161–170 of 192 posts
> You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets I must've sent spam...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But surely that experience being 20 years ago makes it, at best, academic? Should we act like a 20 year old experience makes someone an expert or just another person with an opinion on the internet? I cynically wonder how much credibility we give this tweet is due to the author having 1) a huge following and 2) lots and lots of money. And of course 3) it being posted on the forum for the company they founded.
This is a pretty insulting opinion to hold. It's not like the spam messages have gotten infinitely more complex over the last 20 years, or that someone who is a competent programmer just completely forgot everything that they know about a subject.
Option d: nobody outside of the Twitter TnS teams (including Paul Graham) has any idea of what Twitter is detecting as spam and what not, and thus can't actually judge how good a job is being done. First, we don't see the spam that was outright blocked, so we have no idea of what the false negative rate is. Second, I bet that this is not a binary block/allow decision, but there are all kinds of ways of reducing the e…
Twitter could solve my spam problem tomorrow with a setting that says "don't show any posts with links if they're from accounts none of your friends or friends of friends follow".
Option d: nobody outside of the Twitter TnS teams (including Paul Graham) has any idea of what Twitter is detecting as spam and what not, and thus can't actually judge how good a job is being done. First, we don't see the spam that was outright blocked, so we have no idea of what the false negative rate is. Second, I bet that this is not a binary block/allow decision, but there are all kinds of ways of reducing the e…
(Like always, speaking just for myself here) The spam Twitter lets through is ridiculous. Is it hard to catch all offenders? Yes. Is it obvious Twitter is no where close to that? Also yes. We should have higher standards for our social networks.
Bot Sentinel [0] can pick these up without any direct access to Twitter’s data, you would think that Twitter would be able to do it with all the extra information they have available to them.
Option d: nobody outside of the Twitter TnS teams (including Paul Graham) has any idea of what Twitter is detecting as spam and what not, and thus can't actually judge how good a job is being done. First, we don't see the spam that was outright blocked, so we have no idea of what the false negative rate is. Second, I bet that this is not a binary block/allow decision, but there are all kinds of ways of reducing the e…
Crazy how we can have such different experiences. I follow less than 100 accounts and easily 50% of the responses are always spam/scams. It makes Twitter almost unusable for me. The most ironic part is that Twitter will show the spam/scams, but hide other replies, from real people, that Twitter thinks are mean.
Follow any normal non-celebrity account that isn't talking about the latest moneymaker and you'll find less spam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Option E: Nobody can even agree on what Twitter spam is. Is it bots? I follow a few bot accounts and get value out of them. Is it blatantly promotional content? This actually seems to be one of the intended uses of Twitter. Is it low-quality content? I feel like lots of people earnestly tweet out low-quality stuff, and who gets to judge what's low-quality anyway?
To me it’s the fake accounts impersonating a real company with direct links to malicious websites. These responses always get 100s of likes from other bots, and also dozens of replies from other fake bots to make it seem real. To test this out, just Tweet something like “my Coinbase account isn’t working” You’ll get dozens of replies from fake Coinbase support scams.
Oh, well there's your problem. Unfortunately the network of people you're following are very close to giant network of scammers that has grown around crypto.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like the variable is whether one engages with Bitcoin discussion. I don't, and have observed no spam.
I pulled this reply from the most recent Associated Press tweet. Yeah, I'm sure they've mentioned Bitcoin at some point, but it has nothing to do with my Twitter usage.
> You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets I must've sent spam...
PG is extremely heavy handed with his block button. He is a very delicate little flower. I really don't know what the HN community sees in him. He's not smart or interesting by any stretch of the imagination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it could at least be self-consistent. Sometimes identical tweets by different users are given different verdicts. Twitter's offensiveness detection seems about as good as Google's search results. I've just realised a potential reason for this: we're seeing a spam-detection algorithm several years down the line from when Twitter started. That's several years of cat-and-mouse, where the spammers have access to much…
I've seen non-offensive stuff marked as potentially offensive and assumed it was just that the account makes offensive posts often enough that the default assumption is that the tweets are offensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But surely that experience being 20 years ago makes it, at best, academic? Should we act like a 20 year old experience makes someone an expert or just another person with an opinion on the internet? I cynically wonder how much credibility we give this tweet is due to the author having 1) a huge following and 2) lots and lots of money. And of course 3) it being posted on the forum for the company they founded.
This is a pretty insulting opinion to hold. It's not like the spam messages have gotten infinitely more complex over the last 20 years, or that someone who is a competent programmer just completely forgot everything that they know about a subject.