tech

Twitter abuse victims fear Musk's plans, but may not quit

61 Comments
By JOSH FUNK

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

61 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Yet even those who have faced extreme harassment on Twitter say they are unlikely to quit the platform

Here is the problem.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

The fear is "when Musk takes over...", But then a section about today's Twitter world.

"To mitigate the hate, Bracey Sherman has blocked thousands of people, and she uses filters to hide some of the most extreme messages. She also reports some of the most egregious messages to Twitter, although she says the platform rarely does anything about them."

Seems like the fears are consistent with the existing reality.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Elon said Truth Social only exists because Twitter blocked free speech.

Musk also said free speech is that which is within the law. I agree with him, if something cant be said, then there should be a law passed by Congress saying so.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

This is what happens when a bunch of people mistake a billionaire's yard for the public square.

The abusive rhetoric towards the people mentioned in article occurs daily all over the internet, it's just way out of control on Twitter.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

It's an interesting idea brought up by the article and one that deserves closer inspection. The real question is how to find the right balance of trolling so that the editors don't immediately censor your comments.

I find the trick is to start the comment with something seemingly innocuous, and save the trolling for the second or third paragraphs. My theory is that the editor only briefly scans the new comments on his phone and during high traffic times doesn't have a chance to read everything. If the first few sentences are safe then he will probably skip it

Furthermore they don't seem to be aware of global trends, so using words and phrases like "let's go Brandon" or "alphabet people" tend to go unnoticed.

To the point. Abuse? These dingleberries wouldn't know abuse if it hooked a car battery up to their nipples with alligator clamps.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

“The extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all"

Couldn't have said it better. All the metldown, the allergic reaction is so predictable.

Probably because we are living in this hopefully short period of time absolutely anyone I don't agree with is a raycist, (insert term here)-phobe, nazi, etc.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The idea that Musk wants a "free for all" is ludicrous and has no basis in reality. This only reflects the fear of the leftists, who are worried that their ideas cannot survive scrutiny and challenge by people who disagree with them. Musk has repeatedly said that he would follow the law regarding such issues as libel, slander, threats, and the like. But schoolyard insults or name calling? Have at it.

There is no such thing as online abuse. You can easily escape if you don't like what is happening online- just close the website. On Twitter you can block people or make your account private.

This isnt about freedom at all. It is about the Democratic Party and their supporters desperately fearing that the dreaded Orange Man will be allowed back on the platform. They must truly fear him.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Furthermore they don't seem to be aware of global trends

That’s my issue with this site. Can’t tell if it’s their anger that someone they politically support is being criticized or if they are simply uninformed/unaware of things that are truthful and that actually happened.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Yes. We must be forced to hear anything liberals want to say. you can’t block me!

But they must be protected from having to hear our reply, thoughts or opinion. Ban that guy!

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

There is no such thing as online abuse. You can easily escape if you don't like what is happening online- just close the website. On Twitter you can block people or make your account private.

I never understood people who literally kill themselves over internet comments. That hard to close a tab or scroll past? For god's sake, they're just words on a screen....

Meanwhile the activist group Crew is asking Apple to ban Truth Social lol

Always the tolerant, free speech-loving side.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Blacklabel

Elon said Truth Social only exists because Twitter blocked free speech.

That's strange, because Truth Social also blocks free speech.

Musk also said free speech is that which is within the law.

Yes, but if Elon decides to reverse any of Twitter's agreed guidelines on content moderation, he is opening himself up to major litigation. I would expect his lawyer to advise against major changes.

Litigation isn't the only risk. Elon has borrowed a lot for this venture, so it has to make money. If he changes things too much so that it loses users, then he is risking losing a lot of money.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

That's strange, because Truth Social also blocks free speech.

oh does it? I though it was a failed platform that doesnt even work at all? interesting. so people are using it now and reporting to you that they cant speak freely?

I would expect his lawyer to advise against major changes.

Major changes already been made. so that ruins that narrative.

Didnt you hear the crying on the leaked Twitter town hall? it was so funny, but I was so embarrassed for those people talking. That guy is a Director on a board of a company, he cant even speak without saying "um" every 5 words.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Blacklabel

That's strange, because Truth Social also blocks free speech.

oh does it? I though it was a failed platform that doesnt even work at all? interesting. so people are using it now and reporting to you that they cant speak freely?

