Loading Profile...
Twitter refuses to uphold Terms of Service
I've had an appallingly bad experience with Twitter's lack of community management. Please read this post for a summary of what I went through:
http://arielwaldman.com/2008/05/22/tw...
I think it's extremely important for Twitter to develop policies around their Terms of Service to stick by. In short, it's completely unacceptable for Twitter's users to be harassed to this level and have Twitter refuse to ban anyone for fear of being sued. Yahoo, Flickr, Pownce, and Digg do *not* take these kinds of TOS violations lightly and will ban users/content if there is even a question of harassment.
In fact, I would like to call out that Twitter can't be sued for banning users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_...
As my lawyer wrote to me:
"It basically insulates any interactive computer service from liability for the postings of any of its users and gives it complete immunity anytime it removes user content because it is offensive. In fact, Section 230(c)(2) says expressly that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
This pretty clearly shields them from liability for removing posts and users who tweet offensive or harassing messages. Moreover, their own TOS says:
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time."
Thus, legally, they are pretty much entitled to kill any account they want for any reason and there's not much legally anyone can do about it."
http://arielwaldman.com/2008/05/22/tw...
I think it's extremely important for Twitter to develop policies around their Terms of Service to stick by. In short, it's completely unacceptable for Twitter's users to be harassed to this level and have Twitter refuse to ban anyone for fear of being sued. Yahoo, Flickr, Pownce, and Digg do *not* take these kinds of TOS violations lightly and will ban users/content if there is even a question of harassment.
In fact, I would like to call out that Twitter can't be sued for banning users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_...
As my lawyer wrote to me:
"It basically insulates any interactive computer service from liability for the postings of any of its users and gives it complete immunity anytime it removes user content because it is offensive. In fact, Section 230(c)(2) says expressly that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
This pretty clearly shields them from liability for removing posts and users who tweet offensive or harassing messages. Moreover, their own TOS says:
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time."
Thus, legally, they are pretty much entitled to kill any account they want for any reason and there's not much legally anyone can do about it."
I’m offended
16
people have this problem
I have this problem, too!
Tell me when someone solves it.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
The best solutions from everyone
-
I was trying to stay out of the mix on this, but I just want to make a couple of points. I applaud and respect Twitter, Ev, Biz, Jack and the rest for acting properly. They are smart and reasonable men who have actually thought this whole thing out logically. When I read this insanely giant thread, I am reminded of a lynch mob mentality from most of you. That's sad. The case is pretty clear. Read the facts as presented by both sides.
To me, the most important point is that one should be allowed to comment on "public figures." It's part of our basic freedom of speech. There's no evidence of hatred, harassment or stalking as far as I could tell. It's just someone expressing their opinion of Ms. Waldman and maybe using "salty language." Ariel is really a public figure or "Internet Celebrity" in some sense of the term, because she has marketing herself as such.
You know, I'm a pretty creative person and I like to satirize Twitter and it's prominent users here and there... and I really don't want to have to worry that something or someone is going to take my Twitter forum away from me, because they don't like something I wrote. I worked very hard to gain the Twitter following over over 2,300 people. Don't go making Twitter (assuming it's up) into a moderated and censored chat room. That would really suck!
Now, on with the show.
-gj
I’m sad for you and happy for me.
4 people say
this solves the problem
-
I think there is a TOS issue, and would hope that Twitter would stick to what is clearly written there. But who reads the TOS? Not many people, they just click to agree and that is that. But a community, which is what Twitter is (like it or not Mr. Communication Utility) as evidenced by this thread if nothing else, needs guidelines. I would propose a set of community guidelines like flickr (*you know the guy, don't be that guy*) that state the general rules of the road. Then, violations of those guidelines can be reported, dealt with, and the community can be at ease again.
Because at the end of the day, communication (via photos, text, video, etc.) is community. Don't hide your heads in the sand.
Oh, and I would be happy to take a shot writing the guidelines, with the support of all y'all out there!
I’m confident
4 people say
this solves the problem
-
I admire Twitter's laissez faire handling, but do agree they should have TOS that reflect their intentions. Perhaps replace them with "like SMTP, we route messages. Tracking who is offended by which content is beyond the scope of our service."
One does have to wonder about the order of events: "abuse" -> Ariel joins Pownce -> scandal
I’m nonplussed
3 people say
this solves the problem
-
Btw, how does *anyone* aside from the Twitter employees know that Ariel didn't just fake this whole thing to attract attention to her or her blog? Her blog is a little more racy and NSFW, so why not up her hits? Twitter knows who this person is via IP address (it was easy enough for me to find the profile) and based on their TOS, the profile could have been deleted solely for the many spam tweets (e.g. free ringtones, pharma ads, etc) I'm not like out to get Ariel or anything and I've had my own stalker or ten in my internet life, but it would be easy enough to fakeastalker. I don't always believe the hype. Besides, the profile has 750 people following it. I am a newb and recognized a few names. What does that say about the community if they are following such lame and disgusting tweets? I hate e-stalking. But if you give a story/stalker attention, they love it. I would have just kept after Twitter, but not been so public about it. But that's just my style - I don't feed trolls anymore. P.S. As far as an employer googling her name and finding the rants, um, have you all *seen* her blog. It's pretty um... sexual? I am not a prude, but an employer can see that the rants are stupid and harassing, but what will they think about her blog?
I’m tired of this story?
3 people say
this solves the problem
-
We're upset that Ariel is having such a bad experience with Twitter. She's been a long term user of ours and a great advocate of our service. Also, it's clear that folks here are interested and concerned about how we at Twitter react to content issues like this.
Something to keep in mind is that we're discussing content that has not been shared here. This account is no longer available for review because the person who created it willingly removed it back in March. We reviewed this account at the time of the complaint and did not find it in violation of our Terms.
The fact that so many of us can have differing opinions without having even reviewed the content we're discussing highlights the difficulty of this issue. In fact, Twitter recognizes that it is not skilled at judging content disputes between individuals. Determining the line between update and insult is not something that Twitter nor a crowd would do well.
We have deleted accounts for more straightforward violations of the existing Terms. That being said, we are engaged in an editorial review of those Terms to make it more clear what actions we will and won't take. Essentially, Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content.
It's great that everyone's talking about this because it helps us make important decisions. After all, Twitter is a new medium that we're all figuring out as we go.
I’m thankful
The company and 16 other people say
this solves the problem
-
Inappropriate?I hope they get on the ball with this.
One question, though, what are Twitter's abilities to completely freeze out a user? (Not that they shouldn't try...)1 Comment Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
twitter is determined to run twitter like the "United Nations". This Jimmy Carter impartiality will not stand. -
Inappropriate?I would think they could block an IP address if they wanted. That would really mess someone up.4 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
They'd have to delete an account, Block an IP, block an SMS phone number, and block an IM name, from what I can tell. All doable, really.
Of course, what's to stop the stalker from changing all that info, it's not difficult, if he's determined. Harassment of this type should be covered under criminal law, though, really. Can't call someone a "c---" over twitter from jail. -
Ja but you're both forgetting the subnet.
-
Sorry Britney, but with DHCP that could block the next user who inherits the offending IP address from their mutual ISP. Besides, I don't think it was a technical problem, rather, a fear of legal reprisal on Twitter's part...
-
hey Britney and Sweet Mercury. what you are talking about is covered by U.S. law. It is just difficult to convince twitter that they are liable. I would like to see a judicial forum because twitters problem is that it hides behind logic loopholes and fails to understand that harassment is not able to be dissected like a science. Some people call me a harasser, like Kosso and his girl, but it now seems he has done his share. Maybe you don't agree... Exactly my point! A community forum like this is nice, but we need a higher judge to administrate. The worst thing is that situations like my own with panopticons are left in doubt. I was getting harassed myself for being Jewish and a supporter of Israel and U.S. troops. I felt I had to take matters into my own hands because twitter would not do anything. If twitter wants there to be another panopticons situation, they will continue to put their head in the sand. Till that point, I will take any "Terms" claim they have very lightly because the only breach they recognize is an architectural one. This is a breeding ground for tyranny.
-
Inappropriate?I hope that you're status in the tech industry will bring issues like this into a more public focus.
Good luck in ridding yourself of this spiteful stalker.
I’m offended also
1 Comment Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
Your grammar offends me, and I'm reporting it.
-
Inappropriate?Twitter needs to protect it's users! Ariel should be thanked for her patience, not punished with this run-around.
It could me or you next.
I’m upset
-
Inappropriate?Bit disappointed here. I sent a long comment to the original article mentioned at the top (through the link).
I’m frustrated
-
Inappropriate?What a lame, weak, and otherwise limp-wristed approach twitter has taken to solving this problem.
TERRIBLE example you are setting, twitter. Just terrible.
Jack, if you're listening, you need to buck up and take control here. Otherwise, you are clearly not fit to run that company. It is *directly* your responsibility to ensure that this kind of crap doesn't continue to happen on your company's site, and any sort of apathy to this situation shows a distinct lack of leadership on your part.
Boo!
Digg this thread! Click on the Digg link at the upper right corner of the thread in the "Share" box. People need to see this.
I’m pissed.
-
Inappropriate?This has got to be one of the lamest moments in recent memory. To sign up for the service you have to agree to the TOS. Everyone seems to get this except Twitter.
Also, out of all the companies you mentioned that don't hesitate to ban people, how many of them have been sued? I can't say for sure but my guess is zero.
I’m mad as hell!
-
Inappropriate?As a support veteran, I can momentarily sympathize with a front-line support person backing away from the heat of this kind of thing. However, when a company as small as Twitter (~15 people) who purport to have a lawyer at their disposal responds to this kind of thing with a promise to rewrite their rules so that they need do nothing, it becomes very worrisome.
What will probably happen is that Twitter will sooner or later be required to generate a normal ToS, but maybe not under the pressure of this case.
I’m upset
-
Inappropriate?Over the past year it seems to me twitter only cares about 3 things....
#1 Raising VC capital
#2 Raising VC capital
#3 Raising VC capital
The hell with enforcing their TOS or keeping the service online.
I’m sad
-
Inappropriate?Wow, what a lame, useless response from Twitter, a service that I love. I hope they get off their lazy bums and get themselves some community managers who actually actively manage the community and act in accordance with their own TOS.
I’m dissapointed
-
Inappropriate?I sympathize and hope that you see a swift resolution to this issue. Pseudonymity has its price, but if Twitter cannot be bothered to, at the _least_, abide by the terms of their own TOS, I cannot be bothered to continue on with their service.
If Twitter proves themselves as spineless as your correspondence indicates, I'll leave the service, and suggest to my friends that they do the same.
I hope Twitter proves me wrong.
I’m wary.
-
Inappropriate?Ouch. I'll be following this and hope to see Twitter resolve this soon.
I’m disappointed
-
Inappropriate?I'm at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference where there are discussions about how best to deal with Cyberbullying. I expect that Twitter may be examined as a way not to deal with Cyberbullying
I’m frustrated
-
Inappropriate?Banning a user is not an easy call to make. We know, we banned our first this week. But there are times when, for the health of the greater community, it has to be done. As community managers we can not and should not allow our members to suffer such persistent and malicious harassment via our services. It poisons the water from which we are all drinking.
Ariel, I hope you get a more satisfying resolution soon.
I’m so many things, but primarily sad & disappointed.
-
Inappropriate?I blogged about this and now the article's on Techmeme ... hopefully this will end up with a resolution soon :)
I’m sad, confused and frustrated
-
Inappropriate?It's just wrong that they refuse to do anything about it. If this type of behavior continues I'll be leaving the service.
I’m dissapointed
-
Inappropriate?Wow, talk about a complete neglect of responsibility (and possibly liability?) on Twitter's part. There really should be any hesitation on their part as to how to handle this. Unbelievable. I hope they come to their senses soon.
I’m frustrated
-
Inappropriate?This is awful. The TOS as it stands is completely justified and those users should be banned. I've been a part of other communities (Newsvine being the biggest one) where warning and then banning for these issues is common practice.
I’m very disappointed
-
Inappropriate?Well, they can either get sued for acting on their TOS, or for NOT acting on their TOS. Point is, you don't get to decide whether you get sued or not, but you do get to do what's right by your users. I really hope they change their act on this.
I’m disappointed
-
Inappropriate?In addition to working on scaling our technology, we also have to work on scaling on policies and terms. The existing terms are, as noted, inspired by those used by other services. And through them we reserve the right to take action against many different types of content issues.
But in practice, we only act in specific circumstances. (Some of this has been posted before).
For this reason, we're in the process of reworking the existing terms to reflect what we enforce.
What we believe is that Twitter is a recipient-driven utility; you choose what content appears in your timeline. We offer tools like block so that users can distance themselves from others with whom they have disputes or disagreements.
As a communication utility, Twitter does not get involved in these disputes between users over issues of content except in limited circumstances. Twitter is a provider of information, not a mediator. Specific physical threats, certain legal obligations, privacy breaches of specific types of information (e.g. SSN, credit cards), and misleading impersonation are some cases where we may become involved and potentially terminate an account.
Overall, we hold ourselves responsible for building tools that allow our users to control their own experience. Twitter is not a judge for resolving disputes over most content issues—our focus is on providing a service.
1 person says
this solves the problem
26 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
If that is indeed the case, please amend line item #4 in your TOS and the closing related paragraph ("Violation of any of these agreements will result in the termination of your Twitter.com account") to be consistent with this.
Reference: http://twitter.com/tos -
"our focus is on providing a service"
Even a service that clearly breaks your own TOS? Care to elaborate? This *clearly* is a cut-and-dry case. There is no room for alternative judgment. -
so twitter's stance is that the harassed should try harder to ignore the harassment? because that really doesn't make any sense and is so wrong to say.
-
My first thought, before I read her article was similar: "why can't you just block the user so you don't see him?"
However, that will do nothing about the fact that anyone else following the harasser will see the foul things he's saying. -
So... she just has to look the other way when someone's slandering her and publishing her personal information on Twitter? Fail, dude. Massive fail.
-
Ok, so your focus is on providing a service. Can you let us know when you are going to start providing that service for more than 72 hours at a time?
-
Twitter wants all users to do what I felt I was forced to do: Make all updates private, block users, take Twitter updates off Facebook, Pownce, my blog, and all other sites, etc. etc. Basically Twitter wants me to use their service in a VERY specific and extremely limited way. They obviously don't care about the free word-of-mouth and site advertisement they were getting from my usage of Twitter widgets on other sites. Twitter is slowly but surely restricting my usage to the point of abandonment. I'm not the first to say this and I won't be the last.
-
On one hand you're worried about a lawsuit. And yet, it never crosses your mind the amount of bad press you're getting? This is spreading like wildfire man. Like california flames and guess who's the firewood? Twitter itself.
-
Boo. This is really poor reasoning here. I hope the amount of negative press this is generating is causing you to rethink a bit
-
@ZachForrest That is *exactly* what I was thinking. They're not just the firewood, they're throwing gasoline on the flames!
-
"What we believe is that Twitter is a recipient-driven utility; you choose what content appears in your timeline. We offer tools like block so that users can distance themselves from others with whom they have disputes or disagreements."
And with that you totally miss the point -- the turn-the-other cheek method only works when character isn't being publicly defamed. Beyond that, does this mean that other portions of the TOS are now fair game?
Also, I'm dumbfounded at Twitter's concern for a lawsuit from the offending user. As it stands, it seems to me that Twitter is now vulnerable to suit raised by Ariel for permitting libelous material (see her being called a "crack whore", which could be construed as an implication of illegal activity) to remain on their servers and service even after Ariel provided them with what amounted to a take down notice.
I know Twitter's a free service, and I know a good number of us are hooked, but it's almost like you *want* us to leave. Adding this into the mix along with the fact that Twitter finds uptime impossible makes Pownce and FriendFeed only look better and more viable for the community. -
Part of the problem is that by not discouraging this type of behaviour, in essence you're encouraging it for the people doing it. If the offensive people can get away with it once, they'll just keep going and going and going.
