When I saw the tweet, for this, I was concerned that I was being redirected, again, to this woman's blog, about this.
Its unfortunate that this is happening to her.. but I agree with you.
The best course of action is to quickly respond. She has a public outlet to state her case, which many who are "abused" offline, do not have the ability to do..
Its unfortunate that twitter isn't standing behind their TOS, but this problem is much bigger than any service TOS and something we risk by putting ourselves "out there" in public.
Push the positive Google juice in your own defense.
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
Absolutely.
And I know about the unfortunate side of this from personal experience as well. You don't write controversial blog posts like I do for as long as I have without having some bad press.
The best success I've ever had in dealing with it has been either to get out in front of it or to address the accusors head on.
Nico
· 1 year ago
finally some sanity coming to the discussion, thanks Mark. :)
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
I try. Now all of you stop complimenting me so darn much, or I'm going to lose my reputation for being a contrarian jerk!
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
Appreciate this! This is the type of criticism that distracts from the original point that I'm used to!
If you do a Google image search for her name, this is the first one to pop up. Which is why I used it.
Steve Rhodes
· 1 year ago
You're presenting a false choice. Twitter has (or soon will have) the resources to both build a strong platform that will not go down and a strong community.
Ariel has said this isn't about her, but about how her complaints were handled.
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
Ariel has said a lot of things. This isn't a false choice. Legal advice isn't cheap, and while Twitter, over the course of this matter, was offered a lot of free legal advice, my experience has always been that most free legal advice comes with an agenda, and is usually worth the face price, if not less.
Ariel stated that this was a case of cyberbullying. If that were true, the block button is her best friend.
Ariel stated that this was a case of Google search and reputation issues. If that were true, the aforementioned route in the blog post would be the best solution.
If this was about customer service issues, and I doubt it seriously, then switching to a competitor (like the one she works for) would have been a better solution. When my energy or phone company screws me around, I threaten to leave. If they keep screwing me around, I switch companies.
She's still on Twitter, and the problem was actually solved on it's own (if you read the correspondence) about two months ago. There's either another agenda here on her part, or it's a series of poor decisions to promote this silliness to the level it has reached.
Steve Rhodes
· 1 year ago
Yes, it is a false choice.
Jack said they talked to their lawyers, so they paid whatever hours were billed.
And if Twitter is going to grow, they need to invest in both being stable and their community. And I think they realize it better than you do (even if they don't always implement it as well as they should particularly when it comes to communicating with their community).
It isn't as simple as leaving twitter since it is a community and she has friends there who aren't on pounce or aren't as active there.
Anyway, she addresses some of what you wrote better than I can at this hour here
First of all, Steve, her latest post goes more towards reshaping her entire argument into the direction that the community has driven it. It's a damage control post, not a post that explains anything you and I are discussing. It certainly doesn't address anything I've raised from the top of this page to the bottom.
Honestly, you and I and Ariel all know that this TOS they have has nothing to do with protecting the user or an agreement with the user. It's strictly there to cover the company's butt.
Getting butthurt over that *is* turning a molehill into a mountain.
And it's not a false choice. If lawyers are consulted everytime someone gets butthurt on twitter, it will chew thru funding quicker than you can say Ruby on Rails.
BrianMojo
· 1 year ago
Eh -- I still feel there's a difference between a self-owned service like a blog (where free speech is clearly protected) and a community service, which must maintain certain standards in order to promote a healthy community.
Twitter can't be thought police, certainly, but why even have terms of service if they're not going to uphold them?
Amber
· 1 year ago
I've had to delete a few accounts over the internet years, due to cyberbullying. I'm not Ariel's brain, but in her situation I can understand the stress and anxiety it can cause. I consider repuation defamation a form of cyberbullying. My most serious personal exprience was in the Xanga community. Once upon a time in college, I had a Xanga. I have a degree and focus to be in the ministry and that was potentially jeapordized when someone who was angry at me decided to use the internet as a way to say very damaging things about me that if any church board had read would have put my resume in the fire. It ended up with me having to delete my Xanga accounts, getting good friends to write really nice things about me, and making my race times from Cross Country pop up on Google more than anything else. It took a couple of months of work and a lot of anxiety and sickness on my part as I was busy looking for an intership. I've also had my share of creepy real live stalkers. My bottom line is that no one should ever have to just "live with it." The apathetic attitude that bad things happen and we shoud just live with it is the reason good things don't happen. Hate is always wrong and always bad and should never be shrugged off.
Dave
· 1 year ago
I think it is disgusting that she was allowed to incite a mob against her employer's competitor. I ditched my Pownce account over this, never had much use for that useless site anyways. Twitter was correct in not being bullied by her and her digg mob.
Digidave
· 1 year ago
Overall I understand where she is coming from - it would totally suck: But she works for Pownce. She needed to be more upfront about her role at Pownce before she could outright attack twitter. I'm not saying she is disingenuous, just that it is a fact that can't be ignored.
Vanessa
· 1 year ago
What happened to common sense, these days? The only way she could possibly have seen these messages, since she wasn't following him, would be to seek him out.
There is life outside of the computer. Go outside, it's sunny to mostly cloudy. You might hit a tornado or hurricane or two. Dang! Get out, enjoy life! Get out to the beach, get a tan (looks like you need it!).
If it bothers you so much, though, stop searching for folks critical and mean to you. Stupids!
Mike B
· 1 year ago
I wrote this to Pownce:
Dear Pownce,
I am aware that this message may never reach the appropriate person, so I may have to send it to another address, but I'll try here first anyway. Maybe it doesn't matter who it reaches in the end.
As a casual user of both Twitter and Pownce, I'd just like to say that Ariel Waldman has made you look extremely foolish. At the end of the day, she incited a mob against Twitter simply for not having one of "her" on staff to moderate community issues. Whether that was her intention or not, that was what happened. For a self proclaimed "social media expert," you'd have thought she might have had the foresight to imagine what might happen when you call someone out like that, and then post it all over the place.
Despite the fact that she might have a legitimate grievance with both Twitter and some strange anonymous stalker, it plays out like some kind of pathetic teen drama. These are the kinds of people you keep on staff? She's on the front page of Mashable for crying about how mean Twitter is for christsakes. She has said that wasn't her "intention," but that's how it reads. Perhaps she may want to rethink her role as a blogger if she can't make her intentions clear.
It makes Pownce look just as bad as it makes Twitter look. Maybe worse. She's publicly saying that Pownce will ban people for "being mean." That's fine and all if that's how you want to interpret the ToS, but that isn't something your "spokesperson" should be declaring publicly. She should know what is and isn't off limits. There is clearly a huge conflict of interest here; and from a PR perspective you shouldn't have your community manager bashing your competition. I mean, WTF?
I know Pownce is having trouble reaching it's audience, and this really isn't going to help. You guys should consider reeling her in and setting up some boundaries before you end up ostracize your own audience.
And should you read this Ms. Waldman, as I suspect you might... well, think about it before you throw it in the trash.
Sincerely, A Pownce user who had to write this from an anonymous email account for fear of getting banned
Turns out, it goes straight to Ariel Waldman. I figured it might.
what you said
· 1 year ago
Thank goodness for this article!
When all of this first exploded and I failed to be immediately outraged by Twitter's actions or lack thereof, I was afraid that I had, perhaps, lost my mind.
I really hope people will simmer down and reevaluate. It is a shame to see such fervor over something... so... yeah....
All Comments
When I saw the tweet, for this, I was concerned that I was being redirected, again, to this woman's blog, about this.
Its unfortunate that this is happening to her.. but I agree with you.
The best course of action is to quickly respond. She has a public outlet to state her case, which many who are "abused" offline, do not have the ability to do..
Its unfortunate that twitter isn't standing behind their TOS, but this problem is much bigger than any service TOS and something we risk by putting ourselves "out there" in public.
Push the positive Google juice in your own defense.
And I know about the unfortunate side of this from personal experience as well. You don't write controversial blog posts like I do for as long as I have without having some bad press.
The best success I've ever had in dealing with it has been either to get out in front of it or to address the accusors head on.
If you do a Google image search for her name, this is the first one to pop up. Which is why I used it.
Ariel has said this isn't about her, but about how her complaints were handled.
Ariel stated that this was a case of cyberbullying. If that were true, the block button is her best friend.
Ariel stated that this was a case of Google search and reputation issues. If that were true, the aforementioned route in the blog post would be the best solution.
If this was about customer service issues, and I doubt it seriously, then switching to a competitor (like the one she works for) would have been a better solution. When my energy or phone company screws me around, I threaten to leave. If they keep screwing me around, I switch companies.
She's still on Twitter, and the problem was actually solved on it's own (if you read the correspondence) about two months ago. There's either another agenda here on her part, or it's a series of poor decisions to promote this silliness to the level it has reached.
Jack said they talked to their lawyers, so they paid whatever hours were billed.
And if Twitter is going to grow, they need to invest in both being stable and their community. And I think they realize it better than you do (even if they don't always implement it as well as they should particularly when it comes to communicating with their community).
It isn't as simple as leaving twitter since it is a community and she has friends there who aren't on pounce or aren't as active there.
Anyway, she addresses some of what you wrote better than I can at this hour here
http://arielwaldman.com/2008/05/23/twitter-resp...
Honestly, you and I and Ariel all know that this TOS they have has nothing to do with protecting the user or an agreement with the user. It's strictly there to cover the company's butt.
Getting butthurt over that *is* turning a molehill into a mountain.
And it's not a false choice. If lawyers are consulted everytime someone gets butthurt on twitter, it will chew thru funding quicker than you can say Ruby on Rails.
Twitter can't be thought police, certainly, but why even have terms of service if they're not going to uphold them?
I've also had my share of creepy real live stalkers. My bottom line is that no one should ever have to just "live with it." The apathetic attitude that bad things happen and we shoud just live with it is the reason good things don't happen. Hate is always wrong and always bad and should never be shrugged off.
There is life outside of the computer. Go outside, it's sunny to mostly cloudy. You might hit a tornado or hurricane or two. Dang! Get out, enjoy life! Get out to the beach, get a tan (looks like you need it!).
If it bothers you so much, though, stop searching for folks critical and mean to you. Stupids!
Dear Pownce,
I am aware that this message may never reach the appropriate person,
so I may have to send it to another address, but I'll try here first
anyway. Maybe it doesn't matter who it reaches in the end.
As a casual user of both Twitter and Pownce, I'd just like to say that
Ariel Waldman has made you look extremely foolish. At the end of the
day, she incited a mob against Twitter simply for not having one of
"her" on staff to moderate community issues. Whether that was her
intention or not, that was what happened. For a self proclaimed
"social media expert," you'd have thought she might have had the
foresight to imagine what might happen when you call someone out like
that, and then post it all over the place.
Despite the fact that she might have a legitimate grievance with both
Twitter and some strange anonymous stalker, it plays out like some
kind of pathetic teen drama. These are the kinds of people you keep on
staff? She's on the front page of Mashable for crying about how mean
Twitter is for christsakes. She has said that wasn't her "intention,"
but that's how it reads. Perhaps she may want to rethink her role as a
blogger if she can't make her intentions clear.
It makes Pownce look just as bad as it makes Twitter look. Maybe
worse. She's publicly saying that Pownce will ban people for "being
mean." That's fine and all if that's how you want to interpret the
ToS, but that isn't something your "spokesperson" should be declaring
publicly. She should know what is and isn't off limits. There is
clearly a huge conflict of interest here; and from a PR perspective
you shouldn't have your community manager bashing your competition. I
mean, WTF?
I know Pownce is having trouble reaching it's audience, and this
really isn't going to help. You guys should consider reeling her in
and setting up some boundaries before you end up ostracize your own
audience.
And should you read this Ms. Waldman, as I suspect you might... well,
think about it before you throw it in the trash.
Sincerely,
A Pownce user who had to write this from an anonymous email account
for fear of getting banned
Turns out, it goes straight to Ariel Waldman. I figured it might.
When all of this first exploded and I failed to be immediately outraged by Twitter's actions or lack thereof, I was afraid that I had, perhaps, lost my mind.
I really hope people will simmer down and reevaluate. It is a shame to see such fervor over something... so... yeah....
http://haochen.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/the-rea...