Comments on: Twitter Porn – How Do You Handle It?

By: Eric Dye

Eric Dye — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:22:11 +0000

Great stuff, Paul, thank you!

By: Paul Clifford

Paul Clifford — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:00:58 +0000

I actually have a section on this in “Tweeting Church” (which I hope to release this year). First, I use social oomph (formerly tweetlater) to vet my followers. Here’s what I look for:

If someone doesn’t follow anyone, but has tons of tweets (which are full of mentions/@replies), I never click any link they send me. I assume they’re spam and block/report them.

If they have tons of people they’re following, but have never tweeted, I assume they’re spam and block/report them.

If it’s someone I follow who sends me DM links, they usually say something spammy like “viagra,” and that means the person was hacked. I usually just inform them that they were b/c I’d want to know.

The newest kind of spam account is an account following tons of people 5:1 or greater following to followers, but all their tweets contain a single keyword that they retweet. I just got one of those yesterday with “church” as a keyword. It was obvious when some messages were about Kanye’s new album and some were about church.

What doesn’t work…truetwit. Truetwit makes you either fill out a captcha EVERYTIME you follow someone who uses their service, pay to use their service, or spam all your potential followers with messages about using it. They don’t have a whitelist so that you can say, “I’m a real person, quit sending me these things” (unless you pay). I ignore anyone who uses that service.

Paul

By: Stan

Stan — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:15:56 +0000

I block and report as spam, not sure if it does anything to get them kicked off but worth a try

By: human3rror

human3rror — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:44:06 +0000

it's gross.

By: Guest

Guest — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:11:11 +0000

I agree! I keep googling "twitter porn spam" to see if the company Twitter is coming up with a way to deal with this. It is rocking ANNOYING to get this crap. I will say that it is easily recognizable as a girl's name with numbers after it.

By: @kristicw

@kristicw — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 02:55:06 +0000

I appreciate you guys (and girls) who are taking steps, however big or small, to guard yourselves from porn. It means a lot to the women of your world. It's especially nice to stumble upon my husband's answer – and not "Hey, what porn problem?!"

I block.

By: @korykredit

@korykredit — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:15:05 +0000

Thanks for the tip in this site. I'll definitely use this.

By: Allan W.

Allan W. — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:00:20 +0000

For the Christian believer, porn is dangerous not because it's offensive. It's about putting junk in your mind. Sex is good – God made it, after all! – but when misused leads to heartbreak and all kinds of problems (and that goes for anyone, not just people of faith). Pornography twists a good thing and makes it evil, destructive, and meaningless.

This is why Christian teaching (at least, quality teaching) advises avoiding it. Many don't, and are paying the price with broken marriages & relationships.

By: Allan W.

Allan W. — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:53:42 +0000

I avoid teh pr0n on twitter by blocking. While auto-follow might make sense for a .com or .organization, having to filter all that on twitter is way too time-consuming. Everyone uses twitter & social media differently, but I have to keep my 'following' list small. Tweetdeck has helped with its Groups feature (now on iPhone, where a lot gets checked), but really Twitter needs to have some kind of group and filtering in its API. Every app has to implement it on their own, making a real patchwork.

By: Allan W.

Allan W. — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:50:48 +0000

Jeremy, your faith is touching, really – but I would guess they're not really listening. They're marketing programs (bots) – systems designed to drive traffic. The actual people you (and I) want to help are much deeper down the chain.

I think the risk of allowing that much foul content into your stream greatly outweighs any benefit to them for listening to us – because they aren't.