- Joined
- Sep 21, 2014
It's amazing how for all of them "self-care" is always something self-indulgent. It's never eating properly, exercising, or doing something physical like cleaning their living space or tidying the yard.
Secret Gamer Girl / SecretGamerGrrl / Googleshng / "Violet Hargrave" / Jacob Lawrence (Jake) Alley / Violet Cassandra Ocean - Delusional Zoe Quinn Stalker, Libelous Tweeter, Thirsty Gnome, Faux-Tranny Neckbeard Incel, Micropenis, "Known Troubled Person", Creator of "Massive vs the Masses", Self-Described "Noise Making Thing"; Lives in Niantic, CT
- Thread starter chimpburgers
- Start date
It's amazing how for all of them "self-care" is always something self-indulgent. It's never eating properly, exercising, or doing something physical like cleaning their living space or tidying the yard.
Wallace
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2015
It's because their lives are so hard that they need a little self-care in the form of ten hours complaining on Twitter about how they got literally raped today.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2015
Remember Jake's Googleshnging about block lists being "the new McCarthyism" because he is a creep and people don't want to see his tweets? "But wait, there's more!"
http://archive.is/38xMw
ETA for some reason it added more spoiler tags and split this, and it will not remove them when I edit them out.
Granted, while fairly well publicized, these organizations weren’t having all reports directly shunted to them, but knowing the size of Twitter’s staff (3000+), the size of these volunteer groups (half a dozen to a dozen people), and the rough totals of how many reports twitter gets in a day and how many of those were in the heavy spikes volunteers were running, it’s really not to much for dedicated support staff to process.And even if it were, you don’t have to get too fancy with automation to sift out the major stuff. To quote twitter themselves on this one:
More to the point, while that WAM data breaks things down by report type, the group I was working with (whose full reports I’m sadly not at liberty to share) was more focused on nailing specific instigators. Our approach was to trace back mass harassment campaigns to their original instigators. When you’re suddenly hit with 1000 accounts bombarding you with hateful messages (as is the reason Block Together is so popular), it’s ultimately because one person goaded their followers (and their followers’ botnets) into attacking. And like 98% of the time, it’s one of the same 20 or so people (or honestly, all 20). Every raid to fill a hashtag with gore, assault on a celebrity, disinformation campaign while a mass shooting is happening, effort to incite violence between protesters and police, political astroturfing, etc., it traces back to this short list.
After working out this short list of people Twitter could ban to dramatically improve things, we compiled detailed and extensive reports on each, not only of their coordination of attacks, but of the most clear, blatant, personal violations of Twitter’s rules each had recently committed, checked against criteria a couple of us had specifically been run through Twitter’s support training program. These reports were then handed off to Twitter through a dedicated channel, and followed up with a series of face to face executive level meetings to discuss the way Twitter was going to proceed.
After a number of dubious problems on their end keeping them from actually reading the report to begin with and seriously twisting some arms, they admitted that everyone named absolutely was in clear violation of basically every rule there is to violate, but they didn’t want to ban them all. The obscure ones you’d be surprised to see on the list all received (temporary) suspensions, but the really well-known and popular ones got off without even a slap on the wrist. And to be clear, I don’t mean generally well-known, I mean well-known within “the alt-right.” This wasn’t a list of people like Adam Baldwin or even Mark Kern. This was people like “Roguestar,” “Escape Velo,” “Based Stickman,” and “Ricky Vaughn.” The most “famous” name on the list was Milo Yiannopoulos, and this wasn’t even what lead to his disciplinary revocation of verified status, let alone his banning. And when pressed for the reason these instigators were being let off the hook, I’m very much paraphrasing, but the answer was more or less “we like those guys.”
And of course since giving up on that particular “safety partnership” Twitter has done plenty of more visible things, verifying more violent extremists, maintaining a very accurate database of neo-nazi accounts to hide posts from in countries with stronger laws about giving them a platform, etc.
So don’t ever tell yourself Twitter is a cesspit because cleaning it up is a technical impossibility. Letting neo-nazis have free reign of the place is an explicit willful choice the company has made and repeatedly defended.
If you ever find yourself unironically saying anything resembling the following, because Twitter occupies so much of your mind and your waking hours, then you need to have your internet cut down.
