nonethefewer | (no subject)

The original article (which I caught last week) doesn't *quite* tell the whole story on this. There's a bit more information that she's not really telling here.

Which would be?

That all of this is coming through a twitter account (public) that is being used specifically for anonymous confessions. When this story hit digg last week that little tidbit was left out. My comment at the time was this:

Although I do think that twitter needs to either enforce its TOS or stop pretending to have one, I will note that when you are *encouraging* anonymous "confessions" to a public twitter account it's only a matter of time before this happens. When you take your account out of the public feed and make it friends-only the bullshit level drops to nothing. Of course it kills the whole anonymous confession thing, but hey, you can't have everything.

I agree Twitter needs to have a TOS it's willing to enforce. However it seems clear to me that when you're deliberately using your FULL NAME as your twitter account address, it's a bit difficult to be angry for someone using that very same name when referring to you. Also, it seems she is involved somehow with this anonymous confessions account also (at least that's how this all seems to be coming together)- if this is so, I can't see why any of this is surprising.

(full digg story comments here: http://digg.com/tech_news/Twitter_refuses_to_ban_abusive_users)

I have to say, "s/he was asking for it" is pretty much never a useful argument. In this case, if the TOS specifically said anonymous cowards and/or public twitter accounts were not covered under the no-harassment rule, then you'd have a point. Yes, the internet has all the romance of the Wild West, but if you're in a place that supposedly has a sheriff who keeps that sort of thing from happening and then the sheriff hides behind lawyers when push comes to shove, that's a fail on the sheriff's part.

I think that when you're not only *not* trying to avoid such a thing, but *actively courting it* your argument doesn't have nearly as much weight as it could.

When you create an anonymous account that anyone can access through a portal and encourage its use in such a manner, what do you *expect* to come of that, realistically? Have we learned nothing from places like juicycampus? I'll repeat- I do think that Twitter needs to enforce its TOS or stop pretending it has one. I agree with that. But I do not believe there is an "innocent victim" here, either.

She didn't create an "insult-o-rama" with the idea of people anonymously coming in and hurling insults with reckless abandon. She created a space for people to talk about being afraid their classmates/coworkers will find out they're homosexual or feeling guilty for beating up someone or whatnot without having to reveal who they are. I guess the internet shouldn't be allowed to have nice things because heaven forfend we think poorly of those who would ruin them rather than those who create them.

The analogy of a woman going out in a sexy outfit and walking past an alleyway on her way home from the club (because both home and the club are in. . . a city! *gasp*) followed by "what do you *expect* to come of that, realistically?" is still too close to your line of reasoning for comfort.

All that does is insult actual victims of assault. There is no comparison here. None. Remember that you've made that false analogy- not me. I think she's more akin to trying to take what *should be* genuine outrage for assault victims that and co-opt it for herself.

If she is using her full name as her user tag, and she is openly promoting that name, why is she surprised when someone *uses* her full name to target her? Is it okay when it's done for blatant self promotion and marketing but not okay at any other time when again, it is the username *she chose*?

When it became clear that the anonymous account was not going to be used for what it was intended, *that* is when action should have been taken- either by twitter (which, for a third time, I agree with, let's not miss that) or, here's a thought- BY HER. It was _not_ outside of her power to stop the problem by enacting a safer way to provide the environment she was trying to create. Going back and looking at that account you can see that it went off the rails *long before* she was targeted, and yet nothing was said until it specifically targeted *her*. There is *nothing* (repeating: nothing) new, innovative or exceptional about what she created(the "confessional" thing). It has been done countless times now in asignificantly better, more controllable and safer formats. All she did was *badly* jump on the bandwagon. I think poorly of *all* of them. I find precisely zero to be sympathetic about her and those who are harassing her are your typical, run of the mill trolls who have been on the net since the bbs days.

Oh AND- I think the folks at Twitter lack balls. I'm just glad my account is, has always been and will always be friends-only.

Edited 2008-05-26 21:25 (UTC)

According to Ariel's mother's comment at the end of her post, this particular stalker has been stalking her since before she had an online persona, and she has sought legal and law enforcement advice on the matter. So he is not, in fact, a standard internet troll.*

I do see your point that if she has a problem with a stalker, as too many women do, perhaps one way to protect herself is to choose a pseudonym for the internet rather than using her full name. However, the things that Ariel has failed to do to protect herself are completely beside the point. Twitter has/had a terms of service that everyone must acknowledge and agree to before they set up their Twitter account, and Twitter has chosen not to uphold those terms of service. Full stop.

*Tangentially, if this person were a standard internet troll, that would not make his behavior any more excusable. I find people's ability to brush the worst behavior off with "oh, another troll" or "what do you expect, it's the internet" very unsettling. Libel is not protected speech.

I have never once denied Twitter needs to enforce their TOS- I've already said three times now that they need to enforce it or stop pretending to have it. All I said is it's not a complete picture of the situation as a whole.

If what Ariel's mom is saying is true, then the fact that she's going out of her way to do exactly the opposite of what's safe is also telling, and again, doesn't engender a whole lot of sympathy from me.

Does twitter need to enforce the TOS? Sure. I keep saying that. But to say "that's the whole story" is simply not true. It might be the whole story strictly vis a vis Twitter, but it's not the whole story.

Yeah, that's true. We rarely do get the whole story, even if we're part of the story! And if we do get the whole story, by that time it's too late to do anything about it anyway! *laugh* Fuckin' life, man.

I assure you, that is not the case.

Here is the official story (http://blog.twitter.com/2008/05/twitter-enforces-tos-cares-about-users.html), if it interests you.

I have been continuously impressed by the integrity of the folks here, and I promise they (we) take this stuff very seriously.