Florida's Fired Covid-19 Data Manager 'Permanently Suspended' From Twitter (forbes.com) 99
Florida's fired Department of Health data manager Rebekah Jones has been "permanently suspended" from Twitter, "for violations of the Twitter Rules on spam and platform manipulation," a Twitter spokesperson tells Slashdot.
Florida's Sun-Sentinel reports: Jones, a former Department of Health data manager fired for alleged insubordination, emerged as a political lightning rod as COVID-19 cases spiked in Florida last year. Supporters see her as a whistleblower speaking truth to power and exposing an effort by the state to paint a rosier picture of the pandemic. Her detractors say she has peddled disinformation for her own financial benefit, unfairly casting doubt on the reliability of Florida's COVID-19 statistics... Jones helped to build the state's online coronavirus dashboard in the early days of the pandemic. In May 2020, she was fired from her post at the Florida Department of Health, where she was manager of Geographic Information Systems. Jones said her bosses pressured her to manipulate statistics to justify reopening the state amid lockdown.
In an article Monday Forbes investigated "the curious case of Rebekah Jones' suspension," citing a researcher who specializes in Twitter fraud: There was clearly a concentrated surge in new follower activity... What is not known is whether Rebekah Jones purchased the followers herself, or whether it was a false-flag campaign meant to discredit her (someone else purchased the followers and directed them at her account to make it appear she broke Twitter's rules).
Nearly 21,000 followers were added in a short amount of time...
Following up with Twitter's spokesperson, Slashdot asked them about Forbes' theory, and whether they had evidence that Jones herself (and not one of her detractors) had perpetrated the surge in follower activity.
Twitter's response? "We have nothing further to add beyond what I shared."
Jones had already attained more than 400,000 followers, reports the Washington Post. But they also note that her suspension is now being celebrated on Twitter by Florida governor DeSantis's press secretary, "who was hired after she wrote an article calling Jones's claims 'a big lie.'" DeSantis's office also pointed to an April Twitter thread from a prominent disinformation researcher alleging that an app has surreptitiously directed thousands of users to follow a number of accounts, including Jones's. Jones responded to the researcher, according to a screenshot, with a tweet saying: "This is insane."
"I've never heard of this app," she wrote.
Jones has since opened a new account on Instagram named "insubordinatescientist".
Florida's Sun-Sentinel reports: Jones, a former Department of Health data manager fired for alleged insubordination, emerged as a political lightning rod as COVID-19 cases spiked in Florida last year. Supporters see her as a whistleblower speaking truth to power and exposing an effort by the state to paint a rosier picture of the pandemic. Her detractors say she has peddled disinformation for her own financial benefit, unfairly casting doubt on the reliability of Florida's COVID-19 statistics... Jones helped to build the state's online coronavirus dashboard in the early days of the pandemic. In May 2020, she was fired from her post at the Florida Department of Health, where she was manager of Geographic Information Systems. Jones said her bosses pressured her to manipulate statistics to justify reopening the state amid lockdown.
In an article Monday Forbes investigated "the curious case of Rebekah Jones' suspension," citing a researcher who specializes in Twitter fraud: There was clearly a concentrated surge in new follower activity... What is not known is whether Rebekah Jones purchased the followers herself, or whether it was a false-flag campaign meant to discredit her (someone else purchased the followers and directed them at her account to make it appear she broke Twitter's rules).
Nearly 21,000 followers were added in a short amount of time...
Following up with Twitter's spokesperson, Slashdot asked them about Forbes' theory, and whether they had evidence that Jones herself (and not one of her detractors) had perpetrated the surge in follower activity.
Twitter's response? "We have nothing further to add beyond what I shared."
Jones had already attained more than 400,000 followers, reports the Washington Post. But they also note that her suspension is now being celebrated on Twitter by Florida governor DeSantis's press secretary, "who was hired after she wrote an article calling Jones's claims 'a big lie.'" DeSantis's office also pointed to an April Twitter thread from a prominent disinformation researcher alleging that an app has surreptitiously directed thousands of users to follow a number of accounts, including Jones's. Jones responded to the researcher, according to a screenshot, with a tweet saying: "This is insane."
"I've never heard of this app," she wrote.
Jones has since opened a new account on Instagram named "insubordinatescientist".
Cue (Score:2, Insightful)
The usual bunch of lying right wing sycophants defending lying Ron, Florida man.
