Brett Kavanaugh's New Job

Brett Kavanaugh's New Job
by Susan Basko, esq.

Brett Kavanaugh is now Justice Kavanaugh of the U.S. Supreme Court.  The photo above shows Justice Kavanaugh being sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts in the Justices' conference room.  This is the actual room where the Justices meet and sit around a table and take a vote on the cases they have heard.  There are several conference rooms at the Supreme Court building, and they have lovely old chandeliers, as shown below.  In the Justice's conference room, the chandeliers were replaced with bright lights because one of the Chief Justices thought it would help them to see better.  Look how bright that room is! 

As the Junior Justice, it will be Kavanaugh's duty to answer the door to the conference room, should anyone come knocking while the justices are meeting.  The doors to the conference rooms are very tall and heavy and ornate.  There will be security and staff and workers, but not directly inside the room, which is private, since the deliberations are considered secret.  The junior justice is also in charge of taking notes during the meetings.

Another duty of the Junior Justice is to supervise the cafeteria that is on the ground floor of the Supreme Court building.  That cafeteria is open to the public and is frequented by staff from the U.S. Capitol building across the street.  When Elena Kagan was the junior justice, she earned a reputation of having healthy foods in the cafeteria.  The cafeteria had a well-stocked, fresh salad bar.  She also introduced some local foods from her region.  Since Justice Kavanaugh is from Maryland, perhaps he will introduce crab cakes and hush puppies to the cafeteria line-up.  Maryland is also known for its official dessert, Smith Island cake, a yellow cake that has many thin layers, each cemented to the next with a layer of rich chocolate filling.  We'll have to wait and see what goodies this new justice brings to the cafeteria.

The Supreme Court hears cases in an ornate old courtroom that has much of the original furniture from 1935, when the building was completed.  The Justices sit on a raised stage, behind a long desk.  Each Justice gets a special chair made to his or her measurements and specifications.   Considering they have to sit for long hours listening to case arguments, they need comfy chairs.  Sometimes a justice might appear to doze off, but you will never see this in pictures or video, because cameras are strictly forbidden in the Supreme Court courtroom.  The hearings are audio recorded and the archives of those recordings are on the Supreme Court website.

When Justice Kavanaugh comes to work each day, he does not have to walk up the tall staircase out front.  There is a side door on the ground level, and elevators that go to the courtroom level.

Above the courtroom is a gymnasium and basketball court.  It is open when the court ends for the day.  If someone were shooting hoops during court, it would sound like boom boom boom on the courtroom ceiling. Can you picture Justice Kavanaugh going up to the gym to shoot hoops with Justices Gorsuch and Kagan?  Maybe, right?  Or maybe he will join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in doing callisthenics and thai chi?

Note: Susan Basko, the author of this blog, is an attorney and counselor of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dear Sir, Google Canned Responses

Dear Sir, Google Canned Responses
by Susan Basko, esq.

Gmail has this new feature where when you send an email, it automatically creates a selection of 3 Canned Responses for your receiver to use in replying to you.  As the sender, you do not get to pick the responses being sent, and you do not even see them.  There is a way to turn them off, and this will be shown further below.

What kind of Canned Responses does Gmail generate?  I started sending emails to find out.  I started with a religious query to a pastor.  This is my email and in the blue are the Canned Responses.

Next, I tried a business letter regarding contracts ready to be signed, with a possible side of fries.

Perhaps Sunday dinner with Marta Stewart and Snoop Dogg.

Then I thought I'd ask Elon Musk to put me in his space program and send me to Mars.  Let's see what his reply options are.

Next it seemed like Southwest Airlines needed a talking-to.

Harvard University was up next.

Then I got to thinking how poorly Serena Williams was treated on the tennis court recently.

Maybe Donald Trump needed a few encouraging words?

Maybe Kanye West could run for president next time?

And what's up with Jack at Twitter?

Finally, it seemed like Sergey at Google needed a few words of advice from me.

"It works"?  What sort of reply is that when I write to say gmail is broken?

This is how to turn off the Canned Responses on Gmail: Go up on the top right hand side to the little GEAR thing.  Click it and choose SETTINGS.  From the top bar menu, choose ADVANCED.  Next choose: CANNED RESPONSES -- and choose DISABLE.  Then you need to scroll to the bottom and click on SAVE CHANGES.

Illinois No Guns Allowed Signs

Illinois No Guns Allowed Signs 
by Susan Basko, esq.

The U.S. State of Illinois has an interesting law that allows the owner of any private real property to prohibit anyone from bringing a firearm onto or into the property simply by posting a copy of the sign above at the entrance to the property.  No sign is needed if the property is a private residence.  The sign must be 4 inches by 6 inches in size and must be clearly and conspicuously posted at the entrance to the property or building.

The law is found in 430 ILCS 66/ Firearm Concealed Carry Act , a much longer law that allows people to apply for a concealed carry permit, and gives a long list of places where any firearm is prohibited, including schools, daycare centers, government buildings, courts, jails, prisons, hospitals, buses or trains, bars or any place that serves alcohol, special events held in public, playgrounds, parks, athletic fields and facilities, trails and bikeways, forest preserves, any college or university building or facility, any horse racing or gambling facility, any sporting arena or stadium, libraries, airports, amusement parks, zoos, museums, nuclear facilities, and anywhere else prohibited by federal law.

That long list leaves a few private locations, and the owners of those properties can opt to make their properties Gun-Free Zones simply by posting the sign shown above.  The sections of the law that detail this are:

(a-10) The owner of private real property of any type may prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms on the property under his or her control. The owner must post a sign in accordance with subsection (d) of this Section indicating that firearms are prohibited on the property, unless the property is a private residence.


(d) Signs stating that the carrying of firearms is prohibited shall be clearly and conspicuously posted at the entrance of a building, premises, or real property specified in this Section as a prohibited area, unless the building or premises is a private residence. Signs shall be of a uniform design as established by the Department and shall be 4 inches by 6 inches in size. The Department shall adopt rules for standardized signs to be used under this subsection. 

In Chicago, the little signs are posted on the entry doors to many buildings, usually just above the door handle.   Just by posting these signs at the entrance to the property, the owner creates a law for their own property.

The signs are sold online by sign companies.  The signs have to be exactly as stated in the law, with no additional wording or graphics.  If you look, you will see these signs all over Illinois on the doors to restaurants, hotels, shopping malls, stores, laundries, and other places open to the public.

Let's look at an example.  Stephen Paddock brought many guns into his hotel suite on a high floor in a  Las Vegas, Nevada, casino hotel. Paddock loaded up his cache of automated weapons and ammunition onto luggage carts and wheeled it into the freight elevator and brought it up to his room.  He returned to his home several times to bring more guns and ammo back to the hotel.  He used those guns to shoot and kill many people who were at a concert down below outside in view of his hotel windows.  

It has been reported that in the year before that massacre, Paddock had booked a hotel room in Chicago, Illinois, overlooking the site of Lollapalooza, a big music festival.  Paddock never showed up at his reserved rooms in Chicago.  This Illinois law that allows hotel owners to prohibit guns may be the reason Paddock never showed up.

What is the difference between Las Vegas and Chicago?  Most Chicago hotels do not allow firearms.   The hotels post the little signs, thus making it illegal to bring a gun to the hotel.  The hotels also post the firearms policy on their websites.  Below is the policy as stated by the hotel that Paddock had booked overlooking Lollapalooza.  It is from the Chicago Hilton on Michigan Avenue.  The policy states: "FIREARMS POLICY Carrying a weapon on these premises is prohibited and violators may be subject to arrest for trespass under applicable law."  

At most hotels in Illinois where it is illegal to bring in a firearm, if the person has a concealed carry permit, it is usually legal for them to leave the firearm locked in a case in their locked car in the parking lot.  You can ask any hotel what their policy is regarding the parking lot.  Most downtown Chicago hotels charge a high daily parking lot fee, usually around $50 per day.

If you want to buy some of the No Gun signs, you can find them for sale online at several places, including this site: Compliance Signs   You will notice the signs are not inexpensive, but they do appear to meet the legal requirements.  By googling, you can find other sites selling the signs.  if you are a property owner in Illinois and want to make it illegal for anyone to bring in a gun, get some of the signs and put them on your entry doors.  The signs are sold as decals, so all you need is a clean door and you can have the sign up in a few minutes.

Zaiger's Lawyers Say He Won't Communicate;
Friends Say He's in Prison

Gangsta Monkey.  He's so hood.
Zaiger's Lawyers Say He Won't Communicate;
Friends Say He's in Prison
 by Susan Basko, Esq.

Brian Zaiger's friends, to use that term loosely, say he is in prison.  Zaiger's lawyers say he won't communicate with them.  How is he supposed to communicate if he is in prison?

Zaiger's lawyers in Monsarrat v Zaiger, who are Jay Wolman and Marco Randazza, say they must withdraw from the case. They also say there are 8 motions coming up for hearings, and that Zaiger will just have to handle them on his own or get himself a new lawyer.  LoL on all that happening if he is in prison.

Is Zaiger in prison? I could not find him in online inmate listings, but that doesn't mean much.  If anyone knows facts about this and wants to send them to me, please do.

Above are tweets dated April 21, 2018, an exchange between @eddotse, the twitter for Encyclopedia Dramatica, and @GangstaMonkey21:

@eddotse: Happy Birthday to our previous leader - @Zaiger.  Hope prison's working out for ya, fam.

@GangstaMonkey21: Is he in prison now and just going to be very soon?

@eddotse: Already is.

@GangstaMonkey21: fuck yea, dickhead deserves everything that happens to him.

Here is the Motion to Withdraw: (further below is the Affidavit that goes with this)

This is the Affidavit that supports the Motion to Withdraw.

Brian Zaiger Lawyers' Motion to Withdraw Jay Wolman Affidavit 130-1 by Sue Basko on Scribd

Encyclopedia Dramatica's Zaiger's Lawyers Quitting

 Encyclopedia Dramatica's Zaiger's Lawyers Quitting

In a motion for an extension of time in Monsarrat v Zaiger (See Below), the lawyers for Brian Zaiger, who are Marco Randazza and Jay Wolman, say they are going to file a petition to withdraw from the case.  They do not state a reason, but one common reason for lawyers to withdraw is when they are not being paid.  Another reason lawyers sometimes withdraw is if there is a fundamental disagreement between the lawyer and client on how the case should be handled.

This particular motion asks for a 30 day extension of time to give Brian Zaiger a chance to find a new lawyer or to get up to speed to represent himself pro se.  The motion states that there are 8 pending motions.  Whether a judge will allow these lawyers to drop out when their client is facing 8 upcoming motions remains to be seen.  First, they'll file a withdrawal motion and give their reasons.

Jonathan Monsarrat's Copyright claim was dismissed as being time-barred.  That leaves Zaiger's Counterclaims. 

Meanwhile, Encyclopedia Dramatica ownership has reportedly been taken over by Sibin Grašić of Serbia, @etfovac on Twitter.

The Encyclopedia Dramatic website has been down for about a week.  A tweet issued by the site 's account on May 5, 2018, states:

"Our Frontend host has booted us because of the "Offended" page, I'm working to setup couple of alternatives.  Would have notified y'all sooner, but - Twitter Jail."

Whether that is the actual reason for the site being down remains to be seen. Stay tuned and bring big buckets of popcorn.

Joy-Ann Reid and Jonathan Nichols: My Take

Television Static

Joy-Ann Reid and Jonathan Nichols: My Take  
by Susan Basko, Esq.

Everyone is weighing in on the Joy-Ann Reid and Jonathan Nichols debacle regarding someone who dug up possible old blog posts from many years ago possibly written by Joy-Ann Reid or possibly placed onto her old blog by someone else.  Everyone's weighing in, so I will, too.  I'm breaking this into several distinct segments.  I have included my own personal experiences with Jonathan Nichols, the person hired by Joy Reid to determine whether her blog was hacked.

Joy-Ann Reid's Blog Posts.  If the blog posts in question are in fact written by Joy-Ann Reid, I suggest it would be helpful for people to actually read the full posts in question, and come to your own conclusions.  The experiences and culture of an educated Black woman are different from the experiences and culture of any White person.  Maybe there are things to learn by reading the old blogs, but if you insist on jumping in to condemn, you won't learn them. It especially pains me when I see White men picking apart this Black woman.

"Hacking a Blog."  I have a whole lot of blogs.  I also have graduate education in making websites.  There are a few points that anyone should know if they are trying to decide if Ms. Reid's blog was accessed or "hacked":

1. Blogs are signed into from an email.

2. If multiple people have the password to that email, they can all post, edit, delete, etc.  They are given no notice of the actions of the other people.  More than one person can be logged into a blog at a time, working on things, and no notice is given to the others.  The blog treats simultaneous multiple log-ins from the same email account as being one person.

3. In addition, Blog posting rights can be given to multiple people from multiple emails.  If one person is accessing the blog, the others get no notice of this.

4. Blog posts can be made directly from email accounts, without going to the blog.

5. Blog posts can be given any date and they will fall into place automatically.  For example, a blog post can be made in 2018 and given a date years earlier, and it will fall into the correct place on the blog.  For example, today, I could create a blog post and have it post up on a date in 2015, and it would fall right into place.

6.  What is happening on a blog is not noticeable to the blog owner.  For example, I sometimes go over old blog posts and find that spacing has somehow changed on them over the years.  Sometimes the fonts and sizes have changed, too. I also find youtube video embeds that are no longer valid because the video has been removed.  I have also found pictures that have disappeared.  As for the idea of someone hacking to make fake posts --  If fake new posts suddenly appeared deep down on one of my blogs, I would not notice.  How would I notice?  I'd only notice if someone emailed me pointing it out to me.

Fake Blogs. I have been a target of a massive amount of harassment, including (but for sure not limited to): fake twitter accounts made in my name; clone twitter accounts made to look just like my accounts; antisemitic and harassment accounts made in my name (including by people who would now vehemently deny being involved in such things, though they "followed" these accounts and "liked" what they did; fake Facebook accounts using my name;  email accounts created using my name;  forum posting done using my name; whole websites and blogs set up using my name and used to post crap I would never post -- this is a favorite harassment technique of stalkers; domains in my name purchased by cyberstalkers, in my case, by Jay Leiderman and James McGibney and used to create smear websites against me, and even bizarre, wildly false court cases and filings made against me by those same two men, on and on and on.

BECAUSE of my experiences, I am certain that someone wanting to harass or discredit Joy-Ann Reid would use, as part of their arsenal, the creation of blog posts in her name.  Further, it has been my experience that the person "noticing" it or calling attention to it is often the one that created it.  That's been my experience several times, but not always.  The kind of people who create damaging fake stuff online want to make sure that their efforts do not go to waste.   "He who smelt it, dealt it," is a rather apropos aphorism regarding online smear campaigns.

Jonathan Nichols aka @wvualphasoldier.  In about 2012, I was set upon online by a whole crowd of hackers, cyberstalkers, defamation and smear artists, people looking for e-fame, and a whole lot of obnoxious idiots. Almost all of these people have finally stopped -- except for the max-weirdo cyberstalker of soccer moms and friendly grandmas, James McGibney.  But for years, day and night, I was attacked by the antisemitic hate group, Rustle League, and lots of people who were intrigued by their whole swastika-Nazi-harassment style.  The extent and horrors of the harassment and stalking are a story for another day.  This evolved into being harassed by ISIS members who were associated with the group through past hacking connections. The level to which these people have (and McGibney still does) harassed, lied about, smeared, stalked, cyberstalked, and terrorized me has harmed me tremendously.  One point that must be made is that I did not engage with these people, did not interact, and did nothing to them.  What's more, I am a very non-interesting person who tweets and facebooks such things as pictures of drinks I've made of fresh fruit. 

At a later date, I hope to write extensively about how online cyberstalker gangs form, the factors of mental illness and substance abuse that seem to be attracting these people to each other online, how they trust and follow people they have never met, and how avidly they go along with such things as antisemitism, racism, use of hate symbolism, obscenity, and foolish mockery and idiocy.  But that is for another day. Today, I am writing about my experience with Jon Nichols.

Around 2013 and 2014, @wvualphasoldier / Jon Nichols jumped into this fray of harassing me on Twitter.  His Twitter profile was a picture of himself dressed in an Army uniform.  He gathered around himself a group of hacker wannabes who, it seemed to me, were listening to him and were convinced that the things he did were legal and acceptable because he was this big Army computer guy -- or so he said.  I have no idea why Jon Nichols was harassing me in this way, since I did not know who he was and had never interacted with him in any way.  It seemed to me like he was trying to get his moment of e-fame.

Finally, I tweeted a Do Not Contact notice to @wvualphasoldier.  I had done this to several people and they all mocked it, but with most of them, it seemed to work, more or less.  They called it a Cease and Desist (C&D), which it was not.  It had different legal implications.  With a Do Not Contact, I was putting these people on notice that I did not want them to make contact to or about me, to simply leave me alone, which for most of them, seemed like an insurmountable task.  The legal point is that if they persisted, then if I made a criminal complaint, they could not claim that they did not know or were unaware that their contact was unwanted.  This made their trespassing of my social space "knowing."  That gives "mens rea" to their actions of harassing me.  "Serving" the Do Not Contact notice via Twitter made sense since these were all people about whom I knew nothing, and had no way to reach them other than on Twitter.  I could also tell when they received it and read it, because they would instantly begin making fun of it, tweeting about what an idiot I was, etc.  Then, I would delete the notice since it had done its job of giving notice.

At the time, I was writing answers to legal questions sent in by the public on a website called Law Q&A.  There, I answered literally hundreds of legal questions. It was a great useful site, but it is now closed.  Anyway, Jon (or someone acting just like him) sent in a question to Law Q&A asking if this notice sent via Twitter was valid.  The question was answered by a Criminal lawyer in New York State. His answer, posted on Law Q&A, was that the notice was valid and that the person who sent in the question seemed to be harassing.  Then, the same person sent in a variant on the same question, and the New York Criminal lawyer told the person again, the notice is valid and it seems like the question sender is the one doing the harassing and they should stop. 

By that time, I was fed up.  I was being harassed by this @wvualphasoldier Twitter account, who was using a photo of himself in an Army uniform to gain legitimacy with young Twitter followers, who were now also harassing me.  Reports to Twitter had no effect, of course.

Then, I thought about this situation.  How is it that a man in the Army has all day to sit on Twitter, harassing people?  I wondered:  Doesn't he have to be out doing a job or running around singing marching songs, or whatever it is that people in the Army do?  Granted, my knowledge of the military comes mainly from comedy movies, such as the old Bill Murray movie, "Stripes."  Despite my limited knowledge on the topic, it seemed implausible to me that the Army would assign a man to spend all day on Twitter coaching youngsters on how to harass others.

I decided to report this situation to the Army and to ask if it was a misuse of the Army uniform that @wvualphasoldier was using a photo of himself in his military uniform to gain legitimacy and lead others to harass me.  I thought contacting the Army might be a complicated process, but it turned out to be very easy.  Online, I found a website for the Army CID (Criminal Investigation Command) with an email for reports.  I sent them an email with a link to the @wvulalphasoldier Twitter account, which showed a photo of Jon Nichols in an Army uniform.  I sent them links to some of the tweets where he was harassing me.  I asked if this was okay by the Army that this man was using the influence of his Army uniform to gather young people into harassing strangers online.  The Army CID responded to me quickly.

The reply from the Army CID stunned me.  They told me Jon Nichols / @wvualphasoldier was not in the Army.  They also told me that no one by that name had worked with computers in the army.  I asked if maybe his name was spelled differently, and they wrote back to me and said they tried different spellings.