Jake claims to have "worked with" some of the "volunteer organizations" Twitter partnered with, he then expected cons like Crash Override Network (staffed by creeps like Jake, pedos like Nick Nyberg, and various other people who have no business involved like sexual harasser Rob Marmolejo) to have had "all reports directly shunted to them." He then links to an image that was going around within the past days of Twitter claiming that 1% of their userbase is responsible for producing "most of the tweets that break our rules against abuse."
@Jaimas Jake then starts talking about his time at Crash Override Network. Jake claims he has access to the "full reports" made by CON but is "not at liberty to share." Jake then claims that everything bad on Twitter is the fault of "the same 20 or so people" and that these people have "botnets."
Jake continues, saying that CON was able to 'work out' this supposed group of 20 people responsible for all of this, made "detailed and extensive" reports on each and were "handed off to Twitter through a dedicated channel, and followed up with a series of face to face executive level meetings." He also claims that only a "couple of us" at CON had been "run through Twitter's support training program."
Jake then says there were "dubious problems" that prevented Twitter from reading the CON sperging, and after "seriously twisting some arms" Twitter supposedly admitted the CON hit list had violated "basically every rule there is" but did not want to ban them all, and, to CON's chagrin, they only gave out temporary suspensions for the "obscure ones" and didn't do anything to the "really well-known and popular ones." Jake then names who some of these accounts were, saying it wasn't "a list of people like Adam Baldwin or even Mark Kern" (which Jake obviously paints a target on solely due to their comments about Gamergate), but the CON targets were Roguestar, Escape Velo, Based Stickman, Ricky Vaughn, and Milo Yiannoplous. In typical Jake Alley fashion he can't even talk without lying it seems, "Based Stickman" seems to have only made his account in March 2017. which is nearly a year after CON died.
Jake then blames Twitter for "giving up" on CON, even though he admitted in his zoepost that CHELSAY is the one who killed CON by getting bored of it ("Eventually, Quinn decided to pull the plug on the whole thing, dissolving the chat room (having migrated everyone to a private server), seizing everyone's collective work combating GG and exposing nazis, getting an extention on a then near-finished book for rewrites to remove everyone else's contributions, and checking out of the anti-abuse scene more or less entirely to work on a goofy FMV game"), Jake ends this Googleshng by claiming "neo-nazis" have "free reign of the place" and that Twitter made an "explicit willful choice" to let that happen.
Cow crossover, Jake has creepily attached himself to Rebecca in the same way he did to CHELSAY and other women he thinks he can exploit and slide into the DMs of.
http://archive.is/38xMw
The people using the block lists were told, repeatedly, that this would happen - but they were told this by political rivals and those on the edges of their own coalitions, whose status wasn’t particularly strong. Not just trolls.
From what I can tell, while the limitations of Twitter may work effectively for some artists like dril, they are actively corrosive to ordinary discourse, because it’s impossible to compress enough information into such a small space without losing a lot of it.
Thus, “tweet threads.” But because Twitter is a pressure cooker of social competition, that ended up getting labeled as “manthreading.” Heck, it’s chock full of out-of-context “owns” or “dunks” that are just some particular widely-celebrated zinger of an insult. Very much status over substance.
The increase to 320 characters might improve the quality of discussion there. Maybe.
But…
I suspect that the reason you said that you don’t know a solution to the problem is that you know that if Twitter did manage abuse reports, it would have to be highly automated in order to cope with volume (not to mention that you’ve just experienced how dangerous ideological censorship is), and TERFs or similar would exploit it in order to block trans folks anyway, or else the trolls would exploit it to shadowban people.
So, allow me:
I’m going to say right now that the following approach has significant risks. Particularly, it can create a strong filter bubble, and people will exert social pressure to control it, just like they use social pressure to control the blocklists now.
It also has some of the same “have to get the insiders to like you” issues that IRL socializing has now. You saw how those worked in Hollywood.
What you’re looking for is the opposite of a blocklist - but it isn’t a whitelist. You’re looking for is a kind of trust network. That’s closer to how things work IRL.
The blocklist and the whitelist are both strict binaries. What you want is something probabilistic which then blocks or unblocks (or just displays posts or doesn’t) based on a threshold. (If you’re paranoid, you can set it to block on a hair trigger - if you’re open, you can allow far more “sketchy-looking” posts.)
