Methods of debate: abusing Twitter spam mechanisms

Cap’n Ed asks. Twitter eats itself?

“It turns out that detractors don’t like engagement … they just like to bully people. Instead of responding to Chris’ arguments, they began organizing an effort to force Twitter into suspending him by reporting his Twitter stream as spam.”

It is an ‘ends justifies the means’ approach where rights and privileges are strained by irresponsibility.

“a self-policing population only works when the population is mature enough to handle the responsibility. Using the spam-reporting mechanism built into Twitter and its after-market applications, liberal activists are succeeding in tricking the Twitter system into suspending the accounts of conservatives

“Now that the Left is abusing the spam mechanism, Twitter will almost certainly have to suspend its use, which means the only people who will win this game are the spammers, and we’ll have no way to deal with the flood of annoying marketing messages.”

Another indicative behavior is that the irresponsible parties are bragging about their efforts and successes. They seem impervious to the consequences of their behavior.

There is pushback and it is not ‘in kind’ – at the Twitchy blog:

“The progressives never expect pushback. But with the back-to-back suspensions of @freemarket_us and @chrisloesch, the conservative activist community online is banding together to Flag the Flag-Spammers for Twitter to see all in one place — no, not by abusing the flag-spam system, but by naming names and showing Twitter the extent of the problem.”

The issue is part and parcel of the Democracy vs Republic debate that the founders debated in creating the form of U.S. governance. The adage is that, once people find out they can vote themselves money, all bets on sanity are off. How do you deal with the fundamental nature of the individual human?

In this case, the irresponsibility expressed in the abuse of systems intended to maintain civility is correlated with the same individuals who have protests about wanting other people’s money, protests where trash and crime are the major evidence left behind. These people have the same approach towards others as those who write computer viruses, breach banking accounts for fun and profit, and find ways around mechanisms established to inhibit annoying solicitations. Laws are being proposed but they are difficult to word in such a way as to avoid unpleasant consequences. The fundamental issue is about people whose behavior is not in line with their ideology.

Comments are closed.