Yep. For example, one user got banned for making fun of Devin Nunes! (The CEO of Trump Social) ;-)

https://mashable.com/article/trump-truth-social-free-speech-bans

I would expect his lawyer to advise against major changes.

Major changes already been made. so that ruins that narrative.

No they haven't.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

“It is a montage of hate and gore and violence,” Bracey Sherman said.

Its not. Its words.

And she is perfectly free to deactivate her account anytime she wishes.

But she hasn't.

I have polled my swelling number of followers (I don't want to brag, but 300 and counting) and they are feeling very positive about the changes.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

master

I have polled my swelling number of followers (I don't want to brag, but 300 and counting) and they are feeling very positive about the changes.

There's not going to be any changes.

I love it how right wing pundits think that Twitter is restricting free speech. (It's not. It's moderating free speech.) But they cheer when DeSantis retaliates on Disney for voice their 'free speech opinion' on the 'Don't Say Gay' bill. The hypocrisy is palpable.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

2020- I agree about Florida. It was stupid to punish a company, even one making such stupid noises as Disney was. The law passed in the state legislature. Take the win and the high road and move on. Nothing to be gained by razzing a large employer in the state.

As for Twitter, "restricting" or "moderating" just depends on whether you agree with the decision of those in charge or not. Unless clear rules are established it is easy to abuse the system. Strange that the Communist Party of China can keep their Twitter account but a sitting President was banned.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

“Twitter Abuse Victim?” That such people pretend to exist is abusive to common sense. When I was a kid “abuse” involved a black eye or other bruises, and/or an occasional lost tooth or broken bone. And i those days the consequences for committing such abuses are lesser than those suffer for “verbal” abuses today.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

“No one feels safe in a public square where as soon as you speak, a hostile mob screaming obscenities descends upon you. That’s no longer a public square. That’s an arena,” Kleinman said.

Twitter is not a public square, and it is impossible to scream obscenities on Twitter.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Attilathehungry

2020- I agree about Florida. It was stupid to punish a company, even one making such stupid noises as Disney was.

Disney wasn't making stupid noises, they were speaking up for their employees and the hateful law that DeSantis enacted.

Unless clear rules are established it is easy to abuse the system.

Thankfully, clear rules have been established.

Strange that the Communist Party of China can keep their Twitter account but a sitting President was banned.

As far as I know, the Communist Party of China hasn't incited an insurrection against the government of the US. Trump did.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

There's not going to be any changes.

Try that line on someone else whose number of followers hasn't increased by 12 in the last 48 hrs alone, big fella.

The throttle is off and I'm finally getting the audience they denied me.

I love it how right wing pundits think that Twitter is restricting free speech. (It's not. It's moderating free speech.) But they cheer when DeSantis retaliates on Disney for voice their 'free speech opinion' on the 'Don't Say Gay' bill. The hypocrisy is palpable.

You know as well as I do that there is no such bill. You can go down to Florida and say "Gay" to your heart's content. Especially on South Beach, they tell me.

In fact its an anti-grooming bill.

No toddler or child needs to be indoctrinated with sex talk by their teachers.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

As far as I know, the Communist Party of China hasn't incited an insurrection against the government of the US. Trump did.

My god, how close did the Republic come from falling on that fateful day? Given a few more hours, the vegetarian in the Viking hat might be Speaker of the House today.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@BigYen true. That's free speech. And I remember that it was a weird moment. You're free to say what you want. And that freedom comes with the freedom to deal with the consequences when millions of people don't like what you say.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

master

There's not going to be any changes.

Try that line on someone else whose number of followers hasn't increased by 12 in the last 48 hrs alone, big fella.

That's a non sequitur.

In fact its an anti-grooming bill.

No toddler or child needs to be indoctrinated with sex talk by their teachers.

And yet, that wasn't even happening. Why do you think DeSantis passed a bill to address a problem that doesn't exist.

And still the GOP's crusade against free speech continues:

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/2/11/conservative-book-bans-are-part-of-gops-fascist-turn

Hypocrisy.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

master

As far as I know, the Communist Party of China hasn't incited an insurrection against the government of the US. Trump did.

My god, how close did the Republic come from falling on that fateful day?

Closer than I care to think about. The US was so close to becoming an autocracy. People don't realize how close they were to becoming another China.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

*In fact its an *anti-grooming bill.

No toddler or child needs to be indoctrinated with sex talk by their teachers.

And yet, that wasn't even happening. Why do you think DeSantis passed a bill to address a problem that doesn't exist.

Great! If the problem didn't even exist and is a figment of our imagination, then theres no reason for people like you to get upset about the anti-grooming bill.

Everyone wins!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

That's strange, because Truth Social also blocks free speech.

oh does it? I though it was a failed platform that doesnt even work at all? interesting. so people are using it now and reporting to you that they cant speak freely?

“Can’t tell if it’s their anger that someone they politically support is being criticized or if they are simply uninformed/unaware of things that are truthful and that actually happened.”

I guess that’s a twofer own goal.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Twitter is blocked in China.

Free speech is blocked in China, nothing new.

That's strange, because Truth Social also blocks free speech.

No, unless it is in the form of threatening to physically harm someone, you're good to go.

Yep. For example, one user got banned for making fun of Devin Nunes! (The CEO of Trump Social) ;-)

One out of.....what was the full context? What was the history of this person, did he or she shadow banned or doxxed Nunes? We don't know all the reasons because I see people say whatever on there within reason, so there must be more to that than just outright blocking someone.

I would expect his lawyer to advise against major changes.

Well, the changes Musk wants are the changes that make the playing field equal for everyone and that is what you want.

No they haven't.

Yeah, quite a few, you can't just boot people on the platform so easily and that's just the start, so wait until he gets fully on board.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

There is no other way to make posts. That is not an answer.

That is the answer to your question. You asked I answered.

You don't post from your phone then?

Your phone is essentially a mini-computer

Well if you spend equal time on all three you spend many hours posting.

Do you also post to FB?

How about NOT worrying so much about how I multi-task in my daily life.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

All the social media networks could have rolled-out much better self-censorship filters by now, so that individual users or groups of users could block content that they did not wish to see. They will pay a high price for being lazy and delaying such tech.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah I see lots of jelly and fear on team liberal about all this.

they just baby compete in the debate of ideas when the side that disagrees with them isn’t banned or censored.

buuuuut Truuuuuuump has no power when I can actually reply and question “what about him? How does he relate to this?” and then reply with some factual criticism of Biden that actually relates.

then it’s a fair game.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Then amazingly now Twitter announces they were not truthful since 2019 about the number of users they have.

elon should get a discount and also make a truth social account. Covfefe!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

master

And yet, that wasn't even happening. Why do you think DeSantis passed a bill to address a problem that doesn't exist.

Great! If the problem didn't even exist and is a figment of our imagination, then theres no reason for people like you to get upset about the anti-grooming bill.

Everyone wins!

Except that it is anti-free speech, which is what people are accusing Twitter of being. Do you see how hypocritical it is to be all for free speech and yet support bills that are against free speech.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

bass4funk

That's strange, because Truth Social also blocks free speech.

No, unless it is in the form of threatening to physically harm someone, you're good to go.

Not true.

Yep. For example, one user got banned for making fun of Devin Nunes! (The CEO of Trump Social) ;-)

One out of.....what was the full context? What was the history of this person, did he or she shadow banned or doxxed Nunes? We don't know all the reasons because I see people say whatever on there within reason, so there must be more to that than just outright blocking someone.

He was banned simply because of the username he used to sign up for the platform: @DevinNunesCow.

I would expect his lawyer to advise against major changes.

Well, the changes Musk wants are the changes that make the playing field equal for everyone and that is what you want.

It already is a level playing field, so no changes are required.

No they haven't.

Yeah, quite a few, you can't just boot people on the platform so easily and that's just the start, so wait until he gets fully on board.

That hasn't changed. Twitter has the right to boot people off the platform if they violate the guidelines, and the guidelines haven't changed. So, as I said, nothing has changed.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

That's strange, because Truth Social also blocks free speech.

As I said, there must be a serious reason for that to happen, because usually they don't and wouldn't, and as I said, we don't know all the reasons as to why this person was blocked.

Not true.

Yep. For example, one user got banned for making fun of Devin Nunes! (The CEO of Trump Social) ;-)

Again, you and I don't know the reason behind the block, relax.

He was banned simply because of the username he used to sign up for the platform: @DevinNunesCow.

Well, there you go.

I would expect his lawyer to advise against major changes.

Good luck with that.

It already is a level playing field, so no changes are required.

No they haven't.

As of now, not yet, but they are coming.

That hasn't changed. Twitter has the right to boot people off the platform if they violate the guidelines, and the guidelines haven't changed. So, as I said, nothing has changed.

It's going to.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

bass4funk

Yep. For example, one user got banned for making fun of Devin Nunes! (The CEO of Trump Social) ;-)

Again, you and I don't know the reason behind the block, relax.

Oh, I know the reason. Devin Nunes is sensitive and can't take a joke. It's well known that he hates Devin Nunes Cow. Google it.

It's going to.

My guess is that the deal will fall apart.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yep. For example, one user got banned for making fun of Devin Nunes! (The CEO of Trump Social) ;-)

Maybe we will find out the full reason soon. 

Oh, I know the reason. Devin Nunes is sensitive and can't take a joke.

I doubt it, but who knows? I think there's more to the story.

It's well known that he hates Devin Nunes Cow. Google it.

Is that a crime?

My guess is that the deal will fall apart.

Doubt it.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Maybe we will find out the full reason soon. 

We already know the real reason. Devin Nunes has very thin skin, which is odd considering his mother is a dairy cow. :D

Is that a crime?

No, but it doesn't seem very free-speechy to sue someone for hurting your feelings, or having their account banned.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/us/politics/devin-nunes-cow-tweets.html

Hot take: Conservatives don't really care about censorship, as long as they're not being censored.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

We already know the real reason. Devin Nunes has very thin skin, which is odd considering his mother is a dairy cow. :D

Well, so the left can do what they always do, like little kids in the schoolyard making fun of others to boost their faltering ego, ok.

No, but it doesn't seem very free-speechy to sue someone for hurting your feelings or having their account banned.

Hmmm, that's his 1st amendment to sue someone for defamation of character. Remember, just Trump tweeting caused a tsunami of hysteria from the left that tried to sue him for just walking the earth, spare us. LOL

Hot take: Conservatives don't really care about censorship, as long as they're not being censored.

Well, No, we care, we are not trying to block major stories, the left is just upset because they are being blocked for name calling. Give me a break. It's not that serious guys. LOL

1 ( +3 / -2 )

bass4funk

Oh, I know the reason. Devin Nunes is sensitive and can't take a joke.

I doubt it, but who knows? I think there's more to the story.

Nope. There isn't. Read about it here:

https://mashable.com/article/trump-truth-social-free-speech-bans

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Oh, I know the reason. Devin Nunes is sensitive and can't take a joke.

Maybe, maybe not, do you know the entire details? Did you talk to him? Do you know him and his dealings with this person? No, you don't, now if you want to act like all the other childish liberals and make accusations based on a theory, please go on. 

Nope. There isn't. Read about it here:

Uh-huh...sure.

Mashable are you for real? Ok, you buy that crap, I won't. lol

Anyway, don't worry, things will only get worse for Dems by this November, buckle up.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

bass4funk

Oh, I know the reason. Devin Nunes is sensitive and can't take a joke.

Maybe, maybe not, do you know the entire details? Did you talk to him? Do you know him and his dealings with this person? No, you don't, now if you want to act like all the other childish liberals and make accusations based on a theory, please go on.

OK. I get it. You don't like the fact that Trump Social is petty about its censorship. Get over it. Its one of the reasons that it is failing.

Anyway, don't worry, things will only get worse for Dems by this November, buckle up.

This has nothing to do with the Dems. Truth Social is linked with Trump, but Twitter has nothing to do with Dems. Twitter is an international company and it doesn't moderate it's content based on what US Dems think.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Well, so the left can do what they always do, like little kids in the schoolyard making fun of others to boost their faltering ego, ok.

This is free speech, bro. You don't have to like it, you can even call it childish, but don't try to silence it.

Hmmm, that's his 1st amendment to sue someone for defamation of character. Remember, just Trump tweeting caused a tsunami of hysteria from the left that tried to sue him for just walking the earth, spare us. LOL

Really? It's his first amendment right to try to stop others from exercising theirs? I'd say it actually isn't considering he lost the suit.

Well, No, we care, we are not trying to block major stories, the left is just upset because they are being blocked for name calling.

Isn't it name-calling free speech? Why should people be blocked or censored for name-calling?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Oh, I know the reason. Devin Nunes is sensitive and can't take a joke.

OK. I get it. You don't like the fact that Trump Social is petty about its censorship. Get over it. Its one of the reasons that it is failing.

This has nothing to do with the Dems. Truth Social is linked with Trump, but Twitter has nothing to do with Dems. Twitter is an international company and it doesn't moderate it's content based on what US Dems think.

Broken records??? ROFL

Got an idea, find out what you know and all the details as to why the ban happened, factually, NO bloviating and no personal guesses or opinions, just the facts, if you can't do that then please man up and state so instead of childish name-calling, it helps with supporting the little credibility the left has. Try it and prove me wrong, betcha can't.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

This is free speech, bro. You don't have to like it,

I never said whether I did or didn't, I love free speech, you are talking to the wrong person, it's just liberals that like to howl names because they never have a poignant argument to boost their credibility, so it's the only thing they can do.

you can even call it childish, but don't try to silence it.

It is and I wouldn't, I am not a liberal. 

Really? It's his first amendment right to try to stop others from exercising theirs?

Hmmm...when it was Trump, liberals were ok with it and now they are not? Why?

Isn't it name-calling free speech?

So when liberals call conservative names it's free speech, but not the other way around? Why?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

bass4funk

Got an idea, find out what you know and all the details as to why the ban happened.

Why? I already know. And I have no interest in arguing about it with someone who refuses to accept the obvious.

But if it's proof you want, you need go no further than read Trump Social's terms and agreements. Specifically, users are prohibited from speaking ill of the platform itself or its leadership. Truth Social says users cannot "disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site."

So there you go.The reason the user was banned, was because they teased the CEO.

No censorship? yeah, right!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Hmmm...when it was Trump, liberals were ok with it and now they are not? Why?

When did anyone stop Trump from exercising his first amendment rights?

So when liberals call conservative names it's free speech, but not the other way around? Why?

Please point to me where I said that.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

When did anyone stop Trump from exercising his first amendment rights?

Dorsey, Zuckerberg

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Dorsey, Zuckerberg

Not really an answer.

Do you mean banning Trump from Twitter? It's a private enterprise, they can do what they want. This has nothing to do with free speech.

Let me ask you, Bass, should Twitter ban users from using racial slurs?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Why? I already know.

I don't think so.

And I have no interest in arguing about it

Because you can't and that's ok

But if it's proof you want, you need go no further

See! I know it was all liberal visceral boasting.

So there you go

That wasn't his reasoning that was once again more liberal personal diatribe.

No censorship? yeah, right!

Not the way liberals did to conservatives.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

bass4funk

Bass, you censored the argument: Truth Social says users cannot "disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site."

Case closed.

Didn't think that you would resort to censorship on a thread about censorship.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Bass, you censored the argument: Truth Social says users cannot "disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site."

Case closed.

No, because it was never true, got it all mixed up again.

Didn't think that you would resort to censorship on a thread about censorship.

Say whatever you want, I am all for it. Liberals get ready for November.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

bass4funk

Bass, you censored the argument: Truth Social says users cannot "disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site."

Case closed.

No, because it was never true, got it all mixed up again.

So, Truth Social don't have that in their terms and conditions? It's pretty easy to check. If you say that don't have that in their terms and conditions, prove it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Let me ask you, Bass, should Twitter ban users from using racial slurs?

No, I do not. However, I do think they should ban threats toward others any implication of a person wanting to physically harm another person should, by all means, be banned.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Bass, you censored the argument: Truth Social says users cannot "disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site."

Case closed.

No, because it was never true, got it all mixed up again.

So, Truth Social don't have that in their terms and conditions? It's pretty easy to check.

I was talking about Nunes, not the contract.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

bass4funk

I was talking about Nunes, not the contract.

OK, so a user gets banned because he makes fun of Nunes. And Truth Social has a clause in the terms and conditions that says users cannot "disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site." And you think that we have no idea why the user gets banned?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No, I do not

So do you not think minorities might be upset to see a bunch of people using racial slurs? And, by allowing this kind of speech, do you think this kind of language becomes more or less common?

. However, I do think they should ban threats toward others any implication of a person wanting to physically harm another person should, by all means, be banned.

Legally, I think they'd have to. Do you think users should be allowed to harass others on Twitter?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So do you not think minorities might be upset to see a bunch of people using racial slurs?

They are just words. It’s the physical intent that is important. When minorities use racial slurs toward whites should they be banned. How about insulting the previous President and calling him Orange or whatever, should insults be banned as well? I personally think it should all be fair across the board. Ban everything or ban nothing.

And, by allowing this kind of speech, do you think this kind of language becomes more or less common?

The same

Legally, I think they'd have to. Do you think users should be allowed to harass others on Twitter?

It should on a case by case basis, because when it comes to conservatives it seems those rules don’t apply

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites