Twitter Says It's Beating the Trolls (betanews.com) 214
Mark Wilson writes: After making it easier to report abusive tweets and increasing the size of its anti-troll team, Twitter believes it is getting 'bad behavior' under control. As well as bullying of acquaintances and work colleagues, Twitter has also been used to attack celebrities, the gay community, religious groups, and more, with many people feeling driven from the site. It seems that the decision to take a very hands-on approach to troll tackling is starting to pay off. The head of Twitter in Europe, Bruce Daisley, says that the tools that have been introduced have had a real impact on trolling. He goes further, saying that there is a direct correlation between the release of new safety tools and reporting mechanisms, and the drop in unacceptable behavior.
"Beating the trolls" is it? (Score:5, Informative)
From what I've read, Twitter is infact censoring some tweets, depending on the terminology used.
Apparently several gamergate people have been for lack of a better word "shadowbanned" or words which are trending are deliberately not showing up.
Say what you will about Gamergate (it's certainly a stupid name) - there's some real dipshits involved with it, who've said some ghastly shit.
There's *ALSO* some perfectly sane people who've said some quite intelligent things, however one side of the debate has succeeded in altering history and current time, by somehow managing to label the entire group, virtually terrorists, including lying about what's been said or done, claiming they are "in the right" regardless of what the other people say, dismissing things that people say because of who they are (strawman) and so on.
It's been quite eye opening to watch actually and one thing I have noticed which I wouldn't have before, is that I have a far, FAR more skeptical eye on things in the regular and gaming media. It's opened my eyes HUGELY, in how things are reported. "X is bad, X did this, X said this" etc, when some of those things are utterly impossible to prove, outright incorrect, or labeling an entire group for one persons actions - been an educational year.
FWIW: I'd align myself as closer to GG than not, but certainly not "active" more a casual observer in it all.
As for twitter censoring and this news article, as I stated, I've heard multiple times in the past 6 months, certain things are simple not being made visible due to who they are or what's being said, even if it's not offensive - use the wrong hashtag, prepare for potential censorship.
Note: Posting anonymously, as usual with any gamergate discussion of any kind, lest "the good nice guys" harass and dox me (but that side is infallible and that's never occurred before, honest!)
Re: "Beating the trolls" is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: "Beating the trolls" is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
its still censorship, its just legal censorship. they have the right to set the rules on their site that is 100% correct. but its not fair to claim its not censorship
I'm an atheist. I don't demand equal time with the priest in church, if they want a forum by Christians for Christians that's fine and I don't consider it censorship but don't call it public debate. It's when you've driven away all the dissenting opinions by forced registration, real name policies, labeling them "trolls" and moderating them away and still pretend that what you have is a public debate that I disagree. It's a sanitized, whitewashed debate where hardly anybody would voice personal information or opinions their family, friends, employer, landlord or anybody else would take offense from.
And not because they're doing anything wrong, if you interviewed one of the daughters of Muslim immigrants on equality of the sexes, hijab, forced marriage, female genital mutilation etc. I bet roughly 99% would give different answers under promise of anonymity than under full name, published for the world and everyone they know to see. Just because the government isn't going to throw me in jail over it, doesn't make free speech advisable.
It's probably true that you get more hateful opinions with anonymity/pseduo-anonymity, but I don't think there's any reason to believe they're less true. There's a saying at least in Norway "from children and drunken men you hear the truth" and I think that is because they don't think about consequences. The emperor's new clothes and all that. The only free exchange of opinion is the one free from consequence, the question is if you want to hear it or not. And the world is trending towards no, thank you.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It's a balance. Trolling is an attempt to prevent debate and the exercising of free speech. Somehow you have to provide an environment where a reasonable human being can participate in the debate, while allowing all possible views to be expressed.
It's not actually that hard. You can express controversial views politely, without trolling.
Re: "Beating the trolls" is it? (Score:2, Insightful)
No. Fuckwads like you will call anyone who disagrees with you a troll, instead of addressing what they said. Your type attack the person, because they can't defeat the ideas.
Re: "Beating the trolls" is it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Trolling is an attempt to prevent debate and the exercising of free speech.
No, trolling is the attempt to elicit a reaction and have people make fools of themselves in front of others.
It is often disruptive, but I cannot say I have heard of a single case of trolling intended "to prevent debate and the excercising[sic] of free speech".
It's not actually that hard. You can express controversial views politely, without trolling.
Hardly. It doesn't matter how polite you are, if the topic does not sit well with consensus. You will know that your views will be attacked without anyone reading and trying to understand them, no matter how polite you are. And knowing that, the only purpose would be trolling.
That being said, I do not necessarily see it as a bad thing. People being goaded by someone sincere, polite and humble can be a beauty to watch, especially when it leads to people attacking conclusions no one drew or opinion no one held.
In my opinion it is an underrated art form, much like sarcasm that is obvious to everyone except the recipient.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How did you manage to quote me, copy the quote inaccurately, notice there mistake and add (sic) without seeing that the mistake was your own?
Re: "Beating the trolls" is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this is basic SJW stuff.
"I cannot dispute your argument, so I'll pretend it doesn't exist and try ad hominems instead."
It's not so much trolling as just funny and/or sad.
Re: "Beating the trolls" is it? (Score:5, Interesting)
I completely disagree.
A public debate isn't a free-for-all where anyone can say anything. If you don't eject the trolls then the trolls will drive people away. You've still got the de-facto censorship which you claim prevents public debate except now new the targets of censorship are chosen by the nastiest, craziest faction.
You are falsely equating doing nothing with being open. That's unfortunately not the case: you're just letting someone else do the closing for you.
You're picture of public discourse sounds more or less equivalent to perfect freedom: it can't exist because... Well, the perfect freedom debate is long hashed over and I expect I'm unlikely to give you new insights to that.
Re: (Score:2)
It is quite possible for public discourse to be done in a civil manner. In fact, the vast majority of my posts are civil. On the other hand, it's quite possible to be trolling while maintaining an air of civility and politeness. I may well be guilty of the latter but, if done, it generally actually had a purpose and the responses indicate that at least a few people understood the reasoning and methodology.
Tools, including mannerisms and speech, can be used for good or ill. It's easier to kill with a scalpel
Re: (Score:2)
It is quite possible for public discourse to be done in a civil manner. In fact, the vast majority of my posts are civil.
Only if you keep out the in civil people though. Done people will just try to wreck things for fun.
Re: (Score:2)
And I forgot: we also have libel and slander laws. So those people who like making up fake tweets and screenshots of them (there were some gaters recently getting all hot and bothered over a tweet from Sarkeesian in which she looked like an awful person, but it was 141 characters long, proving beyond doubt it was fake) would risk expensive lawsuits if they tried that off the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly enough, this doesn't seem to happen in real life - except on the internet. Very seldom do the courts need to evict someone, town-halls have to evict someone, etc
I think that's because the speech restricting (I'm not honestly convinced this comes under the banner of free speech, or what is commonly meant by it) already operate in full force. If people were to start hurling abuse, death threats and so on at things like a real town hall meeting etc, they'd end up beaten, disinherited or jailed, and possi
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, OK.
It's tricky right. As far I I see it, "free speech" is like any other freedom. If it's completely free (in that literally nothing is forbidden) then you can use your speech to solicit murders, make threats etc, and suppress other people's speech. In the same vain, complete freedom of action includes the freedom to enslave others.
With that mildly out of the way...
I agree with your point. Some (many) people will consider overturning social systems to be disruptive. It is of course disruptive socially
Re: (Score:2)
You want to shut down things people say because they make you uncomfortable.
Mindless shit posting doesn't make me uncomfortable but in sufficient posting, it drowns out sensible discourse. If anything anyone says gets met with a barrage of screeching obscenities and one had to filter out the 1% of sane replies, then people including me will leave because I've got better things to do.
In other words, your excessively simplistic world view is naive at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is labelling dissenting opinion as trolling if Twitter prefers one side of the argument.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it all comes down to the owners subjective definition of what is 'harrasment' and 'derailment', doesn't it?
It is most certainly not 'public debate' as per the rated plus 5 insightful explanation you responded to.
Re: (Score:2)
its still censorship, its just legal censorship. they have the right to set the rules on their site that is 100% correct. but its not fair to claim its not censorship
How do you know it's legal censorship? Do you have any way of knowing that government agents aren't quietly encouraging certain acts of private censorship? For example, they might get a National Security Letter with a gag order instructing them to censor some subversive, hate-speech, or pro-terrorist speech. Then it would be illegal government censorship masquerading as legal private censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between having an unpopular opinion, and being an abusive dick. I don't think it can be called censorship if you're removing a platform for the latter. Of course, that can be a fine line to walk sometimes.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Censorship isn't limited to governments. (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know where the fuck this only-governments-can-commit-censorship concept came from, but it's total bullshit.
Yes, if a government limits the ability of somebody to express some idea, it is censorship.
If a corporation limits the ability of somebody to express some idea, it is, guess what, censorship!
And if an individual limits the ability of somebody to express some idea, once again it is censorship.
The parties involved don't matter; censorship refers to the action of suppressing what others express.
Anyone can commit censorship. Anyone can be a victim of censorship.
And while some social media provider may have the right to remove content from their system, that doesn't mean it isn't censorship.
It's still censorship, because the expression of somebody else is being suppressed or eliminated.
Anyone who claims such suppression isn't censorship because it's being done by a private party is a fucking idiot.
Re:Censorship isn't limited to governments. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let the children argue, they'll figure it out.
I've followed this GG thing since about Jan. Most of the followers on both sides are 14-22. They're quick to throw out something 'deep' they heard. XKCD made a comic that they all take as truth [xkcd.com]. What he meant to say was the "First Amendment" not "Free Speech".
It's just the children fighting. I'll take twitter's announcement like I would have taken a Usenet admin's word on "We've fixed the trolling". Everyone on both sides seems to either be a 14-22 year or the ~30 year olds that they're following. The only thing the 30 year olds seem to be good at is being professionally unemployed. "FreeBSD Girl" hasn't made a commit in 5 years, but still leverages her "I'M A PRECIOUS DEVELOPER".
I think what a lot of them are finding out is everyone has a ceiling in life. I made it until 30 until I hit mine. I've accepted that I will never be CEO or VP of my company because of the career paths I chose in my 20s. I have female friends from college hitting it just past 30 and they're blaming it on everything but the fact that they can't go any higher.
Personally I think half of the problem is that a lot of kids weren't raised with reality in mind. They got into what ever college and major and life they wanted and they're expecting jobs without being able to actually perform. Brianna Wu's game Revolution 60 [giantspacekat.com] looks like something a 13 year old would have designed in the late 90s. There are a lot of actual women in STEM that have real accomplishments to their name by their ages. Stuff like patents.
</soapbox>
Re: (Score:2)
I've followed this GG thing since about Jan. Most of the followers on both sides are 14-22.
Well you've bought into another of the myths already. Not everything is a bi partisan, dichotomous thing. Gamer gate is a movement. Which you are either with or not with, not for or against. You can think a movement is bad/silly/deranged without identifying with an anti- side.
You are also mistaken about the xkcd comic. He most certainly means free speech. Free speech is not the same as free-for-all. In fact if you hav
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'd say it's a re-occurring "coincidence" that the accomplished and successful ones never place the blame on "everyone-but-me" (or, in this day and age, "the-patriarchy-wherein-all-collaborate-in-secret-to-keep-me-down-because-I'm-a-special-snowflake"). Maybe it's because they were taught to "get up, dust yourself off, and try again" instead of "cry a lot, get an adult to do it for you". Whatever the reason, it's obvious that there is no pandemic of inequity. Perhaps one should instead look to things l
XKCD 1357 == Today's Godwin. (Score:2)
If one has to cite XKCD 1357, then one has automatically lost the argument. Using that comic means that one's argument cannot survive scrutiny without administrative defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Wu's game was widely praised by critics.
But not for being fun to play, or for being a good game, just for being thought-provoking. Critical acclaim has always been a shit indicator of quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Periods of inactivity on open source projects does not disqualify someone from being a developer.
By all means, show me some thing she's developed that is worth anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how you complain about people being young and childish, and then act that way yourself.
Randi Harper is gainfully employed on the board of directors of a non-profit.
She founded it herself, and it's stacked only with other professional victims. Her "gainful employment" consists of begging for money on Twitter.
Periods of inactivity on open source projects does not disqualify someone from being a developer.
It kinda does since a developer is a job position, and a job requires that you 'do' stuff. Thus, Randi might qualify as a professional victim, or a beggar, but not as someone that actually develops.
Your dismissal of complaints about being unable to advance don't address any of the points being made. You seem to be arguing that because you peaked the same reasons must apply to everyone else, which is absurd.
He argues that reality applies to all of us. You seem to disagree. This reminds me of a recent South Park episode on safe spaces.
Wu's game was widely praised by critics. Your superficial critique of the visual style suggests you haven't played it.
HAHAHAHAHHA.
Seriously? Come on, no one a
Dangerous Censorship Blindspot You People Have (Score:2)
Twitter is private, not a government so it technically can't be censoring. They have a right to delete whatever they want from their site.
Whoever told you that, make sure you never trust anything they say ever again. When it comes to the Bill of Rights, the ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment wide, but even it knows better than to say what you just did:
https://www.aclu.org/what-cens... [aclu.org]
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
Remember when Reddit (and Google and most of the internet) stood up and actively, officially, and effectively opposed SOPA and PIPA? Well, CISA just passed without a peep from them, while they instead actively censor discussion [imgur.com] of similar things like th
Re: (Score:3)
There's no "free speech" on television; it's censored all the time (as a matter of course, even.) There's no "free speech" in newspapers; there's no "free speech" on the radio.
These are all commonly censored due to government regulation or when the company running the media outlet determines that broadcasting speech could be detrimental to its own interests.
How, exactly, are Facebook and Twitter any different from any other media outlet that solicits public content, then publishes what it wants? I think you
Re: (Score:3)
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others.
Indeed. It's the reason why you can't have sex with your sister on the sidewalk.
While censorship in itself is a bad and repressive thing, it is also often useful as grease to make society trundle along. People generally don't mind censorship as long as it's not their own ideas or beliefs being censored. But there will always be victims - the open question is whether the disruption of societal norms trumps the repression of the victims.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"Beating the trolls" is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering the number of times you've repeated that lie, and people have told you that there was no review but you continue to repeat it kinda shows that you already believe the narrative presented to you. Useful tip: It was positive coverage, not forgetting the fact that it wasn't her boyfriend. Rather it was a game journo [deepfreeze.it], who was also shacking up with her, paying for her hotels, and was also involved in part of the production of that work work. None of which was disclosed when he wrote the articles praising her as a indie darling and the not-quite VN, the best thing since sliced bread. I do find it funny how salty people get over deepfreeze though, who'd have though exposing gamejournos being corrupt would be so fulfilling.
What I find funny about all of it is, when this originally broke it was called burgers and fries. People dumped the name and it centered to gamergate, and of course aggro's like yourself continue to go on and on about "how changing the name would really mean they've distanced themselves from it" as well. Showing however, that even once the name was changed you didn't care. And when a conference with members of the SPJ decided to use a different name, the first thing aggro's did was start screaming about "how it's gamergate, and they rape women."
Or that after a year and a half, you still can't find actual threats linking them to gamergate but it's pretty easy to find outspoken aggro's who want to get people fired from their jobs, actively dox people, and in general are the usual asshats that social justice produces these days. Who of course believe that no matter what they do it's justified. ally got caught by pretending to be an actual terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
It's well documented that the original claim was a review. See Wikipedia for multiple references. The claim was later changed when it became apparent that it was false, but I'd still untrue. The guy in question only mentioned Quinn once in his writing before their relationship started, and never once afterwards.
Again, if this is s lie then produce some evidence. Show us the favourable coverage he provided during their association. In fact, show us more than a single mention before GanerGate kicked off. Ther
Re:"Beating the trolls" is it? (Score:5, Informative)
GamerGate supporters complained that she was receiving favourable coverage from a person who is credited as a beta tester for her game and who gave her money.
https://archive.is/WtK25 [archive.is]
https://archive.is/QwJbc [archive.is]
https://archive.is/mrVxK [archive.is]
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygam... [blogjob.com]
""Special thanks for their amazing support during a really difficult time. This game would have been dead in the water months ago without you all." Nathan Grayson included." https://archive.is/AGml8#selec... [archive.is]
Media outlets, invested in the harassment narrative, published articles claiming that GamerGate made the false claim that Grayson reviewed her game.
Misinformation is terribly easy to spread, especially when there are people who will treat hearsay as fact. Your comment is at -1 flamebait which you could take as a sign that poorly researched claims based on a false narrative aren't valued on /.
Re: (Score:3)
Ethical behaviour is verifying the veracity of the claims rather than discounting them out of hand due to one's biases and when making counter claims backing them up with evidence.
I've had a decent number of conversations with persons I'm guessing you would describe as a "gater troll" as well as anti-Gamergate people. A small number of the former were raving loons who jumped on any conspiracy theory and used it to validate their own biases and prejudices, most however were thoughtful (if irreverent), disill
Re: (Score:2)
Ethical behaviour is verifying the veracity of the claims rather than discounting them out of hand due to one's biases and when making counter claims backing them up with evidence.
If someone's told 99 lies in a row, there is no standard of ethics which requires me to treat the 100th thing that person says with complete credulity. This applies doubly so if the person is a hypocrite who told those lines under the banner of ethics.
You're delusional if you think anyone is under any ethical obligation to dispro
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely appreciate that you're willing to take the time to chat to me about this but until you can present *something* that validates your claims I don't see this going anywhere. I would also say, purely as a point of argumentation style, that insulting people needlessly isn't a great way to make your points any more convincing.
I had a look at your posting history and noticed that the person you referred to earlier who was making claims of a favourable review presented the same evidence I linked in my
Re: (Score:2)
You discounted the idea that the three instances of coverage were not reviews
That's because at the time they were called reviews.
You can post as much "evidence" to the contrary if you like but all you're doing is telling me that what I experienced I did not actually experience. When I was arguing with pro gamergate people a lot at the beginning it was all about reviews. It only became "favourable coverage" a long time after when people finally realised the reviews did not exist.
Now here's the entertaining t
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I think this has become unproductive. I provided a link to a video that pre-dates the creation of the hash-tag demonstrating unequivocally that the original claim was favourable coverage and your reply is an anecdote that this isn't what you experienced. If I can present that and you can dismiss it it is clear that your criteria for what constitutes evidence is different from mine and nothing I present, regardless of how definitive, will sway you.
I did not ignore your point about the Quinnspiracy, I jus
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I think this has become unproductive. I provided a link to a video that pre-dates the creation of the hash-tag demonstrating unequivocally that the original claim was favourable coverage
Um no. The infamous zoepost was the opening salvo. Your video postdates that. The fact it pre-dates the name"gamergte" is immaterial because the so-called movement existed prior to the name "gamergate" when it was know as the "quinnspiracy".
IOW you're starting in the middle, not the beginning. You're also effectively tel
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think his reading comprehension is just fine, I believe you pretend not to or simply failed to understand his argument.
His argument was that an argument criticizing some members of a group was criticizing all members of that group, which was false. At best, it shows a failure in reading comprehension. More likely, it constitutes disingenuousness, such as you are accusing me of. Do you really not understand that this was my argument? If so, run along and let the people capable of thought have the arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
After the revolution in Russia, it was expected that workers around the world would follow their lead and rise up to overthrow their governments. That mostly did not happen in the west, so a group got together to figure out why, and what they could do about it.
The "why" ended up being "western civilization", and the "what to do about it" was "destroy the institutions and traditions of the west", things like family, religion, law and order, individualism, freedom.
Since Marxism wasn't about economics, but ab
Yeah, right (Score:5, Funny)
So they're cracking down on common everyday trolls. But, racist/misogynistic/hateful tweets are just fine, if you're a presidential candidate.
Re: (Score:1)
Or a SJW.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, there is a difference between making a general sexist/racist statement and making one about specific people as part of a pattern of behaviour designed to troll them.
Trump has this far survived by not making a habit of going after the same person repeatedly.
Re: (Score:2)
What truth? 90% of the time Trump is full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch out everybody– the EDGY guy just entered the conversation.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
She was a black woman and therefor automatically right in everything she does.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Probably because Minn. Stat. Â 13.601, subd. 2 states that the forms they submitted may be made public at the discretion of the recipient. It's like writing to a magazine and then being upset that the editor decided to publish your letter.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter's abuse department gives them cover. (Score:2)
The individuals that run the abuse department at Twitter are well connected to the various SJW causes.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice troll.
Central Tenet (Score:2)
Her motivation was in the right place. She is trying to protect black men from being constantly killed by the Republican's thugs in blue.
Nice troll.
Isn't it though.
In my experience, if there's one tenet that reliably and consistently predicts (if not drives) an SJW's opinions and behavior, it's the one that tells them "It's OK when we do it."
Re:Central Tenet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Ok... (Score:1)
Exactly. She is on the right side.
Great idea! (Score:1)
Crowing about beating trolls is such a great idea. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:1)
They already did with Adam Baldwin. (Score:2)
They already have [twitter.com].
Adam Baldwin is not a troll, but he is a well-known personality with conservative beliefs. As a consequence, Twitter's abuse department considers him an enemy of the highest order.
Slashdot Forgot the Censorship and YRO Icons (Score:5, Interesting)
Why was there never a
It's abundantly clear that there's an activist arm of the tech news media (which Slashdot, sadly, clearly wants to be part of) that isn't anti-censorship or anti-bullying at all, as long as they get to be (or choose) the approved bullies and censors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot Forgot the Censorship and YRO Icons (Score:4, Funny)
How do you feel about people criticizing anyone who starts a sentence, "I for one..."?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, that's two for one.
Re: (Score:3)
Why was there never a /. story about the ridiculous UN Women/Broadband propaganda report that tried to promote the idea of "cyber-violence" (an awkardly obvious pretense to a desired government crackdown) which proved so embarassing that they had to pull it from public view (and no /. story when that happened either).
tbh, I'm kind of glad that didn't show up on Slashdot......
Targeted users (Score:2)
Adam Baldwin had his a twitter account banned for a post that said "#gamergate'ers are more attractive and joyous for than anti-gg'ers"
The whole "troll" excuse, seems to be an excuse to target users who buck the trend of political correctness, gamergate seems to be the largest target of users.
Even Richard Dawkin had to mention that twitter "thought" police going after people.
Re:Targeted users (Score:5, Funny)
I love origin stories.
You know you're in for a bumpy ride when a sentence starts out like that. And in case anyone doesn't know who Richard Dawkin is, he's mainly famous for getting BOFA'd from space on twitter. Here is the exchange that made him so well-known (the dank memes that follow the actual event are worth the trip):
https://twitter.com/richarddaw... [twitter.com]
Re:Targeted users (Score:5, Informative)
Dawkins (note the s) is famous for writing several very popular, widely translated books on atheism and the delusion of religion. He is also an accomplished evolutionary biologist.
Re: (Score:2)
He's also got his head firmly stuck in the past and believes that genes are everything. Epigenetics is a thing, but he doesn't seem to accept it.
Re: (Score:2)
He's also got his head firmly stuck in the past and believes that genes are everything. Epigenetics is a thing, but he doesn't seem to accept it.
Epigenetics is *widely* cautioned against. Dawkins is not the only notable scientist in this regard; claiming that genes trump epigenetics in expression of characteristics is not in any way unusual. It's a new(ish) field - give it some time.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't tell me, tell the guy to whom I was replying. I kept his spelling because I didn't want to confuse him.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you dare. It's the holidays, and I've promised to be nice.
good, please stay there! (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope Twitter will be around for a long time. It's a honey pot for people who think they can engage in social or political commentary in 140 characters or less. The more these people are distracted and kept away from the rest of the Internet, the better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you follow the right people you can find a lot of insight in 140 characters. It forces you to be direct and concise.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's why all the good books are 140 characters or less.
Re: (Score:3)
If you follow the right people you can find a lot of insight in 140 characters. It forces you to be direct and concise.
It also encourages soundbite-quality thinking, because it's impossible to express complex, nuanced ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope Twitter will be around for a long time. It's a honey pot for people who think they can engage in social or political commentary in 140 characters or less. The more these people are distracted and kept away from the rest of the Internet, the better.
You made your point in 256 characters excluding subject; less than two tweets.
Not sure if
(I jest. I have no opinion on Twitter. LoLtards, etc. can make fools out of themselves in 2 or three characters, a point can be made in 140.)
Re: (Score:2)
What a predictable and trite response.
Some car trips are also shorter than a mile; that doesn't mean that a car that has a range of just a mile is actually a useful car.
Re: (Score:2)
What a predictable and trite response.
No need to get snotty about it.
Your point was made, and it was brief & concise, that's all. Seems like a good thing, no?
Some car trips are also shorter than a mile; that doesn't mean that a car that has a range of just a mile is actually a useful car.
The analogy is a bit strained I'd suggest.
There are modes of transport with very short ranges, but are have very useful in limited scenarios.
Elevators for one.
Even forklifts - no one has ever taken one to the limit of its range, but wouldn't want to unload a truck without one.
Gantry cranes could be seen similarly - they only move back & forth a short distance, but no one could unl
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Twitter is good for status updates: "Cat's resting", "Had a nice Xmas dinner with family", etc.
Of course, you can "express a political thought succinctly", but the 140 character limit limits you to social signaling and declaring your tribal membership. What you can't do is
Re: (Score:2)
The trolls already won (Score:2, Troll)
The trolls already won, and everyone knows it. Censorship just changes you from a loser to a whiny loser. Even worse, it is an announcement to the whole world that you can't defend your ideas, which most people understand to mean that your ideas are indefensible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Beating trolls huh? (Score:2)
Is that kinda like "ISIS is contained"?
Bullies are no trolls (Score:2)
They do not get, what a real troll is. Hint: No bully, harasser, spammer or similiar. You do not notice a real troll, you only notice the reactions.
Knee Jerk Reaction = Trolling (Score:2)
So that's what they call narrative control. (Score:2)
They're not beating alleged "trolls", they're just trying to remove counter-SJW narrative messages. Twitter protects abuse and doxxing if it supports a leftist cause (e.g. BLM), while removing anti-leftist content of the same caliber (e.g. Sarah Nyberg's acts of child abuse).
Re: (Score:2)
You think that's bad? ESR apparently has evidence [ibiblio.org] that a Feminist organization is attempting to frame Linus Torvalds and other open source leaders for sexual assault, presumably to force them out of the community / push some form of gender/diversity quota on Kernel Development. (This all occurred around the same time they started pushing to get those god awful totalitarian Codes of Conduct on various groups and websites.)
One would think that would make the front page, but nope. Went into submission limbo
Re: (Score:2)
One would think that would make the front page, but nope. Went into submission limbo.
It made the front page [slashdot.org], you didn't pay attention. Try to do better next time.
Re: (Score:2)
One would think that would make the front page, but nope. Went into submission limbo.
It made the front page [slashdot.org], you didn't pay attention. Try to do better next time.
Wrong. It didn't make the front page. Someone's attempt to shoehorn it into an interview on being a woman in tech made the front page, with ESR's post mentioned as a weird random aside -- a month after the fact.
ESR's claims were the story.
Instead, Slashdot went for an interview with someone about what they felt about that story.
Because remember, when the founder of Linux and arguably one of the most important figures in Open Source is apparently the target of a misandric hate-hob attempting to frame him
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. It didn't make the front page. Someone's attempt to shoehorn it into an interview on being a woman in tech made the front page, with ESR's post mentioned as a weird random aside -- a month after the fact.
Dude, it was on the front page. Chill out, you're a little crazy here about a topic that doesn't matter too much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
ESR makes wild, unfounded accusations about people claiming that they make wild, unfounded accusations. Apparently irony is lost on the guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that time when Torvalds joked about Greg Kroah-Hartman being a huge dude and some crazy harpy absolutely flew off the handle with a rude reply screeching about Torvalds making violent threats, and media pushing that exact narrative even though it was obviously false? Yeah, no attempts at character assasination there, no sir.
That harpy is Sarah Sharp. She's on the board of the Feminist organization who was apparently trying to frame Linus.
http://adainitiative.org/2014/... [adainitiative.org]
Re: (Score:2)