> TWITTER FAILS TO ACT ON 99% OF TWITTER BLUE ACCOUNTS TWEETING HATE
ok how did they do that, they don't have API access to run this kind of analysis anymore
> Researchers collected tweets promoting hate from 100 Twitter Blue subscribers. The tweets were reported to the platform using Twitter’s own tools for flagging hateful conduct.
> Four days after reporting the tweets, researchers found that Twitter had failed to act on 99% of the posts and 100% of the accounts remained active. In the one instance that Twitter removed a hateful tweet, the account from which it was tweeted remains active.
So they searched for naughty things posted by 100 twitter blue accounts and then reported those posts and waited 4 days? That's the grand experiment? This is somehow "TWITTER FAILS TO ACT ON 99%..." ??
"> TWITTER FAILS TO ACT ON 99% OF TWITTER BLUE ACCOUNTS TWEETING HATE"
I find this really funny because Twitter then used to fail to moderate blue checkmarks shitlibs going into a frenzy. Remember how a lot of them wanted to kill the Covington kid?
And none of these shitstains had a problem with it back then. Curious
@feld@micahflee@m4ra yeah, I'm talking about blue checkmarks making really inappropriates killing jokes towards what was an high schooler at the time and other vaguely and not so vague threatening messages