@mcc So, no real answer to your direct problem here, but some possibly useful concepts.

I'm not on and am not familiar with Twitter's noise controls so I don't know what applies here.

What you're describing is a basic amplification attack. It operates through replies and tagging. As you note, there's no keyword latch onto for anti-spam actions, but there are other signifiers, and Twitter's anti-abuse / trust-and-safety teams are probably sorting how to deal with this.

(For numerous platforms this is now effectively a machine-learning problem. My understanding is that Google's properties operate this way, and Facebook's largely do as well, which may explain many of the weird behaviours seen from those systems, for which the only thing I can say is that they're likely as confounding to the site's operators as they are to people on the sites, not that that's a good thing...)

What I've seen on other platforms is that notifications can be restricted. On an earlier Google platform (Google+), the ability to comment on a post, and the ability to generate notifications could both be set to specific sets of profiles ("Circles"). I created two Circles, "Notifications" and "Comments", which I'd add profiles to liberally, but remove as needed. I could still communicate and hear form most profiles of interest but abuse ability was limited. I've not seen that capacity elsewhere.

(G+ gets a lot of criticism, much well-deserved. From my experience at the time and retrospective analysis since, it seemed to do a really good job of mitigating many of the worst abuses that have plagued other platforms.)

The mechanism gets to a reconceptualisation I've been having about communications in general, what I've been calling #CommunicationsAutonomy (or a few other variants --- it's not a graceful phrase and I'm inconsistent...). I've recently run across #LaniWalker's concept of #EpistemicRights, which would be a subset of this.

The core idea is that there are a set of interrelated, and yes, often contradictory rights around information, association, assembly, etc., focused around:

• send ↔ receive
• create ↔ destroy
• reveal ↔ conceal
• associate ↔ disassociate
• express ↔ withhold
• authenticate ↔ repudiate

Privacy, for example is the ability to set and defend limits on the spread of your personal information.

In your case, the question is your right to preemptively opt out of unwanted communications. I've noted myself that somewhere between about a dozen and two dozen daily text interruptions is about my own annoyance threshold.

There's more here (mostly in comments): https://diaspora.glasswings.com/posts/622677903778013902fd002590d8e506

Point being that these are the sorts of issues Twitter (and any other platform architects / operators) should be looking at.

Meantime, elevating your own voice & concerns would be a Good Thing.

#CommunicationAutonomy #AutonomyInCommunication

@woozle Kinda, though I'm headed on a somewhat different tack.

The left-hand side (LHS) terms on my toot are meant to describe a media monopolist or attacker's motives and actions. The RHS terms are the equivalent countering considerations of an individual.

In the case of fraud, a monopolist, propagandist, fraudster (term distinguishing actor from the action of "fraud"), etc., *utilises a communications channel to paint an inaccurate story of some thing (service, person, product, event, etc.).

As a general information consumer in this case, what you want is some right to integrity of claims. Trust, trustworthiness, validity, honesty, truthfulness, integrity, assurence, etc.

The story gets a bit more complicated when we consider where and when lies or mistruths might be valid or acceptable. Does someone have to be truthful in all dealings? No white lies? No little fibs Can police or prosecutors not lie to defendants or suspects? Can diplomats and politicians not lie in negotiations or campaigns?

In particular, the rights to lie or to receive truthful information intersect with rights to control narrative, to not be compelled to speak, and to not unilaterally cede advantage or power to another.

The lists aren't necessarily a good/bad. They're much more a "countering rights / actions" listing.

This is based on #AutonomyInCommunication / #CommunicationAutonomy #InformationAutonomy

See: https://joindiaspora.com/posts/622677903778013902fd002590d8e506