|
Post by robeiae on Jan 9, 2017 9:01:37 GMT -5
Twitter suspended well-known low-life Martin Shrekli (the drug kingpin who upped the price on vital meds to gouge insurers) because he was obviously harassing/stalking someone on Twitter: money.cnn.com/2017/01/08/technology/martin-shkreli-suspended-twitter/index.htmlThat's a good thing, right? But note one of the last lines of the piece: Shrekli got suspended because he is well known and because his target is somewhat well known, or at least somewhat influential in media-land (she's an editor at Teen Vogue). His tweets and her responses garner thousands of likes and retweets, as opposed to maybe less-public figures who perhaps are having the same sorts of back and forths. Does more attention make such behavior (by Shrekli-types) somehow worse? Should Twitter be doing more for run-of-the-mill complaints that don't involve people with huge audiences?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 9, 2017 11:52:30 GMT -5
None of us here are strangers to forum drama, so we all know that mods even of tiny forums have to deal with he-said/she-said/he-said-it-first. One person says something snarky, another person gets salty about it and snarks back, and pretty soon there is this big argument about who was out of line and who crossed the line first and whether or not the mods are enforcing the rules consistently, etc.
Scale that to the size of Twitter.
Twitter has problems with moderating, obviously, but I am kind of sympathetic to them. They probably get a bajillion complaints daily about "harassment" that was basically someone saying something mean or argumentative. That's not to say it's okay to ignore real harassment unless the victim is a celebrity or VIP, but it's not surprising that more famous people get more attention.
Two people being assholes to each other is the sort of thing Twitter should ignore as much as possible. But a famous person being an asshole (or worse, two famous people being assholes to each other) can lead to massive dogpiles since they have so many followers.
|
|