• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Twitter CEO announces new rules coming

i really dig twitter (i'd argue its an important medium & the "DELTE IT" crowd has no idea what they're talking about) & want to believe them, but it's been far too long - we'll see it when we see it. banning ricky vaughn, milo etc but verifying spencer & allowing all the #whitegenocide crowd - unless they actually use racial slurs/cuss words - has been the biggest load of horseshit forever now

The women boycotting to not use twitter on Sunday. It's to support Rose McGowan after she was suspended for her tweets about the Affleck/Weinstein thing

wait, it's sunday? thought it was today

Tangential, but this in the replies amused me:

(The first guy is apparently a conspiracy theorist blogger, he seems to like the phrase "liberal lunatics".)

dice is unmitigated trash, yeah
 
The 1/ is secretly about alt-right and other far right people, isn't it?

I don't trust Twitter on this, their moderation is shit since so many timie that it's not a technical or manpower difficulty. They just don't care and now they try to throw a bone to counter the boycott.
 
First Facebook deleted the Russia crap and now Twitter.

Twitter reportedly deleted tweets and other crucial user data that federal investigators may have been able to use in their investigation of potential Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election, current and former cybersecurity officials told Politico on Friday.

The officials, who spoke anonymously, told the news outlet that they believe Twitter was one of the Kremlin’s most important tools in its attempt to influence the election.

Russian actors utilized bots, fake users, Twitter campaigns and exaggerated or fake stories to try to sway Americans, the officials said.

They believe that by analyzing such information on Twitter it would be possible to establish a “pattern of life behavior” of Russian operations on social media that would shed light on how actors “were trying to nudge the narrative in a certain direction.”

Much of this information is no longer available, according to the officials.
 
They need to make everyone verify with a phone number, delete all of the fake accounts and bots (I don't care if this halves their userbase; if they want to foster a real community they need to do this whether it looks good to Wall Street or not), and issue bans for harassment and hate speech, and not allow any new accounts to be created with the phone number associated with the ban. Make the service actually an enjoyable place to talk publicly.
 
Isn't there something about letting haters voice themselves instead of censoring them because they'll just end up going into the shadows and become something much worse?
 
Ugh, why are tech companies universally bad at PR. Ignoring the fact they’ve been ignored the cesspool until it goes viral with a celeb; when the Rose vs Harvey thing went down and they banned her account all that was needed was an immediate unban, apologies all around, and a statement similar to this within a couple of hours of the ban.

In their case they took forever to unban her and gave a shitty ass legal-ese explanation on the reasons why because they’ve got no real leadership or plan (despite these commandments) and were stuck in a zillion meetings figuring out what to do next while the narrative became they were pro-hollywood rape (which thy aren’t, but considering how shitty they are at making these calls might as well be) and here we are today with a boycott and limp dick corporate response.

With people exposing the abuse they recieved primarily on twitter and instagram this week should have been a win for social media. Instead, silicon valley found a way to fuck it up.

Well said.

Tech giants are really fucking bad at messaging right now, often coming across as either indifferent or worse: embracing the chaos they cause.
 
They need to make everyone verify with a phone number, delete all of the fake accounts and bots (I don't care if this halves their userbase; if they want to foster a real community they need to do this whether it looks good to Wall Street or not), and issue bans for harassment and hate speech, and not allow any new accounts to be created with the phone number associated with the ban. Make the service actually an enjoyable place to talk publicly.

That would almost definitely kill the platform.
 
First Facebook deleted the Russia crap and now Twitter.

Twitter reportedly deleted tweets and other crucial user data that federal investigators may have been able to use in their investigation of potential Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election, current and former cybersecurity officials told Politico on Friday.

The officials, who spoke anonymously, told the news outlet that they believe Twitter was one of the Kremlin’s most important tools in its attempt to influence the election.

Russian actors utilized bots, fake users, Twitter campaigns and exaggerated or fake stories to try to sway Americans, the officials said.

They believe that by analyzing such information on Twitter it would be possible to establish a “pattern of life behavior” of Russian operations on social media that would shed light on how actors “were trying to nudge the narrative in a certain direction.”

Much of this information is no longer available, according to the officials.

Garbage company is garbage.
 
I will see it when i believe it..trump needs to be banned period. His voice is not news worthy it is terrorizing on every territory. Even threatening a nuclear war, that to me is already violating there goddamn ToS and they didn't do shit.

They gave fucking neo nazi's a platform and still do and still not banned no we give them blue checkmarks instead to spread there ideology.
 
Their real problem is that any more well thought out moderating process needs more real people to do it, algorithms will always be too blunt a tool, and with their finances not being exactly great as it is anything meaningful that they do is going to accelerate their need for a buyer.
 
EU has them by the balls so yes they will.
They’ve been better than in the US but still shit in these regards.

They’re only starting to get active now after germany passed a law to fine them 50m € per violation if they don’t act on hate speech.

Wouldn’t necessarily believe they’re gonna get very active in the US though.
 
Comedian Joe Mande has stated he is quitting Twitter with a short, poignant essay.

He has 1 million followers.

https://twitter.com/JoeMande/status/920000164823044096

Image-885376.jpg
 
Twitter continues to be a shit service that provides safe haven to trolls, harrassers and racists. That won't be changing. Ever.

Dear Twitter CEO,

Ban Trump, that way we know you are serious.

Sincerely,

Literally Everyone Else

This is bad advice. Trump's garbage tweets have helped support legal arguments against him. He undermines his administrations policies left and right on Twitter, and hr is the single greatest threat to his own policies. This insight into his fucked up mentality has merit.

