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

Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

blog.twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 373 posts

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#101

Post by debacle »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #97
debacle wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the streamer you're referring to was just the focal point and scapegoat for a lot of the outrage over the very unequal and sometimes disturbing way Twitch moderates content.

I agree people were already mad but you would have to go pretty far out of your way to find someone with worse optics, she definetely brought a lot of heat to it herself.

I think that was Twitch's intent. Why promote a basically no name streamer to a group made up mostly of very prominent people on the platform?

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#102

Post by chmod775 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #88
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #86

So let me understand this, Twitter, which banned it's own United States President, is now removing itself from responsibility of banning other nation's presidents many of whom call for genocide and violence and are stated enemies of Twitters parent country?

I think you're misreading the history. For years, Twitter refused to ban basically any world leader, including the US president, despite many calls for them to do so and many tweets that would've gotten you or I banned. But events 2 months ago rendered that stance untenable. So now they've gotta come up with a new one, since they don't want the rule to be "special privileges, but only for leaders who Twitter, Inc. ha…

> But events 2 months ago rendered that stance untenable.

Now that's just not true. What trump did was a relatively minor infraction compared to what is happening in some countries around the world. Like it just doesn't come close on any scale.

The realization here is that people at twitter have an opinion on US politics, and are generally oblivious to the rest of the world.

The waters they're in would've been way less hot if they just did nothing and claimed neutrality. In that light shedding their neutrality was a very conscious decision by Twitter.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#103

Post by nonotreally »

at_a_remove wrote: post #93
nonotreally wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not seeing your point here. Do you like this? Not like it? Why? I feel like this is exactly the type of feedback they're asking for.

I offer data, not a conclusion. And it's data that is well-timed, given the statement. What do you think?

I didn't raise the point. I haven't formed an opinion on this particular issue.

Why did you offer this data?

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#104

Post by krapp »

marshmallow_12 wrote: post #60
christiansakai wrote: post #5

Remove the ability to have followers from world leaders, remove the ability to be liked from world leaders' tweets. Keep the ability to retweet world leaders' tweets, but prevent retweets to be added more from the retweeters.

That's discrimination, unpopular as this may be, world leaders are also people. To fairly implement what you suggest, twitter must make a rule that political personalities must post political content while in office on a dedicated "world leader" handle

>To fairly implement what you suggest, twitter must make a rule that political personalities must post political content while in office on a dedicated "world leader" handle

I struggle to see a problem with this. A political personality making political statements should do so from an account representing the office, for instance, @POTUS. That account should belong to the office, not the individual. Maybe state and corporate accounts should be treated differently than personal accounts.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#105

Post by matthewmacleod »

vxNsr wrote: post #92
matthewmacleod wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except maybe it's a bit more complex than your ridiculously simplified pithy one-liner. Seriously, what the fuck is that even supposed to mean? It's literally duckspeak – a reflexive slogan uttered without any thought. It elides all of the complexity of understanding what free speech is, or what a platform is.

Your response was less constructive then the one you replied to, not only did you fail to adequately explain what is wrong with asking a platform to be a place for free speech, but you failed while using truly reductive decisive rhetoric that just serves to make someone dig into their position instead of being open to hearing why they’re wrong.

Nah, fuck that.

"Be a free speech platform" means nothing by itself. It's a sentence without meaning. It communicates no ideas – because we all already like the idea of free speech, and the challenge is to understand what that means in a modern context.

(Of course, underneath all that, it's a dogwhistle. We all know what "free speech platform" means, because it's what Parler called itself. I'm doing the parent the justice of assuming they weren't deliberately using a tired dogwhistle phrase.)

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#106

Post by blululu »

CincinnatiMan wrote: post #89
IgorPartola wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to take a look at Voice of America, a Congress-funded network that broadcasts almost exclusively outside the US as US propaganda: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America

Sorry, I'm not making the connection to what OP was saying. Can you expand? Does Voice of America pretend to be a domestic news source to the areas it broadcasts?

No it doesn’t. I think the OP was making a what-about counter argument, that the CIA was blasting pro-NATO radio programs into the Eastern Block. Of course the Soviets hated this and constantly tried to jam the signal so I think this example supports the root comment that most governments have a serious interest in curtailing adversarial propaganda.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#107

Post by at_a_remove »

nonotreally wrote: post #103
at_a_remove wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I offer data, not a conclusion. And it's data that is well-timed, given the statement. What do you think?

I didn't raise the point. I haven't formed an opinion on this particular issue. Why did you offer this data?

I guess I will break all of this down for you, since you did ask.

1) Twitter calls for public input on their approach to their handling of accounts of government officials. This individual is a government official and this is an instance of handling their account.

2) Well-timed. They called for this input on March 18th. This instance of account handling is from March 19th, approximately one day later. This makes it "more relevant," given that it was not, say, six years ago.

So, I offered this data because it was topical and timely to the discussion at hand. Rather than a hypothetical, it exists as a real instance of how Twitter as a corporation handles the Twitter accounts of government leaders. If I were to discuss the price of tea in China back in 1887, that would not be topical or timely.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#108

Post by at_a_remove »

foobiter wrote: post #98
at_a_remove wrote: post #79

A Republican Congresswoman was just locked out of her Twitter account prior to some kind of Dem resolution, at least if you believe https://www.mrctv.org/blog/marjorie-taylor-green-reportedly-... as a source of truth. Nothing to see here, move along.

marjorie taylor green requires more detail than simply “a republican congresswoman” - she’s blamed forest fires on jewish space lasers, among other racist, homophobic, and transphobic conspiracy theories

And some of the "more detail" might also include that her account was re-instated after that, but that today's suspension comes at a timing that some might consider interesting, as a movement is attempting to oust her from government. Yes, more detail could be invoked.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#109

Post by blululu »

zo1 wrote: post #62
debacle wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Twitter's problem is that there isn't enough feel good content. Facebook shows you the dark pattern engagement content, but they also have pictures of your family, kids selling girl scout cookies, 10 minute videos about how to turn ramen noodles into a combine harvester, etc. Twitter only has the dark pattern engagement content and it makes people sick after too long. Maybe they should buy a Flicker type plat…

I think they should bring out personalized, customizable and curatable blocking/block-lists for both accounts and topics, and perhaps content sentiment as well. E.g. I want to follow Star Trek celebrity actors for their Star Trek/culture/movies/good content, but not for their incessant anti-Republican and Trump-bashing content. Yes, sometimes I'll miss stuff because AI/ML isn't perfect. But we don't want to "desensit…

I believe that you are asking for a more isolated filter bubble here. This is nice when it’s all positive but never engaging with opposing viewpoints is a serious problem. Polarization and atomization make it hard to cooperate as a society.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#110

Post by loceng »

taf2 wrote: post #64
loceng wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's truth is more truthful, who's lies are more harmful/helpful?

"Seriously because the aliens are already here and I have proof!" -- Joking aside sometimes pushing a truth whether it's true or not has an impact on inflaming conspiracy theories... Youtube's covid, election banners for example IMO did more to incite deep state conspiracy then to reduce it... "One often meets their fate on the path they take to avoid it..." - Kung Fu panda

YouTube's blanket ban was a problem absolutely - it was lazy and as hands-off as possible missing all nuance.
Post reply on HN