News: 1620383164

Try that one.

Only block heads trust in blockchain!

[Icon: roasted!]

I think the filter is probably more to encourage people not to call their enemies twats rather than to ask them to tone it down when they ask allege that their foes bathroom is carpeted.

It would take quite an AI to work out that "I bet you hoover your bathroom" is meant as an insult.

I just knew that bathroom-cam was a mistake.

You definitely need to lose a few pounds. ;-)

In the olden days (and even in today's British Parliament sessions) insults were (are) often masquerading as polite statements.

"I would seem that the gentleman from Bath has not yet had sufficient time to fully study the entirety of the documents."

Translation: "The guy from Bath just isn't smart enough to comprehend a simple statement."

Don't count on AI to filter such insults any time soon.

On the bright side, maybe society will swap the often crass and uncouth insults for polite put-downs.

Always a good test of any "clever" filter.

Sunny Scuni. The holiday destinations to top them all ;)

It can be hard work at times, but I find my sanity is impacted less if I just ignore the idiots on Twitter, just don't engage with any account that has more than 4 numbers in the @

> I described PR people as "sociopaths" and "pointless".

> The app said naught.

Twitter said it will ask you to reconsider "mean" tweets. Their definition of "mean" is apparently different that yours.

I think that twitter's definition of mean is "any political statement that we disagree with".

You should try tweeting something pro Trump, or anti-covid vaccination, or that "biological men should not compete in women's sports".

I suspect that you just haven't said anything then consider politically mean or harmful.

Of course if you do tweet something like that, be prepared to be cancelled.

Really? With the amount of anti-vax BS, senior politicians saying things that should result in resignations and tweets that get reported I really wonder about that.

I mean, just look at Laurence Fox (Pox? Sox? Whatever his surname was). It's pretty much a rolling chain of insults with people that don't agree with him and yet he's still on twitter.

Or is that the tame things they let onto the platform?

I'm starting to wonder if infact these companies should be forced to moderate the dialogue (not unlike El Reg - Bring back the Moderatorix!).

On second thoughts, maybe there should be a number of key commenters able to name and shame terrible comments? Force real world consequences for online misbehaviour?

Gimp icon because you know there'd be some that enjoy it.

Your Mother was A Hamster

and your Father Smelled of elder berries

Go away! Before I shall taunt you a second time! *prepares a cow in a trebuchet*

But did you fart in his general direction?

--> Friday

I wonder how well it will cope with grammatical errors in the insult?

Romanes eunt domus

For instance...

I don't have a twitter account so I can't test it.

I do, but I only use it to point out errors, mistkaes, and inconsistencies of 'experts' in the tech field. I've probably made less than 20...

You only spotted 20 errors/inconsistencies in the tech field? On Twitter?

> Social media in general has a tendency to make strangers feel remote and abstract. They aren't people, but rather pixels on a screen, and thus it's easier to tweet things you wouldn't dare say to their faces.

There are I think three core factors involved.

1. In the physical presence of other people, we moderate our reactions, with the extent of the moderation being in relation to how well we know the people in our company; the more they are strangers, the more we moderate our reaction. We expect our friends, those who are close to us, to sympathize with our pain and so allow ourselves a greater expression of our feeling; but with strangers we know they will have little sympathy with us, and we look to moderate our reaction so it is fitting in their eyes.

2. The man who lives alone feels emotion more strongly than anyone else; but there is a lack of appropriateness. Such a man might feel the greatest sympathy or sorrow or rage, but if he lived his life in the company of others, with friends, being social, he would have far more perspective and hardly care or notice things which being alone would dominate his mind.

3. As our dear El Reggo opines, the physical absence of the target of our response removes (rather like #1) moderations which we would otherwise would impose upon our own behaviour, in part from consideration of how the other person will judge our reactions. We do not wish to look disproportionate, even in the eyes of the person with whom we have taken up an objection.

We see then that the environment of posting upon on-line forums is actually the worst possible combination of all three factors. It is where we as humans are least able to moderate our conduct.

I recently made a Twitter account, for business (I do not myself keep social media accounts).

I made the account but I've yet to use it, so it's been created but it's done nothing; no posts, no following, not been followed, nothing.

I logged in occasionally to perform configuration work.

Now and then when looking in I'm asked to complete a Google captcha - well, okay, shrug.

Then a day or two ago, I was informed my actions has violated Twitters Rules (capital R) and my account had been locked, and I would need to pass a captcha *and provide my phone number*. I did not provide a phone number when making the account, and phone numbers are gold for data collation, which is central to the business model for Twitter, Facebook and the like.

It has led me to speculate that Twitter is using security as a ruse to obtain phone numbers for data collation and so monetization.