back to article Twitter: Why we silenced Rose McGowan after she slammed alleged sex pest Harvey Weinstein

Twitter was today accused of censorship after it froze the account of actress Rose McGowan – who had just publicly slammed alleged sex fiend Harvey Weinstein. McGowan was surprised to find herself locked out of her @rosemcgowan profile on Wednesday night, and posted on Instagram a screengrab of a telling-off she received from …

  1. Amorous Cowherder
    Facepalm

    Twitter IS a toilet

    I see Twitter as a private company billboard, if they think you smell, have a wonky eye then they can ban you they like.

    I think Linehan almost had it right, but Twitter isn't a toilet, it's a cesspit.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I think Linehan has it right

      As Scott Adams often says, two movies, one screen. Linehans twitter is a such a doozy of insane vitriol at times it beggars belief.

      No doubt he doesn't consider himself part of the Toiletarti :-/

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I think Linehan has it right

        People take advice from Scott Adams?

        Wow.

        1. h4rm0ny

          Re: I think Linehan has it right

          Scott Adams is pretty smart. Also, writes a lot more than just Dilbert. He wrote a piece on why Trump would win fairly early on and proved spot on with his analysis in hindsight. Is there any particular reason for your incredulity?

          1. Mycho Silver badge

            Re: I think Linehan has it right

            Scott Adams frequently has to post disclaimers that you shouldn't take moral or professional advice from cartoonists.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

            2. h4rm0ny

              Re: I think Linehan has it right

              >>Scott Adams frequently has to post disclaimers that you shouldn't take moral or professional advice from cartoonists.

              No, he frequently chooses to. And in my experience, the people who are most hesitant to give advice are usually a lot more qualified to do so than those who love giving it out.

              (And hopefully that's it for the homily channel, tonight!)

          2. Brangdon

            Re: I think Linehan has it right

            I'm not the previous poster, but Scott Adams is a bit of a dick. He admires Trump and uses similar methods, including lying a lot. Much of his "persuasion" amounts to saying whatever is needed to get the other fellow to do what he wants, whether or not it is true. A few days before the election, he made a post about how to discourage Clinton supporters from voting. He's a climate change denier. Most of what he writes distorts the truth.

            I still read him. One of the sad things is that there used to be meaningful criticism in the comments to his blog, but nowadays it's become a pro-Trump echo-chamber.

            1. bombastic bob Silver badge
              Thumb Down

              Re: I think Linehan has it right

              @Brangdon

              "Scott Adams is a bit of a dick. He admires Trump ... He's a climate change denier."

              a HUGE DOWNVOTE from me, for being so transparently PEJORATIVE, as well as ignorant about REAL science. And steering the topic to Trump and man-made climate change.

              NICE. JOB. *NOT*

            2. h4rm0ny

              Re: I think Linehan has it right

              >>A few days before the election, he made a post about how to discourage Clinton supporters from voting.

              That would be this Clinton? The one who received $250,000 from long-term Democrat supporter and Whitehouse visitor Harvey Weinsten? Who has spent the last week trying to avoid denouncing her friend just in case he pulls through this somehow and retains his influence? Just checking.

              And if the post you're referring to is the one I think it is, the one about how to un-hypnotise a rabid anti-Trump supporter, then I don't see what's wrong with providing a list of supported facts that many were glossing over. HIllary has been for every war America has engaged in in the last couple of decades. Trump came out as against the Iraq War when Hillary was championing it. And things of that nature. People attacking Scott for a blog post like that... are frankly the people the blog post was talking about.

              1. Brangdon

                Re: h4rm0ny

                I'm not referring to the blog post about how to un-hypnotise a rabid anti-Trump supporter. I'm referring to this one: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152226715516/how-to-legally-vote-more-than-once. It starts, "If you find it annoying that you only have one legal vote, here’s how you can get a few more." Here's step 1:

                1. Set the stage by cleverly hiding the fact that you are a Trump supporter. Say some good things to your intended targets about Clinton’s plucky attitude, her place in history, and the breadth of her experience. Once people believe you are on the “right” side, they will find you more persuasive later.

                That is, use deception and lies. Make people believe something that isn't true (namely, that you are a Clinton supporter). That's how he works.

                (Sorry I don't know how to do formatting on this site.)

                1. Mycho Silver badge

                  Re: h4rm0ny

                  What a bastard, encouraging people to talk to people with opposing political views. Doesn't he know the only ethical solution to political differences is to #PunchANazi ?

                  And yes, as a remainer living in Brexit central I can confirm that sometimes to start a conversation you need to pretend to agree with someone.

                  1. codejunky Silver badge

                    Re: h4rm0ny

                    @ Mycho

                    "And yes, as a remainer living in Brexit central I can confirm that sometimes to start a conversation you need to pretend to agree with someone."

                    As a leaver living in remainer central I can sympathise. I can only assume by your willingness to talk to others holding differing views also puts you toward the moderate end of the debate. You have to walk carefully being in the middle of 2 warring tribes.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: I think Linehan has it right

              And of course no one ever tried to discourage people from voting for Trump.

              And the Climate Change deniers are the apocalyptic ones, the screamers warning about impending doom. They deny that climate changes unless it's humans doing the changing. Anti-scientific frauds.

              But you have to give Adams credit. It may be a one-off but he did indeed identify what made Trump far more formidable an opponent than most gave him credit for (it was going to be a landslide for Clinton, everybody said so - remember ?). He's not, to my mind, slavishly pro-Trump but does recognize the actual PR skills that Trump has. And those skills worked.

