On 02/13/2017 01:05 PM, jim bell wrote:
02/12/2017 11:45 PM, jim bell wrote:
I'm still waiting for a definition of
"harassment". Do you have your own?
>What Juan and Zen do is a kind of a 'harassment'
according to most moderators.. Adding unwanted,
often entirely off-topic, inflammatory, ad >hom
garbage to threads to attempt dissuading people from
reading threads they want to suppress and targeting
certain individuals with garbage >posts so when
they post, the Harasser hopes everyone on the list
*groans* because they know garbage will follow and
wish the poster targeted >goes away... Sort of
like what you're doing here Jim. Querying me about
it. Making it personal. Hoping a flame war results.
I'll confess that I would find it hard to
define "harassment", too.
The problem is that people use the word to
justify knocking people off of public communication
systems (Twitter), as if the definition of
"harassment" is clear. I don't see it.
The way it seems to work is if you earn enough reports for whatever,
twitter half-automagically rejects you with a snap review by someone
who spends, if I recall correctly from a discussion of Facebook's
auto-moderation, less than 30 seconds deciding whether the
automagically created suspend sticks.
IF the suspended party contacts support they review it more
thoroughly and may lift the suspension.
What *I* want to see is a system in place so if someone's repeatedly
falsely reported and blocked, twitter or FB goes after the people
false reporting the innocent account
That's another way of leveling the playing field and would help keep
sociopathic scumbuckets like Richard Spencer permanently gone...
....gone, To a streetcorner to rant with the nutcase xtians, where
speech is free and they will finally find their true echochamber and
cult following.. Ahahahahhhaa!