161–170 of 259 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I think Hanlon's Razor was intended to apply to individuals, not organizations. Often the "stupidity" of an organization is a shield for malice or greed.
Organizations are made up of people. When you have 5000 people making small decisions with 0.1% possibility of being wrong, if have 40% of chance having at least one mistake over 5000 decisions.
Not surprising. Social networks have been known to block smaller competitors. After all, it’s their right to as a private company. Isn’t that how that works? Everyone always says that, and this is a case of that.
> After all, it’s their right to as a private company. Why do people always use the term "private company"? Twitter is a publicly owned corporation. If the Musk deal goes through, it'll be private. But I'm not sure what work the word "private" is supposed to be doing.
It's a publicly traded company. Not a publicly owned company. The owners of twitter are primarily private citizens/corporations, not public/government.
> But I'm not sure what work the word "private" is supposed to be doing.
Public = government. Private = not government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plausible deniability. Design the system in a way that it'd pick up competitor links as spam (without directly blacklisting them explicitly) using fine-tuned training data. In case of media attention, tell it's an error and ML algorithms are blackboxes, and take action to "whitelist" those domains only when needed. Yeah, we buy it, Twitter.
Design a better one and there will be companies looking to acquire you. Problem solved, in a more constructive way.
It's dead obvious that they do not want it. The reasons why is beyond me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Private company", in this context, means "not the government". The opposite would be "public sector", referring to the government or companies it owns/runs.
Except, how many government owned companies are there in the US? What's the point in saying "private company" if 99.99+% of companies are private?
Linking to twitter is horrible too. Try this in your terminal: > curl https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1532710931590959104 There is nothing of value in the static part of the html. For fuck's sake, there is no even title.
Surely this won't be the case anymore under Elon, right? ... right? On a serious note, do we know if there are other links that are blocked; like facebook or instagram or even onlyfans?
You do know that Elon does not currently (and may not ever) own Twitter, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's their right but it's still crummy. I want Section 230 to be repealed.
In other words, you want every website to be held liable for all user generated content on their platform, which would benefit every large social media (because smaller ones wouldn't be able to afford to moderate every single post), leading to them becoming even more of a monopoly? Or do you have something concrete in mind on what to replace it with? Because just repealing it would lead to a much different Internet t…
In the EU it works well: the only social networks that exist are American :P
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plausible deniability. Design the system in a way that it'd pick up competitor links as spam (without directly blacklisting them explicitly) using fine-tuned training data. In case of media attention, tell it's an error and ML algorithms are blackboxes, and take action to "whitelist" those domains only when needed. Yeah, we buy it, Twitter.
I'm not saying your wrong, but that just sounds like an incredible amount of work for something that would presumably be discovered anyway, you know? Wouldn't it be much easier to simply blacklist and put out some bland statement about "not supporting 'hate speech'" or something? It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it just matters that they paint the picture of them opposing something "bad". Lying just seems a lot…
It doesn't require more work than they are already presumably implementing for spam detection (unless I way too much overestimate big tech's abilities), it's a little touch to an already-being-implemented system with a bonus of being able to block competitors to some extent, without direct liability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except, how many government owned companies are there in the US? What's the point in saying "private company" if 99.99+% of companies are private?
What's the point in saying "private company" Different rules, laws, regulations, etc. apply to private sector vs public sector. Specifically in this case, OP is implying that a theoretical public sector social network wouldn't be allowed to block linking to mastodon because of the second (EDIT: no, wait, first amendment!) amendment, but that Twitter is well within its rights since they are in the private sector. Whet…
I dispute that the OP was implying or even thinking anything about a theoretical public sector social network.