The more offensive people and tweets on your site, the fewer people you'll have wanting to use the service as it was intended. Essentially you're taking steps to killing your own user base. Nice job. -
Except blocking has no relevance when it comes to tracking. How many people track their twitter name as a way of finding out who's @replying to them? Enforcing these kinds of rules on a community site is ACCEPTED PRACTICE.
-
Jason, why don't you ban that account because the majority of it is spam tweets. I thought spam would get you banned anyway??
Oh, and, the profile has 750 followers. Guess someone is interested in what he has to say? (it's all lame!) -
You say you offer tools to allow conflicting users to simply ignore each other, however in practice this is not quite the case. In Ariel's description of the problem she states that her attacker repeatedly used her full name, and considering that her twitter username is @arielwaldman I bet she's tracking it. From my own experience, I still receive messages from someone I've blocked whenever they use one of the words I'm tracking.
The tools you provide to manage your "scaled" policy = fail. The community you serve doesn't even agree with this policy. Please fix this! -
Twitter was set up as a communications system, but it quickly began to be used as a publishing system as well.
Even if user blocks that account, over 700 people still read it (plus whoever finds it through searches).
And this isn't just about "name calling." Ariel writes that this is part of a pattern of harassment & misogyny (a lot of women use twitter, and I hope you'll create an environment where that will continue to be the case), something flickr has dealt with in the right way, but twitter hasn't. -
Jason, I see you point that you don't get involved in personal issues. But if someone was harrasing someone on the streeet, a police officer would help. At school, the principal might suspend you. They wouldnt be get involved to fix the problem per say. Lets call an ace an ace, you guys did not step up to the plate. Admit you screwed up and did not follow your TOS. Just react in the future.
-
Definitely not what I would have expected from Twitter, the supposed leader in this space. While I understand what you guys are after, especially with your explanation, do you really believe in your heart that is the way to handle this issue? Community sites like twitter are supposed to _feel_ comfortable for the users, not make them feel as if they're in a militarized zone. Methinks you guys should rethink this "policy" before this issue turns in to total chaos for twitter.
-
Unfortunately Jason, this situation has put the company in a position for you to intervene. There won't be another type of "damage control" that will fix the company's image. This article is on the front of Digg. Your company, regardless of what the admin thinks, is making a statement of not being concerned about your users. It is about what is being perceived as well as what is happening.
-
Listen to your users. I don't see a lot of people asking for this watered-down policy. Also consider how many employers, use google to pre-screen potential employees. Would you want some foul-mouthed rant by some near-stranger with a vendetta coming up as a result?
-
Keep in mind, Jason, that you also have the ability to set a good precedent here, to establish Twitter's rights as a private domain.
Yes, you guys allow anyone to join, and are public in that respect, but the law is on your side when it comes to asserting your rights over your service/domain. It's yours. Ban whom you must, in this case, the community is looking for you to not tolorate harassment. -
Jason, you just gave your boss the perfect reason to fire you. I mean, if you're not there to ban users that violate your TOS and you guys haven't been able to communicate Twitter's continuous problems to the outside world until recently, what is your job, then?
-
Even *MySpace* will ban spammy, abusive users -- come on, can't you even top MySpace?
-
Seems like writing to ToS and using the Flickr model was an "oops" if there was never going to be any actual follow through on it. If you want to be just a content distributor, why even bother with the touchy-feely ToS in the first place? Didn't you ask Flickr how much work it was when you talked to them about it?
-
The issue I see here is that, while a user may block this person from their personal timeline, potential employers and other people searching your name will not have this person blocked. The damage comes not from seeing them yourself, but from having others see it. Your policy solves nothing as far as this is concerned.
As for fear of lawsuits, there is just as likely a chance, if not a larger one, that you will be sued eventually from the other side. This is to say, a user who knows what your terms of service promise may sue you for not taking action to protect their reputation from potential employers, or even other Twitter viewers, from seeing these harassing statements online despite a TOS statement that promises action. -
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.
-
-
Inappropriate?I'm really surprised that Twitter would take this stance. Why on earth are they afraid of a lawsuit? Use of twitter isn't a right; kicking someone off after repeated, documented instances of harassment is fully justifiable.
Booo, twitter.
I’m disappointed and surprised
-
Inappropriate?I and others had a similar issue with Twitter. (See 'is panopticons violating Twitter's TOS?' here on Get Satisfaction!)
Unfortunately, Twitter will keep its crowd of early adopters despite all of this. Going forward, Twitter won't be viable for widespread 'tipping point' adoption levels due to their lack of features, including the non-policing (please see my blog post http://www.purplecar.net/2008/05/19/u...).
I truly can't imagine Twitter has any valid arguments against showing their community that there are, at the very least, minimal efforts to protect it. Is Twitter's exit strategy approaching on their timeline? I ask because they clearly don't care about their community and have little insight into the future of the application. Twitter's staff is unprepared and unwilling to play in the big leagues with Flickr and other services that have found their way into the mainstream. Who ARE these people who invested in this last round? What is the real story here?
I’m confused.
2 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
All these problems just keep people moving to FriendFeed. So no, Twitter hasn't won yet. Let's hope FriendFeed takes its own TOS seriously!
-
FriendFeed can't take it's own TOS seriously, if I post something bad on Twitter and it gets pulled into FriendFeed, or something that Twitter thinks is OK and FriendFeed doesn't, is it the fault of FriendFeed for pulling everything from twitter automatically and not using a filter, or is it the fault of Twitter for not having a TOS compatible with FriendFeed?
-
Inappropriate?Jason: Wow.
Physical threats against a user and Twitter *may* get involved?
Repeated verbal attacks by one person upon another you call a "dispute"?
Again: Wow. This completely alters my whole view of Twitter. I don't think that I can trust a company that takes this attitude toward online abuse.
I’m alienated
-
Inappropriate?Really Twitter? This is just wrong, you can't get sued for banning someone that agreed to the rules you established, honestly, thats just silly.
You, as a company, need to step up, and do something about this, or your going to lose a whole lot of users, including myself.
-Nick
I’m pissed off.
-
Inappropriate?It is mind-boggling that Twitter offers these great communication tools, starts to get a real community going and yet acts irresponsibly in not protecting its users.
When the situation is brought to their attention, instead of taking appropriate actions in removing the cause of the problem, their only response is to protect themselves by updating their TOS. Wow.
The way I perceive Twitter has definitely been taken a turn for the worse and I'm questioning whether this is where I want to be.
I’m disappointed
-
Inappropriate?I think I understand the message that Jason is trying to convey. I strongly agree that Twitter should modify their TOS to match their company philosophy. However I would still like to play devil's advocate for a moment...
If someone wrote you a letter that would be considered "hate mail" would you sue or take action against the company that manufactured the paper? What about the service that delivered that message to you? (for example, the USPS or FedEx.)
Twitter is an open canvas. They manage the structure that supports that canvas and it's availability. The USER controls what appears on that canvas.
That being said, let's just take computers away from all mean people. Then we wouldn't have to worry about cyber-bullying and computer viruses. Right? ;-)
I’m just wishing we could all get along...
1 person says
this solves the problem
10 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
My whole contention with the issue is simple: 1) Twitter has had their TOS up for some time, 2) the TOS clearly states the penalty for violating it, and 3) Twitter is, as evidenced by Jason's response, refusing to enforce their TOS. The fact that they're merely the messenger is all well and good, but they _must not_ say things in their TOS unless they're going to abide by them. If not, what's the point of a TOS?
-
Jen F - Yeah, I can see that that's the point that Jason, and Twitter, are making. They are just supplying the tool, each user controls his/her experience of use of that tool. However, I wonder whether that is the right stance to take because the reality is Twitter HAS a community whether they think about it that way or not and by allowing abusive use of their tool that community could become an ugly place for everyone.