              You do need to get over Clinton's defeat and onto the healing side of the stages of grief.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: I think Linehan has it right

                Just to throw another spanner in the works, Scott Adams also predicted Corbyn would do better than expected. Lost a lot of readers when he did that, then jump forward to June this year...

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: I think Linehan has it right

            "Scott Adams is pretty smart."

            Scott Adams not only predicted Trump's win, which was smart, but publicly backed Trump. I wouldn't call the latter a smart move, because of the number of readers of his website (in the US and internationally) he has potentially alienated.

            Maybe, one day, I will start reading Dilbert again, but it won't be during *this* presidency...

            1. Sitaram Chamarty

              Re: I think Linehan has it right

              wow; I did not know this. Just deleted the dilbert feed from my RSS reader. I absolutely love Dilbert but not at this price -- supporting someone (however indirectly and ineffectually) who supports the "racist toddler".

              1. This post has been deleted by its author

              2. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: I think Linehan has it right

                @ Sitaram Chamarty

                "Just deleted the dilbert feed from my RSS reader. I absolutely love Dilbert but not at this price"

                So you will stop enjoying something you enjoy because the creator has a personal opinion you dont like? You might want to stop using almost everything as finding 2 people who agree on everything is not an easy task at all.

                I dont understand the growing intolerance nor the excessive overreaction and tantrum approach to life. Do you ask the political beliefs of the servers at a restaurant before you eat there? Or coffee shop? Who the hell cares? I am sure you hold beliefs that others would disagree with, and if they said to you 'well I aint gonna invite you for dinner any more' are you really gonna give a hoot at all? No.

                I dont care if you do or dont delete dilbert from your RSS feed (first world problems eh) but I seriously hope you are not representative of the majority of people in this country. And I severely hope you are still in school/college to think self harm for someone elses personal thoughts/beliefs is clever (at least enough to announce publicly).

                1. sabroni Silver badge
                  Meh

                  Re: I dont care if you do or dont delete dilbert from your RSS feed

                  In fact I so don't care I'm going to write a little essay explaining how stupid you are...

                  1. codejunky Silver badge

                    Re: I dont care if you do or dont delete dilbert from your RSS feed

                    @ sabroni

                    "In fact I so don't care I'm going to write a little essay explaining how stupid you are..."

                    You may want to look up. Higher. Higher. You see that thing up there, thats the point you seem to have missed.

                    I dont care if he does or not decide to remove the RSS feed for dilbert. What does bother me is that he publicly announces he is going to cut off his nose to spite his face and seems to think it is something to be proud of. And if I am honest he is the straw that broke the camels back because I see this kind of reasoning becoming more and more mainstream.

                    The virtue signalling that the provider of content that they actually want (that is the logic here) has an opinion they dont agree with and so they are boycotting it is similar to an idiot doing it in a room saying 'I am walking out, who is with me'. The demand for attention and support at doing something stupid.

                    That isnt a million miles from those idiots who campaign to no-platform people. Because freedom of thought and differing perspectives are so dangerous to a closed mind. I have no problem with anyone with a closed mind but it isnt something I would brag about. Especially in such a trivial situation as political opinion.

                    1. Throatwobbler Mangrove

                      Re: I dont care if you do or dont delete dilbert from your RSS feed

                      "You may want to look up. Higher. Higher. You see that thing up there..."

                      ...is it your horse?

                      1. aqk
                        Headmaster

                        Re: I dont care if you do or ...is it your horse?

                        Why yes. It is! But who is on it? I cannot quite see...

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: I think Linehan has it right

                Trump isn't half as racist as Obama was. And not as stupid either, though that would be hard.

            2. 45RPM Silver badge

              Re: I think Linehan has it right

              @Anonymous Coward and Others

              Scott Adams is quite smart. Just not the cartoonist Scott Adams who is not only a dick, but a dick who can’t draw very well - which is something of a handicap in a cartoonist.

              The real Scott Adams, the guy who wrote adventure games in the late 1970s and 1980s, is quite smart though - although if he comes out in support of Trump I’ll revise my opinion pretty damn quickly (and call into question the intelligence of anyone named Scott Adams, regardless of the facts).

          4. Not That Andrew

            Re: I think Linehan has it right

            A guy in his 60's who feels the need to post selfies of his 6 pack is not smart

          5. aqk
            Paris Hilton

            Is there any particular reason for your incredulity?

            yes.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I think Linehan has it right

          "People take advice from Scott Adams?", the one about mud being good for chigger bites was useful

          as in Scott Adams of Adventure International for those who are too young to remember the '80s

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventureland_(computer_game)

    2. ElReg!comments!Pierre Silver badge

      Re: Twitter IS a toilet

      I see Twitter as a private company billboard, if they think you smell, have a wonky eye then they can ban you they like.

      Says so in their TnCs, too. I don't know by what miracle some people have come to view twitter as a public service dedicated to information. That's a company dedicated to extract as much cash as possible from exhibitionism and narcissic instincts, and as such they always made the decisions which got them the most cash. No surprise there.

    3. MyffyW Silver badge

      Re: Twitter IS a toilet

      Twitter views itself as middleware that can impose a value-subtracted tax at various parts of the message queue.

      That said it's not very good middleware. Think of it as BizTalk with fewer morals and even less obvious real-world application.

  2. I am David Jones
    Thumb Up

    We have contacted the actress

    Thank-you for not reaching out!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: We have contacted the actress

      ...but some minus points for jumping on the "trial by Twitter" band wagon.

  3. Bakker

    Sense of proportion

    Point of order. She wasn’t blocked from tweeting because of her slamming of W, but (according to your article) because of the actual content of her tweet(s). While Twitter’s info to her initially was less than useful in identifying the problem (other articles thought that it was a separate tweet of hers which told someone to F off in a more complete form of that profanity) it’s difficult to see that she was being silenced in order to somehow protect W which is the implication here.

    1. Notas Badoff
      WTF?

      Re: Sense of proportion

      Not having tweetered myself I don't understand the logistics. Should Twitter have declared to the world there was illicit doxing going on and pointed to the offending tweet, in order to justify the semi-lock out? Should they have blanked out the tweet and said "user knows what user did wrong" and let everyone wonder what the hell was going on?

      Truly I wonder, what could they have done about the doxing without, um, doxing?

      1. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
        WTF?

        Re Notas Badoff: Sense of proportion

        Easy - they could have deleted the tweet that violated their TOS. But then they'd be responsible for the diarrhea in their toilet content of their site.

        1. eldakka Silver badge

          Re: Re Notas Badoff: Sense of proportion

          Easy - they could have deleted the tweet that violated their TOS. But then they'd be responsible for the diarrhea in their toilet content of their site.

          As has been demonstrated many times in court, policing content does not make the site responsible for the content they let through.

          There have been many lawsuits filed against platforms that use logic along the lines of "you moderate content, therefore you are responsible for that content" that has been routinely rejected by the courts.

      2. Dave Bell

        Re: Sense of proportion

        I have used Twitter, and I don't understand how the quoted warning could lead to the offending tweet being deleted. I can see why Twitter doesn't want to make a public reference to that tweet. What seems to be missing is something like "We have sent you a DM with full details".

        They are beta-testing long tweets, and I suppose there might be a length problem in this, but Twitter is getting a reputation for inept handling of offensive material.

      3. h4rm0ny

        Re: Sense of proportion

        >>Truly I wonder, what could they have done about the doxing without, um, doxing?

        They can provide an error message to the user more specific than "You're blocked because of reasons".

        I had a Twitter account for all of a month and then I got blocked by them. No real explanation, just a vague reference to "automated behaviour". I *think* it's because my partner who uses Twitter a bit more than me had his account open in a different browser on the same computer and thus two accounts from the same IP. But it's only a wild guess. Twitter's messages are very unhelpful.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sense of proportion

      Sorry but I hate to break it to you but twitter has no profanity filter or otherwise, there are no real time monitors and verses number of users there are very few moderators.

      To get your account blocked you have to come up on the moderators radar, this is probably achieved by number of people marking your post offensive or spam being say greater than 1000, so ask yourself do we think her tweet about "W" got lots of complaints? No.

      Therefore twatter had someone working on the "W" case to try and limit bad tweets however it has back fired so now they have a nice excuse of a phone number. Use your head, do you really think a Hollywood actress is stupid enough to post someones phone number and even if she did who is going to notice in twatters moderation team?

      If you look a little closer at society things like this point to an elite where money, power and influence does a lot of talking on social media.

      1. John Sager

        Re: Sense of proportion

        If Twitter is half the company they are supposed to be then they will have tweet analysis keyed to the T&C's, as well as lots of other stuff presumably. A phone no filter is not a hard regular expression, and they will get flagged.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Sense of proportion

          You are indeed correct however the message (as per the link in the article) doesn't tell her which tweet she needs to delete or why and it happens immediately after she slags off Weinstein.

          It doesn't take a genius to work this one out.

          1. d3vy Silver badge

            Re: Sense of proportion

            " it happens immediately after she slags off Weinstein."

            Yes but it also happens after a presumably significant uptick in the readership of her tweets as a result of slagging off w.

            If I were writing moderation software is certain ally have it pay attention to accounts with sudden high volumes of activity..

            Realistically given everyone that is posting about him would banning this one user really make a difference? What would Twitter gain from

            Doing so?

          2. rh587

            Re: Sense of proportion

            You are indeed correct however the message (as per the link in the article) doesn't tell her which tweet she needs to delete or why and it happens immediately after she slags off Weinstein.

            It doesn't take a genius to work this one out.

            It happens after she posts a number of very shouty tweets variously telling people to f-off, apparently one containing a private phone number, and yes, righteous abuse directed at Weinstein.

            Trying to claim the block was due to one specific tweet when she had posted a large number of tweets in a short space of time is - frankly - political point scoring unless you happen to work for Twitter and have access to the relevant logs (and I'm taking a wild guess that you don't).

            None of us have the relevant information to know for sure one way or another. Anyone claiming absolutes is a liar, fraud, or a Twitter employee in disguise.

        2. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

          Re: Sense of proportion

          "A phone no filter is not a hard regular expression, and they will get flagged."

          Indeed, most modern applications detect when you enter a number which is formatted like a phone number and make it a hotlink, so Twitter could easily do the same, removing potential phone numbers, before allowing the post. Even Win10 Sticky Notes detect phone numbers and pass it through to Skype for Business.

          1. sabroni Silver badge

            Re: Sense of proportion

            It was supposedly a picture containing a phone number. Not trivial to regex that.

            1. d3vy Silver badge

              Re: Sense of proportion

              "It was supposedly a picture containing a phone number. Not trivial to regex that."

