Twitter Is Working On Anti-Harassment Keyword Filtering Tool, Says Report (bloomberg.com) 204
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has made it a top priority for company to limit hateful conduct. In late December 2015, for example, the company changed its rules to explicitly ban "hateful conduct" for the first time. A new report says Twitter is working to further curb the rise of hateful conduct as it is "working on a keyword-based tool that will let people filter the posts they see, giving users a more effective way to block out harassing and offensive tweets." Bloomberg reports: "The San Francisco-based company has been discussing how to implement the tool for about a year as it seeks to stem abuse on the site, said the people [familiar with the matter], who asked not to be identified because the initiative isn't public. By using keywords, users could block swear words or racial slurs, for example, to screen out offenders. The filtering tool could eventually become a moderator for any kind of content, the people said. For example, users could block a hashtag about an event they don't care to read about."
it'll still be political (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet all the keywords will be carefully chosen to avoid hitting political allies like the social justice nutters.
Re: (Score:2)
Things that disagree with you are offensive? Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's called dumb and quite funny.
I know it's a guilty pleasure of mine to laugh about the feeble minded, but "arguments" like that are just hilarious. It's like being insulted by a 4 year old who doesn't even know how to insult someone properly.
Re: (Score:2)
If you filter out crap you do not want to hear from things you read, be my guest. It's your prerogative to keep yourself sheltered from reality (but please don't complain to me should reality somehow enter your world regardless and hit you in the face unprepared).
If you filter out crap you don't want to hear from things I read, I have to leave, because that's not your prerogative. It's mine.
If they make it OPTIONAL, so people with fragile souls and special snowflakes can avoid facing opinions that don't mat
Re: (Score:2)
I have to leave,
I'm sure that bothers them deeply.
Re: (Score:3)
If you own shares, sell them.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you fucking serious? Twitter is a public platform. It's for putting it out there publicly. If you don't want that you can change your account such that only people you specifically flag can see your tweets. Listen dude, if you don't understand the subject why the fuck do you bother having an opinion about it?
Fucking idiot.
Re: it'll still be political (Score:4, Interesting)
There are already three tools for filtering: (1) block, (2) mute,
Except we both know those are ineffective against harassment swarms.
(3) don't bother logging in.
So the only option is currently to let a bunch of assholes bully you off the site so you can no longer engage in the conversations you actually want to engage with.
I seriously do not understand why you object to people having control over their own feed. It's almost like you think you should be able to either force your opinions on them or force them off the site.
Are you fucking serious? Twitter is a public platform.
Yes I am serious. Being in public is also in public. Just because something is in public does not give you some sort of moral right to be an asshole without consequences. If some people are having a conversation on a park bench, they can't stop you joining the conversation without leaving. If you do that and the only way to make you stop is to leave then congratulations, you're a major asshole.
People on twitter having public conversations is not all that dissimilar to having a conversation in public. If you keep butting in on people's feeds o the point where they leave twitter, then congratulations, you're a major asshole.
Simply existing in public does not give every jerk with an axe to grind some sort of ethical free pass on being a dickhead.
Oh and if not being enabled to be a massive dickhead by twitter actually hampers you in any way, then you really, really need to reconsider your life.
Re: (Score:2)
Free Speech Warriors demand freedom from consequences. There is no such freedom, when you speak either do so anonymously or accept that it will influence how people treat you.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious. Free speech isn't about obnoxiously forcing people to listen to you. You have a right to say what you like without being arrested. You have no right to make yourself a nuisance to people who don't want to hear what you have to say.
And the existence of public spaces doesn't imply that they should be a free for all only usable by the most annoying of people.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, you're right, all those civil rights activists who got lynched and the 'four dead in Ohio' at Kent State were asking for it because they were a nuisance.
Do you believe you should be allowed to stand on my front lawn, exercising you free speech with a megaphone at 2am?
If no, then where do you draw the line?
If yes, then you don't have the faintest clue what free speech is or what it's for.
Re: (Score:2)
Your front lawn is private property. Unless you are using private messages, or restricting access to your feed, your Twitter feed is public property. This is you complaining about the protesters peacefully protesting in the public areas of a city during the day, not 3 am in your yard.
Re: (Score:2)
Your front lawn is private property.
So's twitter.
