Twitter’s Policy Reboot: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/twitters-policy-reboot-good-bad-and-ugly

by temp • 11 years ago

89 69 11 years ago

jaydigital• 11 years ago

Quick question to people that know more about these things than I do (pretty much everyone on HN):

Is there a way that Twitter can prevent users from creating another Twitter account to continue to send threats and horrible messages?

The worst messages we see on Twitter always seem to be from new accounts with 3 followers, clearly throwaway accounts. Ban one, they start another.

bcoates• 11 years ago

Not without making it much harder to onboard new users. User growth (Monthly active users) is a business goal Twitter reports to investors so that's a non-starter.

mahouse2• 11 years ago

They already force people in some ip ranges (for example tor exits) to do mobile # auth.

criddell3• 11 years ago

I can't think of a reasonable way of blocking people with bad intentions from creating Twitter accounts. But there are other things they could do.

One approach would be to expand their verified user program to people like me (ie the proletariat) and then have an option to switch the blacklist model of blocking people to a whitelist model of showing only tweets from verified users.

Or they could make a whitelist based on people I follow or that friends follow (or friends-of-friends etc...).

Or maybe just get serious with analytics and sentiment analysis and don't show me stuff that is likely a troll.

ascagnel_• 11 years ago

For a service that's trying to grow, that would force them to put all new users into an "unverified" bucket, which will probably be a turn-off to those users.

acdha3• 11 years ago

Here are some common answers:

- ban the email address associated with an account from creating other accounts, or in the softer form make someone blocking a user on Twitter block every address using that address. This would run into problems with things like + aliases and people running custom domains who have an effectively unlimited number of addresses, all of which can be reduced but not eliminated if you invest time in it.

- require every account to be linked to a cell phone number using SMS (“mandatory two-factor for everyone!”). This would be more effective than emails but would cost some users real money, screw or delay others if they have unreliable cell carriers, and completely block anyone who doesn't have a cell phone.

- require every account to be verified using a credit card, blocking anyone without a card and no doubt discouraging others. This works great for metafilter.com but there's also a reason why MetaFilter is a site loved by thousands of users rather than millions.

The problem is that Twitter was a VC-funded company which had a big IPO based on highly optimistic growth estimates and their corporate thinking appears to be focused on maintaining those unsustainable numbers. Anything which slows people creating accounts goes directly against the goal of having ever-larger numbers to report.

wdmeldon2• 11 years ago

- require every account to be linked to a cell phone number using SMS

They currently do this to "problem accounts". I have no interest in giving Twitter my phone number and would ideally like to not even have a phone number in the next few years.

pjc50• 11 years ago

There really needs to be an option that users can turn on to block all @ from people they don't follow. Even temporarily, say for a period of a month at a time.

I'm also a fan of the "reddit gold" style idea of cheap paid accounts that don't necessarily have to be paid by the account holder. That would make it easy to allow people to filter out unpaid unknown accounts and raise the cost of abuse.

The underlying problem is that comment moderation is a kind of emotional labour that can be fairly gruelling at times, and it needs suitably paid staff to do. Attempts at automatically dealing with it are very much like the early days of spam fighting: not very accurate and constantly shifting. But whereas spam is broadcast, abuse is targeted.

edent• 11 years ago

They already have this filter - https://twitter.com/i/notifications?filter=following

madeofpalk• 11 years ago

There really needs to be an option that users can turn on to block all @ from people they don't follow. Even temporarily, say for a period of a month at a time.

Get a blue tick :)

I have the worst source (I think I heard it on a podcast...) but I'm pretty sure that verified Twitter accounts get an extra notification option to prevent notifications or messages from non-verified users from appearing. It basically turns Twitter into a verified-users-only service where you never see the regular plebs.

geofft4• 11 years ago

I suspect that it's now a solvable problem to determine if the first few messages from an account are, if not "harassment", at the least... argumentative. Angry. Uncharitable. Sentiment analysis is pretty well-established, as is figuring out what people are talking about for the purpose of advertising at them.