This is a really fascinating case, actually, and has gotten my gears turning. -
@tsanth Twitter is actively acknowledge the problem with TOS and trying to fix it. http://getsatisfaction.com/twitter/to...
They made a mistake and are trying to fix it. -
You miss an important element in your analogy -- hate mail is a private correspondence. Essentially anything on Twitter is published into the public domain and becomes a defamation of character. In that, your analogy, while well meaning, can't work.
As to your thought of Twitter as an open canvas: the user cannot control the canvas fully. The user can only control their view of the canvas, which parts of the canvas they choose to ignore. If there is a part of the canvas that strikes them as offensive, while they can look away it still remains available for everyone else to see. Only Twitter can remove the parts of the canvas that only serve to offend.
Twitter is not responsible for user's content, but they are responsible to uphold their TOS. If a user's content becomes a violation of the TOS, they then must take responsibility for that content, too. Simple. -
@chrisro very good point. :) they admitted they made a mistake, and are working to fix it. at the heart of my argument (and defense) is this... i *like* using twitter. yes, it has problems. but i would *hate* to see it go away because ... well, mean people suck. and tend to ruin things (like twitter) for the rest of us.
-
@MartyNet If the message service promised in their TOS to do their best to see that that sender didn't send my any more hate mail, then I would sue them for not keeping the TOS and therefore being complicit with the harasser. ESPECIALLY if I found they are doing it for some and not for others.
-
Jen F:
1. I believe that it is a federal offense to use US Postal Service for criminal activity. I dont know where harassment falls into it, but if you do something illegal by using the US Postal Service, that's a federal crime.
2. On another level, if you harass someone from a community, which Twitter is, you should get banned. End of Story.
3. As a good community facilitator and honoring their TOS, they should honor it and abide by it.
4. What exactly does Twitter have to lose by banning this person? -
i agree it's not a perfect analogy. but my goal was to make people think about the deeper problem (bullies, cyber and "IRL"), not for them to pick an analogy apart. sigh...
-
It's dumb to compare Twitter to a post office and hate mail. The internet is something that can be cached, that can be searched. Public harassment on the internet is something that can damage a person's reputation, because it can easily be found. Many companies search the names of applicants on the internet. Depending on the future boss or the type of job, these things can become a problem, and with the full name included in this harassing tweets, finding this stuff isn't that difficult.
Also, hate mail is very different from stalking.
As long as they have their old TOS in place, they have to act according to them. They can change their policy after they changed the TOS, but until then, they have to take their TOS seriously, so that any TOS they have can be taken seriously.
Oh, and an important thing here is: Nobody's shooting the messenger here. Twitter is not criticized for offering the stalker a platform, they're not criticized for the very existence of the stalker in their system. They're criticized for not banning him, even though their TOS tell them to do so. This is very different from what you're saying. -
A letter delivered personal is private communication and doesn't publicly defame the harrassee. It would be smarter to say "would you sue the billboard company that plastered those things about you publicly, using your full name?"
-
Inappropriate?@Jen F - no, you wouldn't sue FedEx. But the document that's delivered by mail is only seen by you. Twitter is public. Would the newspaper USA Today allow someone to publish insults or hate mail against an individual, and if they did (which I highly doubt) would the target be in the right to ask USA Today to stop publishing them?7 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
Exactly.
-
@zchamu LOL, good question. But if someone is going to send something to you, what's to stop them from sending it to your neighbors, friends, and customers?
And once incorrect information is out there (in print, online or otherwise), it doesn't go away. There are times when "news agencies" have reported false information and in a manner that is insulting or could lead to harassment. Granted the intent is not there but it's still "wrong".
Bottom line, shall we shoot the messenger? -
If the messenger has agreed to not provide services to people who are sending abusive/slanderous things to your neighbors, friends, and customers... then yes, we should take the messenger to task for it.
-
or... people could just stop being abusive jerks. ;-)
-
Jen F - if news agencies report false information, they apologize or they get sued. And if someone is sending something to you, your neighbours, friends and customers, that's harassment - which is against the Twitter TOS. Or it was.
-
@zchamu Maybe, but I still contend that once the information is out there, it's permanent. And retractions are buried so deep that most people wouldn't notice while the false information is posted on office bulletin boards for all time.
-
@Jen F: If the messenger has a rule that states their service can't be used to send hate mail and they knowingly deliver the hate mail anyway, then yes, we do shoot the messenger.
-
-
Inappropriate?Honestly, the name calling... meh, but using her full name online, posting her email, etc etc.
Besides, Twitter employee dude, did you *see* the harassing profile? It's mostly spam. Get rid of it. And for the 753 people following the dude, unfollow if you are all twisted panties about it.
I’m debutaunt
2 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
This part has confused me -- her name (Ariel Waldman) is not only part of her domain name, but posted throughout her website.
Am I missing something here? -
To clarify - Using her name in connection with the derogatory comments is not ok. It's a Google bomb. I've been called cuntzilla, bitch, slut, fat whore, etc, but it wasn't in connection with my name (besides which, I don't advertise my full name anywhere). The profile should be banned solely on the fact that it is totally spam.
-
Inappropriate?Revising the TOS is not the answer. We want Twitter to uphold basic, decent community principles: if someone in the community is being harassed, Twitter should act immediately with a warning to the harasser, then a follow-up, and if it continues, ban them. We're all passionate about Twitter but that's because we believed this was a community, not a bureaucracy where you'll change your TOS rather than do the right thing and protect your users.
Would you have the same response to this issue if the harassment was being made against one of your own staff?
I’m pissed
1 person says
this solves the problem
5 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
Honestly, I believe they could (& should) ban the harrasser b/c his profile is primarily spam tweets, and then a few comments about Ariel.
-
I totally agree with this. Who cares if they just change the TOS? Yeah, that gets them out from behind the legal side of it, but for God's sake Twitter: DO THE RIGHT THING!
-
I, for one, care if they just change the TOS. When I join a site, I take their TOS as part of their implicit contract with me and a listing of our responsibilities to each other. Twitter has violated that agreement by not holding themselves to their TOS. As such, Twitter needs to be called out on it. My _preference_ is that they abide by the TOS they have. If they instead decide to change their TOS, then it's my responsibility to re-evaluate whether or not I will continue my relationship with Twitter.
-
@emilychang You are assuming that all people care about decency. They don't. A bully doesn't bully because they are a decent person. And that is basically what this issue boils down to... bullies.
-
Bravo Emily. It strikes me that online society is now dealing with what real society has built up lots of safety measures against. If someone stood out on a public street in front of your home screaming obcenities your direction free speech would not keep the neighbors from calling the authorities and it would not stop the authorities from taking action.
-
Inappropriate?Bad call Twitter. GetSatisfaction was faced with a similar difficult decision and clearly took it more seriously: http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2008/...
I’m disappointed.
-
Inappropriate?"If someone wrote you a letter that would be considered "hate mail" would you sue or take action against the company that manufactured the paper? What about the service that delivered that message to you? (for example, the USPS or FedEx.)"
Your analogy is wrong on so many levels. If someone went on TV and publically slandered me, then yes I would be contacting the TV station to issue a retraction. If a website posted an article calling me all kinds of names, even if it was user driven like Twitter is, then I'd be getting in touch with said site and telling them to remove the content.
It isn't Twitters responsibility to solve the problem, but it is Twitters responsibility to remove things when people have valid complaints about them, even if they know that person is only going to make a new account and do it all over again.
I’m in the mood for dancing
8 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
Once incorrect information is out there (in print, online or otherwise), it doesn't go away. It will always be cached, copied or repeated elsewhere. Retractions don't work, either. People love a scandal because of the attention and emotional response. Sure, you can blame twitter. But it won't fix the problem. The bully will find a new way to get at someone if that's what they really want.
-
@JenF I'm not convinced that permanence of information is relevant here. I'm not even convinced that Twitter's action would fix the problem: it's not their responsibility to "fix the bully," but it is their responsibility to cut the bully's avenue of communications if he violates certain agreements. Twitter's blame is clear in this case because they have not acted in the manner they said they would, as outlined by the TOS.
