Live data from Hacker News

Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

blog.twitter.com

151–160 of 373 posts

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

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to find the limits of Freedom of Speech. Are we agreeing that there are in fact limits on Freedom of Speech?

Yeah, this has actually been thought of before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat

I'm not suggesting that I've stumbled into some new idea.

I'm trying to understand what people mean when they say "free speech platform".

It seems to be a get out of jail free card of sorts.

"Free speech" without any limits obviously doesn't work. Where are the limits of the parent comment? The devil is in the details.

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

#153
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like we agree on this. I want to push you here though. Did twitter contribute to the events on the 6th? Do they have any role to play? Do you have to use the words "go and kill them" in order for it to be violence? I'm trying to be genuine here, because I don't know. I will say it certainly feels like we saw the violence being induced for months ahead of time on twitter without explicit calls for violence. Sho…

If the speech is legal it should not be censored or moderated in any way. Any deviation from that results in the technocrats interfering with the flow of legal information and manipulation of social, economic, and political processes - which is in large part how we ended up with the events of recent months in my opinion.

What if it's a private company?

Hackernews famously moderates their comment section, to the benefit of all.

Why can't this happen on Twitter?

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

#155
post #49
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook, when I used to use it, felt like a reasonably structured glut of content. Twitter on the other hand feels like a poorly structured glut of opinions. I sometimes can't even differentiate between the original tweet, the reply, and I find it hard to know how many replies there are. It feels like trying to have a coherent conversation in the middle of an old fashioned stock exchange - virtually impossible - I t…

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…

> that there isn't enough feel good content.

Any time I see people make sweeping claims about what the content on some social media site/app "is", I feel compelled to point out that your Twitter and my Twitter are likely much more different than you realize. Because the UI looks the same, people naturally assume the content is similar, but your experience is highly dependent on who you follow.

My Twitter feed is 50% pixel artists sharing beautiful content, 30% programming language people having interesting discussions on language nerd stuff, 10% authors talking about fiction, and 10% politics and other stuff. I get a lot of feel good content.

But that's because I chose to make my Twitter feed be that by who I follow. Reddit and YouTube are likewise highly nourishing to me. I do wish social media sites made it easier to curate like this, but I disagree with the notion that there is any singular view of what content on these sites is like.

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

#156

I don't really have much of an opinion on how twitter should approach world leaders. I'm more interested in the approach of world leaders to twitter. As far as I'm concerned, people receiving salaries from the taxpayer shouldn't be spending their time writing free copy for twitter. They should be communicating with the public via government operated websites, or press conferences covered by multiple media organizatio…

Do you also oppose the US President holding press conferences for privately owned broadcast TV channels?

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

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this has actually been thought of before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat

I'm not suggesting that I've stumbled into some new idea. I'm trying to understand what people mean when they say "free speech platform". It seems to be a get out of jail free card of sorts. "Free speech" without any limits obviously doesn't work. Where are the limits of the parent comment? The devil is in the details.

Twitter, Facebook etc. are communication platforms in the same way the postal service, telephone system, etc are communications platforms.

Communication platforms in the US should adhere to the US constitution.

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

#158
post #119
post #69

The only reasonable policy is to ban all world leaders from Twitter. As world leaders, they can speak elsewhere. If someone is accused of being a world leader, and you have adequate identification, it's fairly easy to confirm or deny. In the case of a disputed election, maybe both candidates could be considered leaders until the dispute is resolved.

The problem is that ever since banning Trump they have less usage on the site. So they need those "exciting" world leaders. Telling Twitter to ban all world leaders is the opposite of what they want. They want to be able to have all those people on there, while not being blamed for leaving "bad" content up.

On the plus side, the lower traffic seems to have helped with links to twitter threads, which actually work now (or at least better)

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

#160
Twitter, Facebook, Google, and other tech companies are too big and powerful and influential to be allowed to act on their own. They should either be split up or regulated heavily so that they are held to behaving like a public agency. It's not just not acceptable to have a company with a user base larger than most countries to operate with the power to shape societal speech - they need to just enforce the bare minimum legal requirement and nothing more.

Personally I have no trust that Twitter is doing any of this in good faith. For example take this bit from their blog post:

> We’re also in the process of consulting with a range of human rights experts, civil society organizations, and academics worldwide whose feedback will be reflected in forthcoming revisions to the policy framework.

This sounds like they will solicit opinions that agree with their planned policy updates, and will increase the amount of censorship they perform, informed by their progressive politics. This blog post just seems like a notice that this is coming, rather than an honest attempt to collect user input. They're also not clear what organizations they are consulting but I am guessing it does not include any moderate or conservative voices. The blog post does not mention "speech", "free speech", "censorship", "neutral", etc. It does however mention things like "fundamental human rights" and frustratingly vague wording like "health of the public conversation". This blog post is a fluffy PR piece that is starting the work of previewing and justifying whatever they're about to do to double down on their current heavy handed control of speech.

Another curious part of this post:

> This is to ensure a global perspective is reflected in the feedback

It's interesting that the blog post mentions seeking a "global perspective", so maybe this is PR for other nations more so than a US audience. Twitter doesn't do a good job of reflecting varying perspectives even domestically in the US., since they regularly disallow centrist or conservative posts on a variety of controversial topics. When they take this mode of operation internationally, it is even more unacceptable since Twitter (and Facebook) are essentially propagandizing other nations and engaging in a slow-moving cultural shaping mission when they censor speech from those nations according to their own political or cultural opinions. I am expecting that the "global perspective" they seek is one that agrees with their way of doing things, not an honest readiness to accept ideological/cultural diversity. If they at all cared about this, they would first start by correcting their mistakes within the US.

Other countries are aware of these issues, and the risk that Twitter and other big tech companies bring to their societies. We've seen leaders like Angela Merkel (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-at-...) and Emmanuel Macron (https://www.axios.com/macron-social-media-bans-trump-twitter...) point out the obvious issues with Twitter banning Trump, and it was a wake up call to those leaders. With leftist activists now calling for other countries' leaders to be banned (https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-trump-banned-bolsona...), I would say those nations have every right to be alarmed.

It's ironic that we place such a focus on foreign actors influencing our society in America. We often hear about Russian interference or other such scary activity, but the same scrutiny is never given to domestic actors who are waging an all out war on diversity of thought. Twitter is one of those bad actors, and cannot be trusted to uphold free speech principles. We need alternatives to them, and the other companies complicit in propagandizing our society - regular censors/deplatformers like Apple, Google, Amazon, etc.

Post reply on HN