Re: Cue (Score:5, Informative)
If Florida wasn't (and continues) to manipulate its covid death data, why did it deliberately go out of its way to obfuscate its numbers [sun-sentinel.com]? Why were medical examiners prevented from publishing [yahoo.com] the number of covid deaths, or told to find some other reason the person died? In fact, in the run up to November election, all Florida county health offices stopped issuing public statements [theguardian.com] about the number of new cases and deaths.
We know for a fact there were times some of Florida's largest hospitals were down to single-digit [beckershos...review.com] ICU beds available, while at other times ICU bed capacity was at or above 95% utilization [wfla.com] due to covid cases. In fact, ICU bed capacity was so restricted, DeSantis ordered hospitals to change the way they report bed usage [wptv.com].
Taking all of the above into consideration, which is the more likely scenario? That either DeSantis had his cronies deliberately manipulate the number of covid cases and deaths to curry favor with the con artist, which Jones refused to do and got fired for it, or that she's making up her story.
Re: (Score:1)
Taking all of the above into consideration, which is the more likely scenario? That either DeSantis had his cronies deliberately manipulate the number of covid cases and deaths to curry favor with the con artist, which Jones refused to do and got fired for it, or that she's making up her story.
This has all been very entertaining. All the usual suspects have been salivating over Jones, hoping she will pull an ace from her sleeve and muddy DeSantis. They have placed big bets on her and no matter how much crazy leaks out, they just double down and try to explain it all away or wave their hands claiming it is irrelevant. None have the self control to look objectively at her history and question her integrity.
This is not a credible person. She is a (somehow still) married woman who entered into
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
everyone knows Twitter is practically a PAC for the Democratic party.
Your facts are neither facts nor a part of the public record.
Sorry you don't know the difference between your opinions and facts.
Re: (Score:2)
She betrayed her marriage and committed revenge porn [wjct.org]
Student victim files a restraining order [expressdigest.com]
Plea deal rescinded [tallahassee.com]
Fired from DoH for insubordination [news-journalonline.com]
Fired from FSU for threatening to fail her estranged romantic partner’s roommate. [wikipedia.org]
Employment lawyer opines on Ms. Jones [jdsupra.com]
Jones admits she is just presenting data not altering it. [npr.org]
More information [nypost.com]
Banished from Twitter [miamiherald.com]
My opinions were drawn from the data on Ms. Jone's background. Personally as far as trust goes, I would
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the government of Florida makes a habit of granting official whistleblower status to psychopaths.
Of course, this is the state where DeSantis has been elected governor, so I suppose anything is possible.
Re: Cue (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, no-- Her "whistleblower" status was recently (last week of May 2021) confirmed by the Florida Office of the Inspector General-- which is exactly the opposite of there being "no evidence to back up her story".
And may also explain a surge in twitter followers.
She may, or may not, be a psychopathic ex-girlfriend, but that doesn't mean she was lying about the fact that de Santis and his crew were absolutely desperate to prove that Trump was right that Covid would "blow away by Summer". And that doesn't explain a full-on swat team level raid of her house in the middle of the night, either.
She was clearly framed (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not at all consistent with her truthtelling whistleblowing demeanor that she would manipulate twitter with bots.
That has the reek of political apparatchiks out on a hit job against her.
Re:She was clearly framed (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a large, well funded apparatus dedicated not just to misinformation but to actively causing harm for political reasons.
Ban Twitter! Right? (Re:She was clearly framed) (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a large, well funded apparatus dedicated not just to misinformation but to actively causing harm for political reasons.
Yep, you nailed it on Twitter. You were talking about Twitter, right?
Re: Ban Twitter! Right? (Re:She was clearly frame (Score:1)
That's obviously not what they meant.
No, it doesn't look like you intelligently spun things into a creative new viewpoint.
You just look confused
Re:Ban Twitter! Right? (Re:She was clearly framed) (Score:4, Insightful)
Twitter is actually better than Facebook, they make a small effort to stop the worst of it. Not that they're all that much better. They let Donald Trump pretty much do as he pleased right up untill he was so obviously inciting violence they just couldn't pretend anymore. Honestly probably wasn't the real reason, it was probably that since he was no longer president they felt they could safely do what they should have done long since.
My point is is both platforms with cheerfully allowed democracy to collapse in order to make a few extra dollars this quarter.
Re: (Score:3)
Betteridge's Law + smells like Jussie Smollett (Score:5, Interesting)
So she can't be a defender of the truth and a twitter cheat at the same time? Does the false flag conspiracy theory really seem the more likely explanation to you?
Betteridge's Law says yes.
..."reasons"? I suppose it's not impossible, but I don't see a probable reason why a semi-famous person with a data science career needs bots following her. Also, this can hurt her career and livelihood. Why risk it?
...or...
...I don't know.
I need more facts to come to a conclusion, but yeah, until you can describe a good motive for her to spend money to cheat at twitter when she's already semi-famous...I'd say at the very least, yes, this is unexpected and I never saw it coming.
From my perspective:
Either she spent money to get more followers when she already had a ton...for
She didn't order the bots.
Given what I know today, I'd assume her many powerful enemies, particularly those who want to see DeSantis run for president, would be willing to do this against her....or maybe someone just hates her for other reasons. Maybe she blew the wrong woman's husband?
It's like the Jussie Smollett story? OK...so people who never met you attacked you and poured bleach all over your clothes?....and shouted "It's MAGA country?"...and threw a noose around your neck?
My first thought was..."oh no, that's terrible"...follow by...wait...they walked around Chicago with a noose and a jug of bleach to commit a random hate crime undetected and shout something I've never heard any Trump supporter yell....and commit a crime I've never heard of?...and do this in a very large city with a lot of surveillance cameras and a huge black population and a huge police presence?...and what was their motive again?...and if happened as described, why haven't we heard of it before? why did it happen to a famous person first? why did it happen in Downtown Chicago?...and if they wanted to terrorize a random black person, is that really the easiest or most convenient way to do so?...to carry a heavy jug of liquid that is toxic and has a very strong scent and ruins anything it touches if it leaks while you're running around an expensive neighborhood in Chicago and a heavy conspicuous prop?...or....the whole claim was bullshit.
We don't know what's happening with this lady, but if the choices are either:
A.) She paid money to gain fake followers on Twitter or
B.) Anything else
Until you give me more info or a motive, I am choosing B.
Re:Betteridge's Law + smells like Jussie Smollett (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't implausible. Roger Stone made contributions in the name of the Young Socialist Alliance to a rival congressional campaign, and then sent evidence of this contribution to the newspapers. What would the modern equivalent of that be?
Now, if I were a dirty trickster, I would have started with an attempt to discredit her with a bunch of bots, and only resorted to a police raid after internal polling showed that she was still a drag on my numbers. So maybe the ass-backwards escalation suggests she really is guilty. My point being that anyone could be framed by a well-funded conspiracy of one.
Re:Betteridge's Law + smells like Jussie Smollett (Score:5, Insightful)
Occam's razor says she did it though.
"Somebody else bought the bots to frame her" isn't more complicated than or doesn't need more assumptions than "she bought the bots to get more followers".
So Occam just shrugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Betteridge's Law + smells like Jussie Smollett (Score:2)
Exit the conversation until you are able to keep up
Re:Betteridge's Law + smells like Jussie Smollett (Score:5, Insightful)
No. If she already had 400K followers, why would anyone even bother buying a mere 21K more...it makes NO sense, actually. So I think you have the wrong razor.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No. If she already had 400K followers, why would anyone even bother buying a mere 21K more...it makes NO sense, actually. So I think you have the wrong razor.
Why would she stalk someone or resist arrest while refusing to leave when fired? [lsureveille.com] (no not that time she was fired)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Occam's razor
"entities should not be multiplied without necessity."
You'd believe twitter about your mom because you know your mom.
Ockham was arguing that divine miracles are a better explanation than natural causes for surprising or unexplained phenomena.
But for the modern meaning, consider Bertrand Russell: "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities." One person having done the thing, or another person having done the thing; these are all known entities, thing
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Look, I get that you like her, but that doesn't make her an honest person, or even a decent person. You don't actually know her and there's a chance she's actually a piece of shit.
I'm not saying I know for sure she is, but I sure AF am not saying I'm sure she is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't one of the qualifications for Occam's razor, "all things being equal?"
Having your apartment broken into at gunpoint by government agents doesn't really make her situation equal to the typical Twitter shitposter attention whore.
Re: (Score:2)
Bleach is commonplace for those of us who do our own laundry, and it's sold in the larger all-night convenient stores. It's also a popular reagent for making meth, which might be more relevant for hoodlums at 3:00 AM. Small details are sometimes not as ridiculous as they may seem at first glance: It's why it's so important for police, for help desks, and for doctors to collect the complete story, and not to reject details out of hand.