Twitter feed is public property.
It's visible to the public and from public property like my front lawn. That doesn't mean you have a right to put yourself on it, just like my front lawn.
This is you complaining about the protesters peacefully protesting in the public areas of a city during the day, not 3 am in your yard.
If I'm able to filter my feed, it's like choosing to not let people on to my property.
Also peaceful? So you have no problem with twitter lett
Re: it'll still be political (Score:3)
It is only a Tool if it is allowed to be selectivly used. If it is forced on all users it is censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Insulting me in a language I don't speak is kinda pointless. With insults, even more than with any other message, it's not what you send, it's what is received.
Re: (Score:2)
Google translate, and a regular Google search give no clues, I am guessing it doesn't actually have a meaning.
Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem for Twitter is there just aren't enough Feminists/SJWs out there to keep a dying social media platform alive.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The problem for Twitter is there just aren't enough Feminists/SJWs out there to keep a dying social media platform alive.
So is the only draw of Twitter the opportunity to harass Feminists/SJWs?
Because that's the only piece of functionality you'll actually lose with these changes.
If you're harassing someone and they don't want to hear you anymore that's not "Feminist/SJW" talk, that's just common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for demonstrating exactly what we're all talking about. Thoughtcrime is "harassment", disagreement is "threatening".
Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl (Score:5, Informative)
No one is stopping you from spewing whatever inane stupidy passes for incitement commentary among your crowd. You'll be just as free to make an idiot of yourself on Twitter once these changes are in effect.
Really? You should pay more attention, because that's exactly what's happening. This is just one case of many, where there is one set of rules [twitter.com] for one group of people and another for the "right kind of people."
Keep in mind that Milo never did that, but Leslie Jones sure did. [breitbart.com] So have several other people who were verified including a rapper, [breitbart.com] reporter, and a EiC of a magazine [reddit.com] ...all of whom sic'd their followers on other people for engaging in wrong think. There's also another case of a person threatening a reporter with rape...for weeks(wish I could remember her name but it escapes me atm). Those are just off the top of my head. You know what the difference between them and Milo is? Milo doesn't carry the same political ideology as them. That reporter? She's a conservative. But in both cases when there are actual threats against them? Twitter has done nothing.
Disagree all you want, but when you cross into harassment then GTFO. No one is under any obligation to stand there while you abuse them.
Sure thing. Let me know when they actually start going after the actual harassers okay? You know people like Zoe Quinn [archive.is], Kathleen Cross, Randy Harper, Izzy Galvez, Chris Kluwe [heatst.com] and so on. You know, the people who claim that they're against harassment...right out there...harassing people, doxing people, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you forgot to rag on Sarkeesian. You're losing your touch, though you haven't forgotten to include lots of links to incredibly dubious sources though.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you never did reply to my other post a few weeks ago that disproved all your other bullshit. Then again, kathleen cross(Quinnae) is in those logs...you know, Sarkeesian's right-hand at the time. But it's always so good when you trot out the "I don't like the facts, they show the side I have a vested interest in doing bad shit!"
Re: (Score:2)
Tell you what, I'll address the facts when you use any. And no, those incredibly dubious sources you use are not sufficient evidence of the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Because only things you agree with are facts. As usual. Then again one of the core tenets of feminism is the total rejection of the very idea of an objective knowable truth or the existence of empirical facts. The only that that matters are the "lived experiences" and feelings of the person with the most oppression points in the room.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah I see, you're just going to make up stuff because while I'll accept actual facts, I won't necessarily draw the same conclusions. Your opinion is not an objective, knowable truth. It's just, like, your opinion man.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah I see, you're just going to make up stuff because while I'll accept actual facts ...
Funny, there's actual facts in all those little links I posted. Strange that you don't find them to be the "right kind of facts" for you though. Which of course says a hell of a lot about what you'd believe, that being the only facts that fits your ideology and agenda are the type you'd accept.
It'd kinda like that stuff with Gamergate. You'll wholly believe the wikipedia article is accurate, but when proven how each section you quoted is factually inaccurate you ignore it, try to move the goal posts, or
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just describing Critical Theory's basic tenets in plain language instead of opaque academic jargon.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, there's actual facts in all those little links I posted.