First, there is no central authority - and this is very important, because if there is, then it will be turned into a social credit score like China has and rule people’s lives in ways that would have very seriously harmed LGBTs in previous decades. (Which, hey, you’ve experienced what it’s like to have such a tool turned against you.)
So, you set a list of people you trust. Your friends set a list of people they trust, and so on. Not random strangers, who can attack through mass false abuse reporting, but specific people.
The engine then estimates how likely it is that you want to block someone by who, in your network, trusts or blocks them. One erroneous or drama or malicious block is then not a deal-breaker.
New accounts will be blocked more easily, since the starting position is “neutral” rather than “trusted” or “considered harmful.” Older accounts will have a lot more “trusted” flags that prevent them from getting blocked as easily.
There are a lot of other possible implementation details - do we record the reason for blocking? Do we disclose what trust lists people are following? How deep do we go into the social network to find a trust or block flag? Etc.
Be careful. If the design of the system doesn’t make it difficult to practice purity politics, then just like the blocklists that were used against trans folks, it will be used against you.
From what I can tell, while the limitations of Twitter may work effectively for some artists like dril, they are actively corrosive to ordinary discourse, because it’s impossible to compress enough information into such a small space without losing a lot of it.
Thus, “tweet threads.” But because Twitter is a pressure cooker of social competition, that ended up getting labeled as “manthreading.” Heck, it’s chock full of out-of-context “owns” or “dunks” that are just some particular widely-celebrated zinger of an insult. Very much status over substance.
The increase to 320 characters might improve the quality of discussion there. Maybe.
But…
I suspect that the reason you said that you don’t know a solution to the problem is that you know that if Twitter did manage abuse reports, it would have to be highly automated in order to cope with volume (not to mention that you’ve just experienced how dangerous ideological censorship is), and TERFs or similar would exploit it in order to block trans folks anyway, or else the trolls would exploit it to shadowban people.
So, allow me:
I’m going to say right now that the following approach has significant risks. Particularly, it can create a strong filter bubble, and people will exert social pressure to control it, just like they use social pressure to control the blocklists now.
It also has some of the same “have to get the insiders to like you” issues that IRL socializing has now. You saw how those worked in Hollywood.
What you’re looking for is the opposite of a blocklist - but it isn’t a whitelist. You’re looking for is a kind of trust network. That’s closer to how things work IRL.
The blocklist and the whitelist are both strict binaries. What you want is something probabilistic which then blocks or unblocks (or just displays posts or doesn’t) based on a threshold. (If you’re paranoid, you can set it to block on a hair trigger - if you’re open, you can allow far more “sketchy-looking” posts.)
First, there is no central authority - and this is very important, because if there is, then it will be turned into a social credit score like China has and rule people’s lives in ways that would have very seriously harmed LGBTs in previous decades. (Which, hey, you’ve experienced what it’s like to have such a tool turned against you.)
So, you set a list of people you trust. Your friends set a list of people they trust, and so on. Not random strangers, who can attack through mass false abuse reporting, but specific people.
The engine then estimates how likely it is that you want to block someone by who, in your network, trusts or blocks them. One erroneous or drama or malicious block is then not a deal-breaker.
New accounts will be blocked more easily, since the starting position is “neutral” rather than “trusted” or “considered harmful.” Older accounts will have a lot more “trusted” flags that prevent them from getting blocked as easily.
There are a lot of other possible implementation details - do we record the reason for blocking? Do we disclose what trust lists people are following? How deep do we go into the social network to find a trust or block flag? Etc.
Be careful. If the design of the system doesn’t make it difficult to practice purity politics, then just like the blocklists that were used against trans folks, it will be used against you.
The trust network concept outlined here is actually not too far off to the system I use for rapidfire spot judgements when my Twitter mentions get flooded. I use a custom list for an actual feed, freeing up my actual follows to tag anyone who seems generally on the level, so a quick glance at mutual followers makes it easy to tell if someone wandered in from a professional circle/some specific activism circle/a troll forwarded my way. And I’ve often found myself pondering a browser extension or something to tag them all with when/what specific post I clicked the button from/a text field to list a reason because refreshers for that context are always good to have.
That being said, since this whole aside was prompted by some speculation on Twitter’s practical ability to practice decent moderation, let me take a moment here to explain that no really, it’s a matter of ideology, not of manpower.