If a new account joins and immediately starts expressing strong opinions on, say, a certain Breitbart reporter and how much ethics is in his journalism, whatever those opinions are, those don't need to be sent as notifications or show up as a reply to other tweets. It's not like Twitter guarantees reliable delivery, anyway. If they've been around on Twitter for a bit, sure.

But it's not as clearly in the interest of profit as identifying advertising interests (or even identifying spammers).

VLM• 11 years ago

"The worst messages we see on Twitter"

The key might be the verb "see". If a troll trolls in the forest and no one sees it, did it actually troll?

This eliminates trustworthy delivery and predictability, you'll have to send tweets and just kinda hope they appear rather than expecting them to always appear, but it might be worth it. Or make it optional.

Grue3• 11 years ago

The new Twitter policy is already used to mass-silence activists by dedicated (paid) teams of trolls.

http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/01/09/twitters-new-policy-mi...

WillAbides• 11 years ago

I'm curious to know how this is happening. Perhaps the people who handle complaints in Russian and Ukranian are Putin supporters and bring their personal animosities to work. It would be hard for Twitter to hold accountable judgement calls in languages management doesn't understand.

wcummings• 11 years ago

I'm curious to know how this is happening.

Seems pretty straightforward if you believe the claim that the abuse complaints are coordinated, even if they're "legitimate". Both pro-Ukraine and pro-Soviet users are violating the new rules, but people are systematically seeking out and reporting violations on pro-Ukraine twitter accounts and the same isn't happening to pro-Soviet accounts.

Bossman3• 11 years ago

Yeah. There have been a few instances of this already. Not just trolls, but journalists, people discussing politics, etc. I feel like Twitter trying to bend over to appease the people who want to combat unpleasantness online will have more unintended consequences.

afarrell2• 11 years ago

I've seen multiple people claim that it would be easy for Twitter to ban harassment on Twitter.

mahouse2• 11 years ago

Same here, what I haven't seen is how would that be done.

geofft4• 11 years ago

Have you read Sarah Jeong's The Internet of Garbage?

http://www.amazon.com/Internet-Garbage-Sarah-Jeong-ebook/dp/...

https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Sarah_Jeong_The_... (DRM-free)

hobs• 11 years ago

The same way it would be easy for crypto companies to build a backdoor, in that if you dont understand the problem, it is easy to solve.

edit: (and remain secure)

afarrell2• 11 years ago

More that it is easy if you don't care about throwing away other things you value in pursuit of that goal

binarymax• 11 years ago

I don't envy Twitter's position right now. They are stuck between (1) trying to renew their platform to monetize and grow, (2) facing huge amounts of criticism on how they dont properly handle abuse, and (3) expected to keep their reputation of openness still left over from the 'Arab spring'.

It is doubtful that they can survive without sacrificing at least one.

talmand2• 11 years ago

I think they are well on their way to sacrificing 2 and 3.

Bossman3• 11 years ago

I agree. Monetization is their goal. It needs to happen to appease investors and the like. We'll have to see how much stink people put up when Twitter compromises on either 2 or 3 here.

danielcarvalho2• 11 years ago

Should be "threats of violence" not "violent threats". Since people think anything can be deemed violent nowadays.

oldmanjay2• 11 years ago

I don't get nostalgic for much, but one thing I miss about the earlier internet was everyone's ability to dismiss internet tough-assery as ridiculous, overblown stupidity. I guess that's the difference between a pioneer town and a safe space on a university campus.

krstck• 11 years ago

I'm particularly sad about the evolution of the word "troll" to mean "anything someone else doesn't like".

The idea of "flamebait" has also completely disappeared, and we've lost the ability to roll our eyes at it.

s73v3r4• 11 years ago

Most people didn't have to deal with it on a daily basis, and hardly anyone had threats that were deemed credible enough to actually happen.

Sorry, but it's not all ridiculous, overblown stupidity anymore. Some of these people seem stupid enough to actually follow through on their threats.

danielcarvalho2• 11 years ago

Exactly this. It's like the generation today consists of people who forgot to put their big boy clothes on.

protomyth2• 11 years ago

The most interesting reveal to me has been the the "verified" flag isn't really a verification at all.

golemotron• 11 years ago

Especially after the removal of verification from noted cultural theorist Milo Yiannopoulos.

makomk• 11 years ago

Yeah. I don't particularly like the guy, but it's not like he stopped being Milo Yiannopoulos (sadly).