Hypothetically that could be true. But the credibility of the sources is so poor that it's hard to call them verifiable. If you want to show facts, you need some evidence they exist. Or you know random blog posts and archives of fake tweets. Either's good.
Re: (Score:2)
Hypothetically that could be true. But the credibility of the sources is so poor that it's hard to call them verifiable. If you want to show facts, you need some evidence they exist. Or you know random blog posts and archives of fake tweets. Either's good.
Well since those posts all show their proof of what happened, it sure does explain why you refuse to look at it and ignore facts when you're faced with them. Go on, I'll wait. Tell everyone how those people didn't actually sic their followers on people, and how those stories fabricated their own tweets which are linked. Go on and tell people how those chat logs are faked too, when the people named in there say that they're true. But apparently those are fake too right?
Re: (Score:2)
Well since those posts all show their proof of what happened,
No, they state without proof that things happened. That's not showing the proof.
Go on and tell people how those chat logs are faked too
You've lost me. Chat logs of which incident are you referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
Tell you what. You dispute those facts, which have pretty little pictures, and links(either directly or archived links) which prove what's in the articles to start with.
But anyone who's looked at the articles can already tell what'll happen. They disprove your point, you can't offer any proof contrary to what's being said. And you refuse to look at a countering point of view because it would hurt the narrative you've been holding onto for the last two years. That social justice and many of them that clai
Re: (Score:2)
No one is stopping you from spewing whatever inane stupidy passes for incitement commentary among your crowd. You'll be just as free to make an idiot of yourself on Twitter once these changes are in effect.
Really? You should pay more attention, because that's exactly what's happening. This is just one case of many, where there is one set of rules [twitter.com] for one group of people and another for the "right kind of people."
Or you're missing context, when someone is currently the target of a harassment campaign they're given a little more leeway than someone who tweets something out of the blue.
And even if there was a double standard (which I don't concede) your comment is still wrong, the alt-right would still be free to say whatever it wants, it would just be that only one side would be able to harass.
Keep in mind that Milo never did that
Milo was clearly encouraging his followers to go after Jones and his other targets. Twitter isn't a court of law, "everybody
Re: (Score:2)
Or you're missing context, when someone is currently the target of a harassment campaign they're given a little more leeway than someone who tweets something out of the blue.
And even if there was a double standard (which I don't concede) your comment is still wrong, the alt-right would still be free to say whatever it wants, it would just be that only one side would be able to harass.
Apparently that was easy to disprove, as one can see what happens when you turn around and post exactly what someone else has said, but just happen to have the right connections inside twitter. Notice a similarity here? No? How about when facebook turned around and started removing groups for various imaginary thought-crimes. Starting to see a trend with social media now?
Again context, Jones was trying to retaliate and protect herself from a campaign initiated by Milo.
Context: She was doing it before Milo was involved. Read the story, click on the other links in the story.
I'm not familiar with all of those cases, certainly not the rape threats, and Twitter may have been inconsistent in the past. If so, they will hopefully fix that in the future. No one should be the target of harassment.
You mean like their "trust a
Re: (Score:2)
Still doesn't make her actions right.
No, it explains why her actions weren't punished.
Re: (Score:2)
No he didn't fake a tweet. Rather he tweeted something he believed to be true from another twitter user who had faked it. That guardian article, like usual is full of factual inaccuracies.
There's a fundamental difference between the two, but I'm glad that you like always ignore the rest. After all, can't let that narrative you've clung onto for two years be disproven in your mind. And those people you've been defending really were and are just plain shitty people who were unworthy of your white-knightin
Re: (Score:2)
He's not the messiah, he's a ... very naughty boy?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that SJWs consider everything that disagrees with them as "harassment", you lose a lot more. You lose the main function of Twitter: The exchange of expressions of opinions.
Twitter could have been the proverbial "marketplace of ideas", where people can offer their point of view and by approval and disapproval we could have seen the true opinions of people visiting, unblemished and unencumbered by peer pressure, due to the general anonymity of the medium. Yes, that does mean that you get to see th
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that SJWs consider everything that disagrees with them as "harassment", you lose a lot more. You lose the main function of Twitter: The exchange of expressions of opinions
Ah yes. The exchange of opinions. Like, you know, for example, libel. I'm sure it was Milo's opinion that Leslie Jones said that stuff even though she didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I would tread lightly on the whole Ghostbusters blunder if I tried to argue FOR the SJW side. Remind me, who was it again that labeled (or "libeled" rather) everyone who dared to not think this turd is going to be Oscar material a misogynist or worse? Just for disagreeing.
