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

171–180 of 373 posts

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

#171

Post by nonotreally »

canoebuilder wrote: post #157
nonotreally wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It can't be that simple. This is a private company.

Isn't this where the entire problem is coming from? If this were a state run service, we know the answer and can apply it easily.

The confusion is coming entirely from it being something other than the state.

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

#173

Post by [deleted] »

system16 wrote: post #47

On Twitter you can find promoted full blown propaganda paid for by hostile (to the US at least) state sponsored news agencies and government officials. These same governments ban Twitter in their own countries and would never allow similar content on their own platforms. Twitter's solution here is to insert a tiny "State affiliated" footer text below the account name. Can you imagine in the Cold War-era NBC being all…

[deleted]

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

#174

Post by dehrmann »

ed312 wrote: post #156
tacostakohashi wrote: post #146

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?

PBS, NPR, the BBC, and Al Jazeera all have seats in the White House press room.

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

#175

Post by aww_dang »

mtc010170 wrote: post #166
aww_dang wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the comparison to unclaimed land. While other industries are heavily regulated, requiring legal compliance and investment, Internet publishing is still largely open. In my view this is one of the reasons why the online service economy is booming in the US, where others are in decline.

I'm curious because I didn't realize this was a trend. Can anyone share some more info/sources on the decline outside the US?

Please read it as the decline of other heavily regulated/unionized industries relative to the booming online service sector within the US.

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

#176

Post by mmaunder »

I think Twitter fails to realize that cyber space will ultimately supersede real world in its importance as a common space to interact, transact, communicate and live. We’re already close to that point.

This: “Generally, we want to hear from the public on whether or not they believe world leaders should be subject to the same rules as others on Twitter. And, should a world leader violate a rule, what type of enforcement action is appropriate.” is interesting.

The trouble is that, from Twitters perspective, they are the arbiter of how these interactions happen. Same for other major platforms.

It fails to address the question of whether private for profit corporations should be sole arbiters of the very substrate upon which we live and its rules.

Once the public and world governments think this through and fully game it out, I don’t think they’ll settle for the current status quo.

We’re already seeing internet shutdowns during elections in certain countries as a course and crude enforcement or regulatory action. I’d expect this to become more granular over time and to expand.

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

#177

Post by aww_dang »

TameAntelope wrote: post #145
aww_dang wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The decisions it makes—not just in terms of moderation, but in terms of structure and incentive—substantially affect the spread of mis/disinformation. If we can't trust individuals to digest information themselves, what are we doing? I find the premise troubling. People can disagree and interpret events differently. Without that, there's very little to discuss.

Much like the global economy made morality an infinitely complex problem (thanks The Good Place), the global Internet made digesting information equally as complex. We don't equip people to do it through our education systems in America. What we're doing is sending millions of people out into the world, wholly unprepared to navigate it successfully, which leaves them vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation. I don…

>We don't equip people to do it through our education systems in America.

Does the largely state run education system have an incentive to create critical thinkers?

Institutions trend towards group think. Credentials are granted by authorities. I'm not sure we can get there using the tools at hand.

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

#178

Post by Stupulous »

blululu wrote: post #109
zo1 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you have a "no liberals" filter, you'll get a worse bubble. But if you implement it as a "no politics" filter, you can get all the benefits without directly affecting bubbles.

"No politics" is a tricky problem, though. 'Politics' is less of a category and more of a spectrum. Is COVID politics? Climate change? Minimum wage research? BLM? But at least you could filter out the rhetoric and mindless other side bashing which are hardly politics anyway.

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

#179

Post by throwawaysea »

system16 wrote: post #47

On Twitter you can find promoted full blown propaganda paid for by hostile (to the US at least) state sponsored news agencies and government officials. These same governments ban Twitter in their own countries and would never allow similar content on their own platforms. Twitter's solution here is to insert a tiny "State affiliated" footer text below the account name. Can you imagine in the Cold War-era NBC being all…

Why does it matter if propaganda is coming from a foreign state actor or domestic groups, like activist groups that seek to shut down any opposing views?

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

#180

Post by dv_dt »

glitchc wrote: post #169

World leaders should not have a forum on Twitter. We have official government channels for that, where other stakeholders in the system provide their input before the message becomes public. If an individual moves into the position of a world leader or equivalent, their account should be frozen until such time that the position ends. This is the only sane policy. Anything else is too dangerous for humanity. Twitter a…

I think I disagree there. Though there are negative effects, one positive effect is that Twitter creates an opportunity for direct public feedback being seen by world leaders vs official channels that insulate from that feedback to a much higher degree. Though I do say "opportunity" because obviously leaders can create organizational insulators to Twitter accounts just as with any other channel.
Post reply on HN