161–170 of 371 posts
How long before the "misleading" label is used on anything that doesn't match their own political views?
I downvoted you because the label is based on facts, not political views. If you have evidence of the contrary please post it and I'll be happy to change my comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mmmm the dictionary says it means "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint"
Again, you don't understand what that means. They are a private entity - "censorship" has no meaning there. You have exactly 0 rights on the twitter platform, as it's not a government entity.
They are obviously referring to the principle in this case. But maybe you don't understand what that means.
How do we ensure Twitter’s censorship is and stays reasonable?
>Second, we will prevent “liked by” and “followed by” recommendations from people you don’t follow from showing up in your timeline and won’t send notifications for these Tweets. These recommendations can be a helpful way for people to see relevant conversations from outside of their network, but we are removing them because we don’t believe the “Like” button provides sufficient, thoughtful consideration prior to amp…
> but i don't see how they can square "This makes us money but harms the world as a side effect, but if we harm it too much the retaliation will cost us money. As a result we're going to only use it as much as we think we can get away with."
"turning a big dial that says "Racism" on it and constantly looking back at the audience for approval like a contestant on the price is right"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"we're gonna turn it back on in four weeks" This is my recurring issue when I see most "changes we're making for the election" posts. Sure this seems like a good step for this election. Fake news and the destabilization it can bring isn't just an American phenomenon though. Are they going to apply these precautions to elections in Brazil, or Myanmar?
>> "we're gonna turn it back on in four weeks" We'll improve our site for 28 days, but the other 47 months of the year we will, uh...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are nuking them right now (temporarily). It's not just being discussed, it's being done . But most of the time people like getting content recommended. It's what consumers want.
I disagree, this isn't the nuclear option, the nuclear option is forcing these platforms to have a more editorial role in the content they're serving and that comes with a whole bunch of good and a boatload of bad. Gigantic unmoderated platforms existing like this that promote random snippets of speech to drive user engagement and ad-revenue is a thing that shouldn't exist. The problem we still haven't solved is how…
IMO the moment you start highlighting things that people didn't explicitly ask for, it's an endorsement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"we're gonna turn it back on in four weeks" This is my recurring issue when I see most "changes we're making for the election" posts. Sure this seems like a good step for this election. Fake news and the destabilization it can bring isn't just an American phenomenon though. Are they going to apply these precautions to elections in Brazil, or Myanmar?
>> "we're gonna turn it back on in four weeks" We'll improve our site for 28 days, but the other 47 months of the year we will, uh...
>Second, we will prevent “liked by” and “followed by” recommendations from people you don’t follow from showing up in your timeline and won’t send notifications for these Tweets. These recommendations can be a helpful way for people to see relevant conversations from outside of their network, but we are removing them because we don’t believe the “Like” button provides sufficient, thoughtful consideration prior to amp…
>"we're gonna turn it back on in four weeks" This is my recurring issue when I see most "changes we're making for the election" posts. Sure this seems like a good step for this election. Fake news and the destabilization it can bring isn't just an American phenomenon though. Are they going to apply these precautions to elections in Brazil, or Myanmar?
Reading these headlines is like living in a dystopian waking nightmare. This is not remotely at all the role that Twitter or any other Silicon Valley tech company should play in society.
Welcome to the future, where we must chose between either drowning in a sea of misinformation or sustaining ourselves on a puddle of information that a "benevolent" third-party has deemed safe.
>Colonel : But in the current, digitized world, trivial information is accumulating every second, preserved in all its triteness. Never fading, always accessible.
>Rose : Rumors about petty issues, misinterpretations, slander...
>Colonel : All this junk data preserved in an unfiltered state, growing at an alarming rate.
>Rose : It will only slow down social progress, reduce the rate of evolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A cursory examination of their leadership's own statements makes it clear this is untrue.
You don't believe business leaders have the capacity to separate their personal beliefs from corporate policy for a company that serves over 300 million people across the world?