There were very valid, well worded and well argued points that were brought against this movie, with Jones' portrait of the black ghetto mama from da hood as a racist stereotype being not even the worst offense against good taste this movi
Re: (Score:2)
Are you denying that Milo propagating fake tweets is libel our are you trying to justify it on the grounds that two wrongs make a right?
Or, do you simply consider libel to be part of an honest exchange of opinions?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a shit about that professional inciter. SJWs do. And that's basically all that makes him relevant in any way, that's his gimmick. That guy simply noticed that pushing trigger buttons he can get a huge reaction, and by broadcasting it, he gains followers who are entertained by people going apeshit over perceived slights. That's basically all there is behind that Milo guy. He's only relevant because SJWs make him relevant. If they simply went "tsk, buzz off, fag", he's have vanished into oblivion
Re: (Score:2)
SJWs do.
And all his numerous fans. Are they all SJWs too? Or are you just ignoring them for some reason?
Disagreeing with someone and making an argument is not harassment.
Disagreeing with someone isn't a fish either. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Allow me to point at the short YouTube announcement James Rolfe made concerning him not going to watch the movie.
Ugh videos. Must I?
OK, I'm 2:55 in and I already feel like the guy is a grade A prat. No, youngsters don't have an obligation to see the
Re: (Score:2)
Milo's fans are his fans for exactly the reason that he manages to get SJWs to go apeshit. He himself isn't that terribly interesting.
As for that other guy, yes. That video isn't too interesting. It is just some random guy saying he's not going to watch the movie. He has a medium sized number of people subbed to his channel, nothing that would make or break a movie. We're not talking about Roger Ebert by any means, and yet people went mental about his announcement of not watching the movie, calling him miso
Re: (Score:2)
He stated his opinion, I think even without mentioning that it's an "all female" Ghostbusters team,
He calls it "the female Ghostbusters". But whatever, I don't really care.
That was enough for some people to start the name calling.
So? You claimed that people think his opinion is harassment. That's not the same as general name calling. You seem to be engaging in your usual tactic of inventing a wild, ludicrous and unprovable claim, then when being called on it, watering it down and pointing to other things pe
Re: (Score:2)
He calls it the "female Ghostbusters" because that is what it is being called by various people on the internet, and he uses it as a way to show how calling it "Ghostbusters" without an additional qualifier was not a good idea because now people make up monikers to tell it apart from the 1984 movie.
If you made the effort you could easily have found out, either from reading the comments to the video, by looking at the video reactions or simply by looking at the suggested watching at the side bar, that there
Re: (Score:2)
You: He didn't refer to the all female cast.
Me: He called it the female ghostbusters. Whatever, I don't care.
You: He calls it the "female Ghostbusters" because that is...
I didn't care before. Why do you think I care now?
blah blah dodge weave blah blah blah
You claimed that other people said his mere opinion was harassment.
Basically no one said that.
Now put up or shut up and enough with "the truth is out there" bullshit. I'm not wading through innumerable youtube comments or reaction videos to prove a point t
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you had an interesting and considered point to make. Sadly, since you're limited to 140 characters, it got cut off. Better have simpler ideas, ones easily reducible to soundbytes, if you want to market them on Twitter.
Twitter is awful as a marketplace of ideas, is what I'm saying. Forums like Slashdot itself are far better alternatives.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I don't even use Twitter, but it sounds like they'll just end up making a clbuttic mistake.
On the contrary doing nothing would be a mistake.
The risk twitter faces isn't being taken over by "Feminists" and "SJWs", it's harassment driving ordinary people away until there's nothing left but the alt-right.
It's the same decision reddit made, there's some communities that are simply unable to co-exist in the same ecosystem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Two in a row, you're really doing a great job as a living example. "Alt-right" along with "reactionary" is just yet another smear word invented by SJWs to attack anyone committing thoughtcrime. EVERYONE they dislike is an alt-right reactionary misogynist gamergater MRA pissbaby fuckboy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Breitbart is the same shit on the other side of the spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
Like amimojo you're engaging in the classic tactic of trying to make it impossible to even name the group or ideology at hand, thus silencing debate. Imagine trying to argue against republican economic policies when you're not even allowed to say the words "trickle down" or "neoliberal".
