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

251–260 of 373 posts

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

#251

Post by bun_at_work »

TheRealNGenius wrote: post #249

World leaders should not be afforded any form of preferential treatment. Everyone is equal under the law; all users equal under a platform. That's it. The moment you treat a subset of the population differently from another (such as giving them a blue checkmark), you begin to break from this ideal. Of course, any platform is free to do as they please. But congrats, in doing so, you have devolved into a world of kings…

Isn't the checkmark just a verification? Pretty sure that's there so users can differentiate between real and spoof accounts. That way users know that @realDonaldTrump is really him, instead of the (probably) co-opted account @DonaldTrump.

It's a pretty far cry from having any sort of additional power.

Furthermore, acknowledging status where it exists is not the same as creating a distinct group of people with special status. What about "Dr." for people with doctorate degrees? Doctors don't have any more rights than anyone else, and having the title exist certainly doesn't create some part of society that is inaccessible to others.

Holding political leaders to a different standard on social media doesn't mean they are royalty, it's just an acknowledgement that they do hold power, elected, inherited, or otherwise. Furthermore, if Twitter's history is a sign of what any new policy would look like, world leaders would be held to a more restrictive standard than others, on Twitter.

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

#252

Post by Jcowell »

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…

Why not just use the mute keywords feature which already does this ?

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

#253

Post by Tossitto »

TameAntelope wrote: post #231
aww_dang wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Yes, the state has an incentive to create critical thinkers, the incentive is just obfuscated substantially from the average decision maker in "the state".

I don't believe so. The state by its nature wants to find equilibrium like practically every other system. One of the paths of least resistance is the manipulation of the public into an unthinking, docile, and generally inert individual. This makes everything much more predictable and controllable, which brings it closer to equilibrium.

You could intuit this sort of outcome, perhaps, from a reading of "Thinking, Fast and Slow". Humans don't really do well with probability, we want definitive binary outcomes that aren't reliant on probability. We want a quiet, well defined day to day. Politicians want the same thing (alongside a disproportionately large allotment of control and wealth in return). Want though, is the difficulty, because the reality is that the underpinnings of practically all human functions and the world in itself are fairly chaotic.

I think you're under the impression it's a noble goal in the name of progress, but [genuine] progress is disruptive in every field. That disruption breaks the equilibrium, and makes the quiet day a rather loud lifetime.

"May you live in interesting times."

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

#254

Post by lisper »

bun_at_work wrote: post #250
lisper wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that all leaders have an inherent conflict of interest between the following two goals: 1. Doing the job 2. Maintaining power The problem is, again, two-fold: 1. The things you need to do to serve the first goal are often different from the things you need to do to serve the second, and 2. You must achieve the second goal in order to even attempt to achieve the first. That's the fundamental problem. It…

The stated conflict of interest is only really an issue in democracies, or other forms of representative governments. Otherwise, spot-on.

Why only in democracies? Dictators have to work to stay in power too. It doesn't just happen automatically.

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

#255

Post by Jcowell »

ufmace wrote: post #161
foobiter wrote: post #98

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

Is there like a guide somewhere telling people to bring up some specific incident every time a particular UnPerson's name is brought up? I swear there's a few dozen people for which, as soon as their name is mentioned, a dozen green accounts will suddenly post what somebody has determined is "critical context" under which we are supposed to see them. Okay she made one silly facebook post that doesn't really quite say…

What? There’s a difference between “one silly post” and the perpetual spiel of QAnon conspiracy theories and beliefs. Your comment makes it seems as if she said that one edgy thing we all say as teenagers in a one off. I don’t agree with muting her until after her expulsion, but this comment is disingenuous.

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

#256

Post by Analemma_ »

cle wrote: post #168
ed312 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not. There's a natural scarcity of space for physical cameras and reporters. As far as I understand, the press themselves are largely responsible for figuring out these logistics via the WHCA. (Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.) There isn't any practical scarcity for text streams coming from the White House though, so I can't think of a reason why consuming them should be tied to a closed platform like T…

Twitter isn't "a closed platform" in the sense that is relevant here. If I want to read the President's tweets without a Twitter account, I can.

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

#258

Post by osrec »

tonyarkles wrote: post #229
munificent wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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%…

Heck, an individual's Twitter experience can be radically changed just by making some changes. A few years ago, I had pretty much abandoned Twitter. Like the GP says, it was a cesspool of negativity. And then I heard someone talk about the "cocktail party" strategy: "If you were at a cocktail party and ended up next to this person, would you hang out and chat? Or would you excuse yourself and go somewhere else?" I sp…

It makes your tweets nicer, but also an echo chamber, which will unfortunately be exploited by those you follow at some point.

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

#259

Post by hesk »

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…

"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

Who needs Twitter when you have TV?

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

#260

Post by PartiallyTyped »

Tossitto wrote: post #248
ike77 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a point of view, and a pretty cynical one. I would like to point out that regarding moderation, tech companies have been asking for guidelines and new laws for a decade now. Ageing lawmakers have been unable to provide them and we start to see shy initiatives from the EU regarding privacy laws but roughly most of the water in which tech companies operate are still no mans lands. All that make me think that eve…

Aren't these glamorous tech companies supposed to be employing from the pool of the highest echelons of intellectualism? How is it that they have such exceedingly large valuations but they can't manage to deploy a rationale by which to manage their user-based content?

It is virtually impossible to not offend anyone, so they choose from the basket of all potential customers or products which they believe will be most profitable. If the ~~nazis~~ alt-right were making them more money than centrists and leftists, they wouldn't have banned them by citing freedom of speech and expression. However, their analysts probably deemed that losing the rest of the user base through the #cancel culture isn't worth it.
Post reply on HN