Eric Eggert's dashboard

solved.

I think Twitter has an obligation to uphold online-decency.
A customer who abuses another customer is generally booted from the bar; if they're not, the regulars stop coming.

FYI : I have closed down the @confession Twitter account until further notice. I do not have the time to deal with this stuff and I have received far too many complaints recently.

Thank you for your understanding.

Kosso

I have closed down the @confession service until further notice. I don't have time to deal with this stuff. Thanks. @kosso – kosso, on May 23, 2008 16:39

"Essentially, Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content." First rule of Social Software: it's not how you want it to be used, it's how it gets used. See: MySpace evolution, Facebook social ads, Digg revolt, etc., etc., etc. If all you provided were private updates, I'd agree with you here, but when those posts are public, then you are their publisher and you can be held accountable as one by the community or beyond, even. I could also call Vox or Flickr a communications utility, and they have very clear TOS policies. – teradome, on May 23, 2008 16:21

Excuse me but that's a bit like saying a woman was looking to be raped because she was wearing a short skirt... – Blu, on May 23, 2008 15:37

Biz, uphold your TOS. There should not even be a question about it.

Quite. Why is there even a debate? Somebody deliberately broke the TOS and they are not suffering the consequences. Instead Twitter think they'll update the TOS to allow this kind of abusive behaviour. What kind of a message does that send?! – sermoa, on May 23, 2008 15:19

Uphold the TOS. You made it, so follow it.

I fail to understand how "communications tool" isn't a community? I don't think the Twitter people are DENYING the community, it very clearly is one. Just like facebook is one. Just like Digg is one. And Flickr. But if you were to CLASSIFY those sites in a category you wouldn't find them under "community". You'd find social network, news, photo hosting. Twitter IS a communications tool and from that tool you get a community. And while I'm still perplexed as to why twitter didn't just go ahead and ban the guy I fear how things are going to start to change because of this upraor...

Freedom of Speech is a good thing my friends, but sometimes you end up with douchebags who abuse this ability. Does that mean that everyone should be punished?

Again, I do feel for Ariel. I know that what she's gone through is tough. I've gone through it too (although in a much more public form over on the facebook) and it's not fun to have to deal with. Having said that I still don't think that people should be at the Twitter guys throats. And if Twitter does bow to the pressure (like Digg did with the HD-DVD Decryption Code) it will be a dark day in my books.

Twitter's Official Stance On Abuse: http://tinyurl.com/556dwj

This is an example of what happens when people who build the app, are also in charge of running the business. The two are not the same thing, and companies like Twitter need to realize that or they will continue to face customer relationship issues just like this. Customers are not just "users" to be disdained.

In response to Amber, the confession feed is a combination of many cowards posting through a service that hides your identity. I suspect that's part of the problem - Twitter can't track who said what. The account definitely should be closed and purged because it is encouraging abuse. However, i gather that the identity of the person who has been stalking Ariel for years (and for months on Twitter) is known to Twitter and they are still turning a blind eye. – sermoa, on May 23, 2008 14:10

So if someone were to search for you on a search engine you would be happy for your name to come up attached to that kind of foul language and degrading insults? – sermoa, on May 23, 2008 14:09

Actually, Prokefy. Many of us have seen the particular offending tweeter. http://twitter.com/confession I'm amused to see what will happen now that Evan and Jack are being harrased on it now. – Amber, on May 23, 2008 13:37

twitter might not have the ability to be security, but if someone else records a twitter conversation that smacks of bigtry and hatred and presents it to a twitter authority before the tweets are erased. Then there should be a system of supervision. I created Panopticons to show security flaws in twitter, it was not designed for harassment. I was being harassed myself by "Leftists" for complaining about racism against Jews. I was left with little way to fight the hatred beyond making a spectacle of it. I wish twitter had a higher authority that I could of magnified my issue with. ...but there was not. As a result I had to take the vigilante route. If twitter does not correct the mistake they are making, I guarantee I will not be the last person who needs to create their own solutions. – Noah David Simon @TheAnalysis, on May 23, 2008 13:31

Be that as it may, i am not impressed with Twitter's stance that foul abuse and racial hatred is okay and tolerated. – sermoa, on May 23, 2008 12:58

A phone service is different. A stalker could reach you directly in your home by voice on a service you need for many critical communications. Phone services are public utilities.

An Internet chat site is not the same thing. You can chose to participate or not and don't need *this particular service* to communicate with. Again, anyone even seeing comments from someone they don't like, in a manner they don't like *is using track or search to watch their vanity feed and ensure they don't miss @ communications even from friends*

Obviously, people don't follow stalkers or spammers, and discourage them from sending @ by blocking them. *If they still see them, that means they are choosing to watch their vanity feed*. So that means...they can stop doing that and be more selective.

And a reminder here that none of us have seen this offending speech. We have no way of impartially judging whether in fact these communications even rose to the test of harassment or stalking. Given that people like Steve Gillmor of Newsgang can accuse someone like me of "trolling" and needing to be blocked merely by *a single tweet* addressed to them on a single controversial topic like Rev. Wright, we can see that the system will always sink to the lowest threshold for tolerance if left to vain A-listers and easily insulted users.

Twitter is more than just a communications utility. It is a community. It is a community that feels it has no recourse to due process. Unless Twitter the company addresses this, other people will, either by the community moving or by regulators moving in. I'm at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference right now, were we've been exploring these issues. Stop by and read my post about it at http://www.orient-lodge.com/node/2976 – aldon Hynes, on May 23, 2008 12:15

Good Lord, listen to the vigilantes, here! Threatening to "bring a company down" because...they are taking what one person says subjectively about their alleged abuse? There are basic principles of justice, due process, the right to face one's accuser, the right to be informed of the charges, and so on. None of this has been made public.

No one should be tried by "negative buzz on blogs". The terms of the TOS are overbroad, and as such the TOS is abusive itself.

Anyone who believes the service is used to stalk/harass them can avail themselves of real-life lawyers and courts and ask for Twitter's cooperation in locating and serving the users.

To make a private company the arbiter of speech is eventually to undermine the Constitutional protection of free speech. Where will the First Amendment take place if everywhere you turn there is a private company and a neuralgic and fussy user imagining they are abused by trolls, with mobs of "justice" swarming everywhere with angry "buzz"?