Immediately after my contact with the Army CID, the profile picture on @wvualphasoldier was changed.  The photo in the Army uniform was removed.  Jon put up a picture of himself in civilian clothes.  He also stopped harassing me.

I don't know what Jon Nichols' story is.  I have some working theories, but mostly I do not care since he is no longer harassing me. That is all I've ever asked of any of the people cyberstalking and harassing me --  just please, leave me alone.

If you are reading this, Jon, and you want to explain, please do.  I will be happy to post what you send to me.

I have once again written to the Army CID to ask those same questions I asked several years ago, to see if there was some mistake on their part.  I have not heard back yet.  If and when I do, I will share what they say, if appropriate.

Top 14 Twitter Mistakes That Led to the Mess

Birds Tweeting

Top 14 Twitter Mistakes that Led to the Mess

Twitter, which was known at the time as Twittr, began as a simple tool for communicating among one's working team or set of friends.  That went well until about 2011, when Twitter was deluged with new people who could not be trusted to be "social" on "social media."  Twitter was then overtaken by bands of marauders who went about trying to chalk up personal scores by seeing how many people they could intimidate and harass.  The infrastructure of Twitter, designed for polite groups of well-educated social peers, was not ready for this Carnival of Crazies.  Many mistakes were made, some are being rectified, but this has been a very long, slow process.  Twitter has possibly/ most likely/ been the source of more police complaints and more lawsuits than any other social media -- although Facebook is neck and neck in this race.

Top 14 Twitter Mistakes that Led to the Mess:

1. Twitter did not have in-line reporting.  In the early days of Twitter, making a report was a laborious and very time-consuming process that involved jotting down the URL of the offensive tweet, going to s special reporting form, and inputting the information.  More often than not, the page had glitches and did not work.  Then, after the users went to all that trouble, Twitter did nothing to help.

2. Twitter showed abuse reports to the abusers.  In the earlier days of Twitter, when reporting abuse, the person making the report had to sign a statement saying they were aware their report would be shown to the person they were reporting.  This was based on an ill-informed notion of allowing a person to confront their accuser -- an idea that is part of the U.S. Constitution with regard to criminal trials, but that has absolutely nothing to do with social media accounts.  Thus, when my life was threatened by someone in the Rustle League, I reported it to Twitter, the person was told, and they organized a massive attack against me by all their friends.  When my life was threatened by two members of ISIS, I skipped reporting it to Twitter and sent links immediately to the FBI.  Twitter allowed those death threat tweets to sit there for a long time and endanger my life, until the accounts were "suspended."

3. Twitter refused to simply delete Tweets.  Instead, Twitter would wait until the offending account had engaged in years of targeted harassment and degradation, and then would "suspend" the account, by which Twitter meant "close."  One of the people who harassed me incessantly, Jaime Cochran aka @asshurtmacfags, was the first person I ever heard of to have their account suspended by Twitter.  This was after literally years of shocking, day in and day out, hate tweets aimed at me by Cochran, and with me not responding whatever.  It would have been so much more productive if Twitter had simply deleted the abusive tweets as Cochran made them, instead of forcing me to endure years of defamation and harassment and Nazi-themed hate tweets.  By allowing the abuse and not nipping it quickly, Twitter presented itself as a playground for Nazis and psychos.  Cochran eventually came back on Twitter, and proceeded to harass and stalk others, which leads to yet another thing Twitter did not do until recently -- a hard ban of an abusive person from the service.

4. Twitter closes an account and calls it "suspended."  This misuse of the word "suspend" gives the user a false hope that their account will be restored.  It also makes Twitter novices not fear suspension, because it sounds temporary, like being suspended from high school.

5. Twitter intentionally allowed racist hate.  Twitter allowed users to post swastikas, the ISIS flag, antisemitic depictions, obscene photos, including the famous "goatse" pictures, etc.  Dick Costolo, who was Twitter CEO at the time, was so hell-bent on having a Nazi-friendly Twitter that he faced prison in France, rather than agree to turn over to the French government the account information of those posting antisemitic hate tweets. 

