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

351–360 of 373 posts

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

#351

Post by redis_mlc »

everdrive wrote: post #328
Judgmentality wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems pretty odd you have such a disdain for populism, but I'm guessing you believe in democracy. If most people prefer to participate that way and vote as such, are you saying that the people are wrong? Because the whole point of democracy is letting the people decide for themselves what they want. If you think democracy is fundamentally flawed though, then I guess your point makes more sense.

I genuinely don't want to take this to a negative place. So, please understand, I'm answering your question as best I can, and with positive intent. I believe populism can be quite bad, which is part of why the founding fathers designed a representative democracy, rather than a direct democracy. They were all well schooled in Greek and Roman history, and were afraid of the demagogues of Athens, and of other Greek cit…

> and were afraid of the demagogues of Athens

Yet here we are with Nancy Pelosi, who is nothing but a demagogue.

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

#352

Post by aww_dang »

GrinningFool wrote: post #124
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.

> If we can't trust individuals to digest information themselves, what are we doing? We're realizing that it's no longer as simple as "people should just know better", because the forces they're up against are armed with all the latest psychological tricks to induce belief even in people who /do/ know better.

People have been lying to and manipulating others since the beginning of recorded history. Even mythological figures exhibited deceptive behavior. The Pulitzer prize is named for the creator of "yellow journalism". There's nothing new here.

This reads as "this time is different", an appeal to special circumstances without addressing the crux of the issue, subjectivity & diversity of opinion.

In practical terms this requires "fact checkers" supposedly impartial arbiters of objective truth. We can disagree on philosophy and the nature of man, but this premise is a non-starter for me.

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

#353

Post by occamrazor »

xg15 wrote: post #82

> Politicians and government officials are constantly evolving how they use our service I find corporate-speak as dreadful, artificial and insincere as the next guy, but this bit was unintentionally funny. At least I wonder now how a constantly evolving government official would look.

Also, I learned that “evolve” can be a transitive verb.

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

#354

Post by throwaway894345 »

undersuit wrote: post #338
throwaway894345 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 regulat…

I think the answer is to start regulating our government. Far more effective to write a law on how the president can use communication platforms than to regulate the current top communication platform.

It depends on what you’re solving for. I want to fix free speech and remove Twitter from the helm of democracy. That it doesn’t need to regulate world leaders is a bonus.

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

#355

Post by xg15 »

occamrazor wrote: post #353
xg15 wrote: post #82

> Politicians and government officials are constantly evolving how they use our service I find corporate-speak as dreadful, artificial and insincere as the next guy, but this bit was unintentionally funny. At least I wonder now how a constantly evolving government official would look.

Also, I learned that “evolve” can be a transitive verb.

Even outside Pokémon, amazingly.

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

#356

Post by tonyarkles »

osrec wrote: post #258
tonyarkles wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe, although I'm quite curious to see how people who mostly talk about old computers and crazy debugging stories are going to do that.

Funny enough, as a Canadian, I do end up getting exposed to both some of the American left and right politics, as well as having a good idea of when crazy stuff goes down, but I don't get much exposure to crazy stuff happening in Canada via Twitter, and I'm generally ok with that! Facebook, however, is the complete opposite; that's a wild mix of folks widely distributed in the "masks are killing our children" to "the government should lock every person in their homes" Canadian politics, and it's exhausting.

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

#358

Post by loveistheanswer »

shmageggy wrote: post #321

> we want our policies to remain relevant to the ever-changing nature of political discourse on Twitter and protect the health of the public conversation What the fuck? In what universe are the political hot takes, memes, and sniping on Twitter considered "discourse"? And in what universe is this considered healthy public conversation? Do people actually think Twitter is in any way a good medium for this?

It's like a cigarrette company saying they want to protect the health of people's lungs

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

#359

Post by loveistheanswer »

weakfish wrote: post #87
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.

People tend to conflate freedom from persecution due to speech with freedom to say whatever, wherever. They are not the same.

You've stated what you think freedom of speech isn't, but can you actually define what you think freedom of speech is?

It's funny how this mantra of "freedom of speech != freedom from consequences of speech" seemingly originated at precisely the same time that big tech corporations and social media mobs began punishing people en masse for lawful (but politically incorrect) speech.

It seems like doublespeak really. I.e.: "Welcome, no tresspassing"

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

#360

Post by weakfish »

loveistheanswer wrote: post #359
weakfish wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People tend to conflate freedom from persecution due to speech with freedom to say whatever, wherever. They are not the same.

You've stated what you think freedom of speech isn't , but can you actually define what you think freedom of speech is ? It's funny how this mantra of "freedom of speech != freedom from consequences of speech" seemingly originated at precisely the same time that big tech corporations and social media mobs began punishing people en masse for lawful (but politically incorrect) speech. It seems like doublespeak really.…

I'm on mobile so I can't provide sources too well, but it's fairly clear if you study the American Founding.

Source: political science undergraduate

Of course you are welcome to form your own interpretation, but I feel it is a fairly clear distinction. Happy to further this discussion when I'm at a computer with more access to info.

Post reply on HN