Over the last few years of particular media scrutiny for becoming such a hive of abuse, harassment, and coordinating hate movements, Twitter has on several occasions made a big PR show of partnering with various volunteer organizations to help address their issues. Some of these I’ve worked with, others I’ve talked at length with the people behind them, one of which thought to provide nice infographics when they were done.
That being said, since this whole aside was prompted by some speculation on Twitter’s practical ability to practice decent moderation, let me take a moment here to explain that no really, it’s a matter of ideology, not of manpower.
Over the last few years of particular media scrutiny for becoming such a hive of abuse, harassment, and coordinating hate movements, Twitter has on several occasions made a big PR show of partnering with various volunteer organizations to help address their issues. Some of these I’ve worked with, others I’ve talked at length with the people behind them, one of which thought to provide nice infographics when they were done.
Granted, while fairly well publicized, these organizations weren’t having all reports directly shunted to them, but knowing the size of Twitter’s staff (3000+), the size of these volunteer groups (half a dozen to a dozen people), and the rough totals of how many reports twitter gets in a day and how many of those were in the heavy spikes volunteers were running, it’s really not to much for dedicated support staff to process.And even if it were, you don’t have to get too fancy with automation to sift out the major stuff. To quote twitter themselves on this one:
More to the point, while that WAM data breaks things down by report type, the group I was working with (whose full reports I’m sadly not at liberty to share) was more focused on nailing specific instigators. Our approach was to trace back mass harassment campaigns to their original instigators. When you’re suddenly hit with 1000 accounts bombarding you with hateful messages (as is the reason Block Together is so popular), it’s ultimately because one person goaded their followers (and their followers’ botnets) into attacking. And like 98% of the time, it’s one of the same 20 or so people (or honestly, all 20). Every raid to fill a hashtag with gore, assault on a celebrity, disinformation campaign while a mass shooting is happening, effort to incite violence between protesters and police, political astroturfing, etc., it traces back to this short list.
After working out this short list of people Twitter could ban to dramatically improve things, we compiled detailed and extensive reports on each, not only of their coordination of attacks, but of the most clear, blatant, personal violations of Twitter’s rules each had recently committed, checked against criteria a couple of us had specifically been run through Twitter’s support training program. These reports were then handed off to Twitter through a dedicated channel, and followed up with a series of face to face executive level meetings to discuss the way Twitter was going to proceed.
After a number of dubious problems on their end keeping them from actually reading the report to begin with and seriously twisting some arms, they admitted that everyone named absolutely was in clear violation of basically every rule there is to violate, but they didn’t want to ban them all. The obscure ones you’d be surprised to see on the list all received (temporary) suspensions, but the really well-known and popular ones got off without even a slap on the wrist. And to be clear, I don’t mean generally well-known, I mean well-known within “the alt-right.” This wasn’t a list of people like Adam Baldwin or even Mark Kern. This was people like “Roguestar,” “Escape Velo,” “Based Stickman,” and “Ricky Vaughn.” The most “famous” name on the list was Milo Yiannopoulos, and this wasn’t even what lead to his disciplinary revocation of verified status, let alone his banning. And when pressed for the reason these instigators were being let off the hook, I’m very much paraphrasing, but the answer was more or less “we like those guys.”
And of course since giving up on that particular “safety partnership” Twitter has done plenty of more visible things, verifying more violent extremists, maintaining a very accurate database of neo-nazi accounts to hide posts from in countries with stronger laws about giving them a platform, etc.
So don’t ever tell yourself Twitter is a cesspit because cleaning it up is a technical impossibility. Letting neo-nazis have free reign of the place is an explicit willful choice the company has made and repeatedly defended.
Jake claims to have "worked with" some of the "volunteer organizations" Twitter partnered with, he then expected cons like Crash Override Network (staffed by creeps like Jake, pedos like Nick Nyberg, and various other people who have no business involved like sexual harasser Rob Marmolejo) to have had "all reports directly shunted to them." He then links to an image that was going around within the past days of Twitter claiming that 1% of their userbase is responsible for producing "most of the tweets that break our rules against abuse."
@Jaimas Jake then starts talking about his time at Crash Override Network. Jake claims he has access to the "full reports" made by CON but is "not at liberty to share." Jake then claims that everything bad on Twitter is the fault of "the same 20 or so people" and that these people have "botnets."
Jake continues, saying that CON was able to 'work out' this supposed group of 20 people responsible for all of this, made "detailed and extensive" reports on each and were "handed off to Twitter through a dedicated channel, and followed up with a series of face to face executive level meetings." He also claims that only a "couple of us" at CON had been "run through Twitter's support training program."
Jake then says there were "dubious problems" that prevented Twitter from reading the CON sperging, and after "seriously twisting some arms" Twitter supposedly admitted the CON hit list had violated "basically every rule there is" but did not want to ban them all, and, to CON's chagrin, they only gave out temporary suspensions for the "obscure ones" and didn't do anything to the "really well-known and popular ones." Jake then names who some of these accounts were, saying it wasn't "a list of people like Adam Baldwin or even Mark Kern" (which Jake obviously paints a target on solely due to their comments about Gamergate), but the CON targets were Roguestar, Escape Velo, Based Stickman, Ricky Vaughn, and Milo Yiannoplous. In typical Jake Alley fashion he can't even talk without lying it seems, "Based Stickman" seems to have only made his account in March 2017. which is nearly a year after CON died.
Jake then blames Twitter for "giving up" on CON, even though he admitted in his zoepost that CHELSAY is the one who killed CON by getting bored of it ("Eventually, Quinn decided to pull the plug on the whole thing, dissolving the chat room (having migrated everyone to a private server), seizing everyone's collective work combating GG and exposing nazis, getting an extention on a then near-finished book for rewrites to remove everyone else's contributions, and checking out of the anti-abuse scene more or less entirely to work on a goofy FMV game"), Jake ends this Googleshng by claiming "neo-nazis" have "free reign of the place" and that Twitter made an "explicit willful choice" to let that happen.
Cow crossover, Jake has creepily attached himself to Rebecca in the same way he did to CHELSAY and other women he thinks he can exploit and slide into the DMs of.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
So is Reeeeeeeeeeebecca officially the new Zoe?
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2016
I don't think we have Jake's essay for this self-published anthology:
See https://www.amazon.com/Trans-anthology-transgender-nonbinary-identity/dp/1543175880
I can't find a free copy and I am loathe to give Jake money by purchasing the book.
Ta-Da: A Sci-Fi Transformation! By Violet Hargrave aka Jake Alley aka SecretGamerGirl aka SecretGamergrrl aka Googleshng:
Thanks to @Mellorine for sourcing Jake's essay.
See https://www.amazon.com/Trans-anthology-transgender-nonbinary-identity/dp/1543175880
I can't find a free copy and I am loathe to give Jake money by purchasing the book.
Ta-Da: A Sci-Fi Transformation! By Violet Hargrave aka Jake Alley aka SecretGamerGirl aka SecretGamergrrl aka Googleshng:
Thanks to @Mellorine for sourcing Jake's essay.
Last edited:
flipper
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2016
Was there any specific event that caused him to stop getting invited to panels, or were his GenCon and Gaymer so bad that he didn’t get follow up invites?
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
He roomed with other people so imagine he drove people away by displaying the same creepy incel behavior he does online irl.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2015
His first zoepost. The "somewhere public" in this 2nd zoepost was GaymerX, the first time he had been out to an event/con since writing the 1st zoepost.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2014
I really hope so because if anyone deserves Rebecca it's Jake.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2014
HOLD THE FUCK ON.
Future Jaimas, Zoom in on that shit:
> WAM Data
> That sounds familiar, fam
> It should, that's the fucking study by Women Action Media that showed that 0.66% of all GG-supporting accounts were actually harassing
> This was the report that disproved CON's "GG was harassment narrative"
> OH MY FUCKING GOD
> JAKE JUST ACKNOWLEDGED GAMERGATE WAS RIGHT
There are no words. Just pure, indiluted lulz.
Wallace
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2015
This is what ODing on victimhood and GSF looks like. Every time something bad happens to you, no matter how trivial, it's an act of deliberate, malicious violence. Zoe won't return your texts? It's because she secretly hates you. Someone blocks you on Twitter? It's not because you're being annoying, it's because they never were really your friend to begin with. Get criticized by someone? They're a Nazi, and always have been.
Jake, if you want to see the person responsible for all of your misery and failures, look in the fucking mirror.
Maggots on a Train
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2017
Holy fuck, Jake Alley! No matter how much convoluted tl;dr you type up, no matter how finely tuned a blocklist you can hypothesize, your ass will still end up on it every damn time.Remember Jake's Googleshnging about block lists being "the new McCarthyism" because he is a creep and people don't want to see his tweets? "But wait, there's more!"
