Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Defining Public Interest on Twitter

blog.twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: Defining Public Interest on Twitter

#61

Post by anigbrowl »

mc32 wrote: post #56
sdinsn wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If not political advocacy groups, who would be a better consultant choice? Isn't the entire purpose of advocacy groups to encourage the safety of certain groups?

I think an apolitical philosophical framework would be better than _biased_ (however good their intentions) groups who have the mostly the well being of their interest group in mind. An advocacy group isn't a group which will take a balanced approach. Naturally, if they are advocates, they would represent their position _fully_ and uncompromised. An apolitical (not advocating anything outside a framework) would be be…

Unicorn and Chimera, or the pursuit of virtue through sundry remarkable demesnes

Re: Defining Public Interest on Twitter

#62

Post by anigbrowl »

creaghpatr wrote: post #23
malvosenior wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that they're inappropriate, it's that they will be enforced selectively.

I do think the impact of this will be overstated, in the big picture. The vast majority of Americans (and people) don't use Twitter. An editorial tag from twitter isn't really going to change the impact of a tweet in my opinion, other than limiting its exposure on Twitter itself. But it would be hilarious if news orgs use this as a cue to give trigger warnings when they quote a tagged tweet. "Warning: the tweet we ar…

The vast majority of Americans (and people) don't use Twitter.

The vast majority of Americans hold little of the country's wealth, so the actions of rich people have little effect.

Re: Defining Public Interest on Twitter

#63

Post by ceejayoz »

ng12 wrote: post #2

I'm confused. What's an example of a tweet from a government official which breaks the rules but deserves to be kept up?

Given that Twitter's removed tweets saying things like "go jump in a lake" (https://observer.com/2018/10/twitter-ban-adrian-benepe-donal...), stuff like https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/10212345256266096... seem pretty clear violations.

Re: Defining Public Interest on Twitter

#64

Post by Kalium »

TheHypnotist wrote: post #35
6cd6beb wrote: post #22

>We're not going to delete it but we're going to algorithmically prevent discovery Tech monoliths like facebook, google, and twitter are starting to show very obvious political biases. If we push them to be equitable to differing opinions, they basically get to continue enforcing their own political biases because we can only ever do blackbox testing. God knows what the backend is doing. If we push them to own their…

On the other hand: If your political stance violates the TOS that is enforced on non-public offical users, is it really "political bias"? Maybe you should rethink your politics if bullying, inciting violence, and inciting hate speech is part of your position.

Whether or not it's political bias depends on what's in the TOS and who gets to define "bullying", "inciting violence", and "hate speech".

I can definitely think of ways any of those could be defined by Trumpists. Suffice to say those definitions are likely to differ substantially from those that a typical Pride attendee might offer.

Re: Defining Public Interest on Twitter

#65

Post by Proven »

> Over time, public interest and how it’s defined on Twitter may change as we observe different types of behavior.

In other words, so-called public interest doesn't exist, it's just an excuse used by Titter to shape opinions and censor political opponents.

Unlike around last election, this time Twitter will lose influence and users.

Re: Defining Public Interest on Twitter

#66

Post by rmcrx »

TheHypnotist wrote: post #35
6cd6beb wrote: post #22

>We're not going to delete it but we're going to algorithmically prevent discovery Tech monoliths like facebook, google, and twitter are starting to show very obvious political biases. If we push them to be equitable to differing opinions, they basically get to continue enforcing their own political biases because we can only ever do blackbox testing. God knows what the backend is doing. If we push them to own their…

On the other hand: If your political stance violates the TOS that is enforced on non-public offical users, is it really "political bias"? Maybe you should rethink your politics if bullying, inciting violence, and inciting hate speech is part of your position.

Abortionists incite violence. In fact, they commit violence and murder. Let's start banning them? :-)

Re: Defining Public Interest on Twitter

#67

Post by CiPHPerCoder »

rmcrx wrote: post #66
TheHypnotist wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand: If your political stance violates the TOS that is enforced on non-public offical users, is it really "political bias"? Maybe you should rethink your politics if bullying, inciting violence, and inciting hate speech is part of your position.

Abortionists incite violence. In fact, they commit violence and murder. Let's start banning them? :-)

What is an abortionist?

Re: Defining Public Interest on Twitter

#69

Post by steffandroid »

mfatica wrote: post #57
TheHypnotist wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand: If your political stance violates the TOS that is enforced on non-public offical users, is it really "political bias"? Maybe you should rethink your politics if bullying, inciting violence, and inciting hate speech is part of your position.

I've seen far more on the left calling for bullying, inciting violence, and inciting hate than the right.

That's funny, I've seen far more on the right actually committing acts of violence.

Re: Defining Public Interest on Twitter

#70

Post by dang »

rmcrx wrote: post #66
TheHypnotist wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand: If your political stance violates the TOS that is enforced on non-public offical users, is it really "political bias"? Maybe you should rethink your politics if bullying, inciting violence, and inciting hate speech is part of your position.

Abortionists incite violence. In fact, they commit violence and murder. Let's start banning them? :-)

We've banned this account for taking HN threads into ideological flamewar. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules when posting here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN