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

Additional steps we're taking ahead of the 2020 US Election

blog.twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 371 posts

Re: Additional steps we're taking ahead of the 2020 US Election

#291

Post by srtjstjsj »

acituan wrote: post #171
notatoad wrote: post #8

>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…

> 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…

Of turning it off is partisan than leaving it on is equally partisan, and where does that leave us?. Each of us must judge what is *good".

Re: Additional steps we're taking ahead of the 2020 US Election

#292

Post by russellbeattie »

konjin wrote: post #283
russellbeattie wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop that apologist crap. I grew up in a rural area and I know these people quite well. People in rural areas reject science, general knowledge and social norms of the "big cities" because they are frightened and ignorant, not because of some equally valid world view. Their response to climate science is stubborn ignorance. Their response to different cultures, races and religion is bigotry. Their response to democra…

[flagged]

Ahh! Conservative projection at its finest, combined with a little cherry picked racism as well. Great job! You represent your kind well. I'm not a Republican so I don't deny actual facts.

Even if your numbers were up to date and accurate, which they aren't (get out of your bubble, Fox boy) the causes are tied to much more than race so it's a meaningless number designed only to incite racial hatred. Good job again!

To repeat: Fear and ignorance. Which you just gave us a great example of.

Also, to the other HNers. It's election season, so enjoy the "overly political" comments for a while.

Re: Additional steps we're taking ahead of the 2020 US Election

#293

Post by srtjstjsj »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #24

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.

It's not your role to tell people to get they aren't allowed to use Twitter if they want to. Twitter's role is highly democratic; they force their content on people.

Re: Additional steps we're taking ahead of the 2020 US Election

#294

Post by srtjstjsj »

_qulr wrote: post #184
akira2501 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be a complete curmudgeon, this just seems like self-serving nonsense from Twitter. To pretend that they have some "democracy breaking" power in their platform of the loudest 1% of individuals that actually contribute and that this needs to be tamed with special rules to protect the integrity of elections seems like an absurd fantasy. Either they're right and their platform can be a tool used for evil in general, i…

I think Twitter does have that power, but not in a way that Twitter or Twitter users understand. Most people aren't on Twitter and don't get their news directly from Twitter. And people who are on Twitter and who follow politics on Twitter tend to already be hyper-partisan, unlikely to change their minds in response to tweets. The majority still get most of their news from traditional news media. What's really been c…

It's a myth that twitter drives news. Before Twitter we had "man on the street". Journos write the story first and then cherry pick the quotes they want.

Re: Additional steps we're taking ahead of the 2020 US Election

#295

Post by _qulr »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #294
_qulr wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Twitter does have that power, but not in a way that Twitter or Twitter users understand. Most people aren't on Twitter and don't get their news directly from Twitter. And people who are on Twitter and who follow politics on Twitter tend to already be hyper-partisan, unlikely to change their minds in response to tweets. The majority still get most of their news from traditional news media. What's really been c…

It's a myth that twitter drives news. Before Twitter we had "man on the street". Journos write the story first and then cherry pick the quotes they want.

I just opened cnn.com, clicked on the top story, and...

it's about a tweet.

Re: Additional steps we're taking ahead of the 2020 US Election

#296

Post by 8note »

runarberg wrote: post #88
haunter wrote: post #34

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.

That bad actors can only influence US elections through social media sounds like a very bold claim

Re: Additional steps we're taking ahead of the 2020 US Election

#297

Post by srtjstjsj »

konjin wrote: post #283
russellbeattie wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop that apologist crap. I grew up in a rural area and I know these people quite well. People in rural areas reject science, general knowledge and social norms of the "big cities" because they are frightened and ignorant, not because of some equally valid world view. Their response to climate science is stubborn ignorance. Their response to different cultures, races and religion is bigotry. Their response to democra…

[flagged]

I'll spot you that it's a fact, ignoring the racism behind how "violent crime" is defined. Using that fact as an irrational basis for despicable racist behavior doesn't jive with my worldview.

Re: Additional steps we're taking ahead of the 2020 US Election

#298

Post by srtjstjsj »

dane-pgp wrote: post #195
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything in the link that you dispute?

> In my video, Shellenberger dares say, "A small change in temperature is not the difference between normalcy and catastrophe." Climate Feedback doesn't want people to hear that. 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…

So "possible" now means "necessarily"? Because FB's checkers didn't take down any videos claiming that climate change exclusively caused the fires, did they?

Re: Additional steps we're taking ahead of the 2020 US Election

#299

Post by AnimalMuppet »

dane-pgp wrote: post #195
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything in the link that you dispute?

> In my video, Shellenberger dares say, "A small change in temperature is not the difference between normalcy and catastrophe." Climate Feedback doesn't want people to hear that. 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…

OK, but that's not really the point. For purposes of this discussion, the point was that the video got rejected based on Climate Feedback. And it got rejected by them on the basis of "reports" from two people, neither of whom had actually seen the video, and neither of whom thought it was problematic once they did see it.

So either Climate Feedback rejected it on their own, but lied about why (or had a bureaucratic error), or two reviewers told them it was problematic and then lied about doing so (or both forgot that they had done so).

Outsourcing checking for disinformation to people who lie and/or have bureaucratic errors is going to have issues, even if those people are omniscient as to the facts of the subject matter... but nobody actually is that, either.

Re: Additional steps we're taking ahead of the 2020 US Election

#300

Post by mynameishere »

russellbeattie wrote: post #276
konjin wrote: post #213

Sounding more and more like a moral panic. Can people in the big cities not accept people in rural areas reject everything they think is good? It's not a foreign plot, it's a fundamental disagreement about values.

Stop that apologist crap. I grew up in a rural area and I know these people quite well. People in rural areas reject science, general knowledge and social norms of the "big cities" because they are frightened and ignorant, not because of some equally valid world view. Their response to climate science is stubborn ignorance. Their response to different cultures, races and religion is bigotry. Their response to democra…

Rural people are happy to have iPhones, as long as they don't need to understand the science behind the technology,

Said the guy who probably doesn't even know how to thresh his own soybeans.

Post reply on HN