              OCR is something that exists... The problem being that it would take quite a bit of processing to OCR every picture uploaded... (But then FB and YT manage a significant amount of pre publish checking on video for copywritten content in videos so Im sure twitter could figure something out..

              I suspect as I mentioned in another comment that the sudden surge in activity on her account because of her recent post regarding W simply flagged her account for further review meaning that her images were subject to additional checks (Either automated or manual)

      2. Sirius Lee

        Re: Sense of proportion

        No wonder you posted anonymously. Twitter may be a toilet but this sort of comment is no better.

        As the article points out, and you acknowledge, the offence was including a telephone number in a post (presumably not her own). It's not difficult to imagine who's telephone number she included. It's also not difficult for software to workout if a post contains a telephone number. No human moderators are required to identify a telephone number and send a note of it to a human to check.

        How about a little less of the mindless conspiracy theory stuff.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Sense of proportion

          @Sirius Lee

          I like my conspiracy theories.

          Now what are the odds that she accuses him of rape and her account gets blocked straight away?

          I also await a screenshot or confirmation of said telephone number, once that appears I'll eat my hat.

          I also note that her accusation is "big" news now, front page of the BBC no less so if someone at twitter blocked her account because they knew it would be big news then it proves my theory correct.

          Weinstein already paid her off to the tune of $100k so it is not unrealistic to think he may have had a word with twitter in case McGowan decided to go public.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Sense of proportion

            "Weinstein already paid her off to the tune of $100k so it is not unrealistic to think he may have had a word with twitter in case McGowan decided to go public."

            What? How would that conversation go? "Hi Twitter, here is a list of women I raped and paid off a long time before you even existed, if there comes a time at any point in the future when one of them decides to mention it on your platform, please delete that tweet and block them immediately. Oh, and don't tell anyone about the whole me-raping-them-and-paying-them-off-thing, k? I'll keep you updated as and when I decide to rape more women and pay them off in the future too."

            Yes, that sounds entirely plausible.

          2. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

            Re: Sense of proportion

            what are the odds that she accuses him of rape and her account gets blocked straight away?

            Quite high I would have thought if Weinstein, his staff, or legal team are keeping an eye on Twitter and other social media, poised to get accusations quickly removed with legal threats if they aren't.

            Those will probably quickly pass through the moderation system and, if posts do breach T&Cs, they will get taken down and the de facto punishment will get applied.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Sense of proportion

              @jason bloomberg

              Yep, that's part of what I'm getting at and twitter must be complicit because they blocked her account, us mere mortals don't get that sort of protection.

              oh and on the legal arguments this is the US of A so there is no legal basis to remove her tweet, twitter cannot be held responsible so why did they remove it?

              Tin foil is already on.

      3. TheProf
        Trollface

        Re: Sense of proportion

        "do you really think a Hollywood actress is stupid enough to post someones phone number "

        This is a trick question isn't it?

  4. Florida1920 Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    I have a question

    With all the hating and back-biting that happens on Twitter et al (though I'm not faulting McGowan), why do we call them "social" media?

    1. tirk
      Coat

      Re: I have a question

      Well STD's were called "social" diseases once.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I have a question

      because all the users are needy and can't grasp the philosophical concepts of the self or id.

    3. lglethal Silver badge
      Go

      Re: I have a question

      I'm with Florida on this - from now on El reg can we refer to Twitter, Facebook et al as Anti-social Media?

      Seems more appropriate...

      1. LaeMing Bronze badge
        Unhappy

        Re: I have a question

        Because people are, on the whole, horrible and 'social media' is really just a mirror on the normal human condition.

  5. chivo243 Silver badge

    Personal phone number?

    I have to call BS on that one... No screengrab?

  6. Milton Silver badge

    Twitter Toilet

    Graham Linehan is right, Twitter is a toilet - puts me in mind of the ones on Temple Street in Kowloon on a busy evening - and the only surprise is that non-toilet-dwellers spend so much time and energy apologising for it and making excuses.

    Do you really think there's any value, beyond witlessess egotism, to sharing your 140-characters of superficial dross?

    Get a life.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Twitter Toilet

      Linehan gleefully swam about in that toilet for years and only complained when he was subjected to the same treatment he lavished on people he didn't like.

      Live by the tweet, die by the tweet.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: only complained when he was subjected to the same treatment

        Hmm, sounds like someone got a bit of a talking to on Twitter and hasn't got over it.....

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: only complained when he was subjected to the same treatment

          Yes. Linehan.

  7. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Angel

    Erm...

    Wherefore art this twit-err of which thou speakest?

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Erm...

      It is a popular beat combo m'lud.

      Oh sorry m'lud, my junior counsel informs me that it is in fact a virtual "Speaker's Corner" on the information superhighway where the world's drunks and lunatics gather to shout abuse at each other and howl at the moon.

  8. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    So no calls from a burly misogynist asking them to "make her STFU" then?

    Good to know.

    I have heard that one is not socially informed if one is not on Twitter.

    I remain unconvinced.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The thing I struggle to understand is how many high profile actresses have since come forwards - Angelina Jolie, etc. and for just how long this guy was predatory towards women.

    Is it so endemic, or were even these highly regarded and thought of actresses still scared they wouldn't be believed and would lose any future work?

    I mean I always believed Hollywood was a cesspit to a very large extent but this is mind boggling and genuinely worrying.

    I can understand up-and-coming actresses feeling threatened but jesus christ.

    Sometimes it feels like humans are just broken.

    1. lglethal Silver badge
      Go

      From what I've read on this, pertty much all of the attacks (I cant think of a better word right now) happened to actresses at the start of their career. So yes they all kept their mouths shut for fear of their careers being destroyed before they get started.

      I did read that at least one of the actresses claims that after she did speak out about it at the time her career did suffer. Whether her career really did suffer or not is impossible to work out (how do you tell if someone didnt get offered a part because of speaking out or because they thought the other actor was better? Thats a can of Worms to open up right there.). But I can imagine a simple "Hmm I dont rate her as an actress" comment from the head of a Production Company would discourage directors from casting an actress for fear that they would get a lower Budget with her in it.

      Either way, he sounds like a complete prick, and deserves a good kicking for abusing his position of authority like that...

      1. Lotaresco Silver badge

        "From what I've read on this, pertty much all of the attacks (I cant think of a better word right now) happened to actresses at the start of their career. So yes they all kept their mouths shut for fear of their careers being destroyed before they get started."

        The recordings of Weinstein released via The New Yorker reveal him making what are not-so-veiled threats to an actress if she doesn't let him molest her.

        “Don’t embarrass me in the hotel. I’m here all the time….You’ll never see me again after this, if you embarrass me in this hotel,”

        “Five minutes. Don’t ruin your friendship with me for five minutes.”

        Of course "never seeing him again" would mean "never working for him again" which given his grip over production and distribution would mean being excluded from a broad range of work.

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      There's the early career effect of course. The "casting couch" is a long and dishonourable tradition in Hollywood after all.

      But it looks like some people were "bought off" by legal settlements with non-disclosure agreements. So it could also be that they didn't want the legal minefield of whatever the penalty clauses were on that - particularly if the lawyers were good at convincing them that it was a one-off case and so they were unlikely to be believed.

    3. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

      The thing I struggle to understand is how many high profile actresses have since come forwards - Angelina Jolie, etc. and for just how long this guy was predatory towards women.

      Casting Couch Tales are nothing new and, though we may be reluctant to admit it, sexist and unwanted sexual behaviour, like casual racism, was the norm even just a few decades ago and more tolerated than it is now. It really was a man's world back then, and was worse the further back we go.

      That is not to excuse it, and while some of what Weinstein appears to have done may fall under being the norm for the time, it appears an awful lot amounts to sexual assault and intimidation, and it continued long after 'it's the norm' could even be considered an excuse.

      Give anyone the power to decide the future and fate of others and there will be an opportunity to exploit by those who hold that power. Few will have the courage to speak out and risk having their lives ruined, especially when society chooses to see the perpetrators as beyond guilt, effectively protects them.

      What we are seeing is an increasing intolerance to abuse of power; whether that be movie moguls, those in office, the police or other institutions, and long may that continue.

      1. GX5000
        Facepalm

        Sure, it's the end of the world.

        There's nothing new about harlots chasing assholes.

        We're just hearing more about it now since the Cell phone Victim culture is in high gear.

        Let's just focus on abuse victims that need our help and forget about the catfishes ok kids?

  10. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Twitter toilet

      Facebook owns the toilets at Glastonbury, and charges a fortune for access.

  11. Salestard

    Speaking of toilet

    Who the hell is writing the headlines and straplines today?

    "Woman stands up to powerful bully. What happened next will not shock you"

    Thought I'd landed on huffclickbaitlisticlepost

    1. Chris G Silver badge

      Re: Speaking of toilet

      I think it was intended to be tongue in cheek, if not, then you are right, its time for a new headlines editor.

      I wonder how many others like this weinerstein guy are still hiding in the woodwork?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Speaking of toilet

        > I wonder how many others like this weinerstein guy are still hiding in the woodwork?

        Most are hiding in plain sight.

      2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        "I wonder how many others like this weinerstein guy are still hiding in the woodwork?"

        Well at least a couple at Fox News seem to have turned up. *

        *Other news gathering organizations are available.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Speaking of toilet

      You did, the White Knights, Cucks and SjW's are braving exposure even here now...

  12. druck
    Thumb Down

    Phone numbers

    If they can detect a private phone number in a tweet, why not do so before it is posted and warn the sender it's against the Ts&Cs there and then, rather than banning after the event with a less than useful explanation?

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As Jimmy Savile was to the BBC so Weinstein is to Hollywood, but this time they have the bastard alive.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      McGowan herself reached a $100,000 settlement with the mogul in 1997 following “an episode in a hotel room during the Sundance Film Festival,” and signed a non-disclosure agreement.

      Good luck with making a court case against Weinstein out of that, and all the other settlements. Rinse and repeat for all the molesting moguls. It only came unstuck for Roger Ailes at Fox when one of his victims refused to be bought off.

      My prediction is that this will blow over in a couple of weeks and Weinstein will return to the business in a less prominent role.

      1. Muscleguy Silver badge

        Except rape charges will trump the non disclosure agreements. Though how you get them to stick this long after the fact is beyond me. That's the problem with this, unless one of the actresses was under age then it becomes a 'he said, she said' thing. There will be no scientific evidence. Even if they can all describe how his dick swings to the left (for eg) this doesn't address consent. Did they kick and scream and were they heard by a third party will be as good as it gets.

        Which is why these things are so hard to prove. There are defence lawyers in the states well versed in such cases. Remember they didn't get Slick Willy either, because consent.