6. Twitter allowed use of TwitLonger.  This stupid app became the favorite of Twitter Crazies.  It allowed them to extend their abusive rants from 140 characters into whole paragraphs.  To make matters worse, Twitter claimed it had no control over the content posted by crazies using TwitLonger.

7. Twitter claimed it had no control over pictures.  In the early days of Twitter, pictures were hosted on an outside app, and Twitter claimed it had no control over the pictures.  Therefore, the abusive users filled Twitter up with obscene photos, racist and misogynist memes, and lots of other bad stuff.  Twitter now hosts its own pictures and makes it easy to report offensive pictures.

8. For a while, Twitter tried a system of "spam" reporting with automated account suspension.  By that time, Twitter had been overtaken by marauding antisemitic and racist hate and misogynist hate groups, and they had figured out that if they all ganged up and reported  as "spam" a tweet made by someone they were harassing, they could get that account suspended automatically and immediately.  Twitter apparently devised this as a reporting tool, but should have realized how it would be used.  Thank goodness that is now gone.

9. Twitter allowed antisocial gangs to form or operate on Twitter.  Groups such as Rustle League, GNAA, ISIS, Bullyville, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Doxbin, SETG, Gamer Gate, and others used (and somewhat still do use) Twitter to gang together and harass others.  The main difference is that now, their hate symbols are mostly banned, though from time to time, there will be an account with swastikas, links to Encyclopedia Dramatica, or other hate symbolism.

10. Twitter allows purchased followers.  Twitter seemed to encourage purchased followers by requiring users to have more followers than people they follow.  An easy way to make up that deficit is by buying followers.  Buying followers was also a way for accounts to boost their numbers to appear popular.  I mean, seriously, Katie Perry supposedly has the highest number of Twitter followers?  Does anyone even care about Katie Perry or know even one song she sang?  I know I don't.  In addition, harassers soon figured out that they could buy thousands of followers and have them dumped onto the account of someone they wanted to bother.  Purchased accounts are mostly fake profiles and usually contain bots.  Bots and malware came onto Twitter, riding in the big dumps of fake followers.  How did anyone think a big dump of fake followers would be released onto an account all at once, other than with malware guiding them?

11. Twitter allows clone accounts and mistakenly calls them "parody" accounts.  Harassers make Twitter accounts that look identical to one's account, and Twitter refuses to delete the accounts.  Twitter does not seem to know that "Parody" is an art form and also is legally defined and hard to accomplish.  A harasser making accounts that look like someone else's account and using those to shitpost is not parody.

12. Twitter was slow to implement hard bans of abusive users.  Some people simply cannot function in a social environment, and Twitter became home to many of them.  These people would have account after account suspended -- and they would pop right back up with a new account.  Twitter needed to implement hard bans much earlier on, and they seem to have accomplished this, more or less.  Even if it meant getting court orders to keep these kinds of people off Twitter, it would be worth it.  I can think of several highly abusive Twitter users who have had at least 10 or more of their accounts suspended.  Those people are not mistakenly or accidentally tweeting something inappropriate; their intention is to be abusive and they work hard at it.

13.  Twitter allows block lists.  This is still ongoing.  It is hard to say who is making these deceptive lists, but they are defamatory and are being used to block some activists from the very audience they would like to reach.  For example, John Cusack, the actor and activist, installed a block list that he was led to believe was of trolls.  Instead, the list contained almost all the major left wing activists who would most want to hear his message.  Who created this list and who "sold" him on it?  So many activists were so insulted, that he has lost much of his former fan base, all because he fell for a ruse. Since these lists are deceptive and defamatory, and seem to be run by people who are actually running a counter-agenda, they should not be allowed.  Instead, Twitter should work to remove the troll bots.

14. Twitter provides no way to report troll bots.  Have you ever noticed Twitter has no way to report a troll bot?  I have spotted quite a few of them -- mobs of 10 more more accounts tweeting the exact same abusive things at the same time -- and yet, there is no way to report troll bots.  Troll bots are a main form of attack that Twitter users have been complaining about for years, and yet there is no way to report one when we see it.