-
how do you know the bully is a "he"? ;) ... my point is that the bully will keep bullying. so let the dog chase it's tail. and in the meantime eventually there will be no more twitter.
-
@JenF Because English lacks a neuter pronoun and I don't subscribe to jhe/spivak/what-have-you, I use "he." I think we're in full agreement that the bully will keep bullying. I'm curious, though: do you see a flaw in the assertion that Twitter should uphold its TOS as it currently stands, even if they say they are reworking it? (I'll note here that all this abuse occurred under the umbrella of the existing TOS.)
-
@tsanth got humor? i stated in my OP that i agree that twitter needs to synch up their TOS to their corporate philosophy. moving forward, at that time i will determine whether i wish to continue to be a twitter user & supporter. i can appreciate on a certain level their desire to stand back and see what happens, regardless of whether i agree with it or not. but then, no one has harassed me on twitter (yet). and i guess i assume that most people are like me and when they see the blatant stuff they would see it for what it is and un-follow the jerk. just like i don't believe every promise made by a politician running for office, i don't believe everything i read on the Internet.
-
@JenF Thanks for the response. I just wanted to clarify what I understood from your posts. Over the years, I've learned that on the internet (and in business), it's better to make sure than to assume, whether it be humor, understanding, or whatnot. Thanks for obliging me.
-
@tsanth umm... you're welcome? :-D but i am confused by your response. do you really think most people believe everything they see on the web? ;-)
-
@JenF Not at all, but as mentioned in other people's responses, I would hate to have my reputation with a potential employer marred by even a whiff of slander or libel from an enemy's tweet. To be somewhat misanthropic (though I prefer "realistic"): I trust myself to filter, but I don't trust everyone else to do the same.
-
Inappropriate?I'm with emilychang here, revise the TOS and take a bit more responsibility for policing the community on Twitter. This kind of thing isn't acceptable in RL (despite freedom of speech) and shouldn't be acceptable on Twitter.
Hell, even if you don't use the harassment as a valid reason to ban this guy, I'm sure you could find some other reason. Spam?!?! Hellooo... You can only take policy so far, some times you need to do what's decent and right. In this case that would be banning this guy.
I’m hacked off.
-
Inappropriate?This silence from Twitter is overwhelming. The issue to them is closed. We're all just whiners and complainers to them now, with nothing credible to say. We don't know anything, we just use the (sometimes working) service.
Since their is no getting through to them at this point (why have one of these getsatisfaction accounts anyway, if you just plan to use it to rationalize poor judgment?), and the issue is closed, let's start a subtopic:
What are some alternatives to Twitter?
I’m frustrated
2 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
Amen. I hate this attitude of "it's not our problem, you silly people". Ugh.
-
Actually, they weren't silent. See Jason's reply above. It's their decision on how to handle the situation that really troubles me.
-
Inappropriate?How Twitter (who ultimately is a service built by and for human beings) can reply in such a manner by totally dismissing the situation is beyond me. So Twitter may be involved in the case of physical threat (outside of Twitter's influence boundaries), but will not intervene when someone uses their service to harass someone else? How stupid is that?
I’m flabbergasted
-
Inappropriate?@Jason:
"As a communication utility, Twitter does not get involved in these disputes between users over issues of content except in limited circumstances. Twitter is a provider of information, not a mediator. Specific physical threats, certain legal obligations, privacy breaches of specific types of information (e.g. SSN, credit cards), and misleading impersonation are some cases where we may become involved and potentially terminate an account."
Would you care to explain to the community how publicly calling someone a "c---" over your network or displaying their full name when the user otherwise did not disclose it did not violate these terms?
You're not being asked to mediate a bickering session between two users, you're being asked:
1. To protect your users from undue harassment the way you can, by preventing it over your domain/network.
2. To UPHOLD YOUR TOS.
3. To place the happiness and possible safety of your users over your fear of a lawsuit.
I’m angry, disappointed
-
Inappropriate?In support...cmon twitter, get it together man. No one should have to go through this.
I’m frustrated
-
1 Comment Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
Sure! But watch out for knives in your back. There are a LOT of angry people here. ;-)
-
Inappropriate?Your response to this issue strikes me as the response of a business that is reluctantly realizing you are a social network. You're a community site, yes, but what kind of a community do you want to build? A community where concepts like common human decency aren't enforced? Keep this up and a year from now the only people paying attention to your pages will be SEO spammers and marketers, since no decent person will want to expose themselves to this kind of risk.
"Block the user." Fine. Whatever. Perhaps you should consider the track command OBSERVE YOUR BLOCK RULES? Or does your lack of harassment enforcement extend to harassed users getting reduced functionality, too, since they'll need to stop using certain features?
What kind of community are you looking to build, twitter? I hear nothing but "scaling scaling scaling" out of your mouth, but there is more to building a business than making a web site scale. Keep this up and you won't have to worry about scaling anymore.
I am actively discouraging anyone from further adopting twitter until this gets resolved to Ariel's satisfaction...then I *might* consider changing my stance. You put your fear of getting sued over loyalty to your good users. That isn't a way of encouraging community support.
I’m outraged
-
1 Comment Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
Absolutely right!
-
Inappropriate?Twitter's response to this problem fails to protect them from the evils they claim they want to avoid, in ways that make them appear unprincipled or incompetent. Here's why:
Twitter's response is neither practical, nor in Twitter's best interest. Under the TOS the kind of activity complained about is clearly prohibited. Twitter is probably wrong if they think that a user could prevail by arguing the things done were not "abusive" or "harassing." Additionally, the use of the word "cunt" should probably be considered "obscene" and prohibited by GC 4.
Twitter holds all the cards. It's own TOS give Twitter the right to ban the user. (GC 3. Twitter could remove the offensive content. (GC 4.) The problem is, Twitter has "sole discretion" to do these things, but exempts itself from any duty to do them. (GC 4.)
Additionally, as others have pointed out, they may rely on the CDA if sued. (Although I am not aware of any provisions in the CDA that allow them to escape liability for failing to remove content.)
Twitter's claims that it fears a lawsuit seem disingenuous, at best. Sure, the obnoxious user could sue Twitter. He or she would probably lose. But first, Twitter's tolerance breeds contempt for its own rules, which it appears it won't enforce, and will probably result in further problems. Second, and perhaps more troubling to Twitter, Ariel might sue them. She might not win, either, but Twitter's less concerned about winning in court than it is about being sued in the first place.
So, Twitter fails to recognize that its position doesn't really protect them at all from the thing they claim to be concerned about. And since they probably know their position is nonsensical, it makes Twitter look as though they are acting in bad faith or, worse, dishonestly.
Additionally, since Twitter's TOS apparently confers no rights on users whatsoever, its agreement appears to be illusory in ways that might fail to provide them with legal protections.
Since Twitter gets no real protection from a lawsuit on either side of the equation (even though it may be likely to ultimately prevail), it's hard to see why Twitter would choose to protect someone who abuses their service, except for the business reason that they lack the technical capacity or staff ability to effectively enforce their own TOS. Most likely, these problems are economic (it would cost too much).
I can't blame Twitter from attempting to conceal its incompetence or apparent lack of technical ability. But that just makes Twitter seem unprincipled in ways that are likely to alienate users and, ultimately, investors.
1 person says
this solves the problem
-
Inappropriate?A TOS isn't just there so a company can do a CYO. It's a contract with the users over expectations. If you fail to uphold those expectations, no one will respect you, and your word will mean nothing from that point onward.
I’m angry
-
Inappropriate?And now the lawyers run Twitter, too.
Hmmm... Maybe we should all do constant tweets saying the same things about Jason?
I’m frustrated
-
Inappropriate?I found @ev 's response to this in a tweet was interesting.
I’m debutaunt and I approved of this reply
1 Comment Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
With no links, comment is useless.
-
Inappropriate?I've seen more outrage on this TOS issue than I have on all TechCrunch posts regarding uptime combined. We will tolerate flaky service, but we will obviously not tolerate flaky community enforcement.
