I originally said "Yes" to the first one, but then changed it to "No", and then back to "Yes".
Because I don't think that it should be taken as a death threat - it's a public statement, being made from long distance. So I don't think of it as an actual death threat. I _do_ think of it as generally abusive behaviour though. And while I'm in favour of free speech, my limits are when it comes to deliberately setting out to make someone feel threatened.
When it comes to making jokes on Twitter about celebrities dying, I see there being a world of difference between "I'm going to laugh when Sting dies, the pompous arse" and "I'm going to laugh when @Sting dies, the pompous arse". The first will be seen by you and your followers/friends. The second is one where you've deliberately included the person you're joking about, and have thus turned a semi-public/semi-private conversation into an attack on someone. Thus, appalling behaviour.
I think it's odd that people would be all down on a poster for being racist or sexually harassing in a joke, but murder in a joke is okay somehow?
No it's not. It's really not. It eggs on a culture of violence and makes people feel threatened to an extent that people (I'm one of them) quit positions of power rather than subject myself to death threats.
Sorry, reference in the web sense. I'm writing something to appear on the web and I say "That BBC news article about guns this week" it would have been better had I given a URL. On twitter if I'm writing about that bloke Dave Turvey it would have been better if I had given an @ address.
Except that and @ is not the same as a URL. A URL doesn't also forward on your blog post to the person it's referencing. Using @Sting in your tweet is the same as writing a blog post with a URL and then emailing it to the person you wrote it about. Hence, worse behaviour, IMHO.
It allows that person to see the tweet easily yes. We can argue all day about which is the appropriate metaphor: Is it like 1) insulting someone and then posting them a copy of the insult or 2) posting a hostile webpage with a link to someone's web page so if they choose they can search for the incoming URL or 3) posting a link to a livejournal post saying "this guys a fool" knowing they'll be hit by the pingback bot.
Really though, that's pretty unhelpful. It is what it is and I'm not sure trying to transfer known "good behaviour" from one context is helpful.
1) It's the correct way to provide a reference to that person on that system. On the other hand: 2) It has the effect of alerting that person to the reference.
We trade that off differently.
If someone were insulting me on twitter and not using @ I'd think "Well, why are you hiding that from me you coward" as it's a deliberate attempt to conceal.
I disiagree with your (1). I would say that "It is the correct way to provide a reference to a person who you also want to see your tweet."
But I don't think we can come to meaningful agreement on that.
I also don't expect people to tell me directly about every problem they have with my behaviour, or everything I do that's annoyed them, only the ones they consider worth it. People talk about other people all the time, and only occasionally is it worth trying to effect change/have a socially difficult conversation with them.
I agree that in many social contexts we complain about a person and would not want that person to know. On twitter, however, unless it's a locked account, you are openly complaining to the whole world while deliberately not informing the person. So for me I would be more offended by someone omitting the @ than including it. It's just ill mannered.
It may be that your rule will become the established social consensus as to "polite" as I've heard it from two different people in the public eye, questioned them on the subject and heard their rationale (similar to yours). One was Mitch Benn, I can't remember the other, possibly Graham Linnehan (sp?).
Well, I'm just aware that if I say "I like the new series by @Glinner" then I've just cluttered up his twitter feed and made it harder for him to see anything with actual content in it.
On the other hand, this is a problem only for famous people, and it's not like Twitter is a reliable communication method anyway.
If you're going to say nasty things about someone, it does make a difference whether or not you go that extra step to ensure they'll read it over their cornflakes.
I have heard many, many, people call Bono all sorts of names. If they'd also sent him a letter to tell him they'd been calling him names down the pub then that would start to cross into harrassing behaviour.
Maybe but we disagree in which direction the "cunt" behaviour lies. For reference, it it's me you're insulting on twitter I think omitting the @ is the "cunt" behaviour. (Public insult hidden from me). Others I know disagree.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
philmophlegm) wrote2012-08-01 11:59 am
no subject
Because I don't think that it should be taken as a death threat - it's a public statement, being made from long distance. So I don't think of it as an actual death threat. I _do_ think of it as generally abusive behaviour though. And while I'm in favour of free speech, my limits are when it comes to deliberately setting out to make someone feel threatened.
When it comes to making jokes on Twitter about celebrities dying, I see there being a world of difference between "I'm going to laugh when Sting dies, the pompous arse" and "I'm going to laugh when @Sting dies, the pompous arse". The first will be seen by you and your followers/friends. The second is one where you've deliberately included the person you're joking about, and have thus turned a semi-public/semi-private conversation into an attack on someone. Thus, appalling behaviour.
no subject
No it's not. It's really not. It eggs on a culture of violence and makes people feel threatened to an extent that people (I'm one of them) quit positions of power rather than subject myself to death threats.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Is it like
1) insulting someone and then posting them a copy of the insult
or
2) posting a hostile webpage with a link to someone's web page so if they choose they can search for the incoming URL
or
3) posting a link to a livejournal post saying "this guys a fool" knowing they'll be hit by the pingback bot.
Really though, that's pretty unhelpful. It is what it is and I'm not sure trying to transfer known "good behaviour" from one context is helpful.
1) It's the correct way to provide a reference to that person on that system.
On the other hand:
2) It has the effect of alerting that person to the reference.
We trade that off differently.
If someone were insulting me on twitter and not using @ I'd think "Well, why are you hiding that from me you coward" as it's a deliberate attempt to conceal.
no subject
But I don't think we can come to meaningful agreement on that.
I also don't expect people to tell me directly about every problem they have with my behaviour, or everything I do that's annoyed them, only the ones they consider worth it. People talk about other people all the time, and only occasionally is it worth trying to effect change/have a socially difficult conversation with them.
no subject
no subject
Damned modern technology and it's making social rules difficult!
no subject
One was Mitch Benn, I can't remember the other, possibly Graham Linnehan (sp?).
no subject
On the other hand, this is a problem only for famous people, and it's not like Twitter is a reliable communication method anyway.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject