I'm so sick of this kind of victim blaming, you're forced to add a phone number to use twitter.
I'm so sick of this kind of victim blaming, you're forced to add a phone number to use twitter.
I tried to use onoff numbers with Twitter on multiple occasions but failed to receive anything. They are being very misleading here.
Suddenly 'use twitter securely' has gone from 'free' to 'hundreds of dollars a year'. Perhaps they should announce this as a price change instead?
Is this a thing? I've never heard of it. Where?
It is expensive if you need to keep the plan around, but Twitter doesn't seem to regularly send SMSes to the phone number, so you probably don't need to pay beyond the first month.
Some years ago I looked into prepaid pricing and determined that it was significantly more expensive than a subscription plan at even my almost-never-use-it levels of phone use. (At that time, pricing was based on (1) a reasonable per-use rate, which would have been very cheap; combined with (2) a high flat fee charged on any day you used any feature of the plan, which already nullified any price advantage; and (3) a requirement to add funding to the plan every month, regardless of whether you had an existing balance.)
How they work here is:
1. You need to top up by €20 at least once a year to keep your account
2. You may sign up to an offer, which will deduct a portion of a top up each month to activate the offer (e.g top up by > €20, the phone company takes €10 for unlimited texts, or €20 for unlimited data).
3. If you don't top up as required by your offer, you fall back to a state as if you had no offer
4. If you have no offer there's fixed fees of like 20c/sms and €0.50/min of calls, €2/day for 100mb of data
Now pre-paid is often just paying for a month before usage rather than after usage. Even cheaper providers like Mint sign you up for 3 months at once, which can get expensive if all you want it for is just satisfying Twitter.
Is it reasonable for everybody to go buy "burner" phones to sign up for Twitter?
The truth is, it's stupid for Twitter to require a phone number, and it's especially stupid that they blame the user for using their real number.
Can you not get an activated SIM off the street?
Mostly, like any other country, this happened because they found bad people were using pre activated sim cards for terrorism.
My exiting phone number is now 14 years old, same provider, prepaid. I have been required to submit updated KYC about 4 times in these years.
I had some old accounts that did not require a phone number.
At least until I wanted to enable TOTP 2FA.
At which point the numnuts at Twitter would not just let me "just" enable TOTP, I was forced to provide a phone number (which, to add insult to injury, for at long time they refused to accept because they would only send messages to a limited number of carriers).
And also used a sketchy service provider who was selling personal info about Twitter users to governments: https://9to5mac.com/2022/02/09/twitter-2fa-text-privacy/
Twitter has been habitually careless with user info & user privacy.
This may be Twitter's best anti-bot measure, although state-sponsored troll farms will likely be able to afford all the SIM cards they want and need.
BTW, no Twitter account is "ours". If it was, we could download everything (friends and all) and move it somewhere else. Twitter needs to take ownership of all data on their platform - user accounts included. Trying to separate them into different entities is ridiculous.
It’s unfolding in real-time with Tyler Technologies and we’ll have to see how it plays out. Intelligent institutional investors are poring money into a company that is responsible for leaking millions of intended to be confidential CRIMINAL RECORDS and is trying to blame JudyRecords for finding their mistake.
Again it goes to show we don’t really own anything that turns digital, and no safeguards are guaranteed. The only recourse is legal action, which is, IMHO going to bankrupt Tyler r force numerous spin offs to pay the class action results from the CA State Bar…and potentially hundreds more.[0]
The environment is one of no consequences when hiding behind a corporate banner, for most intents and purposes. Choose who you work for wisely.
[0] www.JudyRecords.com
One would think dishonestly blaming others for the consequences of their own conduct would also affect stakeholder value.
“We can screw up, if it’s important enough for you to stay anonymous you should get a separate phone number and email”
That is a good tip with every company. If you want better security, have less trust in the services you’re using.
This goes to what victim blaming is. Yes. It would be great if the victim lived in a better world. But sometimes extra caution could help them now without waiting for the entire world to change.
This advice is bullshit.
Twitter should not be requiring phone numbers, especially when they don't care enough to protect them.
This is why we should get back to protocols for communication instead of platforms.
If you operate a pseudonymous account anywhere, you should always assume there's a slight possibility that one day your identity is known.
I think it's not far stretched to think that in the future, malevolent governments will have access to whatever things we may have posted and use it against us.
I suspect the reason was some rapid changes in my IP address in a short period, together with a lot of Twitter tabs open – whose constant background requests often seem to trigger, for me, some sort of Twitter-side connection-slowing. (Their own shoddy, high-weight design makes my normal usage pattern look like a DoS attack to them.)
So your style of usage, moreso than your account age, is likely for being spared their arbitrary phone-number inquisition.
I don't get the definition of "publicly" here. Does it mean something on Internet, or include numbers I tell people in-person? If the former, not so many people put their number online I suppose...
is that true for the desktop web client?
When I created an account, they blocked it 30 seconds later (before I had done literally anything) and would only unblock it upon me adding a phone number. Google suggested that this was common practice by them at the time.
Pretending they're not requiring something when in practice, a giant proportion of their userbase faces it.
Pretending anything changes when you click 'See This Less Often' on some annoying feature.
Constantly undoing a user's preference for 'Latest' over algorithmic 'Home'.
Claiming they don't "soft-ban" but absolutely, verifiably, hiding some users' content from others who have explicitly followed them.
Implying there's some effective "appeal" process for arbitrary & often clearly erroneous moderations decisions – when instead it's just designed for coercing compliance, including the simualted "voluntary" deletion of tweets, under penalty of losing your account indefinitely.
Slurring & hiding replies with no hint of offense as "potentially offensive".
Describing tweets as "unavailable" when (often) all you have to do is click to see it - wasting users time.
Offering "Show additional replies" even when there's nothing more to show – again wasting users' time.
They do this to combat spammers, don’t they?