I’m thinking about flaking out on twitter
-
Inappropriate?very disappointed ... !!! thought Twitter was aiming to be people-friendly, and take such complaints seriously....
I’m disappointed and bewildered
-
Inappropriate?Just think how this would play out in the news on TV. "Twitter allows user to be harassed by Stalker and does nothing about it". These things can escalate. Usually when we hear publicly about someone's stalker problem it is because it has gone too far and someone (usually the stalky) gets hurt. COME ON TWITTER - DO THE RIGHT THING ! ! !
I’m saddened and pissed
-
Inappropriate?So, Jason. I could open a twitter account and start to harass you or other people, searchable by google because you (or whomever I’d like to harass) could just not follow me?
You are setting wrong signals here!
Harassment in any form or shape has to be penalised. I’m a heavy twitter user (10,800 tweets) and I’m concerned that twitter let this happen. No one should be harassed on a service like yours for more than a year without you acting. This destroys trust and community. If that’s your aim: Well done.
I’m angry
-
Inappropriate?I disagree with the notion that Twitter has recognized the issue and "apologized" on their way to fixing it. The only 'sorry' has been 'sorry you thought we'd abide by the terms you signed up under'. And their recognition has been along the lines of 'we interpret that text differently [than you and the other services we borrowed it from] and don't care to discuss it any further'.
PS - debutaunt, I believe Ev's tweet was in regards to a different issue (scaling and armchair programmers giving advice pulled straight out of their bums).
I’m concerned
2 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
I wonder how it would take for Twitter to ban me if I started tweeting about how @ev is a complete jackass and Twitter is staffed by cowards?
-
Ah. I only mentioned it b/c Ariel replied back to that comment
-
Inappropriate?Ditto what Curtis said. What good is a TOS if it's not followed?! If you offer a service that allows communication between users and someone uses it for slander or harassment (when your terms clearly state that is in violation of use), then it is your responsibility to take action and make that user accountable for misuse.
Everyone should stop using Twitter until they get their act together.
I’m disheartened and annoyed.
1 person says
this solves the problem
1 Comment Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
Woah - Elsie, no! sure they need to make their TOS more clear, but also freedom of speech and more importantly why is Ariel making a deal of this in May when whoever it was deleted their account two months ago...
-
Inappropriate?I'm new so likely my contribution has very little value to Twitter. But if this issue is not resolved in a way that is at least marginally acceptable in the next week. I will cancel my Twitter account. I refuse to be a part of network in which people who are harassed have no options but harassers are protected.
I’m appaled
-
Inappropriate?Twitter will fix racism - http://www.voiceoftech.com/swhitley/?...
but not slander. You can't pick and choose, Twitter.
I’m disappointed and concerned
-
Inappropriate?Let's not forget sexism, Amber. If this had happened to a man, I suspect they would have already taken steps to correct it. Unfortunately, our society often finds it acceptable to slander and harass women, particularly online. Good luck, Ariel. And Twitter? Come on. I will also cancel my account if this isn't resolved acceptably.
I’m sad but not surprised
1 Comment Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
I hope you're not serious saying that a man would be taken more seriously than a woman in this situation. I guess if a woman raped a man, the police would believe his story? Wikipedia confirms that is not the case. Your post is incredibly sexist and offensive, and I am reporting it right away.
-
Inappropriate?We're upset that Ariel is having such a bad experience with Twitter. She's been a long term user of ours and a great advocate of our service. Also, it's clear that folks here are interested and concerned about how we at Twitter react to content issues like this.
Something to keep in mind is that we're discussing content that has not been shared here. This account is no longer available for review because the person who created it willingly removed it back in March. We reviewed this account at the time of the complaint and did not find it in violation of our Terms.
The fact that so many of us can have differing opinions without having even reviewed the content we're discussing highlights the difficulty of this issue. In fact, Twitter recognizes that it is not skilled at judging content disputes between individuals. Determining the line between update and insult is not something that Twitter nor a crowd would do well.
We have deleted accounts for more straightforward violations of the existing Terms. That being said, we are engaged in an editorial review of those Terms to make it more clear what actions we will and won't take. Essentially, Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content.
It's great that everyone's talking about this because it helps us make important decisions. After all, Twitter is a new medium that we're all figuring out as we go.
I’m thankful
The company and 16 other people say
this solves the problem
19 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
"[We] are engaged in an editorial review of those Terms to make it more clear what actions we will and won't take."
Since it's now abundantly clear that Twitter will not be abiding by the TOS, BT, item 4, let us all hope that Twitter will at least do their users the courtesy of abiding by the TOS, GC, item 2: "We reserve the right to alter these Terms of Use at any time. If the alterations constitute a material change to the Terms of Use, we will notify you via internet mail according to the preference expressed on your account. What constitutes a "material change" will be determined at our sole discretion, in good faith and using common sense and reasonable judgement." For the good of yourselves and your users, please avoid setting down terms that you won't follow in the future: no one likes a liar. -
Unfortunately, Tsanth, if Twitter will not provide a safe place for its users, then it is a dangerous site and about as safe as Myspace. The business's decision to change the TOS instead of help a user is a sign of laziness and an uncaring attitude towards its followers.
-
FAIL!! Why do you guys continue to dig the hole deeper? Methinks this issue is going to come back and bite you in the ass. But hey...what's a little bad press, right?
-
What about mediating or curbing abusive behavior from one of your users to another would make you cease to be a "communication utility?" I've been involved in many, many online "communication utilities" that drew clear lines about how users could treat one another and still fostered a spirit of open communication and idea exchange—even if the ideas are about picking out socks in the morning.
-
Biz,
Ariel's blog post says she had new examples of the abuse in April, so it doesn't really seem solved. Are you sure there was nothing more after the account was deleted in March? -
"Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content."
You can't be one without the other - not on the web! -
Biz,
I appreciate and think it's important to acknowledge the notion that none of us (save Ariel, the former user (and his followers?), whoever of her personal friends she revealed this to, and Twitter employees) have seen the content in question. As a result, most of us will have at best a partial understanding of the situation. That being said, I believe it is worth discussing; As you said, this dialogue facilitates you in making strategic decisions your users will appreciate, and it's good for us as we continue to understand Twitter for ourselves.
However (of course there just HAD to be a "however," right?), I trust that Ariel has been honest and forthcoming, and will assume her statements to be true until someone presents evidence to the contrary. You claim to have dealt with "more straightforward violations of the existing Terms," and yet I cannot think of a more straightforward example of "harassment" than what Ariel has described. I'm fine with Twitter "not [being] a mediator of content," but if that's your intent, why include the harassment clause in the Terms of Service? How else would one judge what is and is not harassment if not by mediating content? I think it's important to note that those Terms are not only a threat against misconduct by potentially troublesome users, but a commitment to the rest of us about what kind of environment we can expect on Twitter. Again, I only have a portion of this picture to work with, so I acknowledge that I may be completely misjudging the situation, but it seems as if Twitter has not held up their end of the bargain in this instance.
Ultimately, I'm just another hopelessly addicted Twitterer hanging on through the growing pains your service is experiencing at the moment. I wish you the best in this and the rest of your challenges; You've provided us with a very cool toy to play with, and I know I'm not the only one who hopes it stays that way.
Best,
Ryan MF
-
reposting from below to reply: Ok. I see that the cunt comments and all the other lame stuff come through an anonymous Twitter account that anyone can post to or access. Why does that profile even exist? Why doesn't Twitter remove that profile? (http://kosso.co.uk/twitter/confess/) It violates #8 - no spam & also violates #4 under general conditions (um. obscene, offensive?) You don't need an attorney to see that the posting profile (http://twitter.com/confession) violates many many Twitter TOS. Um. Simple solution - remove the profile that the anonymous posting directs to. This is really stupid, btw. Love you Twitter, but don't be a chickensh*t. Just pull that confession profile. You don't need no stinkin' lawyers to pull the trigger on that one.