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Except rape charges will trump the non disclosure agreements.

          In which particular universe? Rape is a statutory crime so an NDA is non essentially relevant. It can, however, still be binding and then there's the problem of witness credibility: had sex and agreed not to discuss it but have since decided otherwise.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        My prediction is that this will blow over in a couple of weeks and Weinstein will return to the business in a less prominent role.

        This may be Hollywood but it isn't going to have a Hollywood ending for Weinstein, what you're saying may have happened 30-50 years ago but the climate is now very different. He has no friends, no power and nowhere to run.

      3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        "Weinstein will return to the business in a less prominent role."

        Public "He understands he has issues and is finally getting the help he needs to address them. "

        Private "Now it's time to make those b**ches pay."*

        *Not in fact a direct quote of Harvey Weinstein.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      PLEASE don't compare Fame seeking Harlots to Poor defenseless children you ass!

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      How many of the victims of this man defended roman polanski?

      https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/weinsteins-victim-asia-argento-defends-signing-polanski-petition.1280968/

  14. Chris Jasper

    So she was suspended for posting a private phone number, funny how they didn't suspend Trump for posting Lindsay Graham's number a little while back then..............?

  15. chrisw67

    Phone Number Violation?

    Surely if the Twits have an algorithm to identify a private phone number in a post then surely they can code a mechanism to either suppress the post or blot out the number before publishing it. Even if the phone number is identified by a human complaint they could simply remove the post or number.

    The cynical me thinks that Twitter have either received a legal threat, or decided that this was a way to get themselves in the news again.

  16. Lotaresco Silver badge

    Not just Hollywood

    At conferences in recent years I've been guilty of stating that the IT industry seems to be making headway in cleaning up its act. I've observed generally improving standards of behaviour towards women and have worked at a couple of organisations with a more-or-less 50:50 balance of gender. So far, so good. I don't feel that I can support that view any longer.

    Last month I was treated to a full on display of misogyny and victimisation surrounding the removal of a female consultant who has done nothing worse than the job she was paid to do, and doing it extremely well. One powerful individual took exception to the presence of a woman in a senior role and set out to bully, harass and victimise the individual. This included personal abuse, setting tasks that were inappropriate, demanding reports to be delivered "on my desk within an hour" and other nonsense intended only to make her life misery. She stoically put up with all of this, met all the deadlines and produced some excellent work. Her reward was to be dismissed by the back door - her contract was cancelled and no one told her.

    All of that was bad enough, but the sad part of this business has been the inevitable cover up. The HR department has moved to protect the bully and has rejected all complaints about his behaviour and the fact that he drove a coach and horses through company HR procedures. He's been quite open about the fact that he doesn't want any "interfering women" on his team. No one above him cares.

    This is deeply shameful and his Teflon suit seems to be provided by the all-male club in middle/senior management.

    If anyone is doubt, my gender is male and I have no axe to grind against the male manager in question, other than the fact that he has shown himself up to be a deeply unpleasant individual.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: Not just Hollywood

      What's this got to do with Weinstein? And how you do make claims for the whole industry based on one incident?

      If anyone is doubt, my gender is male and I have no axe to grind against the male manager in question, other than the fact that he has shown himself up to be a deeply unpleasant individual.

      Why not go after the guy if he's such an arse? Much better than all your virtue signalling.

      1. sabroni Silver badge

        Re: virtue signalling.

        That's how I read your post Charlie. You think your opinion is just as righteous, don't you?

        1. DropBear Silver badge

          Re: virtue signalling.

          As noted, attempting to support sweeping claims about an entire industry with anecdotal "evidence" is spectacularly disingenuous and that's putting it mildly.

        2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Re: virtue signalling.

          That's how I read your post Charlie. You think your opinion is just as righteous, don't you?

          Certainly not. I think being righteous out outraged in the situation achieves nothing except making someone feel like they've done the right thing. It's like organising a jam festival…

    2. John 110

      Re: Not just Hollywood

      ooh, you got a downvote, Teflon suit man must have read your post. Have a balancing upvote.

      1. Lotaresco Silver badge

        Re: Not just Hollywood

        "ooh, you got a downvote, Teflon suit man must have read your post. Have a balancing upvote."

        Thanks. I think "Charlie" is worried that his manhood is threatened.

        As to "virtue signalling", meh. I've complained about the bloke through the system and told him to his face that he's a cowardly prick. It's also not "one incident", it's evidence that within an organization the systems that should protect workers from abuse are subverted to protect the abusers from consequences.

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Re: Not just Hollywood

          Thanks. I think "Charlie" is worried that his manhood is threatened.

          Not in the least. However, I do think most of the discussions about women in tech are nearly always missing the point.

          Do I think discrimination is a good thing? No. Do I find sexual harassment heinous? Absolutely.

          1. Throatwobbler Mangrove

            Re: Not just Hollywood

            "However, I do think most of the discussions about women in tech are nearly always missing the point..."

            #mansplaining

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh I might leave...

    I left Twitter in 2009 after a single week of its bullshit. How has it taken these tards so long to see what a pile of pish it is.

    1. Lotaresco Silver badge

      Re: Oh I might leave...

      "I left Twitter in 2009 "

      I beat you, I never joined Twatter because errrm it's for idiots. Hence why it is so popular with MPs, the media and Agent Orange.

      1. jelabarre59 Silver badge

        Re: Oh I might leave...

        I beat you, I never joined Twatter because errrm it's for idiots. Hence why it is so popular with MPs, the media and Agent Orange.

        Same here. I could never see a reason to use it. Well, maybe just one usage, and it had nothing to do with "Social Media"; I had thought it might be useful for the CommandLineFu twitter feed. But even that wasn't worth it.

        After all, isn't "twitter" just a shade stronger than "twit"?

    2. DropBear Silver badge

      Re: Oh I might leave...

      Getting drunk empowered by the megaphone it lends to your own opinions while simultaneously decrying the disgusting immorality of doing the same for someone you dislike is just basic human nature.

  18. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

    It would be so awesome if Twitter banned the Trump's account.

    All they have to do is slip "Threatening other nation states" into the T&Cs

    I'd love to see his apoplectic-with-rage reaction , as long as it isnt nuking Twitter HQ.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Happy

      "It would be so awesome if Twitter banned the Trump's account."

      Indeed.

      "Cutting off terrorists from the Oxygen of publicity" as some politician put it, IIRC.

      That's put a real smile on my Monday morning.

  19. Mr Dogshit

    I bet them actresses were begging for it. I reckon they were queuing up to give him massages.

    And he's a clever guy, came up with the theory of relativity after all.

  20. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

    This is a bit embarassing

    I feel rather like the judge who asked 'Who are the Beatles' - I seem to be so far out of touch with modern 'culture' that I have no idea who most of these people mentioned are. From the news headlines, Weinstein is obviously some sort of movie mogul, but most of the people he tried it on with are just names. Some I've heard of, most I haven't. Even the ones I've heard of, I'd have trouble naming any film they've been in (and that's not just my poor memory)

    I see posters and reviews for new movies, but most just don't rock my boat. Is this a reflection on the quality of the films being made, or my changing tastes? I don't know.

    Someone on the radio yesterday read out the names of the people in the next Celebrity BB (see - I know that's shorthand for Big Brother) - I'd never heard of any of them. Maybe I need to spend more time on Mail Online and less on El Reg.

    Time to go and watch that Quiet Man DVD again...

    1. Adrian 4 Silver badge

      Re: This is a bit embarassing

      What makes you think it would be so important to know who these people are that you'd suffer even a second of Mail Online to find out ?

    2. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: This is a bit embarassing

      I'm assuming that she's related to Shaun McGowan of the Pogues, but presumably has a much better dentist. Or just a dentist.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Headmaster

        "I'm assuming that she's related to Shaun McGowan of the Pogues,"

        Actually not.

        Was noted for various acting roles but mainly as long term GF to Marilyn Manson, who is, I believe, a musician of some sort.

        And now I must wheel my bath chair around the garden before going inside for my afternoon nap.

      2. jelabarre59 Silver badge

        Re: This is a bit embarassing

        I'm assuming that she's related to Shaun McGowan of the Pogues, but presumably has a much better dentist. Or just a dentist.

        The forth member of the "power-of-three" trio in the TV series Charmed. She got the role in part because she was less obnoxious than Shannen Doherty (yeah, not that hard; SD is a talented professional, but apparently a difficult person off the set). I may like a lot of RM's work, but I've long since learned that the performer on-screen or on-stage is not always connected to who they are in person. As opposed to someone like Michael O'Hare (Cmdr Sinclair on Babylon 5) who was a friendly and down-to-earth person the two times I met him.

        1. BrownishMonstr

          Re: This is a bit embarassing

          She also came in a Robert Rodriguez film titled Planet Terror with a gun for a leg, which I thought was awesome in my teenage years 10yrs ago.

    3. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

      Re: This is a bit embarassing

      "read out the names of the people in the next Celebrity BB"

      Its one thing to be out of touch on the latest film stars , I'm in the same position , but NOBODY knows who the nobodys on celebrity BB are . They are only on the "celeb" version because they've been on some other worthless moronic reality show , not because they are celebrities!

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Horrible.

    I have a sinking feeling that the whole Weinstein situation is going to get really horrible: not only in terms of what he did to who, but also how many leading Hollywood actors and actresses kept silent for years, knowing all this was going on. Possibly the same set of individuals who normally lecture us so regularly and freely about politics, the environment, behaviour, equality and so on. The ones who told us what a monster Trump is, maybe knowing full well they had a worse one in their midst, next to them on that glittering awards stage. “I owe it all to Harvey”...

    If Weinstein has done what is being alledged about him, then I hope he’s suitably punished, I really do, and that some of the people who could’ve stopped this much earlier took a good deep look at themselves, rather than their usual vapid grin at the nearest camera.

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      Re: Horrible.

      Hunter S. Thompson said: "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

      Hollywood is worse.

  22. ZanzibarRastapopulous

    How widespread?

    If these A-listers get subject to this, how much worse must it be at the bottom of the pile auditioning to shake your arse in the background of a music video?

    Weinstein is just the gilded tip of a rather large iceberg I suspect and people need to turn down settlements rather than just ranting on twitter.

    1. eldakka Silver badge

      Re: How widespread?

      As I understand it, they weren't A-listers at the time of the abuse. It was while they were still young, up and coming actresses.

      1. Lotaresco Silver badge

        Re: How widespread?

        " It was while they were still young, up and coming actresses."

        I think you will find it was Weinstein that was up and coming.

      2. MT Field

        Re: How widespread?

        How does that explain the Angelina Jolie angle? She was born into Hollywood royalty and yet she claims she had to get with the big guy. Which makes her a either a coward or a liar.

