191–200 of 371 posts
Honestly I wouldn't mind if the government DDOS'd them, or starting blocking all social media sites for four months. This is an emergency and these corps are behaving in an irresponsible manner which threatens our national security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their recommendation engine is not harmful in all cases. I used to use Twitter to follow some machine learning/programming profiles and remember the recommendations being quite good.
Any recommendations on whom to follow on that front?
- Andrej Karpathy
- Jeremy Howard
- François Chollet
- Adam Paszke
- Thomas Kipf
- Sebastian Ruder
- Julia Evans
- Martin Kleppmann
Twitter keeps running themselves into a trap, and it is unbelievable to me that they don't see it: they cannot be the arbiters of truth. It will not work, because inevitably they'll miss something, and then people will assume that that missed thing is true. The solution is NOT to do censorship based on truth. The entire system needs to be unreliable, because it is unreliable. People need to read things on twitter (an…
The principle of using skepticism is a sound one, but what do you do when the majority of your users don't employ that practice? Just let misinformation spread and just be okay with the ramifications on society because "it's not my problem my users are gullible"?
Ideally twitter shouldn't really be able to spread "misinformation" because people shouldn't be using it as a source of information to begin with. These moves they have been making around fact checking, censoring things etc, make this problem worse. They're trying to increase people's trust in twitter, which they shouldn't be doing, they should be actively trying to do the opposite, and they will fail to remove all of the misinformation.
So the result will be that people will still see misinformation, but they'll trust it more. It's the exact opposite.
>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…
> >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. I don't know if a Twitter PM will read this, but showing Likes in my feed — and not having an option to turn it off in the official mobile app client — is one big reason I stopped consuming tweets. It's a shame that the only way to opt out…
The thing that irritates me the most is that they also seem to track the last time you logged in via the Twitter website or official client, and show me "while you were gone" tweets that it thinks I might be interested in. Typically, they're right - so right, in fact, that I've often already replied to them.
I've always said (until Twitter went full asshole, which they're now reversing course on) that I'd pay for a "Twitter Pro". Let me use a third-party client to do everything that the official client does, but with the option of turning things off - provide likes in my timeline, which my client can filter out; allow me to access polls via the API (which presumably they don't do for everyone because of botting), and so on.
Twitter, I will pay you monthly to stop making me choose between an incomplete experience (third-party clients) and an awful one (inflexible first-party clients). It's guaranteed income. Please, sign me up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reason is not a reputable source on anything.
Is there anything in the link that you dispute?
If you are sailing on a boat made of ice through (salt) water that is 3 degrees below freezing, then a "small" change of 3 degrees absolutely could be the difference between normalcy and catastrophe.
Of course that's an extreme example, but presumably Climate Feedback wanted the video to acknowledge that the climate is a non-linear system, with feedback loops and potential phase transitions.
It seems absolutely possible that a change in temperature outside of the range that forests are historically used to could cause dramatically different outcomes for those forests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
its amazing that this exact scenario was described in Metal Gear Solid 2, a ~20 year old video game. >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 rat…
The writing has been on the wall about the dangers of social media for a very long time. It's just taken this long for people with the power to even consider doing anything about the dangers to start taking it seriously.
Maybe sites like Twitter, Facebook etc should be US only. I mean only US users allowed to use it. If they do this with the US election then which will be the next? UK? Australia? And why not really? People would even cheer for it
I think the situation in the USA is quite unique. UK and Australia is not (as of yet) in any serious risk of their democracy being undermined in the next election. Sure you can say they could have had similar measures before the Kyrgyzstan or the Belarus elections. But there bad actors were perfectly able to undermine the democracy without the aid of social media.
Maybe the Democrats and the people who are called "liberals" don't realise it just yet, but they've lost the game because they've started playing Trump's game. Like I said, they might technically win it this time around, but the next "Trump" will probably be younger and even more charismatic, and he (or maybe a she, why not?) will have to conquer a public scene which will have already known by that point that the democracy rules don't exist for either party, so why care for the democratic process anymore?
If it matters I'm not from the US, have never set foot there, just saying how I see things from half a world away.
>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…
> >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. I don't know if a Twitter PM will read this, but showing Likes in my feed — and not having an option to turn it off in the official mobile app client — is one big reason I stopped consuming tweets. It's a shame that the only way to opt out…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> "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...
It does feel like there have been 48 months this year
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I want to applaud this, because it's clearly a good move. It’s not that clear to me that this is a net good move. Exposure to out-network content, depending on what is exposed, could be good for preventing echo chambers and confirmation bias too. Twitter likely went the other direction and promoted out-network tweets that only increased engagement, and blaming the feature itself for this is naive at best. Second is…
I find it suspect that they are giving as one of their criteria for calling the election as two authoritative news sources independently calling it. If this were non partisan they would have at least said a majority of authoritative sources or some other consensus.