View attachment 421716
View attachment 421720
http://archive.is/38xMw
ETA for some reason it added more spoiler tags and split this, and it will not remove them when I edit them out.The people using the block lists were told, repeatedly, that this would happen - but they were told this by political rivals and those on the edges of their own coalitions, whose status wasn’t particularly strong. Not just trolls.
From what I can tell, while the limitations of Twitter may work effectively for some artists like dril, they are actively corrosive to ordinary discourse, because it’s impossible to compress enough information into such a small space without losing a lot of it.
Thus, “tweet threads.” But because Twitter is a pressure cooker of social competition, that ended up getting labeled as “manthreading.” Heck, it’s chock full of out-of-context “owns” or “dunks” that are just some particular widely-celebrated zinger of an insult. Very much status over substance.
The increase to 320 characters might improve the quality of discussion there. Maybe.
But…
I suspect that the reason you said that you don’t know a solution to the problem is that you know that if Twitter did manage abuse reports, it would have to be highly automated in order to cope with volume (not to mention that you’ve just experienced how dangerous ideological censorship is), and TERFs or similar would exploit it in order to block trans folks anyway, or else the trolls would exploit it to shadowban people.
So, allow me:
I’m going to say right now that the following approach has significant risks. Particularly, it can create a strong filter bubble, and people will exert social pressure to control it, just like they use social pressure to control the blocklists now.
It also has some of the same “have to get the insiders to like you” issues that IRL socializing has now. You saw how those worked in Hollywood.
What you’re looking for is the opposite of a blocklist - but it isn’t a whitelist. You’re looking for is a kind of trust network. That’s closer to how things work IRL.
The blocklist and the whitelist are both strict binaries. What you want is something probabilistic which then blocks or unblocks (or just displays posts or doesn’t) based on a threshold. (If you’re paranoid, you can set it to block on a hair trigger - if you’re open, you can allow far more “sketchy-looking” posts.)
First, there is no central authority - and this is very important, because if there is, then it will be turned into a social credit score like China has and rule people’s lives in ways that would have very seriously harmed LGBTs in previous decades. (Which, hey, you’ve experienced what it’s like to have such a tool turned against you.)
So, you set a list of people you trust. Your friends set a list of people they trust, and so on. Not random strangers, who can attack through mass false abuse reporting, but specific people.
The engine then estimates how likely it is that you want to block someone by who, in your network, trusts or blocks them. One erroneous or drama or malicious block is then not a deal-breaker.
New accounts will be blocked more easily, since the starting position is “neutral” rather than “trusted” or “considered harmful.” Older accounts will have a lot more “trusted” flags that prevent them from getting blocked as easily.
There are a lot of other possible implementation details - do we record the reason for blocking? Do we disclose what trust lists people are following? How deep do we go into the social network to find a trust or block flag? Etc.
Be careful. If the design of the system doesn’t make it difficult to practice purity politics, then just like the blocklists that were used against trans folks, it will be used against you.
The trust network concept outlined here is actually not too far off to the system I use for rapidfire spot judgements when my Twitter mentions get flooded. I use a custom list for an actual feed, freeing up my actual follows to tag anyone who seems generally on the level, so a quick glance at mutual followers makes it easy to tell if someone wandered in from a professional circle/some specific activism circle/a troll forwarded my way. And I’ve often found myself pondering a browser extension or something to tag them all with when/what specific post I clicked the button from/a text field to list a reason because refreshers for that context are always good to have.
That being said, since this whole aside was prompted by some speculation on Twitter’s practical ability to practice decent moderation, let me take a moment here to explain that no really, it’s a matter of ideology, not of manpower.
Over the last few years of particular media scrutiny for becoming such a hive of abuse, harassment, and coordinating hate movements, Twitter has on several occasions made a big PR show of partnering with various volunteer organizations to help address their issues. Some of these I’ve worked with, others I’ve talked at length with the people behind them, one of which thought to provide nice infographics when they were done.If you ever find yourself unironically saying anything resembling the following, because Twitter occupies so much of your mind and your waking hours, then you need to have your internet cut down.
