[ SECRET POST #3936 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3936 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________





















03. [SPOILERS for Alias Grace]



__________________________________________________



04. [SPOILERS for Don't Breathe]



__________________________________________________












05. [WARNING for discussion of dub/non-con]



__________________________________________________



06. [WARNING for discussion of dub/non-con]



__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of self-harm]

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #563.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Some important context, before the pitchforks.

[(Anonymous)]

The argument is that Twitter doesn't actually enforce that rule, or any rule, in any consistent way.

Re: Some important context, before the pitchforks.

[(Anonymous)]

True.

But it's still important context. If someone is posting possible doxxing phone numbers in the middle of a big scandal that is getting all this attention and Twitter leaves it up, that's different from them leaving up the phone number of some random person with three followers who's mad at their mom. Clearly one of these things is far more irresponsible of them as a company.

Re: Some important context, before the pitchforks.

[(Anonymous)]

I get what you're saying, but I also want to be clear that - as far as I understand - it wasn't a doxxing type situation at least in intent. McGowan had posted a screenshot of an email that happened to include someone's phone number, I believe, but it's not like that was the reason she posted it.

I get the reasons that they took it down, but it's also an enormously bad look given the context and given the many other, real problems with the administration of the site.

Re: Some important context, before the pitchforks.

[(Anonymous)]

Do you get what I'm saying, though? I don't think you do.

I'm not saying anything other than that it's important context that should be pointed out before pitchforks are raised, based on the first response to the anon that didn't include that information.

Re: Some important context, before the pitchforks.

[(Anonymous)]

And by "possible doxxing numbers" I meant they ran the risk of leading to doxxing, not that the poster was calling for it, btw.

Re: Some important context, before the pitchforks.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. I also wanted to provide more context.

In the first case, I wanted to provide context because I worry that if you just cite the reason that Twitter gave for their suspension of McGowan, peoples' natural reaction is to just not look into it anymore and say "Aha, that makes sense, I guess the whole Twitter boycott is just idiots overreacting as usual, damn SJWs".

In the second case, I wanted to make it clear that this wasn't a situation where McGowan was intentionally doxxing anyone, because I thought that was ambiguous.

Re: Some important context, before the pitchforks.

[(Anonymous)]

I see.

I said it above, but I meant the numbers could lead to doxxing, not that McGowan was calling for people to do it. I tried to get that across with the "possible" but it was confusingly phrased on my end.

Re: Some important context, before the pitchforks.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, no worries, I think I kind of came off as more argumentative than I meant to as well.

Re: Some important context, before the pitchforks.

[(Anonymous)]

Haha, if it came off like I meant she was maliciously inviting people to doxx, I don't blame you!

Personally I don't think people are overreacting. I understand why they are angry. But I do also think Twitter was stuck between a rock - pissing everyone off - or a hard place - possibly being sued for letting a number stay up in a scandal getting millions of views - and took the logical company line of not being sued.

Re: Some important context, before the pitchforks.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Then why didn't Twitter suspend Lou Dobbs when he deliberately did something similar during the 2016 campaign against those who accused Trump of sexual assault?