      3. ZanzibarRastapopulous

        Re: How widespread?

        > "...while they were still young, up and coming actresses."

        I'm not playing down the pressure she was under at all, but she was 23/4 at the time suggested and had been in several major films already.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    News, but not new....

    People, particularly I'm afraid, men, in a position of power and influence, using that power and influence to get what they want, even if, sometime especially if, it harms others. You can probably find examples back to pre-history, in fact probably before Homo Sapiens.

    Not that this person isn't an odious, bullying, low life pervert, who deserves all he gets of course. Shedding light on it is 100% positive. But this is as old as the hills. And, lucky people who've discovered Bojack Horseman will recognize the uncle hanky storyline from season 3.

  24. This post has been deleted by its author

  25. Terry 6 Silver badge

    It's a side issue but

    Companies like Twitter/Facebook etc. seem to think that they live in a kind of insulated vacuum flask, so that they can take decisions that make life comfortable for themselves and there won't be any comeback from the wider world. They always seem shocked when the world catches up with them.

  26. m-k

    publicly slammed rampant sex fiend

    me to, me too!!!!

    ...

    oh why is NOBODY looking at me?!

  27. ecofeco Silver badge

    So twitter is like...

    ...a thing?

    Twits.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Found another one

    Dude no one cares.

    Price? Your SJW badge?

    You're just cheating yourself.

  29. ukgnome Silver badge

    Twitter is Mos Eisley

    A hive of scum and villainy.

    All that is missing is the Bith tootling away whilst Max Rebo gets the boogie on.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A not entirely neurotypcial person writes

    Fucking hot teen age and early twenty something sound like lots of fun but I'll bet "Big Harvey" enjoyed something else even more.

    The ones who really didn't like it. The ones who are just barely controlling their tears, and then when they can't hold them any longer, the sobbing. Plowing into them knowing they'd almost rather die than be where they are at the moment, and the fact there's nothing they can do about it. Those are the sweetest moments.

    Rape (and if there was a video camera present I'd bet some of these incidents were rape) is not about sex, but about power. The truth is if they submit willingly ("It's for my career. Ho hum") it's just not as much fun for some people, and I think Harvey is one of those. This is not role play with a safe word. This is not a game he could have hired someone to play (or even his very attractive wife. A useful cover, handy for the "Why would I do such a thing when I can come home to her" defense).

    Anon, as this post might seem a bit sinister, and I don't want to suffer a "reverse halo" effect for my other posts.

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Trollface

    Anyone remember when Twitter's

    Gate-keeping was applauded as a great thing.

    Its a shame that you get shutdown because you posted "highly objectionable content", or just some shit some people might not like.

    On another note, all this revolting business, 'which "everyone" knew about' but did nothing about.

    Reminds me of when Mel Gibson (and a few others come to think of it) had their mental breakdowns and started going on about "The Jews" in Hollywood.. kind of make more sense now..

  32. Scroticus Canis Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    Miss McGowan not smelling of roses on this one.

    "McGowan herself reached a $100,000 settlement with the mogul in 1997 following “an episode in a hotel room during the Sundance Film Festival,” and signed a non-disclosure agreement."

    So basically she accepted money for sex; OK a lot of money. More of a story, I would say, than a blocked twatter account.

    The timing of her disclosure together with the news that she accepted payment tickles a little bit of suspicion about a rebuffed "second pay-day".

    If it was rape then she should have laid charges when it happened; not doing so allowed an offender to potentially harm more people. If he did commit more offences in the intervening 19 years then she will have to live with some responsibility for them.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Miss McGowan not smelling of roses on this one.

      Considering how many people don't tell anyone about these incidents for many, many years I don't think I can blame her for not telling anyone. Maybe she wanted to, but she was scared she won't be believed and nothing good will come from it. To go through the trial would be highly stressful and if he doesn't get convincted, if your career is down the drain then what was the point of speaking up. I mean, it didn't go well for anyone speaking up about Saville.

      My mum, now 50, was abused by her own (late) father in her young age and we only found out about it a few years ago. Even my father didn't know until my sister convinced her to tell. Should she have told her mum? That witch wouldn't have even believed her. How do I know? Because my gran's father was abusive and she wouldn't even believe her neice, despite my mum saying the same.

      That said, I don't think it is fair to publicly name alleged rapists until there's a high chance of evidence against them, otherwise an innocent person could have their life ruined. Does that contradict what I said about my grandfather despite not being able to defend himself? I always thought he was a prick and my sister thought he was a perve so I have no reason to believe he wasn't.

  33. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    "Maybe she wanted to, but she was scared she won't be believed "

    Looks like she was right.

  34. mark l 2 Silver badge

    I tried to sign up to Twitter earlier on this week, I was using my home internet but skipped the phone verification when signing up. I had not even posted a single message when I received the message that their was suspicious activity on my account and I would have to provide phone verification to continue. It annoys me that these companies require you give them your phone number and don't offer any other way of proving your account is genuine. I am sure its nothing to do with verification and all about harvesting even more data they can use to target ads.

    Long story short is that I am not going to sign up to Twitter after all, unless I buy a burner PAG SIM card for signing up for such services so I can keep my real number private.

    1. MT Field

      You're not missing out. With the exception of some very funny professional comedians I used to follow, Twatter is an incomprehensible stream of rubbish from the exact sort of person I avoid having to listen to in real life. Happy to leave them to it.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019