Not reject...but healthy skepticism is good (Score:2)
Bleach is commonplace for those of us who do our own laundry, and it's sold in the larger all-night convenient stores. It's also a popular reagent for making meth, which might be more relevant for hoodlums at 3:00 AM. Small details are sometimes not as ridiculous as they may seem at first glance: It's why it's so important for police, for help desks, and for doctors to collect the complete story, and not to reject details out of hand.
There have been many standup routines about Smollett. Dave Chapelle tells it better than I ever could. However, I have never heard of anything Smollett described. I also lived in Chicago for 8 years and know it well. I also know the surrounding areas quite well. If I wanted to commit a hate crime against a black man, I'd not walk around the Magnificent Mile carrying a conspicuous noose and jug of bleach. Also "for those of us who do our own laundry?" Most Americans do their own laundry. The rare per
Re: (Score:2)
> I think Ron DeSantis is the kind of lowlife who would do this.
He may be skilled enough to avoid direct involvement, and hire personnel who'd leave him plausible deniability. Florida has had a strong history of discarding science in favor of politics. Florida school districts are infamous for insisting that textbooks exclude evolution or sex education, and insisting that they present creationism as a scientific theory and climate change as a controversial hypothesis.
Betteridge's Law does not apply (Score:2)
So she can't be a defender of the truth and a twitter cheat at the same time? Does the false flag conspiracy theory really seem the more likely explanation to you?
Betteridge's Law says yes.
Betteridge's Law applies to news headlines. The headline here is "Florida's Fired Covid-19 Data Manager 'Permanently Suspended' From Twitter", which is not a question, so Betteridge's Law doesn't say anything."
Betteridge's Law does not apply to questions posted by random commenters in comment threads.
That would be "the law of universal negation": "all questions can be answered 'no'." Which is not a law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:She was clearly framed (Score:5, Insightful)
She was fired from her job for refusing to alter the statistics.
She had her home raided by armed police and all her computers seized because she tried to tell the population what the real numbers were.
She's been granted official whistleblower status after the government changed.
Yes, a false flag operation from the DeSantis offices does seem like a rather probable explanation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think we've identified another Internet wacko cult: Rebekah-truthers.
Re:She was clearly framed (Score:5, Insightful)
She really doesn't benefit from having 20k fake followers.
Others very much benefit from having her suspended from Twitter, either because they don't like her actions (e.g. somebody from DeSantis' camp), or because they are interested in creating further confusion around this topic (e.g. Russia). Either way, this was a cheap, effective way to achieve that goal.
That doesn't mean that it definitely was a false-flag operation, it just seems the option that makes the most sense.
I think the bigger topic here is that platforms like Twitter are inherently evil. Due to their size and their algorithmic approach to problem-solving, any solution to an existing problem they come up with only creates more opportunities for new problems. Suspending people with fake followers seems like a great idea, until you realize how easy it is to buy fake followers for other people. Any solution Twitter comes up with to this problem (if they intend to solve it at all) will only be an avenue for new ways to abuse the system. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter need to be curtailed by laws. Recommendation algorithms, which are the root of why these platforms are so dangerous, need to be outlawed for social networks.
Call me naive, but... (Score:1)
Could it be that there are no good guys here?
Re: (Score:2)
Yabbut... (Score:2)
Re: She was clearly framed (Score:5, Informative)
Ya, this would have nothing to do with with her political aspirations .. nothing at all..
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s... [google.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Permanently suspend Twitter (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll hear people say that if one gets banned from some private platform that these people can just build another. Didn't Twitter get banned in Nigeria? So Twitter should just build itself a new Nigeria.
The reason people flocked to these social media platforms was because they served as a means for people to communicate. If the platforms fail to serve this function then they should expect people to leave. It would not be unexpected to face government restrictions if these platforms are used as a tool against the government.
These platforms need to pick a lane. The government offers protections for communications classified as "common carriers" or whatever the equivalent term is for transportation on media. To get this protection means that the carriers do not retain editorial control. Their control is limited to restricting illegal behavior, such as taking down posts of state secrets, and taking down attacks on their own systems, such as removing worms, trojan attacks, and viruses. They can't keep claiming common carrier protections while retaining the authority to ban people they disagree with.
