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

261–270 of 373 posts

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

#261

Post by JoshuaDavid »

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?

That argument proves too much, I think. It seems analogous to the question of "Why would anyone ever want higher taxes? If they think the optimal tax rate is higher, they can just pay more taxes."

If one company takes a more principled approach to moderation, and that more principled approach is harmful to revenue, that company will be outcompeted by companies with whatever moderation policies optimize for engagement / revenue / growth. As a result, in the absence of legislation, you get adverse selection i.e. the dominant platforms will be the ones that optimize for engagement/revenue/growth, rather than the ones with good moderation policies.

If you instead have legislation for what "good moderation" looks like, it applies equally to all companies and mitigates the adverse selection problem.

Of course, it is still entirely possible for bad legislation to introduce worse problems than the adverse selection problem. It depends on the object level of what exactly the legislation is, rather than being a blanket "legislation bad" or "legislation good" sort of thing.

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

#262

Post by qbasic_forever »

Purely from an opsec perspective I doubt we'll ever have world leaders as online and accessible on private platforms like Twitter as we did in the last years. It's just too much of a national security risk and every major state has to assume the CIA/Mossad/KGB/etc. is actively trying to intercept and undermine world leader's online presence. It is stupidly easy for a determined state actor to over time infiltrate and get an in with a private American company. The risks are just too great to have a world leader using Twitter or similar platforms for anything more than reshashed press releases and announcements. Smart nations will probably get ahead of potential hacking or other incidents by just having a blanket and clear policy that no official business will be communicated or done on Twitter or similar platforms.

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

#263

Post by TheRealNGenius »

bun_at_work wrote: post #251
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 specia…

I'm pretty sure that not just anyone can get a checkmark. If it were the case that anyone could get the checkmark, then sure, I agree it would just be just a form of verification. This would be perfectly fine :)

You're right that acknowledging status exists is not the same as creating it. But does one not go hand in hand with the other in this case, where you are selectively picking who to acknowledge?

Now, I don't know the specifics, but from what I understand, there is an overwhelming disparity between journalists/politicians getting blue checkmarks compared to others who may have more followers. Of course, that would also be fine, assuming there was a rigorous definition of what a "journalist" was. Keep in mind, this is not evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni8CpIJpmqw

I want to be clear, I was not implying political leaders royalty. But when you hold some group to a different standard than others or have rules for them that differ (whether more restrictive or lax), you have basically reinvented legal inequality.

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

#264

Post by throwaway894345 »

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…

Ultimately the problem is that Twitter et al is the new de facto public square. Politicians want to go where the people are, not to publish to an RSS feed that some single digit percentage of their audience (which will skew elite) will ever access.

Note also that there are other, broader consequences: Twitter operates the public square restriction from free speech provisions like the US First Amendment—it can regulate access and manipulate the dialogue to suit its own purposes to the detriment of the broader society, which is the whole point of provisions like 1A. Some are content that this isn’t a de jure public square, as though that will prevent us from suffering the de facto consequences.

I think the answer is to start regulating Twitter so it doesn’t have control over so much national and international dialogue. We might say that social media giants must behave according to the first amendment such that it is a “safe” space for politicians to interact. If we’re worried about preserving some sense of moderation, we could require social media giants to implement some common protocol so that they don’t own the dialogue, but only a view (in the SQL sense) into the dialogue.

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

#265

Post by PartiallyTyped »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #189
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

She is still an elected member of congress, and from what I hear - a rather popular one, regardless of her "tinfoil hatery". Opposition parties should _never_ have the power to just expel people they don't like from the opposing side. I'm sure it's purely coincidence she is locked from her twitter account on the same day that congress will be voting on a resolution on whether or not to expel her.

Free speech is not concerned with a person's ability to spew and regurgitate bs in private platforms and I see no reason to give her preferential treatment over anyone else.

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

#266

Post by Tossitto »

throwawaysea wrote: post #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 minim…

This is a brilliant post, thank you for your contribution.

I just wonder what kind of alternatives we have that could be effective. Something government sponsored but administered by a third party with a strict constitution regarding moderating only the extremest content? A system of self-moderation in place that isn't destructive, but rather hides content to prevent congestion? I feel like voluntary identification is also a must.

I don't know, it's hard to say.

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

#267

Post by [deleted] »

randcraw wrote: post #244
ed312 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes. But I'd go further. All holders of US political office at all levels should be unable to restrict any conference or interview in which they take part to any single interviewer or news agency, so they cannot control who asks the questions or who airs the event. For several decades, US Presidents have been able to avoid hard questions by cherry picking interviewers or networks in order to "massage their message".…

[deleted]

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

#268

Post by nbardy »

_v7gu wrote: post #83
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…

Yes, only US should be able to spread their propaganda

You'll have better conversations of you engage with the argument rather than misrepresent it.

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

#269

Post by everdrive »

crazygringo wrote: post #196
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…

It's not "free copy for twitter" anymore than a press briefing is "free copy for newspapers". Leaders communicate wherever people are already reading and listening. Today, Twitter is just as important of a conduit as newspapers or the evening news. People already read Twitter and find it far more convenient to follow a world leader than to visit individual sites or set up an RSS reader. Also you might be suffering fr…

>Today, Twitter is just as important of a conduit as newspapers or the evening news.

Twitter is a terrible medium for discourse. You wouldn't suggest that world leaders communicate via TikTok, simply because it's popular.

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

#270

Post by astrea »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #189
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

She is still an elected member of congress, and from what I hear - a rather popular one, regardless of her "tinfoil hatery". Opposition parties should _never_ have the power to just expel people they don't like from the opposing side. I'm sure it's purely coincidence she is locked from her twitter account on the same day that congress will be voting on a resolution on whether or not to expel her.

> I'm sure it's purely coincidence she is locked from her twitter account on the same day that congress will be voting on a resolution on whether or not to expel her.

Surely you could see that correlation as a pattern of questionable behavior finally biting her and not some conspiracy between the liberal elite and Twitter.

Post reply on HN