Twitter is for Twits
Try that one.
In an attempt to make Twitter feel less like a small-town Wetherspoons at closing time, the company will start asking users to reconsider sending tweets its algorithms perceive to be mean. The next time you craft an acerbic reply to a stranger, the Twitter iOS and Android apps will ask: "Want to review this before tweeting?" …
In the olden days (and even in today's British Parliament sessions) insults were (are) often masquerading as polite statements.
"I would seem that the gentleman from Bath has not yet had sufficient time to fully study the entirety of the documents."
Translation: "The guy from Bath just isn't smart enough to comprehend a simple statement."
Don't count on AI to filter such insults any time soon.
On the bright side, maybe society will swap the often crass and uncouth insults for polite put-downs.
I thought the beauty of the British Parliamentary rules were that, if you uttered an insult, you would be asked to apologise. What an opportunity!
"I apologise Mr. Speaker, I was quite wrong to say that the Prime Minister has half a brain."
Rules are for the plebs to follow, as they rarely have the capacity to foresee the downside of their thoughtless actions, and need well defined boundaries to keep them out of trouble.
If you are gifted with the ability to think, then you know how to skirt around the rules and achieve the acerbic put-down you are grasping for, without stirring the moderating script from its slumber.
It's all about stopping the infantile slaughter of common decency and respect. Keeping the school yard well and truly under the thumb.
It would be nice if the moderating bot used the profanity laden missives to gauge the age of the writer, and then ban them for the time it would take them to reach 13 years old.
Twitter said it will ask you to reconsider "mean" tweets. Their definition of "mean" is apparently different that yours.
I think that twitter's definition of mean is "any political statement that we disagree with".
You should try tweeting something pro Trump, or anti-covid vaccination, or that "biological men should not compete in women's sports".
I suspect that you just haven't said anything then consider politically mean or harmful.
Of course if you do tweet something like that, be prepared to be cancelled.
Really? With the amount of anti-vax BS, senior politicians saying things that should result in resignations and tweets that get reported I really wonder about that.
I mean, just look at Laurence Fox (Pox? Sox? Whatever his surname was). It's pretty much a rolling chain of insults with people that don't agree with him and yet he's still on twitter.
Or is that the tame things they let onto the platform?
I'm starting to wonder if infact these companies should be forced to moderate the dialogue (not unlike El Reg - Bring back the Moderatorix!).
On second thoughts, maybe there should be a number of key commenters able to name and shame terrible comments? Force real world consequences for online misbehaviour?
Gimp icon because you know there'd be some that enjoy it.
Inconceivable, but not as inconceivable as Matt Powell having an inflatable banana in his back yard that he calls Dr Peel. Or maybe something to do with never getting involved in a land war in Asia, would that trigger Twitter's filters instead?
According to my youngest son, this is a disguised medieval insult which means you mum is a whore (small mammals being highly sexually active) and your dad is a drunk (peasant wine in those days being made mainly of elderberries rather than grapes). He does have a degree in medieval history but he may equally be yanking my chain.
> Social media in general has a tendency to make strangers feel remote and abstract. They aren't people, but rather pixels on a screen, and thus it's easier to tweet things you wouldn't dare say to their faces.
There are I think three core factors involved.
1. In the physical presence of other people, we moderate our reactions, with the extent of the moderation being in relation to how well we know the people in our company; the more they are strangers, the more we moderate our reaction. We expect our friends, those who are close to us, to sympathize with our pain and so allow ourselves a greater expression of our feeling; but with strangers we know they will have little sympathy with us, and we look to moderate our reaction so it is fitting in their eyes.
2. The man who lives alone feels emotion more strongly than anyone else; but there is a lack of appropriateness. Such a man might feel the greatest sympathy or sorrow or rage, but if he lived his life in the company of others, with friends, being social, he would have far more perspective and hardly care or notice things which being alone would dominate his mind.
3. As our dear El Reggo opines, the physical absence of the target of our response removes (rather like #1) moderations which we would otherwise would impose upon our own behaviour, in part from consideration of how the other person will judge our reactions. We do not wish to look disproportionate, even in the eyes of the person with whom we have taken up an objection.
We see then that the environment of posting upon on-line forums is actually the worst possible combination of all three factors. It is where we as humans are least able to moderate our conduct.
Freedom of speech does not mean you are immune to the consequences of offending people.
If FOIP (Fist over IP) was a thing, users of social media would behave much more like people in a pub. You can talk outrageous bollocks when drunk, but be prepared to be barred or beaten up if you go too far.
I recently made a Twitter account, for business (I do not myself keep social media accounts).
I made the account but I've yet to use it, so it's been created but it's done nothing; no posts, no following, not been followed, nothing.
I logged in occasionally to perform configuration work.
Now and then when looking in I'm asked to complete a Google captcha - well, okay, shrug.
Then a day or two ago, I was informed my actions has violated Twitters Rules (capital R) and my account had been locked, and I would need to pass a captcha *and provide my phone number*. I did not provide a phone number when making the account, and phone numbers are gold for data collation, which is central to the business model for Twitter, Facebook and the like.
It has led me to speculate that Twitter is using security as a ruse to obtain phone numbers for data collation and so monetization.
I'm in the same boat. I created a Twitter account ages ago and never twitted or followed anybody. I eventually got suspended and to try and get it restored they wanted me to confirm I was human with a captcha, fine, confirm my email, if was my spam email address so fine, and give them my phone number, not at all fine.
Even without the content, social media apps are becoming very antisocial.
FB rather than twitter but some local halfwit posted on a local buy-and-sell "Somebody posted here selling duty free tobacco, is there any still available" to which I replied "yeah, right :-) and also has anyone got any weed?"
Result: banned for 30 days for trying to buy drugs on FB. No appeal possible.
This post has been deleted by its author
"...If thou speak’st false, upon the next tree shall thou hang alive till famine cling thee." - Macbeth.
See, we all think that the present is different from the past but it's still people running around "tweeting" so nothing has changed since 1606. Maybe El Reg should create a new icon with Shakespeare's face for insults posted in the future? My opinion is just that posting an insult tells the readers more about you than the original post.
Perhaps the algorithm is tuned more for aberrations in meanness from the norm for that user. Possibly it builds a baseline of meanness, and then applies a standard deviation and warns you if you are being unusually mean, or conversely too nice. If this is true (which it obviously isn't) then Matthew needs to get a lot meaner, or a nicer tester is required.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022