-
Debutaunt, I followed the profile you provided us with. It is pretty bad and, yes, Twitter, they are using Ariel's full name in a bad way. If you can't moderate your program, you're not cut out for the 2.0 world.
-
"Something to keep in mind is that we're discussing content that has not been shared here."
@biz, in @ariel's blog, she posts explicit excerpts that include her being called "c*nt". Assuming she's not making this up, the content has been shared with anyone who's taken the time to read her blog. You are in the unique position that you can review the internal twitter logs and comment on her claim about the actual content. I for one would be interested to hear your findings.
"This account is no longer available for review because the person who created it willingly removed it back in March. We reviewed this account at the time of the complaint and did not find it in violation of our Terms."
If it was removed in March, I admit I'm confused why @ariel's blog would be posted now, as it clearly implies this is ongoing and unresolved.
@Ariel, can you comment here?
By the way, if @ariel's claim about the actual content is correct, I can't see how anyone would say that's not offensive or abusive and is in complete compliance with your TOS. -
Look... I love Twitter... but frankly this whole thing makes me nervous. Let's even just put Ariel's specific problems aside for a second. What bothers me and many others is this:
"Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content."
Well, then why does Twitter cover mediation in its TOS? Why is that not specifically removed from your TOS as it certainly creates exposure for you in an area that at least two of you have stated you do not wish to provide easy general remedy? Leaving it in to CYOA is trying to have your cake and eat it too... except that, if you dilute your duty to enforce the TOS, your abandonment may also dilute your indemnification... and your users' requirement to _abide_ by the TOS.
If you both had not said anything, you'd actually be in a better position. But twice we've heard from Twitter that you are not simply just of differing opinion about Ariel's case, but are also generally reluctant to mediate at all (despite the TOS).
You (Twitter) are saying here, in effect, 'we don't want to mediate, but we would prefer to keep the mediation language in our TOS because other people have it in theirs.' So now your users are bound by it but you, according to the above, are not necessarily (or only very loosely). I, and I'm sure your lawyers, can tell you which would hold up in if this were before a judge. That sounds almost comical, but considering the legislation currently being considered after the whole Megan Meier mess, it's not so far-fetched anymore. One teenager's home address posted by a stalker in which you were notified of prior incidents but did nothing could blow up like... well, something very messy and full of splat.
Not that we want to see that happen. Far from it. We come not bearing pitchforks, but pleadings.
We, the people in here complaining, are actually on your side. Imagine what this would be like in a room full of people who were not?
All we're asking here is for Twitter to step up and be VEYR clear. And if you need to revise your TOS, we'd VERY much like you to get on that straight away and let us know you're serious about this. You don't need me to tell you that, between this and the ongoing performance issues your user base could become very fragile very quickly. None of us want this to blow up any further than it already has. -
Understanding that, in the considered opinion of yourself, and the rest of the crew in Twitter-land, the actions of the other parties in this matter do not constitute a breach of the Terms Of Service applied by your company, maybe you should look at the last line of your reply - if you truly want the feedback of your users, and you truly want to act in their better interests, then defining "harrassment" by the traditional methods used in nearly every organisation I have been a part of - being ongoing and unwelcome communication or behaviour, would be in YOUR better interest. Let's face it - Twitter is nothing without it's users, and if your users have doubts that you, as caretakers of the community, do not apply YOUR terms of service for the protection and betterment of those users, well, they'll just walk away won't they.
-
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 -
"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. -
I have closed down the @confession service until further notice. I don't have time to deal with this stuff. Thanks. @kosso
-
Email is simply a "communication tool", but we still put spam filters in place, no? We create spoken or unspoken social contracts about how we communicate with the various audiences, right? We can still block unsolicited messages, correct?
Take the weekend to think this over. Once you have a tiny bit of distance, I have a feeling you're going to realize you're way, way off base here. -
"Essentially, Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content."
Clearly, this is simply not true. It would be true only if everyone's tweets would be private, and be able to be seen only by those who are explicitly allowed. The mere fact that by default tweets are public /does/ make Twitter a publication platform, not merely a communication platform. If someone is slandered /publicly/ then all the tools Twitter gives to a person to block at person's content from being seen, will only apply to the person who's slandered - everyone else will continue to see it. Twitter hiding behind "we're only a communication platform" is disingenuous. While I agree we're talking about content that can no longer be seen /here/ there are caches and search engines out there - and that's not a reason *not* do do anything about it, it's a reason to take swift action to send the message that this is not tolerated. If other services can do it, so can Twitter.
When I signed up, I agreed to the TOS - guess why? Because I actually *agreed* with it. As long as it is in operation, you should stand by it and enforce it. But if you change it, I, and a lot of other people, will likely no longer agree. Providing a "communication" platform may have been the original intention - but that is clearly not what Twitter is now. Accept it and take your responsibility - don't go and hide by wishful thinking about what you want the service to be: as long as most people's tweets are public, it's a *publication* platform - you made it, you should accept the consequences of that. Changing your TOS is entirely the wrong thing to do, and sending a very negative message. -
I got so disappointed when reading this. It just seems that twitter is running away from them own convictions. After all, I suppose that the any TOS is written with heart and head and not just something written on top of the knee to fix up latter when most convenient! The TOS has to be followed by everyone, including the company! If you don't agree with your on Terms, then I wonder what do you agree with and gets me thinking that, after all, is not anything related with users (as you try so hard to convey!)
-
Possibly there was "an account" that was closed in March. If so, there clearly are (were) two sources of harrassment and slander: the @confession /service/ has been closed, but the @confession Twitter account still exists, including clear evidence what has been happening. The slander is still there.
Why on earth Twitter do you not close that account? Stop dragging your feet and uphold your *current* TOS (never mind what any future one would be) - you have a TOS now and have a moral obligation to remove this account and all its content. -
Inappropriate?Btw, how does *anyone* aside from the Twitter employees know that Ariel didn't just fake this whole thing to attract attention to her or her blog? Her blog is a little more racy and NSFW, so why not up her hits? Twitter knows who this person is via IP address (it was easy enough for me to find the profile) and based on their TOS, the profile could have been deleted solely for the many spam tweets (e.g. free ringtones, pharma ads, etc) I'm not like out to get Ariel or anything and I've had my own stalker or ten in my internet life, but it would be easy enough to fakeastalker. I don't always believe the hype. Besides, the profile has 750 people following it. I am a newb and recognized a few names. What does that say about the community if they are following such lame and disgusting tweets? I hate e-stalking. But if you give a story/stalker attention, they love it. I would have just kept after Twitter, but not been so public about it. But that's just my style - I don't feed trolls anymore. P.S. As far as an employer googling her name and finding the rants, um, have you all *seen* her blog. It's pretty um... sexual? I am not a prude, but an employer can see that the rants are stupid and harassing, but what will they think about her blog?
I’m tired of this story?
3 people say
this solves the problem
5 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
Ok. I see that the cunt comments and all the other lame stuff come through an anonymous Twitter account that anyone can post to or access. Why does that profile even exist? Why doesn't Twitter remove that profile? (http://kosso.co.uk/twitter/confess/) It violates #8 - no spam & also violates #4 under general conditions (um. obscene, offensive?) You don't need an attorney to see that the posting profile (http://twitter.com/confession) violates many many Twitter TOS. Um. Simple solution - remove the profile that the anonymous posting directs to. This is really stupid, btw. Love you Twitter, but don't be a chickensh*t. Just pull that confession profile. You don't need no stinkin' lawyers to pull the trigger on that one.
-
I agree with your post. There's no evidence whatsoever and just a lot of people racing to help a damsel in distress, who may just be crying wolf. I don't buy into baseless drama.
-
Excuse me but that's a bit like saying a woman was looking to be raped because she was wearing a short skirt...
-
I said nothing of the sort, Blu. Please tell me how I did. I didn't say "she WAS abused because she put her real name out there", I said "we have no screenshots, no quotes, no nothing, so it is hard to convict without evidence."
-
The comment wasn't about your comment, sorry... It was more about what Debutaunt says...
