Should such harassment be an actual problem, there would already be such filtered alternatives to twitter and facebook. Right now i see it as an attempt to silence unfavorable opinions.
This is just part of an ongoing slide into the sort of factionalism that ends (eventually) in bloodshed.
My suggestion is that social networks ban users wherein harassment is strictly obvious, not wherein a prejudice opinion is even only implied. This is a tricky judgement call that the article tries to dissect, and unfortunately to which I clearly have little to contribute.
People should also consider that if they can't handle the vile cesspit that the internet is, using it is optional.
For another... if people you don't know are being malicious to you maybe you should step back and think about your public face. People who draw a lot of trolls do so for a reason.
The only possible reason to claim that others need to pay attention to those who would spam them with threats of death rape and worse is complicity with the intended assault. It is a leech declaring that refusal to wade in the swamp is murder.
In the hypothetical situation that harassment is prevalent, I'm curious as to what your alternatives to Twitter/Facebook would look like. What would the requirements of joining such a community be?
An alternative to twitter would be filtered, just as you suggest. It could even exclude "offending" opinions. There are plenty of easily offended (but very vocal) people who think all public channels should be like that. However we don't see any startup that is advocating censored speak catching up (I don't even know if there are any, but the social startup space is so overcrowded that there must be some).
So maybe you should reflect on the conditions that have duped you into taking such a simplistic position.
If you want to distance yourself from the documented invasion into the lives and the distinct harassment of women in the industry, my humble suggestion is to pick a new angle from which to fight. How about Doritogate?
I fear we have gotten quite off-topic.
We saw this from the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ... to Anti-Gamer-Gate. In this context claims of harassment are a smokescreen that are being used to cover up the exposed corruption. They appeal to the damsel-in-distress narrative that so many men so easily fall for. It's quite an effective strategy, and some guys like John Flynt (aka Brianna Wu) make quite a good living of it seemingly. Maybe you should also try it when your software isn't good: wear girls clothes, send yourself some threatening emails and whine about harassment on TV ... worth quite a stack of paper I hear.
BTW Wikipedia is not a credible source.
That said, the anti-corruption movement is also real. And it is a fact the gg-blocklist does block well behaved non-harassers based on political views.
You both want good things. Why can't you just both agree on ending harassment and be anti-corruption? Those are really not incompatible positions, if you are will willing to look past the us-vs-them tribe mentality.