access. It is *purely* a service on the web.

The law protects it only so far as to protect them from potentially illegal content posted without their knowledge, but that bit of protection evaporates once they've been notified of the situation - if they don't rectify it, it could well be actionable. That is to say: if some deadbeat is posting kiddy porn - no Twitter is not responsible, unless they were *notified* and then let it stay there.

And yes, Twitter is obligated to cooperate with the police and keep records.

comparing it to an ISP or a telephone company (the two are usually synonymous if you have DSL these days) is only applicable if you like, hooked up a loudspeaker to your telephone and blared all your telephone conversations to the neighborhood. (Good luck with the neighbors!) That's what Twitter does on the Intarwebs. Let's not forget that fact. So lets dispense with the freedom of speech blarney because Twitter legally has the right to censor whatever it wants on its own website, and it's totally protected by law. Flickr apparantly had no problem doing the same thing, and if Twitter had done as Flickr had done (and what most online services do these days), this wouldnt even be an issue right now.

I've worked for online services for years and yep, this is experience on my part.

Now to dispense with the next bit of blarney I've read on this ... seems like Twitter reps claim that there is no record of deleted tweets - better be aware of the law that requires to retain records in the event of a criminal investigation.

http://tinyurl.com/e3fo9

Now, the real possibility is this: all Miss Ariel has to do is file a POLICE report on the content - just the stuff I SAW - which is potentially *criminally* actionable in many western countries, (hey, one of those tweets was about using a dildo to well... you know... her) and then you guys at Twitter are going to claim you don't have the content to provide them?! Oh wow... Good luck! Are you people aware that its insanely easy for police to get IP records from a UK site? You're not safe just because someone used a UK site to send anonymous threats via twitter... it's just going to take a little time is all.

I really like twitter, I really do, I think its a great idea - Pownce isn't really the kind of site I was looking for - so no, this doesnt mean I'm going to run off to Pownce, no. But I call a spade a spade when I see it, and I honestly couldn't care less if Ariel Waldman was CEO of Google - the situation I've seen so far looks wrong, really wrong... and the responses from Twitter staff look bad... really bad.

I simply saw enough of those tweets to be sure something really wrong was going on. Speaking as someone who consistently bans people on a weekly basis in communities I moderate - being afraid of a banning of a user who has broken your terms is a wee, well... disingenous sounding to me. Sorry.

It's foolish to prefer public censorship over private. – SweetMercury, on May 26, 2008 22:57

I didn't say Twitter doesn't have the right to censor us when using their service. They do have that right. They aren't obligated to provide us with a soapbox, but I'm glad they do.

I'm not sure how it makes me foolish to not want someone to censor my words. Do you want someone to censor yours? If I pay getsatisfaction.com $1 will they remove your comment? They may have that right, but you probably don't want them to.

Freedom of expression is both "freedom from" and "freedom to."

I'm pretty sure that @messages will show up in your timeline. If not, we still have a case where there is some evidence of harassment that continued after a slap on the wrist. You know what? Freedom of expression on a corporate site is practically meaningless. I'd rather that if a corp holds all the cards that they play them in a manner that benefits most of their user base.

Sorry, but there is no legal reason to defend our freedom of expression on Twitter -- it's a meaningless concept -- and barely a moral reason if censuring a single user for abuse of the Terms of Service results in a better place for many. – clvrmnky, on May 26, 2008 22:05

"The right to disseminate information is one of our most fundamental rights, and as such I would rather be censored by a court than by a corporation."

Then you are a fool. The limits on censorship contained within the Constitution apply only to the public sector. Corporations have no ability or right to censure you, unless you are on their property. Twitter is a PRIVATE web property, and if you want to use it, you have to play by their rules. Just because you have a right to free speech doesn't obligate Twitter (or any company) to provide you with a soapbox. – SweetMercury, on May 26, 2008 21:43

Biz actually updated his original post with a reference to the Confession account: "Note that this same popular blogger issued another complaint more recently about a different account which was some sort of "confession" mashup that allowed multiple people to post to one Twitter account. Our support staff investigated as soon as we received the complaint but the account had already been deleted by it's creator."
What bothers me the most about this, is that this is a LIE. Numerous people have actually commented on the contents of the confession account, and in fact it still existed until *yesterday* - it was not actually closed/emptied until I pointed out in my (moderated-away) comment yesterday that it was still there for all to read.
Sorry, Twitter, that's not "investigation" - that's sloppy misinterpretation from kosso's comment that the confess /service/ was closed, if you even paid any notice at all.
So Biz is either quite naively, or quite deliberately lying. In either case, that's an excellent way to win trust of your users back, isn't it? No, it isn't. – Marjolein Katsma, on May 26, 2008 20:58

Strong case; I must agree with you on that - a policy of informing police would also probably result in fewer violations - it's just harder to do on the Internet for most companies, so they end up doing the policing. Plus, there's a bit of a problem in the international nature of the Internet that makes enforcement of such a policy difficult or impossible to do in nations with differing views on rights and with different laws regarding speech and what's protected. To that end, corporations need to at least retain the right to handle things however they wish, but virtuously maybe elect not to most of the time, which is what twitter seems to be doing here. As I've said, they didn't do anything wrong, but generally, the web 2.0 social megalith enforces TOS and handles abuse fairly swiftly in the interest of "protecting users," which is usually the point of a TOS anyways - its an agreement to use the service in the way they define and you agree to. – Jim Cavoli, on May 26, 2008 17:40