[cosmicexplorer]

I work at twitter and wasn’t able to find out immediately, but have been collecting responses like these + the article and communicating with someone who knows what to do. I only found out about this over twitter and I am personally deeply frustrated and working to understand whatever led to this.

[kaeawc]

Sorry to hear that, can imagine the frustration.

[brongondwana]

As someone down thread said - this smells like the long arm of GDPR unintending some consequences.

[ta1357]

I don't really think there's any polite way to put this: Your employers are simply assholes.

[dang]

This is the sort of informationless pile-on comment that damages HN regardless of what you're talking about. Please don't post those here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[philipov]

To be honest, this reads less like an attempt to integrate anti-harassment measures and more like an attempt to completely destroy a business trying to offer them. It further solidifies Twitter management as complicit in aiding and abetting the harassers by using its capital to eliminate a threat from the market. After the speed with which Twitter went after the ICE employees list, the evidence is clear that Twitter only has a problem tackling harassment when it's against marginalized populations.

[dang]

That's a pretty extreme leap when virtually no information is available yet. The HN guidelines ask you to "assume good faith" for a reason: people are all too ready to take such charges as givens and then pile more on top of them. It's a behavior that harms the container here, and it's not hard to wait until actual evidence appears.

[philipov]

That's fair, I will suspend judgement until further evidence appears, but the well of beneficial doubt is running low. I think a long past history of suspicious behavior is a good reason to update our assumptions.

[dang]

I don't disagree. But the real reason for having an "assume good faith" rule is what it does to this community when people don't. Therefore it needs practicing even when it feels undeserved.

[tedivm]

Here's the whole guideline you're talking about-

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

It's talking about how we all talk to each other. I think it's main purpose is not to lessen criticisms for corporations so much as to keep the discussion constructive.

[pvg]

You're probably not going to win an argument with a moderator by explaining to them the subtle logical error in the interpretation and purpose of their own guidelines.

[pvg]

the well of beneficial doubt is running low

That is a metaphor made with an industrial grade cement mixer.