221–230 of 1001 posts
Am I the only person here that finds Twitter a nice place? I'm careful about who I follow, most of whom are tech people or educators. My feed is a really nice place to go, and I can't remember the last time I read or saw anything that triggered me in the slightest. I'm seeing loads of comments about how toxic Twitter is, but isn't that on you? Don't follow or engage and the algorithm will skip you over.
Am I the only person here that finds Twitter a nice place? I'm careful about who I follow, most of whom are tech people or educators. My feed is a really nice place to go, and I can't remember the last time I read or saw anything that triggered me in the slightest. I'm seeing loads of comments about how toxic Twitter is, but isn't that on you? Don't follow or engage and the algorithm will skip you over.
Social media is designed in such a way that most engagement is somewhat mindless, so most people like and follow stuff they enjoy on a whim and then can’t easily connect the dots to how toxic stuff ended up in their feed. But beside that, even if you can understand exactly how to curate Twitter into something nice… why bother? There’s zero cost to just hang out in nicer parts of the internet, or, even better, talk to people IRL.
Is this so? Or just that the offered price is too good to pass up? Real questions.
“Everything that isn’t illegal is allowed” sounds great until you see what that actually means on the internet. Anyone who has ever worked in content moderation / trust & safety knows what kind of unrelenting deluge of obnoxious / disturbing / spam-filled / miserable race to the bottom of the lizard brain stuff that is constantly being pushed back on any moderately popular social media site. It seems so easy from a d…
You seem to assume it's a binary answer. Either allow everything or nothing?
I will become a Musk fanboi if he reverts twitter to allowing unlimited reading without being logged in.
How did it go from hostility to acceptance so quickly? I understand playing hard-ball to negotiate a higher price, BUT why play hard-ball and just accept the initial offer? Or is there something else at play (maybe expectation is that shareholders reject it?) and this is just a PR ploy.
Maybe someday it will all come out.
I can empathise with both ends of the table here, but you have to agree that entering such a world of pain as moderating Twitter and re-shaping it's dynamics voluntary (and paying $43B for it!) is yet another thing done by Musk that you will see once in a lifetime. This is "bread and circuses" of our time.
“Everything that isn’t illegal is allowed” sounds great until you see what that actually means on the internet. Anyone who has ever worked in content moderation / trust & safety knows what kind of unrelenting deluge of obnoxious / disturbing / spam-filled / miserable race to the bottom of the lizard brain stuff that is constantly being pushed back on any moderately popular social media site. It seems so easy from a d…
“Everything that isn’t illegal is allowed” sounds great until you see what that actually means on the internet. Anyone who has ever worked in content moderation / trust & safety knows what kind of unrelenting deluge of obnoxious / disturbing / spam-filled / miserable race to the bottom of the lizard brain stuff that is constantly being pushed back on any moderately popular social media site. It seems so easy from a d…
Moderation is hard, genuinely hard, every order of magnitude increase in community size is not linear to the moderation requirement: it is factorial.
Why? Because every single communication has the potential for abuse, and the number of interactions on a platform do not scale linearly with the increase of users.
This is why things like the "Eternal September" exist, a deluge of new users is basically impossible to moderate at scale.
I think Twitter, Facebook and co. have done a fairly decent job of the mess they made, but crucially they decided that a walled garden where everyone exists together was their business model.
I think this is fundamentally flawed. "Back in my day" (I know it may be glazed with nostalgia, but) smaller close knit forums were much better at moderating communities, because it was still humanly possible.
There did exist some communities which became tyrannical; but the benefit of small communities is that people just go wherever it's "nice enough", and if you don't like the moderation staff or how they moderate you can move on with your friends.
I think people don't want this to be true, people are so financially invested in the centralised model; but ultimately you force a single set of potentially tyrannical moderators and a single culture. -- and people aren't willing (or able) to pay for the correct level of moderation.
It's Sisyphean and totally self-inflicted.
Am I the only person here that finds Twitter a nice place? I'm careful about who I follow, most of whom are tech people or educators. My feed is a really nice place to go, and I can't remember the last time I read or saw anything that triggered me in the slightest. I'm seeing loads of comments about how toxic Twitter is, but isn't that on you? Don't follow or engage and the algorithm will skip you over.
>> I'm seeing loads of comments about how toxic Twitter is, but isn't that on you?
That is what I too think every time some says that.