If Twitter is not going to ban users for repeated harassment then their competitive goals will simply *never* be achieved.

So, to sum up: Twitter is its own worst enemy in more ways than one, and is clearly not competent to handle the kind of community that it has attracted, also in more ways than one. Furthermore, they clearly have lied to Ariel Waldman on several occasions since the statements that they have made (and even Evan Williams did not deny those statements to Ariel were made in his rather ugly and telling attempt to smear her credibility) simply cannot be reconciled with each other.

Twitter could not possibly have come out of this looking worse.

I’ve been like that for a long while, but a few years ago I was diagnosed with leukemia and had a stem cell transplant (2 yrs remission), so now all of my time is even more precious to me. I spend it doing things I enjoy, spending time with loved ones, and having a good laugh every day. Life is way too short to spend it writing long drawn out blog posts addressing the losers of the internet. And if I feel like writing something, I do and just leave it at that. I don’t spend days addressing comments back and forth. Gosh, how stressful.

The internet is a mixed blessing. But I find it much more positive than anything; perhaps it is an attitude thing?

P.S. I own up to the names people have called me (or things I’ve called myself). I think they are funny: Cuntzilla, Bitchkateer, Osama deb Ladin, Whore-iffic, etc. If you don’t give them power over you, they don’t bother you.

I’ve been called far worse things on other pages and on Twitter; I’ve had real nasty physical threats and vows by creeps to come punch me out in real life. I never reported this to Twitter, however, because if the threats are that serious, I need to go to my police, and not fool around waiting for a large and busy social media site to figure out their TOS.

But…they are just empty threats and name-calling by the usual insecure lame Internet loons that exist everywhere. I don’t believe you get rid of them by borking and nerfing the entire platform around them and making it less free for everybody.

It is not against the Constitution to call people names; indeed; it is held up by the Constitution (Times v. Sullivan) for public figures. And thank God for it. Where will the First Amendment take place, if it doesn’t take place here, where people are?

I also fully support what Shelley is saying. I think it’s totally relevant that she’s pointing out that we’re being enlisted into a bit-by-bit battle that is beyond Twitter and beyond fixing by banning this or that account. I believe strongly in fighting back and exposing people like this continually, not by wilting and running and trying to get them banned. There is a kind of received wisdom that you shouldn’t publicize griefers or “feed trolls” (a term I reject completely); but we never say that about real-life terrorists like bin Ladn, whose every tape is publicized and scrutinizied. Cyber bullies should be exposed and condemned in the same way.

Even aside from the specifics of this case, the issue really does hang on interpretation of harassment, not “failure to enforce the TOS” by the lights of this or that huffy and neuralgic patron who believes they’ve been dissed. Harassment has to rise to a much higher threshold than –as Ev has very aptly put it — hurt feelings and being called a name.

And that’s just the point — really serious stalking and harassing with incitement or threat of violence in real life to a real person at a real address is the sort of thing that your lawyer and local police deal with, not a social media platform. And what doesn’t rise to that test and is just annoying griefing can be deal with by *not following yourself on track or summize*. It’s just that simple. Read only people you follow and stop craning your neck to gawk at your vanity feed and you will have less whiplash.

I sincerely hope Ev does NOT start a “block track” function precisely because I think it will mean that news aggregators like News Gang or Scobleizer will be able to get away with sanitizing their tracks free of criticism or alternative opinion and then feed that back as “the news” — which is scary stuff in a world where mainstream media is dwindling and *they’re it*.

That’s what this is about. It’s about keeping the new media free, so that it does not become something worse than the old media, inaccessible to dissent or alternative opinions and presentation of different facts than the norm. If “the community” is to dictate what is acceptable and only spoon-feed itself happy little pablums, then it is worse than mainstream media, which at least had a vision of serving the public interest and vetting material through responsible editorial boards.

I can’t understand how someone who uses the phrase “Chitty Chitty Gang Bang” as part of her blog would be concerned about her reputation if someone Googled her. I’ve been stalked in real life by a truly dangerous person, not some name caller. It’s scary.

I also know someone who has been stalked and e-harassed online. I can’t imagine putting it all out on the internet. Restraining order was filed. Police involved. When you start blogging and spreading the word all over the place, all you are doing is giving the harasser some attention. You let them know it’s bothering you. I don’t feed trolls. I thought this could have been handled with a little more tact. Really concerned, well you should have had your attorney contact Twitter to deal with it instead of blogging it. I hate Whinese.

I’m curious what is harassment to Twitter, if this isn’t. I’m also curious why the lawsuit matter is being ignored. For all the bloghopping to explain, there really isn’t transparency here.

The whole “we’re a utility” argument is laughable. What about the ISPs and hosting companies–what are they? Chopped liver? I mean really, you can’t have it both ways: have user account rules and then step back and not enforce them.

Ultimately, I think there’s a bunch of wrong people on this issue… and even my opinion could be wrong. It’s time for someone to just sue someone already and let our legal system work it out. A bunch of web folks opinions here are very interesting but lack legal experience (mine included).

No, it is not. It is nothing more than using a derogatory term against another. Whether you’re horrified about it happening or not, or think that words are the worst things we can throw at one another, it is still nothing more than a word and as such, only has power when we give it power.

Ariel mentions about this other woman “stalking” her for years. There are anti-stalking laws, and as such she should resolve this issue with the police. If she were physically threatened, then she should do the same. Additionally, I have no doubts, whatsoever that Ev would have closed the account down if she–or anyone for that matter–was physically threatened.

But Ariel wanted this account closed down because this women called her a name, said insulting things about her. Whatever goes on elsewhere is not the responsibility of Ev or Twitter, so let’s focus on what she did in Twitter–she called Ariel a name, and said insulting things about her.

If we women fall and fold and run and flee, to this authority or that to “protect us” every time someone calls us a name, then we will be falling and folding and running and fleeing every damn day of our lives.

In the comments here and elsewhere, I am not defending Twitter’s actions–I’m defending women. Every time an event like this happens, it sends a signal that we women are vulnerable to “names”. That we can be banished, sent fleeing, just by being called a “name”. We will never stop being called names until we stand, turn, and spit in the faces of those who seek to spend little effort for great return.

Conferences that have only male speakers, men only on top weblog lists, women not given the respect our due–these hurt us. Names, are nothing more than words from simple minds, incapable of greater argument.

In particular, once Ariel took the job with a Twitter competitor, the rules of the game changed. The fact that all of this arose after the job, rather than before must be weighed in this particular debate.

As for the “harasser”, get a lawyer, Ariel, or go to the police. Don’t fight your battles bit by bit in every social network you belong to. Don’t ask us to fight your battles for you. We have our own.

Calling someone a cunt is harassment, period (at least in the U.S., and I believe that both harasser and harassee are from there). If Twitter’s TOS indeed claimed to protect users from harassment, then they have truly failed at doing so.

Will I stop using Twitter? No. Do I think Ariel Waldman has perhaps abused her position to get attention? Yes. But as a woman, I absolutely don’t stand for the male staff at Twitter making a call that calling a woman a “cunt” is not harassment.