SUSPENDED!
September 03,2012
BY GRAY DOURMAN
Suspended. Not terminated. Not revoked. Not even closed. Your account is suspended. Words as shocking and bruising as the maliciously cast sticks and stones of neighbourhood bullies. From out of nowhere. With no explanation. No warning. Suspended!
My behaviour was assessed by an algorithm which determined that it was unacceptable. I depend upon Twitter for stimulation. I'd be severly handicapped without it. But to be measured and suspended by an automated calculation seemed somehow, inappropriate. I am always wary when there is a confluence between programmed machines and compulsive human behaviour.
Twitter told me I could appeal and appeal I did.
Twitter replied, "It looks like a disproportionately large number of users, including ones you followed or @replied, have chosen to either block your account or report it as spam."
The suitably fuzzy expression, "It looks like..." was interesting and I was casually curious about the definition of "disproportionately large".
Twitter monitors how users are followed and take a particular interest in aggressive following and churning (repeatedly following and un-following large numbers of other users).
As I have not engaged in stalking behaviour by persistently @replying to or Direct Messaging any particular Tweeter, as I do not follow and unfollow frequently and do not use automated methods, it is innocent that I plead on this one and would challenge Twitter to show me proof of any contravention.
Apparently it is considered aggressive following to indiscriminately follow hundreds of accounts just to garner attention but Twitter suggest that one can follow 2000 people in total. It seems this limit is different for every user and is based on a ratio of followers to following. Twitter will tell you when you hit this limit by showing an error message in your browser. I have never seen this error message.
Twitter also places limits on actions such as following, API requests per hour, and number of updates per day.
Hmmm...Well I do want attention but I constrain my following to hundreds, well under the thousands suggested. So it must be a contravention of the rules to want attention. Guilty to that I plead.
According to Twitter, following a few users if their accounts seem interesting is normal and is not considered aggressive.
Marvellous! I would only ask how many is a few? Finding 2000 accounts that "seem interesting" would be a challenge for me.
Twitter also informs me following is not mutual. You can see a person's tweets without a mutual relationship.
I understand that. The only direct relationships I can detect are @reply and Direct Messages. Anyone I @reply or DM can reply if they wish do so but thay are also free to ignore the communication without penalty. No harassment there.
I like to @reply to specific tweets of interest and followed this Twitter tip: If you need to communicate with someone but don't need to see their updates every day, don't follow them. Visit their profile or send them an @reply when you need to; sending @replies doesn't require following, and your reply will appear in the person's @mentions tab so they can reply back.
If I correctly understand, what appears to have happened is that I used @reply and a 'disproportionately large' number of recipients didn't like what I had to say, so blocked me or reported me as spam, and I was suspended. As I did not repeatedly @reply to any single tweeter I cannot see why I would be suspended unless I was lumped in with those miscreants who do and fell victim to an algorithm too blunt to differentiate between a genuine voice in the wilderness and a malicious siren spamming away in order to lure the unaware into a morass of enticements.
I scrupulously avoid profanity, pornography or slander in my @replies, so the motive to block must be ideological or a matter of taste.
And what of adding links? Links do not open automatically. The links are there to redirect the reader from the original tweeted assertion to further information or a different point of view. I add links with relish. I love to send readers down paths less travelled to destinations seldom visited.
I am not a passive follower. My temperment is that of an iconoclast. I am compelled to challenge accepted behaviour and blind belief. I use @reply to challenge assertions. There is no mandatory response required. My challenges can simply be ignored. I use Direct Message to send personal messages. I use Tweet to state opinion.
Twitter tells me " it isn’t a race to get the most followers. If you follow users that you’re interested in and post meaningful content, it’s more likely that legitimate users will find you and read your updates. People follow other users on Twitter to read updates that are interesting to them."
How lovely but not my experience. Most tweeters find gaining followers the most stimulating benefit of operating in the Twittersphere. They like to acquire followers so that they can exert their influence. Exerting influence is among the most important compulsive behaviours of the human species. The integration of compulsive behaviour, tools of influence and the automated management of behaviour is of interest to me.
Apparently rules governing behaviour and etiquette have been devised and translated into an algorithm which if not followed without exception, the penalty of suspension is to be paid. Twitter is a good old fashioned club. Clubs are an age old and well understood mechanism for imposing social conventions. Fear of suspension influences behaviour.
Twitter graceously reinstated my account for which I am grateful. But blocked and suspended I gasped for the oxygen of debate. I questioned the character of an algorithm which permits the blocking of followers so that if a tweeter is blocked an,as yet unstated, number of times, the account is suspended. It seems an incredibly easy way to silence the unconventional voice!
Perhaps a more conscious mechanism for separating the enthusiastic communicator from commercial spammer is required?