Granted, while fairly well publicized, these organizations weren’t having all reports directly shunted to them, but knowing the size of Twitter’s staff (3000+), the size of these volunteer groups (half a dozen to a dozen people), and the rough totals of how many reports twitter gets in a day and how many of those were in the heavy spikes volunteers were running, it’s really not to much for dedicated support staff to process.And even if it were, you don’t have to get too fancy with automation to sift out the major stuff. To quote twitter themselves on this one:
More to the point, while that WAM data breaks things down by report type, the group I was working with (whose full reports I’m sadly not at liberty to share) was more focused on nailing specific instigators. Our approach was to trace back mass harassment campaigns to their original instigators. When you’re suddenly hit with 1000 accounts bombarding you with hateful messages (as is the reason Block Together is so popular), it’s ultimately because one person goaded their followers (and their followers’ botnets) into attacking. And like 98% of the time, it’s one of the same 20 or so people (or honestly, all 20). Every raid to fill a hashtag with gore, assault on a celebrity, disinformation campaign while a mass shooting is happening, effort to incite violence between protesters and police, political astroturfing, etc., it traces back to this short list.
After working out this short list of people Twitter could ban to dramatically improve things, we compiled detailed and extensive reports on each, not only of their coordination of attacks, but of the most clear, blatant, personal violations of Twitter’s rules each had recently committed, checked against criteria a couple of us had specifically been run through Twitter’s support training program. These reports were then handed off to Twitter through a dedicated channel, and followed up with a series of face to face executive level meetings to discuss the way Twitter was going to proceed.
After a number of dubious problems on their end keeping them from actually reading the report to begin with and seriously twisting some arms, they admitted that everyone named absolutely was in clear violation of basically every rule there is to violate, but they didn’t want to ban them all. The obscure ones you’d be surprised to see on the list all received (temporary) suspensions, but the really well-known and popular ones got off without even a slap on the wrist. And to be clear, I don’t mean generally well-known, I mean well-known within “the alt-right.” This wasn’t a list of people like Adam Baldwin or even Mark Kern. This was people like “Roguestar,” “Escape Velo,” “Based Stickman,” and “Ricky Vaughn.” The most “famous” name on the list was Milo Yiannopoulos, and this wasn’t even what lead to his disciplinary revocation of verified status, let alone his banning. And when pressed for the reason these instigators were being let off the hook, I’m very much paraphrasing, but the answer was more or less “we like those guys.”
And of course since giving up on that particular “safety partnership” Twitter has done plenty of more visible things, verifying more violent extremists, maintaining a very accurate database of neo-nazi accounts to hide posts from in countries with stronger laws about giving them a platform, etc.
So don’t ever tell yourself Twitter is a cesspit because cleaning it up is a technical impossibility. Letting neo-nazis have free reign of the place is an explicit willful choice the company has made and repeatedly defended.
View attachment 421722
Jake claims to have "worked with" some of the "volunteer organizations" Twitter partnered with, he then expected cons like Crash Override Network (staffed by creeps like Jake, pedos like Nick Nyberg, and various other people who have no business involved like sexual harasser Rob Marmolejo) to have had "all reports directly shunted to them." He then links to an image that was going around within the past days of Twitter claiming that 1% of their userbase is responsible for producing "most of the tweets that break our rules against abuse."
View attachment 421723
@Jaimas Jake then starts talking about his time at Crash Override Network. Jake claims he has access to the "full reports" made by CON but is "not at liberty to share." Jake then claims that everything bad on Twitter is the fault of "the same 20 or so people" and that these people have "botnets."
View attachment 421725
Jake continues, saying that CON was able to 'work out' this supposed group of 20 people responsible for all of this, made "detailed and extensive" reports on each and were "handed off to Twitter through a dedicated channel, and followed up with a series of face to face executive level meetings." He also claims that only a "couple of us" at CON had been "run through Twitter's support training program."
View attachment 421727
Jake then says there were "dubious problems" that prevented Twitter from reading the CON sperging, and after "seriously twisting some arms" Twitter supposedly admitted the CON hit list had violated "basically every rule there is" but did not want to ban them all, and, to CON's chagrin, they only gave out temporary suspensions for the "obscure ones" and didn't do anything to the "really well-known and popular ones." Jake then names who some of these accounts were, saying it wasn't "a list of people like Adam Baldwin or even Mark Kern" (which Jake obviously paints a target on solely due to their comments about Gamergate), but the CON targets were Roguestar, Escape Velo, Based Stickman, Ricky Vaughn, and Milo Yiannoplous. In typical Jake Alley fashion he can't even talk without lying it seems, "Based Stickman" seems to have only made his account in March 2017. which is nearly a year after CON died.