Twitter will ban elected government officials while allowing known terrorists to maintain their access to Twitter. I don't know what is going on in Nigeria, maybe the government should be silenced. Don't be surprised if government officials don't like the idea of a platform offering access to the opposition while not giving the government the ability to respond. Twitter being barred from Nigeria is supposed to be a threat to free speech? How is it defending free speech to allow a platform into a nation that keeps government officials from communicating with the citizens of that nation? It's not a platform tor free speech if only the people they agree with get to speak.
Permanently suspend Twitter. Delete the app from your devices. If they can't allow an opposing voice on their platform then everything on Twitter is suspect. It should all be assumed to be lies, propaganda, biased, and lacking any basis in reality. Don't trust them if they tell you the sky is blue if they will not allow someone to make the argument that the sky is actually orange.
Ban Twitter.
Re: Permanently suspend Twitter (Score:2)
Common carrier applies to Comcast, AT&T, cogent, and other providers. As long as they donâ(TM)t mess with whatâ(TM)s carried. Which is why dns meddling seems such a grey area.
Re: (Score:2)
> So Twitter should just build itself a new Nigeria
Because software and countries are so similar? Twitter is replicable enough that a software engineer might be asked to architect a Twitter clone during a job interview. Computers and Internet access much more available than land areas the size of Nigeria.
Twitter is a free service run by a private business that offer terms that you must accept if you want to use the service. You want anyone to be able to use this free service with no limitations whatsoe
Re:Permanently suspend Twitter (Score:4, Insightful)
Twitter is a free service run by a private business that offer terms that you must accept if you want to use the service.
If Twitter wants to operate in Nigeria then they need to follow the rules the government sets. It cuts both ways.
You want anyone to be able to use this free service with no limitations whatsoever.
No, I want them to pick a lane. If they want to publish commentary that fits their political views then they need to stop claiming to be an open platform. If they want to fill the role of an open platform then they need to stop banning people that have differing political views.
I've followed this for a while and what is happening is that people signed up with these platforms with the promise of getting viewers, advertisers, and the ability to say what they wanted to say. If a platform calls for no pornography then that's fine. YouTube, as an example, seems okay with some profanity and violence. To put this in the MPAA ratings I would call it somewhere between PG-13 and R. They have an image to keep on what content they carry, which is fine. What is not fine is when their rules are not enforced equally, and they can't define the rules clearly so content creators can know what is permitted and what is not.
That's not an issue of free speech, it's a matter of complying with the contract both sides agreed to. If people using the platform can't get a clear answer on what is in the contract then there is no contract.
You are saying that the Government should force a private business to provide free service without limits which is very un-American.
What is un-American is a government that fails to enforce contracts. This is basic contract law here. If Twitter and YouTube say they have rules on content and conduct then there can be consequences for this. If YouTube says they will pay for content that complies with the rules by helping with finding advertisers then there should be consequences for what amounts to theft by "de-monetizing" content. If I'm told I would get paid for videos talking about current events, and then I don't get paid, then that is a violation of the contract. YouTube and Twitter has a free service as well but there is still a contract there. There is a contract between Twitter and every user. If someone posts something to Twitter, and it's not breaking some law to spread that around, then Twitter is obligated to allow others to see it. The people that want to know what someone thinks then Twitter is contractually obligated to give them that content. It's un-American to let some big business get away with this violation of contract.
Take the internet out of this. Imagine a kind of free to use library or gallery, but privately owned. There will be places set aside for artists to put up various kinds of art for the public to view. Things like photos, oil and water paintings, sculptures, performances of music or plays, poetry, short novels, or shrubbery. It's organized so that people can find their favored artists easily. It's free to come and go, but the people running the place hope to make a profit by mixing art people paid to display with free art, and by selling coffee and donuts, tickers to some performances, or whatever. If the gallery starts changing the rules on what it allowed in a performance after they agreed to sell tickets then that's a kick in the nuts to those that put a lot of money and effort into putting on a good show. If they don't sell tickets, and just let people in without paying, then they profit by selling more t-shirts and overpriced coffee. If the show is simply closed then the gallery might take a negligible hit on income but the people that thought they'd get butts in seats to pay for tickets could end up bankrupt.
If the gallery claims to be open to display anything but pornography and stolen goods then fail to do so then that's a scam. It's un-American to allow people to be scammed. It is certain
Re:Permanently suspend Twitter (Score:5, Informative)
Honestly, I'm not even going to read your diatribe there. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, probably because you've been listening to people that lie to you.
Do you hate the First Amendment? Twitter has First Amendment rights too.
Read this:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]
"Two myths about Section 230 have developed in recent years and clouded today’s debates about the law. One says that Section 230 somehow requires online services to be “neutral public forums”: that if they show “bias” in their decisions about what material to show or hide from users, they lose their liability shield under Section 230 (this myth drives today’s deeply misguided “platform vs. publisher” rhetoric). The other myth is that if Section 230 were repealed, online platforms would suddenly turn into “neutral” forums, doing nothing to remove or promote certain users’ speech. Both myths ignore that Section 230 isn’t what protects platforms’ right to reflect any editorial viewpoint in how it moderates users’ speech—the First Amendment to the Constitution is. The First Amendment protects platforms’ right to moderate and curate users’ speech to reflect their views, and Section 230 additionally protects them from certain types of liability for their users’ speech. It’s not one or the other; it’s both."
Re: (Score:2)
These platforms need to pick a lane.
You need to pick a platform that has picked it's lane, and the government needs to stay out of it (literally, because "Congress shall make no law . . ."). But your point regarding a perceived monoculture of Tweets demonstrates that they are not common carriers--Twitter is a destination where people go for a certain vibe. When people on Twitter refer to it as "this hellsite" they are not referring to everything it has in common with Gab and Parler and Facebook and TikToc. People. are picking a lane every tim
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In print there are copy shops and newspapers. A newspaper is held legally responsible for why they print but a copy shop is not. Twitter wants the protections of not being held liable like a copy shop but also have the editorial control of a newspaper.
The government already requires companies to pick a lane in other realms, I only ask the government to do the same to Twitter. Part of free speech is a copy shop can't be sued out of existence because one group doesn't like what another group printed at the
Re: (Score:3)
In print there are copy shops and newspapers. A newspaper is held legally responsible for why they print but a copy shop is not. Twitter wants the protections of not being held liable like a copy shop but also have the editorial control of a newspaper.
Fixed media is different from hosting content on the internet which should be obvious to anyone, which is also why they are treated differently. And when you say "Twitter", it's actually all sites that deal in UGC you are talking about.
The government already requires companies to pick a lane in other realms, I only ask the government to do the same to Twitter. Part of free speech is a copy shop can't be sued out of existence because one group doesn't like what another group printed at their shop. Another part is that a newspaper isn't free from consequences on defaming people.
You really want a specia
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is simple but not perfect, follow the fucking TOS of the service you use.
I agree. Twitter, YouTube, and the like are not following their own TOS. They ban people and when people ask what part of the TOS they violated they cannot answer. That is a violation of contract and the US government needs to hold them too it.
Re: Permanently suspend Twitter (Score:2)
I'll hear people say that if one gets banned from some private platform that these people can just build another. Didn't Twitter get banned in Nigeria? So Twitter should just build itself a new Nigeria.
You keep destroying your own point. Twitter and Nigeria can do whatever they want. Don't do business with either of them if you don't want to, that's exactly what Nigeria did. It can't compel Twitter to do anything.
Of course you can't make a new Nigeria. You (no offense) probably couldn't make a new Twitter. So your remedy is what, U.S. government intervention forcing Twitter ... and Nigeria ... to do what you want? Why can't either of them do exactly what they're doing right now, and you just deal wi
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not asking the US federal government to force Nigeria to do anything. I want the US federal government to follow Nigeria's lead. Twitter is toxic to free speech if they can silence some elected officials while continuing to allow know criminals to spread lies and hate.
I don't expect the federal government to ban Twitter. I expect Twitter to talk themselves into a corner with their double speak. They want to claim to be an open platform while not actually being one. If the government doesn't take th
Re: (Score:2)
> I want the US federal government to follow Nigeria's lead. Twitter is toxic to free speech if they can silence some elected officials while continuing to allow know criminals to spread lies and hate.
Which books should we burn first? Let me guess what you might pick, the Quran? I don't think you realize how authoritarian and un-American you sound.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll hear people say that if one gets banned from some private platform that these people can just build another. Didn't Twitter get banned in Nigeria? So Twitter should just build itself a new Nigeria.
How you got modded insightful for conflating a government action and a private action is beyond me. I expect this kind of stupid stuff from -1 but not from +5
Missed the joke (Re:Permanently suspend Twitter) (Score:2)
If I have to explain the joke then it's not funny.
Re: (Score:1)
These platforms need to pick a lane. The government offers protections for communications classified as "common carriers" or whatever the equivalent term is for transportation on media. To get this protection means that the carriers do not retain editorial control. Their control is limited to restricting illegal behavior, such as taking down posts of state secrets, and taking down attacks on their own systems, such as removing worms, trojan attacks, and viruses. They can't keep claiming common carrier protections while retaining the authority to ban people they disagree with.
This is a ridiculously bad description of the legal landscape governing Twitter.
1. Twitter isn't a "common carrier" and doesn't claim to be, nor do they claim any special legal protection tied to "common carrier" status.
2. The "protection" you're referring to is not at all dependent on whether or not Twitter retains editorial control. In fact, the protection is explicitly made available so that information content providers can restrict access to material considered "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, exces
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO Twitter is very different from Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, SnapChat, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, etc., so I think Twitter is effectively monopoly in its specific sector (microblogging). I don't even know who is 2nd. You could count the number of direct followers, ~70 million in the USA, but almost every news source references and quotes them from time to time, so their reach is effectively everyone.
So I don't think you can make good arguments based on a philosophical construction where Twitter is on
Re: (Score:1)
Whether Twitter is a monopoly has no bearing on 47 USC 230 and the liability shield it provides.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether Twitter is a monopoly has no bearing on 47 USC 230 and the liability shield it provides.
I never said it does, and I don't understand why you brought 230 into it, so please explain, I'm trying to learn (seriously).
Re: (Score:1)
Whether Twitter is a monopoly has no bearing on 47 USC 230 and the liability shield it provides.
I never said it does, and I don't understand why you brought 230 into it, so please explain, I'm trying to learn (seriously).
The post I was responding to said, "The government offers protections [...]". Unless the poster has something else in mind, "protections" is a reference to the liability shield provided by 47 USC 230 (otherwise known as "CDA section 230" or similar things). I'm fairly confident the poster was referring to 230, because the rest of the paragraph was the same sort of misinformation that always accompanies discussions on social media and 230. For whatever reason, 230 is commonly misrepresented as presenting a "
Re: (Score:2)
So, Twitter will let me kill anyone's account? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, for the cost of a couple of 10k blocks of followers, I can get any account on Twitter killed? Neat feature, that.
Re: (Score:2)
What cost. You can probably automate the whole process with the key being you make all the accounts first then after they are setup, you subscribe.
Re: (Score:1)
Such a hitjob would cost waaaay way way less than a weekend on a yacht with cocaine and hookers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this was Doxxing, Twitter have the Evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
Buried in the thread you will find at my first link, above, you will see that part of the explanation given points an accusing finger at a malicious mobile application called "Round Year Fun", which has many different variations [presumably - I haven't looked - because the App Store/Marketplace curators are playing whack-a-mole with the developers]. The way the app works is that unsuspecting users download and install it and because it is designed to work in conjunction with the Twitter App on your smartphone, users grant "Round Year Fun" lots of permissions.
Among delivering the features it claims, the application then uses the permissions it has been granted to perform a bunch of stealthy actions. One of these includes providing the apps maintainers with the ability to "mass follow" any other Twitter account, but it does this in a particularly devious way. It "follows" the target account, but then it immediately "mutes" the accounts that it follows.
Why would it do this? Simple - so the person who has installed "Round Year Fun" isn't aware that this piece of software is being used for malicious purposes.
OK, OK, but why do we care about any of that?
Because Twitter should be able to detect the "muting"
Whilst they can be frustrating at times, Twitter's tekkies aren't stupid. They know that their application is a target for criminal manipulators. So they must also know that criminals can abuse the mute feature to do this.
Now, this isn't going to directly help Rebekah Jones, because of course even knowing that her account had been manipulated by Jones herself or someone doxxing her, but if Twitter had been "on their game" then they would have been aware of these services long before such manipulation took place on her account.
Which means that Twitter have had plenty of time to build functionality in to their handset application to detect when an "end user" [read: manipulated smartphone client] is being manipulated] and could put in place measures to address this. For example, Twitter could post a message in to the user's feed to say, "We noticed that you just followed @RebekahJones and then immediately muted her account, so you would not get to see any posts she makes. Are you sure you meant to do that?"
Now, if Twitter had done something like this, then the users who had fallen victim to this hack of their account would at least be aware. It might give Twitter better insight to the identity of the criminal applications being posted to the App Store or Marketplace that allow this, which means that Twitter would be in a better position to partner with those entities and get the apps taken down. It should also allow those "App Stores" to message users who *had* downloaded the malicious app with information along the lines of, "Hey, we noticed that on MM/DD/YY that you downloaded an App called "Round Year Fun". We've discovered that this app contains malicious code and we recommend you delete it immediately... Follow to read about what we found, so you can make an informed choice."
It's all well and good for Twitter to say that they "have nothing further to add".
Maybe that's because if they did add something, then they would have to admit that their platform is vulnerable to criminal manipulation.
Knee (Score:3)
Twitter's response? "We have nothing further to add beyond what I shared."
Because nothing says confidence you are not a political kneebender censoring the opposition of those who are literally initiating proceedings to break you up than hiding the details of that censorship.
What about option C? (Score:3, Interesting)
What is not known is whether Rebekah Jones purchased the followers herself, or whether it was a false-flag campaign meant to discredit her (someone else purchased the followers and directed them at her account to make it appear she broke Twitter's rules).
Option C: This average person suddenly thrust into the limelight - and not just any limelight, but a hyper-politicized one in a hyper-politicized moment - makes the well-intentioned mistake of hiring a PR firm, and the PR firm she happens to hire - because average people can't exactly call up Kanye or Lady Gaga and ask them who does their PR - is not a very reputable one (even by the scumbag standards of PR as an institution).
This PR firm does what "disreputable even by the scumbag standards of PR as an institution" firms do, and immediately buys a bunch of fake social media followers for their client, a tactic which was cutting edge ten years ago (just look at what it did for Chrissy Teigen) but now basically only works on Youtube. Jones likely isn't aware of this in advance, and even if she was, she probably assumes that the person she hired to handle PR knows how to handle PR. The PR firm might even instruct her to interact with a few of the fake accounts, which again is going by the playbook that worked on Twitter in 2011. Unfortunately, in 2021 it's pretty obvious what's going on.
So, she'd be clearly guilty by the letter of the rules, but at the same time, not exactly guilty in the scheming-mastermind sense.
Occam's Razor (Score:3)
What's more likely: that Rebekah Jones, a former and otherwise completely unremarkable employee of Florida State had the money to go and employ a PR firm, then, despite feeling the need for PR, didn't tell anyone about it, then forbade the PR company from making any announcements about it, then instructed the PR firm to go and break the Terms of Use of Twitter...
Rebekah Jones just got doxxed on Twitter.
To help you think about th
Re: (Score:2)
That is, forgive me, an absolutely insane use of Occam's Razor (which itself is honestly a pretty stupid concept - it's quite possibly the original "checkmate, atheists". What's more likely, that a bunch of Egyptians without access to aerial imagery or combustion engines managed to coordinate hundreds and hundreds of workers over years in order to erect gigantic pyramids that have withstood hundreds of years of natural erosion, or that they were built on a whim by advanced aliens?).
Generally Occam's Razor i
Re: (Score:2)
But if you're not comfortable with my application of Occam's Razor, would you let me substitute Blore's Razor instead?
"Given a choice between two theories, take the one which is funnier..."
Yes, yes, I'll see myself out...
... or they were NOT paid for? (Score:3)
They note a spike of 10k followers... that doesn't seem like all that much really. I honestly started following her around that same time (this isn't a confession that I'm a bot either, lol).
If twitter is certain they're bots, then there are still other options:
a) she paid for them
b) someone else paid for them to set her up
c) someone else paid for them for other motives (to help her, just for chaos, who knows)
d) the bots used her. Bots need to follow legit people to seem more legit themselves, and she seems like a prime candidate for a bot to follow for its owners own reasons.
She's a liar (Score:1)
Here's ONE link, there are many if you take off your partisan blinders for two seconds:
https://news.yahoo.com/rebekah... [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that link, it helped explain things a bit.
Re: (Score:1)
Here's ONE link, there are many if you take off your partisan blinders for two seconds:
You're just laundering a piece from the hyper-partisan National Review through a Yahoo link
No excuse (Score:3)
I think she's full of shit. Which changes nothing - censorship is and will always be wrong.
Can someone buy fake followers for DeSantis? (Score:2)