I think I would have to assume a right, since I cannot confer it nor prove it exists beyond the evidence given when someone exercises it. For me, and not having given the matter much thought before now, a right is not a social convention or law, but the expression of one's own being. Birds fly, fish swim, and people do whatever it is that people do. Rights do not exist unless they are exercised, and the social conventions that surround them are the result of that exercise.

Rights are attached to actions, and the expectation of action exists in the future.

I don't know if that makes any sense, since I just made it up. The implications lead us to all sorts and kinds of notions regarding a priori goodness and what it means to have certain rights to be one sort of person and not another. But maybe, as we do whatever it is that we do and build social conventions around those actions, the relationship between what we want, what we do, and what we discover doesn't work and declare the wrong thing to do revolve around our relationship between our inner and outer lives. That kind of thinking sorts well with my concepts of form and content in the human experience.

There is already a process for reporting threatening tweets. What does an alert button do that this form does not? If the objective is to apprehend and prosecute the malefactor, absolutely nothing. In fact, without a certain amount of information, there is no chance whatsoever that justice will be served at all. Unless the aggrieved party plays an active role in the prosecution, this alert button will work exactly like the alert link on DU, which is to say it will do nothing more than hide the offending tweet from their sight. It is probably possible for the programmers at Twitter to see to it that when the alert button is clicked, information about the offending tweet is already entered into the appropriate fields. But the user still has to play at least some active part in apprehending the malefactor. Do you really think that simply clicking a link on a website could or should be enough to send someone to jail?

Again, what does the button do that the form does not? It makes reporting easier. It is a convenience for the user. It does absolutely nothing to help apprehend and prosecute the malefactor. And what are the implications of this added convenience?

Well, for starters there are millions of fools out there who consider a threat to their overblown ego the same as a threat to their person and hurt feelings as tragic as a broken leg. For them the lure of a simple mouse click to exact revenge will be too great to resist. They can cry wolf with even greater impunity than they no doubt already do. The terrible form is a part of the investigative process to determine if the threat is real. That process begins when someone is actually frightened enough to fill in seven information fields and click seven radio buttons. Oh, the horror.

Add to those vindictive egomaniacs the legions of pranksters, false flags, social dominators, and all the other permutations of internet foolishness and the system, which still has to rely on the same basic form to function, will be front loaded with camouflage for whatever idiot is stupid enough to give their victim advance warning of their intent. Efficiency for the user will result in inefficiency for the system. The net result is reduced benefit for those who are threatened online. But there are some who will benefit more.

A few people, namely public figures and those who desire to be so, may get hundreds of threatening messages at a time from as many different people. Increased reporting efficiency will no doubt help them - a little bit. Although I would think that the necessity of filling out a short form for each instance would be considered part of the price one has to pay for making their living in the public eye. But personal convenience is not the greatest benefit for those enterprising souls.

This absurd tempest in a teapot regarding the graphic design on bank notes is little more than a lever for profit driven notoriety at the expense of Twitter. At the very least, these people can attract attention to themselves as advocates for justice with little capital investment. In fact, they can use the very system they are lambasting as the conduit for their accusations. It's disaster capitalism at its finest. And, if they're lucky, they will get their button. And that magical button of justice will become a reminder of those shamans ability to give you a voice. It will become a mini advertisement, courtesy of Twitter, of how they helped you every time you log on to broadcast your advertising laden and data mined one hundred and forty characters.

So an alteration of code from an overworked underpaid programmer, a small change in the EULA just to be safe, and you will get the feeling of security where there is none. Twitter will make money. Professional bloviators will make money. Internet service providers will make money. And you will get nothing more than you already have, which ain't much. And that's how the 1% wins.