Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday October 14 2017, @07:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the jumping-to-conclusions dept.

The actress, who has emerged as a Hollywood voice in the Harvey Weinstein sexual-assault scandal, revealed that Twitter had locked her account on Wednesday night.

Rose McGowan had a hold placed on her Twitter account Wednesday night, an act that quickly sparked outrage among the many users who have been following her posts ever since news first broke of the allegations against Harvey Weinstein.

The actress, who has emerged as a Hollywood voice after finding herself thrust into the center of the developing story of sexual misconduct, harassment and assault allegations against the movie mogul, took to her Instagram and Facebook accounts to relay the news of her temporary suspension, writing cryptically that "TWITTER HAS SUSPENDED ME. THERE ARE POWERFUL FORCES AT WORK. BE MY VOICE. #ROSEARMY."

She added a screenshot (below) from a message from Twitter telling her that she had violated their terms of service and that she would be locked out for 12 hours once she deleted certain tweets. She posted the message late Wednesday night.

As of 7:20 a.m. PT on Thursday, Twitter had unlocked McGowan's account, telling THR the temporary lock was due to the actress tweeting out a private number, which falls under the private information violation under Twitter Rules. McGowan deleted the post to regain access.

Are social media platforms common carriers, or not?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by jmorris on Saturday October 14 2017, @08:17AM (23 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Saturday October 14 2017, @08:17AM (#582210)

    Twitter has been locking thousands of accounts for over a year, we are supposed to get worked up over some thot getting a 12 hour suspend because she is famous? And she at least did break a clearly defined rule, fixed the post they flagged and got back on so the system actually worked.

    Sorry, she is the sort of SJW who would happily applaud every one of the other suspensions and bans so zero concern. If it happens again and she wants to #speakfreely she is welcome to come to gab.ai with the rest of the twitter refugees. But it won't because she is famous and a SJW and now Jack's minions will make sure she is never bothered again.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @09:02AM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @09:02AM (#582219)

    Sorry,

    Sorry, she is the sort of SJW

    Stopped reading after this. Should've stopped as soon as I saw "jmorris", but my reflexes are not what they once were, and I an driving in Nude South Whales these days. Labor government and all makes it hard to read, let alone understand, USsian politics..

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Spamalope on Saturday October 14 2017, @10:42AM (5 children)

      by Spamalope (5233) on Saturday October 14 2017, @10:42AM (#582235) Homepage

      Twitter well is known to ignore/excuse policy violations from the famous, powerful and certain political philosophies that are congruent with internal Twitter culture.

      Twitter is just as well known to ban users for voicing opposition to any of those groups without any objective policy violation. At least some of the time they'll offer transparently false reasons for doing so.

      Despite writing in an confrontational way, what the parent said is objectively true. It's not hard to find examples of post modernist collectivists calling for groups to cause harm to an individual without action by Twitter, while Twitter steps in to stop critics. The bias and arbitrary enforcement is clear and objectionable.

      Twitter does appear to keep certain trolls because they drive user engagement and thus ad impressions which clouds the issue a bit. i.e. ad impression driving users in opposition to Twitter culture may get a reprieve so long as they're driving traffic from their opponents, while milder unknowns face repercussions.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Spamalope on Saturday October 14 2017, @10:50AM (4 children)

        by Spamalope (5233) on Saturday October 14 2017, @10:50AM (#582238) Homepage

        An important societal question now is what to do now that speech on the public commons has moved into the hands of private companies with political agendas.

        I've seen common carrier status mentioned, but that's got downsides and seems easy to game. It may make things worse AND not work. Maybe a hybrid could work? Create a different type of common carrier status, connected to anti-trust and patent law. Say Google has reached that new common carrier status, and that in those markets Google can't exercise its patents against competitors and can't enter into exclusive deals. (ex: no deal with Apple to include Google search and block all others, and Google can't block Google Maps and search from iPhones unless Apple makes G+ the only social media or Gmail the only email on the device) Maybe those restrictions should be market based, so they'd apply to anyone creating a commons equally.

        It seems likely entrenches players will lobby for rules that disproportionately effect new players/opponents with fewer political connections. Maybe simply allowing some form of fraud tort if a 'commons' company doesn't follow its own policy, with enhancements for demonstrated bias. (dishonest bias is worse than incompetence or disregard)

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Saturday October 14 2017, @12:21PM (3 children)

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday October 14 2017, @12:21PM (#582253) Journal

          How about, handle it the way it's always been handled? That is, let people be responsible for their own words? Anyone can be sued for slander or libel. Odds of being sued and losing go way up if you tell not just any lie, but vicious, hurtful lies. And, if those lies spread further.

          Why should it matter how the words were delivered? That's falling right into that logic trap of thinking that "on a computer" or "on the Internet" somehow makes it different.

          • (Score: 2) by Entropy on Saturday October 14 2017, @09:45PM (1 child)

            by Entropy (4228) on Saturday October 14 2017, @09:45PM (#582414)

            Because certain people feel you shouldn't be able to speak your opinion. Those certain people are often surprised when the same is applied to them.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @01:55AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @01:55AM (#582867)

              A phone number is not an opinion.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @12:58AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 16 2017, @12:58AM (#582853)

            > Anyone can be sued for slander or libel.

            Without having seen the tweet, it sounds like harassment. When someone's phone number is given out against the person's wishes, often the intent is to bring unwanted calls, voicemails and text messages.

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @03:17PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @03:17PM (#582297)

      dont say that when logged in. your karma will drop faster than a lead brick

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @09:59AM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @09:59AM (#582230)

    NO, we are supposed to get worried because people like you respond like this. You are an example of how ordinary people can be turned into Nazis by propaganda. She is famous, her opponent is famous too. If you remove fame from both sides of the equation, it is quite obvious you are supporting the rapist at the expense of his victim.

    Assuming (blindly, and in the absence of hard evidence) that you are not a rapist too, You are a demonstration of the problem. It appears you have been persuaded to defend a complete scumbag at disastrous cost to his victim. People like you become a far more serious problem to the world because of Twitter.

    If I was like you, you would probably be doxxed or even swatted. You are creating a world you will probably live to regret, or die trying.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @01:22PM (9 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @01:22PM (#582260)

      you are supporting the alleged rapist

      you are supporting the burden of proof

      you are supporting the rights of the accused

      you are supporting the due process of law

      you are supporting the presumption of innocence

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by http on Saturday October 14 2017, @03:10PM (8 children)

        by http (1920) on Saturday October 14 2017, @03:10PM (#582294)

        Despite your obvious concerntroll addition of strawman arguments (presented as deliberate misquotes), I'll bite.

        If your response to an allegation of rape is, "people shouldn't allege negative things outside of a courtroom", you'd do well to stop and reflect on the reasons such a small percentage of rape reports result in convictions. There's ten thousand of them, but you are one of them. For the moment, victims are fucked twice by society and the legal system - unless maybe they have actual video evidence, in which case they might get as far as a trial. In particular, a rape victim is consistently met with disbelief and active discouragement at every stage, more so than victims of every other crime. If you've been raped, you've got a better chance of framing the offender for a theft they didn't do than for what they did do.

        Nobody who has their wallet stolen ever gets told, "shut up about it, we need due process."

        It's pretty clear you're an asshole. What's not clear is why you're hell-bent on perpetuating the most harmful mindset possible. Oh, wait, it is.

        --
        I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @04:09PM (7 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @04:09PM (#582314)

          My response to an allegation of a criminal offence is to presume innocence.

          Rape and sexual assault/harassment is a particularly difficult legal problem because of the obvious issues with evidence, conflicting testimony, and the delay in reporting. I'm skeptical of the idea that lowering the standards of the burden of proof is the best way of handling the situation. US universities are currently usinging the "preponderance of evidence" standard (greater than 50% chance of guilt), so we might get some data on its effectiveness and whether or not it is an acceptable compromise of the accused's rights.

          As most sexual assault/harassment reports are of repeat offenders, I believe that it would be helpful to adopt a plan involving an "allegation escrow" that would leverage multiple independent low confidence (by the standards of evidence) allegations to reach a threshold of guilt. See below for more details and a similar story we've covered:

          http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4741/ [yale.edu]
          https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/11/20/1934227 [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 2) by http on Saturday October 14 2017, @08:22PM (3 children)

            by http (1920) on Saturday October 14 2017, @08:22PM (#582398)

            Look in the mirror. You're still part of the problem.

            My response to an allegation of a criminal offence is to presume innocence.

            Great, for you, I suppose. But pretty much every police officer, lawyer, judge, and juror that a victim will encounter post-assault won't even consider the possibility of guilt, which is what they should be open to as a matter of due process when a complaint comes up.

            --
            I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @09:06PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @09:06PM (#582406)

              pretty much every police officer, lawyer, judge, and juror that a victim will encounter post-assault won't even consider the possibility of guilt, which is what they should be open to as a matter of due process when a complaint comes up

              That is a separate issue and it is wrong of them to be biased against the plaintiff/victim.

              The issue that I'm trying to discuss with you is about what the threshold for guilt should be. How do we preserve the rights of the accused or what are acceptable compromises to those rights for the greater societal good?

              What evidence is needed? Is a single victim's testimony enough, what about two or three?

              The legal system is clearly failing to provide justice for victims of sexual abuse, but what should we do about it? I'll appreciate your thoughts on this.

              • (Score: 2) by http on Sunday October 15 2017, @12:08AM (1 child)

                by http (1920) on Sunday October 15 2017, @12:08AM (#582443)

                It's the exact central issue. Attempts to derailing the discourse like that is, I dunno, weak and obvious? It doesn't matter what the threshold for guilt is if it never gets to the courtroom. Woman are simply disbelieved on this subject by default, and even when they are exceptionally compelling, they're actively discouraged from seeking redress - both in the legal system and socially.

                If you're actually curious about feasible actions (which you've given good reason to doubt), the solution is for all of us to look in the mirror and ask, "why do I discredit women's statements about rape?" No matter how "rational" you might think you are, you have a bias. We are not immune to society's programming, fighting it requires constant hard work, and even then we will still slip up on occasion.

                --
                I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @12:46AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @12:46AM (#582452)

                  It doesn't matter what the threshold for guilt is if it never gets to the courtroom

                  Yes it does.
                  One of the reasons why people do not even attempt to take things to the courtroom is because of the low probability of winning the case. Also, people are far more willing to move forward with a case when there are multiple claimants (another positive about the "allegation escrows").

                  Thankfully, societal perceptions of women, sex, sexual harassment and assault is changing for the better. However, institutional barriers (presumption of innocence, reliability of testimony, and evidentiary standards) will remain in place and will prevent success in court no matter how supportive society becomes.

          • (Score: 2) by Virindi on Saturday October 14 2017, @09:44PM (2 children)

            by Virindi (3484) on Saturday October 14 2017, @09:44PM (#582413)

            As most sexual assault/harassment reports are of repeat offenders, I believe that it would be helpful to adopt a plan involving an "allegation escrow" that would leverage multiple independent low confidence (by the standards of evidence) allegations to reach a threshold of guilt.

            Unfortunately, this would be easily gamed. Anyone who wanted to falsely accuse someone could get friends to join in and also make false accusations. This kind of thing has happened before; the fact that there are multiple accusations doesn't tell you much more than a single one. It could be that the accused has perpetrated the crime many times, or it could be that they are the victim of conspiracy. It still has to come down to the evidence for each accusation.

            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @10:39PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @10:39PM (#582425)

              Unfortunately, this would be easily gamed

              I think you are overestimating people's willingness to commit illegal acts and form conspiracy to harm someone based upon the word of one friend. This is obviously possible under the current system (e.g. assembling multiple "witnesses" that could corroborate the victim's testimony) and the rate probably wouldn't substantially increase. Fabricating evidence for multiple independent crimes would probably also be more risky (more chances of conflicting evidence or alibi) than a single fabricated crime.

              This is not a perfect solution and it is more applicable to certain situations (e.g. college, workplaces, and organizations) than others (e.g. intimate partner violence, casual dating, and familial abuse). Such a system may even be impossible to implement for criminal prosecution, but putting someone in prison is not the only way to help victims and the status quo will not improve by itself.

            • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @02:48AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @02:48AM (#582483)

              Was not expecting that from a feminist.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by jmorris on Saturday October 14 2017, @03:07PM

      by jmorris (4844) on Saturday October 14 2017, @03:07PM (#582290)

      Pay attention and stop goal post shifting and thread hijacking. We aren't debating the bigger issue of whether she has a point, we are discussing whether @jack should be wielding the banhammer like a mad Thor. We are talking about whether she has a right to speak out or whether speech on twitter is at all times subject to the whim of @jack and his bots. And this is an important question, since it is clear no "major media" would have allowed her to hurl such explosive charges, how do you think Weinstein has acted with such impunity for so many decades? This is another case of social media disruption of the existing order and whether the current attempts by certain powerful people to "shut it down!" is going to succeed, whether it should and how we might influence that course of events.

      On the bigger issue she is right and wrong. 99% certainty her specific charges are true, the casting couch has been a staple of Hollywierd since silent film days. She is wrong though in the sense she was equally guilty. Feel no pity for her, reserve it for the thousands of doe eyed wanna be starlets who went to Hollywood to become a star, wasn't willing to become a whore to achieve it and went back to Kansas older, wiser. a bit bitter but with virtue intact. But they aren't famous, they have no twitter followers and @jack would banhammer their ass in a millisecond if they annoyed a famous producer and Democratic donor with such charges. And they wouldn't be able to raise an activist army in minutes to get it reversed. We know this because people have been ringing the bell on Hollywood abuse for a hundred years and the media has been active in minimizing and covering it up... which is not shocking since the media IS Hollywood.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @07:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14 2017, @07:59PM (#582390)

      If you remove fame from both sides of the equation, it is quite obvious you are supporting the rapist at the expense of his victim.

      Exactly how does rape enter into it? This is someone allegedly "tweeting out a private number." Do you have information that the number was that of an alleged rapist? I don't see that in the article. Let's suppose it was a rapist's phone number. You're saying it's OK in that instance? According to you, is it always OK to give out people's phone numbers, or only when the called party has broken a law, or only in case of rape?

      If I was like you, you would probably be doxxed or even swatted.

      Giving out someone's phone number is a form of doxing. The OP didn't condone that. You appear to be doing so.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @08:37AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @08:37AM (#582577)

      Accused rapist...