Comments by "David Aspinall" (@yt.personal.identification) on "Twitter Exec Is Questioned About "Learn to Code" Bannings | JRE Twitter Special" video.

@outlawm1 Sure...some who used the tag were harassing. ...but claiming ALL who use the tag are malicious is clearly false, and poorly handled. So to ban ALL who use it is a flawed massive blanket solution that bans the perpetrators AND creates a MASSIVE number of false positive. Her explanations didn't hold up even under her own details. Anyone who isn't blindly defending this action can see that.
4
@pok3ypup Yes...they corrected what they realised was a false positive from an over aggressive banning algorithm...the same one they are defending so vehemently. How is that hard to comprehend?
4
@pok3ypup Didn't you yourself point out my lack of comprehension, and try to asert I didn't watch the video by stating that she claimed to know how the bans were done at an operational IT level? So please tell me again how my comprehension is flawed, my arguments make no sense, and IT has nothing to do with having an ability to have an informed enough opinion to call her on her bullshit. We can all agree to disagree. Well, technically I am only disagreeing with you...you obviously disagree with the vast majority of this thread, and many others on this video. This woman is trained to be adversarial, trained to debate, and paid to defend. She is there by design....it isn't that she just happens to be a lawyer (you don't honestly believe it is a coincidence the person he brought on just happens to be a lawyer? Do you? Really?
4
@pok3ypup You clearly are not open to anything and just want to be adversarial for the sake of it. You have made zero points other than try to belittle on a personal level (I like the irony btw) other than to say she is a lawyer paid by Twitter...so she must be believed when defending Twitter on a podcast. You haven't managed to illustrate anything convincing me to change my mind...and you aren't open to anything other than your opinion. So like I said...we can agree to disagree. The best part is that I needed to say that last bit twice to a person questioning other's comprehension skills.
4
@pok3ypup No really, for the 3rd time now...we can agree to disagree. I typed it slower this time...hope it helps
4
@pok3ypup No....I am using 25+ years of IT experience to call bullshit on what she is saying. I recognise that a failed program that was too aggressive and genetared too many false positives. You are taking this personally...do you have a horse in this race? Really, did you ask yourself honestly why he chose to bring a lawyer? Mate...she can see she got nailed on this issue - why can't you?
3
@pok3ypup We have a fundamental difference of opinion, and I am fine with that. I find it telling that he brings on a lawyer, to defend Twitters position to take up the option of idealigical censorship of free speech ...and you think nothing of him selecting a lawyer. Sure, a group of lawyers having this as a theoretical discussion would be interesting...but this is a paid lawyer, defending a defined position. Anything after that is tainted by that fundamental. So, let's agree to disagree.
3
4:45 Did they not see the reaction to his first Jack Dorsey podcast??!! Do some research on this...
1