_cpancake• 11 years ago

Twitter's rules say they can remove your verified status at any time for violating their ToS. It's pretty obvious that Milo has violated their ToS many, many times, so he's not verified anymore. Don't know what the big deal about that is.

Bossman3• 11 years ago

Yeah. Twitter needs to be more transparent on how they give those out. There's allegations that they require spending thousands on advertising unless you're a pop culture icon like a Kardashian or something. And what's the point if they can just take it away on a whim?

xyzzy4• 11 years ago

I think the only feasible way Twitter could stop abuse is if it charged $100 per signup, and then ban people on the slightest whim. I don't see how anything else would work. Of course the downsides of a plan like this are so large that it wouldn't ever be done.

Kristine1975• 11 years ago

The forum Something Awful does something like this: They charge $10 per signup. When you get banned you have to pay again to get back in.

scholia• 11 years ago

Even $1 would remove a lot of harassment because a lot of people would be less abusive if thought it would be easier to find them and hold them legally responsible for their comments.

geofft4• 11 years ago

I expect there are plenty of abusive people on Twitter who could afford that $100 several times. There's no particular reason to believe that being abusive on Twitter is correlated with being poor.

gottam5• 11 years ago

I don't understand about the scope of this problem, maybe someone can tell me but is it really that big of a deal? What horrible things are being typed out that can't possibly be ignored or dealt with in other ways?

s73v3r4• 11 years ago

If you're constantly receiving a barrage of horrible, hateful, violent threats, then it becomes really hard to ignore. Some people may have thicker skin than others, but really, no one should have to deal with that. And quite frankly, I see no reason why anyone should be entitled to say those kinds of things on someone else's platform.

gottam5• 11 years ago

I find that hard to believe. Trolls who make threats on the internet (and not simply having differing opinions) typically make up a very small minority so they should be manageable by a small ban list (and if they aren't - what kind of stuff are you spewing out that makes so many people waste their time getting angry with you?)

It sounds more to me like even after getting banned, the minority of trolls can just make new accounts and resume their harassment, so the solution here isn't human intervention but a technical solution to disincentivize trolls from making new accounts.

CM30• 11 years ago

The biggest issue with the policy (and one which is not really mentioned here) is enforcement. Doesn't really matter what the policies are, if Twitter is very, very loose when it comes to actually enforcing them.

For example, I've seen a few people get banned or suspended because they said something that made a popular user (or in some cases, one a Twitter member of staff agrees with) uncomfortable, whereas someone who supports said staff member's political views or has more followers can get away with murder.

For example, there have been people who said something loosely associated with GamerGate who got suspended until they removed the tweet, whereas certain journalists and media figures could try and falsely accuse their enemies of serious crimes and get in no trouble whatsoever. It was also a certain Twitter employee who got Milo unverified for ridiculous reasons.

Twitter's policy reboot is already worrying, but what it really needs to do is be even handed with its punishments towards those that break the rule. It shouldn't matter if you're a nobody or a celebrity with millions of followers; break the rules, get suspended or banned. It shouldn't matter if your political views align with Twitter staff or not. Same deal.

Twitter needs to examine what it's policy on freedom of speech and stuff is, but then also enforce it equally, however unpopular that may be.

exstudent2• 11 years ago

Twitter has also started censoring their search suggestions down the same political lines you mention. You no longer get auto-suggest for #gamergate or any Milo related topics.

Ironically they're also blocking #twittercensorship. You can see for yourself here: https://twitter.com/search-home

As far as I know this change wasn't announced (seems to have rolled out over the weekend in response to the Milo incident). It does not bode well for freedom of speech on Twitter.

Edit: to clarify the results are still there if you manually do the search, but the hashtags are no longer in the search suggestions.

Twitter’s Policy Reboot: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Related Stories