"Alt-right", like "reactionary", has no meaningful definition. SJW is the response to people like you demanding we stop calling SJWs feminists even though they self-identify AS feminists. It has a specific definition, and re
Re: (Score:2)
It has a specific definition, and refers to tangible actions and a describable ideology.
No it doesn't, not any more than a miscellaneous grab bag of "shit I hate on the internet". But sure let's go down this route. So, I've got two questions for you (and maybe a third):
1. Do you think I'm an SJW?
2. What's your definition of "SJW"?
and
if yes to 1:
3: do you have any evidence of the things you're accusing me of?
Re: (Score:2)
1. yes
2. People who subscribe to a critical theory based ideology which rejects the existence of an objective knowable truth and empirical facts in favor of "lived experiences", ranks humans by their immutable characteristics (ie identity politics), and loosely follows marx's descriptions of class warfare and oppression only applied to gender and race instead of the original means of production/proletariat dynamic. In behavior SJWs are politically illiberal, dismissive of enlightenment values such as freedo
Re: (Score:2)
1. yes
OK. This should be entertaining.
2. People who subscribe to a critical theory based ideology which rejects the existence of an objective knowable truth and empirical facts in favor of "lived experiences",
Prove I did that.
ranks humans by their immutable characteristics (ie identity politics
No evidence I did that either.
and loosely follows marx's descriptions of class warfare and oppression only applied to gender and race instead of the original means of production/proletariat dynamic.
The only Marx I f
Re: (Score:2)
Schumer is a self-admitted rapist who has herself publicly told the story of how she raped a man too drunk to know where he was or who he was with, and Nyberg is a self-admitted pedophile and child predator who's been publicly given pictures of people's children for gratification.
Thanks for demonstrating exactly the behavior I just described.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The problem for Twitter is there just aren't enough Feminists/SJWs out there to keep a dying social media platform alive.
So is the only draw of Twitter the opportunity to harass Feminists/SJWs?
Because that's the only piece of functionality you'll actually lose with these changes.
As it is impossible to have an Intelligent discussion, andy any disagreement == harassment, yes.
Intelligent discussion?
We're apparently thinking of entirely different things because I don't know how anybody could classify these [fusion.net] as examples of an intelligent discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of funny you link to that, when it clearly shows how racist she was being as well. Or do you think calling people Kikes or fags is suddenly acceptable? Is it acceptable to call for "gas dese goddamn faggots to death"?
You are supporting a racist bigot in her attacks of others, while calling for the censorship of others who point it out. What did Mila say in that thread that was so bad? All I see is him pointing out that she needs to call weight watchers...which is rude, but hardly comparable to sugg
Re: (Score:2)
Strange, Twitter's page views don't seem to be in decline. Reddit didn't die either.
Who gives a shit (Score:5, Insightful)
What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me?" If someone offends you, ignore them. If you can't bear to do that, a Block option has been on Twitter forever, use that. If you're still getting triggered, maybe you should step away from the computer for awhile.
Re: (Score:2)
Helicopter parents wrapping their kids in bubblewrap that started back in the early 90's.
Re:Who gives a shit (Score:5, Insightful)
What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me?"
In the Age of Feels what you speak of is now unthinkable. Just like sending your kids out to play until dark and limits on screen time, being able to handle mere words with tact is loooong gone my friend.
Re: (Score:2)
being able to handle mere words with tact is loooong gone my friend.
It's weird how the supposed free speech advocates favourite way of advocating free speech is to try to convince everyone how unimportant and inconsequential speech is. If speech is of no worth, it's not worth protecting. The entire reason for protecting it is precisely because it is important.
And no, being an asshole on a private platform is not protected free speech in any legal, ethical or moral way.
Milo's meat puppets (Score:2)
Killfiles don't work if a harasser can summon an army of meat puppets [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me?"
What happened was it is and always was obvious bullshit. Let me counter with another trite saying: the pen is mightier than the sword. If speech is inconsequential, then there's no need to fight hard to keep it free, because you'd lose nothing of consequence.
If someone offends you, ignore them.
That's exactly what this is about.
If you can't bear to do that, a Block option has been on Twitter forever, use that.
No it hasn
Re: Who gives a shit (Score:2)
No. What this is about is not ignoring them. It is essentialy putting tape over their mouths because you dont like what they say. Totaly different than ignoring them.
Yes words can hurt, it is the sign of a healthy adult that they can let it go and know they are just words.
It is NOT the sign of a healthy adult mind to want to duct tape someones mouth because you dont like what they say and only remove it when they want to say something you like.
Re: (Score:3)
That's rubbish. Allowing people to filter you out of their feed is not equivalent to gagging you. You have no right, mitral or otherwise to make people listen to you or force them away if they don't want to. If you interrupt a conversation I'm having in public with someone else, me telling you to eff off isn't gagging you either. You have no right to be listened to.
And here's the thing, if words are "just words" and of little consequence, why bother defending the right to use them freely. You cannot have it
Re: (Score:2)
That depends entirely if it is a selectable option or not. If you can ignore someone and not see their posts thats fine as long as I can see them.
If it is a blanket setting that looks at what is being said and deletes the post as it is being posted so NO ONE can see it. That my little friend is censorship and is deplorable.
Re: (Score:3)
"If someone offends you, ignore them."
That's exactly what such a tool would allow you to do. It just allows a user to automate the process of avoiding post by racist/bigot dipshits.
Re:Who gives a shit (Score:4, Informative)
these [imgur.com] are the de facto leaders of the MRM. You'll notice that the majority are women, one's black, and one's a bisexual single mom. The elderly woman in the center is the woman who founded the very first domestic violence shelter in the modern world... and had a drive by shooting at her house for daring to shelter male victims as well as female ones.
The only people that can't stop being offended by women and minorities seem to be feminists and the regressive left.
Re: (Score:2)
and had a drive by shooting at her house for daring to shelter male victims as well as female ones.
That sounds like a rather tall story. Got a legit source?
Re: (Score:2)
Serviscope I've told you about Erin Pizzey, and linked you to her own written testimonial about her experiences, multiple times.
Re: (Score:2)
Mmm have you. If so, it'll be easy to send a nice link about the drive by shooting. You know if it actually happened because she dared house men.
Re: (Score:2)
Enough of your bad faith shenanigans. I've linked you to her articles a fucking dozen times already, you've got her full name, you know what we're talking about, either go read your own old replies or google it. This memory-of-a-goldfish bent you and amimojo have gotten on recently where you demand things you've literally been given over and over again and pretend it never happened is getting old.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the truth is out there. Just like aliens!
wooo ooooo eeeee ooooo
I remember you making this claim many times. I remember you linking rather dubious, peripherally related things, but you've never ever once provided anything which could be described as "credible evidence" that she was subject to a drive by shooting because she was housing men.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how you "believe women" and will insist women never make false claims right up until it's a woman talking about feminist misconduct then suddenly it's "dubious" and "peripherally related".
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how you [...] will insist women never make false claims
I see you've resorted to your endgame tactic of simply lying about me.
right up until it's a woman talking about feminist misconduct then suddenly it's "dubious" and "peripherally related".
And you've changed from driveby shooting for daring to house men to "feminist misconduct". Good bait and switch.
Now post evidence for your claim of the drive by shooring or admit you're simply lying.
Re: (Score:2)
I've already linked you to her own firsthand testimonial many times. You call that "dubious" and "peripherally related" or pretend it's never happened.
Re: (Score:2)
I've linked you to her articles a fucking dozen times already
You haven't linked me though. I can only assume serviscope_minor's request was for the benefit of others reading this discussion, such as myself.
I tried "Erin Pizzey" on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], and though it does mention "harassment, death threats, bomb threats and defamation campaigns", it says nothing about a drive-by shooting in particular. (But then Wikipedia aims to include only claims that can be backed up by what it considers independent reliable sources.) Nor do the snippets in the first ten results for Google e
Re: (Score:2)
The emergence of the alt-right was an inevitable response to the PC shithole the world has become. White people are sick of having the rules dictated to them by minorities; men sick of having the rules dictated to them by radical feminists. Every issue championed by neo-marxist regressives results in a deliberate inversion of power, whereby the majority is held to ransom by a small but vocal minority with an axe to grind. People are sick of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe let's try something radical new and have laws written by sane people for a change.
Unfortunately sane people don't tend to elbow their way to the foreground and into a position where they could.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. I don't care about any of that stuff but I still hate people who don't have enough sense to block or log off.
Blocking doesn't work when you have someone like Milo Yiannopoulos who will send waves of individual followers to harass you. Hence the need for different approaches that can pre-emptively block those would-be harassers.
As for logging off... Well if someone is going to be driven off the service I'd prefer it be the people doing the harassment.
Re: (Score:2)
Blocking doesn't work when you have someone like Milo Yiannopoulos who will send waves of individual followers to harass you.
I see this claim a lot on here, and have yet to see a single instance of a citation to back up the claim that Milo asked other people to harass anyone. Please, provide a citation to a reputable source that he himself told anyone to do any of that.
I'll wait, I'm sure you have it right on your fingertips as the claim has been made by you and many others.
Re: (Score:2)
Aww, poor APK, wants me to out myself so he can stalk me in real life. Still not going to happen, you enjoy harassing me here enough as is.
Love how you posted in that first link and tried to sign it as from me. No, I don't even know what the Keystone center is, and doing a little research, it is far off base.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean where I replied directly to his post? Somehow now I am trolling to reply to what you say APK?
Not lying, as I have proven myself numerous times, not trolling, as you can see by my moderation, and not offtopic as I was responding to the topic your brought up.
However, you following me around all over the place and posting as a third party is offtopic trolling, so keep it up APK.
Twitter's finally up to 20th-century standards (Score:2)
Not a typo. It's sad how long it's taking social media to even get to what we had in the Usenet days.
Rob
Does it filter #FREEMILO? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Does it filter #FREEMILO? (Score:2, Insightful)
lol, rate this up! And by the way, #freemilo.
calling Norton Juster (Score:2)
What's next after Twitter? (Score:2)
We need a new poll. Now that Twitter is just about done, where should I go? I jumped on Twitter years ago as my news "firehouse". Over the years it's morphed - my feed that is - into a pretty narrow view of the world. Time to move on because this isn't healthy!
Re: (Score:2)
We need a new poll. Now that Twitter is just about done, where should I go? I jumped on Twitter years ago as my news "firehouse". Over the years it's morphed - my feed that is - into a pretty narrow view of the world. Time to move on because this isn't healthy!
There's a new company in beta trying to replace twitter https://gab.ai/ [gab.ai] haven't used it so far but they've committed themselves to free speech. That said, they are a Russian outfit so take it with a grain of salt.
Facebook as an example (Score:2)
Facebook provides an example of how these filters will work:
http://www.naturalnews.com/055... [naturalnews.com]
Just eliminate messaging and mentions (Score:3)
For example, if I follow Bob, then I (and everyone else who follows Bob) would receive Bob's tweets. If EvilJerk also follows Bob, he can be as outraged and tweet about it as much as he wants -- nobody except those who opted-in to follow EvilJerk would get his tweets.
Problem solved.
Twitter, meh (Score:2)
As has been said before, "Twitter is the confetti of the internet".
I'm too long-winded to use Twitter; it takes me more than 140 characters to say "Good morning". :)
Frankly, the vast majority of what I've seen on Twitter is self-referential "look at me!" stuff.
It's not micro-blogging, it's micro-bragging. "Look at my amazing coffee/breakfast/sandwich/shoes/tattoo"....etc etc etc.
It's not for me, but if people want to use it, then great- have at it.
Re: (Score:2)
And in other news, old man shakes his cane at the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
And in other news, serviscope_minor makes another stupid post.
What part of, "It's not for me, but if people want to use it, then great- have at it" seemed so awful to you?
Won't work (Score:2)
The list better not be secret (Score:2)
Otherwise, besides the obvious politics stuff, i can see funny things like for example AMD,ARM and PEPSI becoming "racial slurs".
Once new portals become very boring (Score:2)
If every creative word gets instant corrected or another new word suggested are you really free anymore?
When even using the basic text input interface of a site gets dragged into a mess of guidelines policy, why stay?
Under new rules censorship flourishes...
#TRIGERRED (Score:2)
Phallocrat! [urbandictionary.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So it being an echo chamber isn't enough anymore?