Show threadDoc Edward Morbius ⭕​Jul 2, 2022

@mcc So, no real answer to your direct problem here, but some possibly useful concepts.

I'm not on and am not familiar with Twitter's noise controls so I don't know what applies here.

What you're describing is a basic amplification attack. It operates through replies and tagging. As you note, there's no keyword latch onto for anti-spam actions, but there are other signifiers, and Twitter's anti-abuse / trust-and-safety teams are probably sorting how to deal with this.

(For numerous platforms this is now effectively a machine-learning problem. My understanding is that Google's properties operate this way, and Facebook's largely do as well, which may explain many of the weird behaviours seen from those systems, for which the only thing I can say is that they're likely as confounding to the site's operators as they are to people on the sites, not that that's a good thing...)

What I've seen on other platforms is that notifications can be restricted. On an earlier Google platform (Google+), the ability to comment on a post, and the ability to generate notifications could both be set to specific sets of profiles ("Circles"). I created two Circles, "Notifications" and "Comments", which I'd add profiles to liberally, but remove as needed. I could still communicate and hear form most profiles of interest but abuse ability was limited. I've not seen that capacity elsewhere.

(G+ gets a lot of criticism, much well-deserved. From my experience at the time and retrospective analysis since, it seemed to do a really good job of mitigating many of the worst abuses that have plagued other platforms.)

The mechanism gets to a reconceptualisation I've been having about communications in general, what I've been calling #CommunicationsAutonomy (or a few other variants --- it's not a graceful phrase and I'm inconsistent...). I've recently run across #LaniWalker's concept of #EpistemicRights, which would be a subset of this.

The core idea is that there are a set of interrelated, and yes, often contradictory rights around information, association, assembly, etc., focused around:

  • send ↔ receive
  • create ↔ destroy
  • reveal ↔ conceal
  • associate ↔ disassociate
  • express ↔ withhold
  • authenticate ↔ repudiate

Privacy, for example is the ability to set and defend limits on the spread of your personal information.

In your case, the question is your right to preemptively opt out of unwanted communications. I've noted myself that somewhere between about a dozen and two dozen daily text interruptions is about my own annoyance threshold.

There's more here (mostly in comments): https://diaspora.glasswings.com/posts/622677903778013902fd002590d8e506

Point being that these are the sorts of issues Twitter (and any other platform architects / operators) should be looking at.

Meantime, elevating your own voice & concerns would be a Good Thing.

#CommunicationAutonomy #AutonomyInCommunication

Which has primacy?

Which has primacy? 1. Freedom of Speech or 2. Autonomy in Commmunication How do these differ? What do they comprise of? What conflicting or intersecting rights exist? Yes, I've not defined terms. I have definitions in mind, but am also trialing language. The 2nd term is novel and appears not to be in significant use. I'm interested in seeing what others presume the meaning to be. #FreeSpeech #AutonomousCommunication

Glass Wings diaspora* social network
Doc Edward Morbius ⭕​Feb 5, 2022

@openrisk Thanks, that's one of the references I'd found earlier.

Another possible interpretation I'd had was at a personal level of having sovereignty over one's own data.

I've discussed that under a few terms, #AutonomyOfInformation #InformationAutonomy #CommunicationsAutonomy and #AutonomousCommunication (I keep using different terms and have trouble settling on one).

It mixes a set of factors, mostly in opposition to the monopoly elements of surveillance, censorship, propaganda, and manipulation. Those include:

  • Privacy
  • Freedom of, and from, association.
  • Right to free speech.
  • Right to accurate information
  • Freedom from messaging. Effectively a "right to block".

Or as I'd put it in a comment to the link here:

  • The right to speak, create, record, edit, modify, publish, transmit, distribute, or delete. Corresponds largely to current senses of “freedom of speech”.
  • The right to withold or not divulge information, most commonly enccountered now as a “right to remain silent” in legal proceedings, and of confidentiality in records, but here a general right to privacy.
  • The right to disclose only specific information in specific contexts or to specific parties: a right to confidentiality.
  • The right to choose with whom, where, when, and how to interact — a right to free association.
  • The right to remain unobserved and undisturbed; rights to privacy and solitude — freedom from association.
  • The right to receive, or deny receipt of documents and, signals… A freedom to or from media or intrusion.
  • The right to request, or transform, transmissions or documents in forms or formats most preferred to the recipent. Right of translation.
  • The right to truth, accuracy, integrity, and completeness in documents and signals.
  • The right to technical means of assuring privacy, confidentiality, and/or integrity. Rights to cryptographic encryption and/or authentication.
  • The right to technical means of repudiation. Invalidation of authentication after a sufficient time period.

https://diaspora.glasswings.com/posts/622677903778013902fd002590d8e506

Which has primacy?

Which has primacy? 1. Freedom of Speech or 2. Autonomy in Commmunication How do these differ? What do they comprise of? What conflicting or intersecting rights exist? Yes, I've not defined terms. I have definitions in mind, but am also trialing language. The 2nd term is novel and appears not to be in significant use. I'm interested in seeing what others presume the meaning to be. #FreeSpeech #AutonomousCommunication

Glass Wings diaspora* social network