Comedian Joe Mande has stated he is quitting Twitter with a short, poignant essay.

He has 1 million followers.

https://twitter.com/JoeMande/status/920000164823044096

Image-885376.jpg

Good. I hope more people follow suit.
 
Maybe if this were the 90's, banning Nazis would be less of a polarizing issue

Not loving how this is another clear example of Nazis gradually gaining validity and power in the United States
 
I’ll believe it when Alt-right (neo-Nazi) Twitter evaporates. Through their wording it looks like they will “both sides” the shit out of this though.
 
Question as I've never used twitter: What does it mean to be "verified" on the platform and what are the implications of Richard Spencer being verified?

I remember never liking twitter when I first heard of it and I never had any interest of it. I remember a few years ago being disturbed at Michelle Malkin making Twitchy, a twitter aggregation site to coordinate harassment and death threats towards liberals.
 
Question as I've never used twitter: What does it mean to be "verified" on the platform and what are the implications of Richard Spencer being verified?
Same thing it means on Facebook and YouTube


It means that you are the famous person you say you are.

There are 400 accounts claiming to be Neil deGrasse Tyson but only one is the real thing so only one gets verified.
 
You cant ban Trump...

He vents on Twitter, if he cant post then he goes to conventional media, and hes gonna do something even more irrational for hype

Let him make dumb statements instead of dumb actions
 
You cant ban Trump...

He vents on Twitter, if he cant post then he goes to conventional media, and hes gonna do something even more irrational for hype

Let him make dumb statements instead of dumb actions

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
I was recently asked if Crooked Hillary Clinton is going to run in 2020? My answer was, "I hope so!"

Let him eat his own words.
 
There's no way in he'll under any circumstances they'll ever ban Drumpf's personal or official POTUS accounts. Ever!!!
 
Kind of tired of the: "They shouldn't/can't ban Trump because he hangs himself there" argument. Something needs to be done.

Trumps personal account should be suspended until he's no longer Prez, he should be forced to tweet from the POTUS account, have no ability to delete tweets, and they should be delayed by at least an hour and only posted after being vetted by an actual human at Twitter.

A missile launch caused by a Twitter post is a real concern and needs to be taken into account.
 
Twitter thrives on chaos. Period. They won't change much in regards to hate sppech since they basically were brought back to relevance by an orange dipshit.
 
Echoing others here... if they don't ban Trump, then this is hollow. He's said any and all of the above.

They're not banning the president from Twitter, let's not live in a fantasy world.

And honestly, you don't want him banned from Twitter. While president, it will only hurt him.
 
They need to make everyone verify with a phone number, delete all of the fake accounts and bots (I don't care if this halves their userbase; if they want to foster a real community they need to do this whether it looks good to Wall Street or not), and issue bans for harassment and hate speech, and not allow any new accounts to be created with the phone number associated with the ban. Make the service actually an enjoyable place to talk publicly.

I wonder how much of the problem really is caused by motivated agents and armies of bots. Maybe it is not just about stock prices and political operations. I am interested to know how much revenue comes from bots utilized for advertising purposes and traffic generation. There was a really good article in The Atlantic recently about Facebook, social media, News distribution, and influence campaigns. An excerpt from the article:

Alexis C. Madrigal said:
...Facebook took over the news-media ecosystem. They've never publicly admitted it, but in late 2013, they began to serve ads inviting users to "like" media pages. This caused a massive increase in the amount of traffic that Facebook sent to media companies. At The Atlantic and other publishers across the media landscape, it was like a tide was carrying us to new traffic records. Without hiring anyone else, without changing strategy or tactics, without publishing more, suddenly everything was easier.

While traffic to The Atlantic from Facebook.com increased, at the time, most of the new traffic did not look like it was coming from Facebook within The Atlantic's analytics. It showed up as "direct/bookmarked" or some variation, depending on the software. It looked like what I called "dark social" back in 2012. But as BuzzFeed's Charlie Warzel pointed out at the time, and as I came to believe, it was primarily Facebook traffic in disguise. Between August and October of 2013, BuzzFeed's "partner network" of hundreds of websites saw a jump in traffic from Facebook of 69 percent.

At The Atlantic, we ran a series of experiments that showed, pretty definitively from our perspective, that most of the stuff that looked like "dark social" was, in fact, traffic coming from within Facebook's mobile app. Across the landscape, it began to dawn on people who thought about these kinds of things: Damn, Facebook owns us. They had taken over media distribution.

I wonder if part of their reluctance to address the issues with social media is due to the fact that a not insignificant percentage of revenue generated from social media traffic is produced by bots. Anecdotally, somebody I was friends with years back, who worked in online advertising and marketing, told me about the difficulties ad agencies had with generating revenue via websites and social media. He said they used to "fudge the clicks" and employed automated systems to increase traffic. Obviously this is a single anecdote that I cannot verify, but I wouldn't be surprised if the boon in traffic and ad revenue correlates to the rise of bots on social media. Somebody should look into that; maybe it's a house of cards.
 
The new rules (and their timeline for implementation) are out.

The big changes are going to be the suspension of "Violent Groups" starting 11/3, and suspension of accounts that "condone or glorify violence" on 12/14, but there's a lot of other changes to suspension policies, hate symbols and imagery (no longer allowed in profile pics or headers, and tweets with that content will have an interstitial over them), and non-consentual nudity and unwanted sexual advances.
 
Top Bottom