-
Inappropriate?twitter should be a medium and not a moderator, and the ToS should change to reflect that. But, given the current ToS, the situation should have been dealt with differently.
I’m sad
-
Inappropriate?I admire Twitter's laissez faire handling, but do agree they should have TOS that reflect their intentions. Perhaps replace them with "like SMTP, we route messages. Tracking who is offended by which content is beyond the scope of our service."
One does have to wonder about the order of events: "abuse" -> Ariel joins Pownce -> scandal
I’m nonplussed
3 people say
this solves the problem
7 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
Twitter being a platform / service provider / whatever who doesn't take any responsibility for the content that travels over their pipes is all fine and dandy, provided that intention is clearly communicated up front (which they're changing), and USERS HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL WHAT MESSAGES THEY RECEIVE. Twitter themselves nor any clients handle this properly yet, and telling someone that the solution is to stop tracking their own name is not acceptable.
-
How many times does it have to be stated that this is beyond the scope of direct harassment and into libel.
-
lol @ sweetmercury. How many times do I have to post that the harassment is coming from an anonymous profile? Anyone can post. Remove that fake profile and the problem is solved (at least for now)
-
@deb, and that changes what about my point? Even if a person can block an anonymous profile, that doesn't mean Twitter isn't providing a medium for a person or people to be completely defamed. Which I don't imagine they intend their service to be used for.
-
@sweetmercury. I just used that anonymous thing to post about my fundraising efforts to raise money for the Leukemia Society; to help my daughter raise a million bucks (I'm a leukemia/stem cell transplant survivor). I'm just not quite sure that Twitter knew that is what the account is - the whole anonymous posting thingy. My point is that if they remove that account (which 750 people follow) Ariel's problem is solved. Also, and I'm not accusing, just sayin', who is to say that Ariel didn't make all of this up to bash Twitter and promote Pownce (which is where she works). It's possible. Personally, I hope Twitter does remove the profile as it truly (and non-lawyer needing) does violate the TOS.
-
@deb, well, as far as I know, she hasn't used this as an effort to move Twitter's user-base to Pownce. Plus. I don't see how the two are direct competitors.
-
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.
-
Inappropriate?Personally I think that attacks are not to be tolerated. Moderating disputes would be a good thing as you hold the cards to whether someone has an account or not. For Ariel to be so frustrated by your lack of attention or tolerance of this stalker doesn't say much for your sense of ownership of this service.
Be proud that you have a safe place for people to hang out and not be stalked or abused by others. If this was anyone of your close family members, think about how it might make you feel.
Some people can't play nice, so just uninvite them from your sandbox. It's not gonna tick off as many people as this episode has, I can assure you.
I’m frustrated!
-
2 people say
this solves the problem
1 Comment Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
Exactly. I honestly don't think she has, but that profile allows for anyone to post anything.
-
Inappropriate?The solution for bad speech is more speech so I think it's good Ariel reported and that Biz and Ev responded and that people are talking about it. It seems like the account exists primarily to harrass Ariel anonymously - is this correct?
I’m undecided
2 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
I think the account exists for people to have fun and post stupid stuff anonymously. Sadly, she has been the target, but is there a way to track the IP of the comments directed at her? Not sure. But this story has more legs that it should have. Here is what I am talking about: crownvic: Re: Ariel Waldman. Abuser using http://kosso.co.uk/twitter/confess/ anonymous posting service run by a jon kossmann.
-
"a jon kossmann" is a very rude way to put it. Just say twitter user kosso.
-
Inappropriate?Biz's reply above implies that the account that was the subject of Ariel's harassment complaint had been deleted voluntarily by its owner some weeks ago.
Ariel's blogpost (written this week, May 22) gives me the impression that the problem is still ongoing, which is why it's not yet resolved to her satisfaction.
So I'm confused. Which is it? Is she still being harassed but now through a different account? Does the original account still exist? Or has it been re-created by the original user?
I’m hoping the TOS is revised and enforced soon
2 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
As I understand it, Ariel's not writing to air and resolve her grievances, she's using her personal experience to demonstrate the discrepancy between what the TOS says and how it is applied.
-
If there was an account that was closed in March, it's not the same account as this: http://twitter.com/confession - the anonymous posting service has been closed, but this Twitter account still exists, including all its content, for everyone to see.
-
Inappropriate?Have fun kiddos. Crownvic posted this 5 HOURS ago:
crownvic: Re: Ariel Waldman. Abuser using http://kosso.co.uk/twitter/confess/ anonymous posting service run by a jon kossmann.
I’m debutaunt
1 person says
this solves the problem
2 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
So just block this IP address.
-
Regardless of who is sending the messages--be it one or more anonymous users, a bot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster--the bottom line remains that Twiiter is admitting that they aren't going to uphold their Terms fo Service.
-
Inappropriate?Biz,
I'm glad you are sticking to your guns here and keeping Twitter free as a medium, and not a message.
I'm concerned when you write things like "We're upset that Ariel is having such a bad experience with Twitter. She's been a long term user of ours and a great advocate of our service."
This is so typically Valley/beta/MMORPG/geek culture -- someone is a fan of the devs, therefore they get special atttention, special treatment, special dispensation. Except looks like they didn't here -- but only because apparently the problem resolved itself with the person's removal of the offending content.
So what happens next time, when the person either isn't a "long-time user" and "great advocate" and the content isn't removed? I am less concerned about that side of the question -- but you will find many who will be. And what about someone who is accused, possibly falsely, by one of your fangirlz who are a "long-time user" and "a great advocate" of "being a troll"? Will you automatically rule in their favour?
Any policy you develop has to be very simple and openly accessible to all, impartial, and fair, and not rely on things like fan status to get attention.
Twitter isn't a new medium. It's an old medium -- the message board -- with some new aspects or technologically speedier features to it.
I can only urge you to look at the system-wide ramifications of policies that stream/filter/block content that will make news production biased and unfair.
1 person says
this solves the problem
-
Inappropriate?Twitter is free, within reason, to do whatever they want. And we're free not to use the service.
The real problem, especially in terms of getting sued, is that the Terms of Service imply a contract between the user and the service about what each can expect from the other. Twitter is free, as a previous post pointed out, to change the ToS at any time. But they have to change the contract before they start enforcing rules differently. To change enforcement without changing the rules, as they admit to doing, is a clear violation of the contract.
Also, if they had done the decent thing in the first and been sued by the banned user, I think that all of the casual users would have been happy to kick in $1 to a legal defense fund. Hardcore addicts, probably more. Thus they could have easily afforded a competent lawyer long enough for a judge to dismiss the case.
Instead, they've managed to engender a firestorm of disgust in a previously fanatic userbase.
Good job. I bet the VCs are real happy about that.
Time to spread the meme.
I’m disgusted
1 Comment Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
Sorry, but while this is, in fact, a free service, that doesn't give the owners the free will to do whatever they want. They will eventually monetize the site and that monetization will be based on their hard work + our content. We DO have a say in this.
-
Inappropriate?Perhaps changing the TOS to reflect that a mashup that allows an anonymous user to post is in violation of TOS. Also I would think that that might be a misuse of your API, but I'm just a layman.
I’m sleepy
1 person says
this solves the problem
-
Inappropriate?I replied earlier, but now that I've read the replies posted by Biz and others, I'm kind of up on the fence about this. I know from personal experience that the decision to moderate or be hands off can be a tough one to make; in any case, I'm glad that they're reviewing the TOS. If the idea is to be a raw content delivery service, their terms and policies should make that totally clear.
Also, now that I've seen this anonymous twittering page, I can really see how it was a tough issue to deal with; certainly not a clear-cut case one way or the other.
Anyway, I strongly suspect that the (eventual) future of Twitter will see the service evolve into more of an aggregator and redistributor of decentralized tweet-esque-content with less emphasis on storing all the data themselves (which would be more scalable, open, flexible, blah blah etc.). If I'm right, then at that point they'll be able to wash their hands almost entirely of all of these sorts of issues.
I’m undecided
EMPLOYEE