News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by Chris2048 on Friday April 07, 2017 @07:19AM (#14058772)
> getting a troll army to harass Leslie Jones

How did Twitter verify this?

Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by odonnellryan on Friday April 07, 2017 @10:17AM (#14059798)
Twitter has access to a lot more than you guys do, that's for sure. Like his dms, his followers, and all that.

Second, his account was suspended many times. Repeatedly. Eventually they banned him.

Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by Chris2048 on Friday April 07, 2017 @10:19AM (#14059814)
> Twitter has access to a lot more than you guys do, that's for sure

Then why not reveal this?

Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by openasocket on Friday April 07, 2017 @12:59PM (#14061398)
You want them to reveal Milo's private DMs with other people? I think they absolutely shouldn't: Milo still has a right to privacy. I get that it makes things inconvenient for us onlookers because we can't independently verify these things to determine if Twitter is overreaching, but the alternative is exposing private information about Milo to the world. If Milo were to say "go ahead and release everything you have on me, I've got nothing to hide" that would be different.
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by Chris2048 on Sunday April 09, 2017 @06:24PM (#14074659)
Just state that he personally organised the harassment.
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by odonnellryan on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @09:45AM (#14087646)
They have absolutely nothing to gain from slandering the guy.
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by Chris2048 on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @11:52AM (#14098879)
By slander, you mean make false comments?
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by odonnellryan on Friday April 07, 2017 @10:32AM (#14059935)
Easy: they don't benefit at all from it. I'm not a lawyer, but I can easily see how it's not a good idea to talk bad about someone who used your platform.

There's nothing to gain, and a lot to lose by doing so. It's kinda lose-lose for Twitter, but few people seriously care about Milo getting banned.

Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by Chris2048 on Friday April 07, 2017 @01:50PM (#14061899)
Milo has explicitly stated he didn't incite harassment, so the benefit would be demonstrating that the ban was not politically-based.

> it's not a good idea to talk bad

talking bad vs providing evidence of intent to incite harassment.

> but few people seriously care about Milo getting banned

Hmm, perhaps in your own bubble

Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by odonnellryan on Friday April 07, 2017 @03:09PM (#14062635)
Why do you care so much what Twitter does?
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by Chris2048 on Saturday April 08, 2017 @08:08PM (#14069773)
Ad Hom. Do 'people' care, or don't they? That was your statement.
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by odonnellryan on Sunday April 09, 2017 @11:03AM (#14072602)
I'm not really debating you since there isn't much to debate. I'm just curious why you care so much about what a private company allows on their platform.
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by Chris2048 on Sunday April 09, 2017 @06:24PM (#14074656)
I'm not really engaging with your curiosity, either.
Re:Twitter refuses US order to disclose owner of anti-Trump ... by odonnellryan on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @09:45AM (#14087648)
ok.