View attachment 421728
Jake then blames Twitter for "giving up" on CON, even though he admitted in his zoepost that CHELSAY is the one who killed CON by getting bored of it ("Eventually, Quinn decided to pull the plug on the whole thing, dissolving the chat room (having migrated everyone to a private server), seizing everyone's collective work combating GG and exposing nazis, getting an extention on a then near-finished book for rewrites to remove everyone else's contributions, and checking out of the anti-abuse scene more or less entirely to work on a goofy FMV game"), Jake ends this Googleshng by claiming "neo-nazis" have "free reign of the place" and that Twitter made an "explicit willful choice" to let that happen.
View attachment 421744
Cow crossover, Jake has creepily attached himself to Rebecca in the same way he did to CHELSAY and other women he thinks he can exploit and slide into the DMs of.
View attachment 421717
We can see your manthreading from 10 miles away.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2016
Put it on your Amazon wish list Jake.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2016
He sure takes a lot of interest in what’s best for trannys to stick up their poop chute for a guy who claims to be asexual.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2015
The linked article is about the Hitachi Magic Wand. Interesting that he knows enough about trans women's masturbation habits to infer a general consensus, but apparently not about how that has been the single most famous female sex toy for decades. 
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2016
If Twitter is basically nazi-friendly because nazis use the site wouldn't the same transference property mean Jake is also nazi-friendly by using it?
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2014
He could take a stand by not using it, but that sounds too much like hard work. As ever, creating the changes he wants in the world is someone else’s responsibility.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
Several hundred pages back Jake did not understand this and was panicked and confused over being "accidentally" locked out of the Cool Trans Clique and being put on blocklists, probably by accident or through a simple misunderstanding(Brazilian secret police running ops against trans on Twitter). At least Jake finally seems to sort of understand why creating a system for shutting down wrongthink or punishing people for the tiniest of infractions or for personal vendettas is A BAD IDEA, it can turn on you at any moment. Like that lyric almost goes: "you see the people turnin', you feel that blocklist burnin', nigga, now you learnin'"
Mellorine
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2015
No money reached troon hands in order to make this possible: https://pastebin.com/DFX2FTzr
It's a very special, very Googleshng read. The tl;dr is basically "I grew up thinking being trans was about wanting to be feminine and wear dresses, and that transition consisted of crude surgeries that could never really change one's sex, but then the internet taught me that I didn't need any kind of dysphoria or even gender nonconforming traits to be trans and also hormones can totally reshape your skeleton."
One interesting detail comes in the first paragraph:
Violet Hargrave AKA Jake Alley AKA SecretGamerGrrl AKA Googleshng said:
This undoubtedly refers to Jennifer Diane Reitz's self-made COGIATI test, hosted on her web 1.0 site transsexual.org. Later in the essay he goes on to say that only years later did he learn that JDR had made up the test herself, even though the intro page has plenty of disclaimers outright stating "The COGIATI, as it currently stands, is an amateur attempt, and cannot be considered as medically or scientifically valid. ... Something like the COGIATI needs to exist, and being unable to find it, I decided that it fell to me to attempt to create it. I am not fully capable of doing this concept justice. Be alert to that fact, and interpret the results of the COGIATI in that light."
As for why Jake thinks he's trans if he didn't like the questions on an internet "r u trans?" quizilla...
Jacob Lawrence Alley said:
In other words: all sad nerds are eggs. And one last thing, in the penultimate paragraph:
Jacob Lawrence 'Pants On Fire' Alley said:
Do we have any other instances of Jake having claimed outright to have been on HRT?
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 25, 2016
Troon love
Edit: the text is just too sad to leave it at drive-by ridicule. Just have a look at this shit:
This is devastating. Imagine for a second how Jake must have experienced this. Dull, lonely Jake has a friend, who is also dull and lonely. They hide in escapist fantasies and generally live like sewer rats, scurrying around at night and eating garbage on the
But that's not what Jake sees. Jake sees "all those problems we had in common [...] disappear almost immediately", simply by transitioning. Now Jake is even more lonely than before. His friend seems to be on the up-and-up, while Jake is still caked to the
And all it did is make him duller and lonelier than ever before.
Last edited: