What Can Be Done About Twitface?

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/twitter-under-fresh-pressure-to-remove-racist-content-sooner-after-labour-frontbencher-david-lammy-reveals-abuse-12042261
I think the Home sec has done the right thing in condemning this awful abuse and supporting Mr Lammy but surely this cesspit needs a rocket up it's April.

[Mozz71]

Just to address 3T's OP question, what can be done about Twitter, a one strike and out policy is surely the way forward. If you post a racist, homophobic, antisemetic etc post you're gone for life. It doesn't matter who you are, whether you're Bob Smith down the road or Donald Trump, you post that nasty, bullying crap, bye bye.

[naomi24]

But who gets to decide what is acceptable? We had a thread on here a week or so back containing many frank but worthy opinions. Several posts were removed simply because the presiding mod regarded those opinions as racist. They weren’t. Personal abuse is one thing - censorship of opinions quite another.

[ummmm]

That's too simplified, Mozzz. With what's going on in the world there will always be very strong opinions for both sides.

I can see Trump getting banned pretty soon if he carries on posting false information.

[New Judge]

The problem with Twitter is that people use it under their real names. They do this and then wonder why they get "threats" issued. The answer to those not robust enough to deal with such threats is simple - just don't log on to Twitter. It's not compulsory, it's not necessary, you won't die without it. Just leave it alone then nobody can threaten you, nobody can intimidate you, nobody can insult you or make racist or derogatory remarks which upset you. You have to deliberately log on to things like Twitter - you do not do that by accident. So why would you do that if it upsets you so much?

[ummmm]

Because it doesn't upset people most of the time.

You don't have to do anything wrong to find yourself a target. One poor lady was bombarded with evil comments after her baby died. No-one could predict something like that happening.

[douglas9401]

Some people have a burning need to share their thoughts and opinions online to demonstrate their perceived wisdom, fairness and general good-eggness seeking praise and acclaim from those who come across their works.

They often have a blind spot when it comes to their own online image and annoying foibles though and this can lead to tensions on the boards.

Those most sure of the set in stone truth their stated positions are often the subject of abuse because normal people lose the rag with their self-styled paragon of virtue need to be right.

They also tend to see every general statement as aimed directly at them suggesting narcissism on some scale.

[naomi24]

There's no accounting for nutters but people who post details of their private lives are, in my opinion, providing ammunition. Reading Chatterbank, where clearly feuds that began years ago are still simmering should be enough to deter anyone with any sense.

[ummmm]

Is that aimed at me? :-)

It's very true, Douglas.

[Mozz71]

Twitter self polices itself. Like any company, they have the complete right to refuse to deal with (or in their case, provide a platform for) someone who has been abusive in the past. People seem to think rhey have an absolute right to use social media without having to take responsibility for their own actions, that's complete bullocks. If somebody can't behave acceptably on Twitter, they don't get to use Twitter.

[douglas9401]

Your last point falls when their biggest star is a rambling inadequate with the power to do real harm through his lies and misinformation though, Mozz.

[Mozz71]

//Your last point falls when their biggest star is a rambling inadequate with the power to do real harm through his lies and misinformation though, Mozz.//

I agree. Twitter need to get their act together in that sense. The higher the profile, the more they pander to the user. Trump isn't the only culprit, but he's certainly the most public.

[andy-hughes]

Spicerack - // Hey Andy, maybe these famous people should keep their big mouths shut for, say, 12 months if they don't want to have their families threatened?
What you reckon, Andy. Good idea, eh? //

It took me a few minutes to figure out that this was a response to my suggestion that 'Tommy Robinson' should try being quiet to avoid dragging his innocent family into his attention-seeking nonsense.

If you honestly think there is a comparison between even the most minor celebrity, who has hopefully actually done something useful in order to attract attention, and the pointless ramblings of a racist thug, then you are stretching even too far for you in order to have a pointless pop at me - again.

'Tommy Robinson' needs publicity like the rest of us need oxygen. He is nothing but a vacuous publicity machine, he lives and breathes to be noticed, and spends his entire time seeking the adoration he craves.

Comparing him to any celebrity receiving abuse on Twitter is, as I said, you looking to make a point to have a go at me for reasons of your own - attention perhaps?

Any celebrity receiving threats regards the situation as deplorable and upsetting - 'Tommy Robinson' receiving threats regards the situation as a good day at the office.

[New Judge]

//You don't have to do anything wrong to find yourself a target. One poor lady was bombarded with evil comments after her baby died.//

Then why, after she'd seen the first one, did she keep looking on Twitter? The comments were not posted on the village notice board; they were not advertised on the telly. She had to purposefully go to a place where she had a good idea she would see things she would not like. There's lots of stuff I know I will dislike in certain newspapers. So I don't buy them. How you can be "bullied" or "offended" or "devastated" by something you read voluntarily and can easily not read puzzles me.

[andy-hughes]

New Judge - // //You don't have to do anything wrong to find yourself a target. One poor lady was bombarded with evil comments after her baby died.//

Then why, after she'd seen the first one, did she keep looking on Twitter? The comments were not posted on the village notice board; they were not advertised on the telly. She had to purposefully go to a place where she had a good idea she would see things she would not like. There's lots of stuff I know I will dislike in certain newspapers. So I don't buy them. How you can be "bullied" or "offended" or "devastated" by something you read voluntarily and can easily not read puzzles me. //

I can see your point, but I would argue that no-one should be excluded from social media simply because they as an individual are receiving abuse and / or threats.

The lady may have found dozens of messages of support in her situation which comforted her, why should her access to those be terminated in order to facilitate the abuse of strangers?

I believe that the concept of saying to an individual "Because of your fame / status / profile - you are attracting abuse and threats, therefore this avenue of communication is now closed off to you." sets a dangerous precident for society as a whole.

When do we start stopping programmes containing potentially racist comment - say in drama or documentary - from being beamed into the houses of people of colour?

When do we start analysing voting habits and only beam political party broadcasts into homes where aligned voters live and watch television?

Surely in a civilised society, the reaction is not "You can't go on Twitter because you get abuse …" it is "Twitter will censor the abuse you receive because you are entitled to access it without being the target of hatred from anonymous strangers."

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // But who gets to decide what is acceptable? We had a thread on here a week or so back containing many frank but worthy opinions. Several posts were removed simply because the presiding mod regarded those opinions as racist. They weren’t. Personal abuse is one thing - censorship of opinions quite another. //

On here, the Editor and Team get to decide what is acceptable.

Decisions from Moderators are all referred directly to the Editor and Team and if they decide that moderation has been inappropriately applied, then they can and do restore a deleted post of thread.

I believe you know this, but from your post here, it appears that you do not appreciate how the system works.

[naomi24]

AH, //Surely in a civilised society, the reaction is not "You can't go on Twitter because you get abuse …" it is "Twitter will censor the abuse you receive because you are entitled to access it without being the target of hatred from anonymous strangers." //

Since you refused to remove what was possibly the worst insult I've ever seen on AB your post is the height of hypocrisy.

[ummmm]

I don't know, NJ, morbid curiosity perhaps.

[jim360]

// You have to deliberately log on to things like Twitter - you do not do that by accident. So why would you do that if it upsets you so much? //

// There's lots of stuff I know I will dislike in certain newspapers. So I don't buy them. How you can be "bullied" or "offended" or "devastated" by something you read voluntarily and can easily not read puzzles me. //

As Ummm says, there's also the good stuff that you might want to read. Being chased away from the good stuff because of the bad stuff would be unfortunate.

And, besides, again this fails to address the problem. Why should the solution to internet bullying, or any other bullying for that matter, be for the victim to avoid certain places rather than for the bullies to... not?

Moreover, it's potentially a mistake to argue that you can just avoid it. Sometimes the stuff chases you. Again, case in point of Gail Trimble. Even if she'd avoided the online abuse, comments, etc, somebody literally called her brother and asked if he could set her up to do a photoshoot for Nuts magazine. He refused, obviously, but still. Creepy. This stuff can potentially fight its way into your life whether you want it to or not. And those online comments exist and might (do) show up in online searches performed by other people, influencing *their* perception of you. Put bluntly, this matters, and it's a nonsense, pure and simple, to pretend that it doesn't or that it's entirely up to the victim to avoid it.

[naomi24]

AH, //it appears that you do not appreciate how the system works. //

Oh I fully appreciate how the system works, AH ...

[New Judge]

//As Ummm says, there's also the good stuff that you might want to read. Being chased away from the good stuff because of the bad stuff would be unfortunate.//

Then you have to choose what's best for you. You cannot rely on everybody else behaving properly on an internet forum and you cannot rely on moderators screening out (what they think is) unacceptable material. That's the reality. We'd all like it to be different (well, most of us would) but it isn't.

I take the view that there are plenty of unpleasant and, who I consider to be, slightly unhinged people out there. The internet is made for them. Anybody divulging personal information on any internet site might as well do so by means of an advert in the Yorkshire Times (or whatever organ takes their fancy). It's no good moaning that "they are bullying me" after you've done that.