41–50 of 398 posts
The biggest takeaway is that his name is actually not Stratechery. Why on earth would you name your site something so extremely hard to parse?
(And the domain was available)
I commented on a Fauci video where he said every1 will likely eventually be exposed to the virus. I said "and eventually we will all die" which was marked as misinformation and I was cancelled.
I commented on a Fauci video where he said every1 will likely eventually be exposed to the virus. I said "and eventually we will all die" which was marked as misinformation and I was cancelled.
Spam (and scam) detection in social networks is hard. Yet it is fascinating how "random" suspensions like these (sometimes without recourse if you aren't famous or know the right people) feel like they come straight out of a dystopian sci-fi script.
If that's not your business model, abuse prevention is trivial. You can operate the network like a members' club where people gain privileges (such as posting links, media, etc - anything that can be used to spam or harm other users/the platform) over time as they prove themselves and acquire trust (Stack Overflow calls this number "reputation") and you can then use this trust number as a weight in automated decisions, so that high-trust users (who are unlikely to suddenly burn their hard-earned account) will not be impacted by an automated ban.
Forums in the good old days were ran by volunteers were able to deal with spam/abuse just fine with a combination of bans and privilege levels (it will take time & effort to level up an account to where it's able to post links/etc and be useful for spamming), there's absolutely no reason current social media companies can't do the same, if it wasn't for the fact that their business model to a certain extent relies on moderation being both unfair to users and subpar at effectively suppressing bad content (hint: bad content is nice to have around as long as it's not too visible, as it generates tons of outrage and thus engagement - it's only a problem when powerful people get wind of it and then you delete it and issue a fake apology).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it was only so easy. If you're running a business, you most likely need to meet people where they are at. Sometimes, your target audience are mostly on Facebook, then you most likely need to be at Facebook in order to reach them. Sometimes they are on Twitter, then you need to be there. Other times, you're doing something completely different, like running a restaurant, then you need to be visible on Google Maps/T…
> Sometimes they are on Twitter, then you need to be there. Wow, that's a depressing thought. I think I'd prefer to find a different line of business, if it were me.
If your customers are somewhere, you could be there too, and that often has the least amount of friction or is the easiest choice, so it's understandable why so many people elect to do it. But another thing you could do is bring them to where you are.
I wonder why is the ban permanent right off the bat? To me it sounds reasonable to ban an alleged spam account for a limited period e.g. 24h - spammers won't bother waiting and will just create another account just like they normally do. An abandoned account can then be deleted. Can anyone point out any obvious flaws in my reasoning?
Because that’s simpler?
> spammers won't bother waiting and will just create another account just like they normally do
What makes you think they will not bother waiting 24h? If I were managing a spambots farm I guess I would rather wait 24h than go through the hassle of re-creating a Twitter account.
Ben's account is already un-suspended, but only because he has a major presence and large audience (I would be shocked if people at Twitter didn't see this minutes into it happening or if Ben didn't have some direct line to various high up employees there). For the rest of us peasants: good luck getting help.
Yep. My account got suspended a few years ago. But to be honest, it was a blessing in disguise. Twitter for me was a huge time sink, even though I followed really interesting people talking about things I was really interesting. But once I got a forced detox, I realised I just gained back hours a week to do other things. Get off Twitter. Even better, turn off that TV.
I'm not going to say it was life changing, but it is stress that is now gone. Would highly recommend to anyone that has higher stress levels, it's possible SOME of it is coming from your social media use. In my case, it was work that was the big cause, but, removing myself from social media resulted in a noticeable improvement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even blue checkmarks don't help against trolls, far right and griefers running mass-report attacks. The problem at its core is that Twitter refuses to hire appropriate levels of moderation staff for the scale it has, and that it does nothing against raid instigators. Reddit at least has subreddit mods take care of most of the bullshit and at least the large subreddit mods have direct connections to Reddit, and Reddit…
There's no such thing as appropriate moderation at Twitter scale. It's societal techology we as humans do not have. Underlying moderation is some shared vision of decency - morality claims that should be enforced via justice. These claims certainly don't exist across nation borders, and they barely exist within a given nation's borders. The bot moderation conundrum is a wholly second moderation question layered on to…
If someone (or 10k someones) watches and compiles quality items of interest, maybe i want one of those feeds INSTEAD of Twitter’s ML algorithm.
Twitter can still monetize but now curations could monetize individually via including specific ad tweets.
And i want to subscribe to multiple curations, not just one.
Twitter could even have their own ML algorithm as a curation but I want it to be explicit opt in.
You could browse curations by popularity or topic and opt in to the ones you like, or opt out if you don’t like one anymore.
Trolls wouldn’t get included in curations that anyone cared about.
The down side is that it magnifies the social media echo chamber effect, but it also makes everyone’s feed more personally relevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even blue checkmarks don't help against trolls, far right and griefers running mass-report attacks. The problem at its core is that Twitter refuses to hire appropriate levels of moderation staff for the scale it has, and that it does nothing against raid instigators. Reddit at least has subreddit mods take care of most of the bullshit and at least the large subreddit mods have direct connections to Reddit, and Reddit…
There's no such thing as appropriate moderation at Twitter scale. It's societal techology we as humans do not have. Underlying moderation is some shared vision of decency - morality claims that should be enforced via justice. These claims certainly don't exist across nation borders, and they barely exist within a given nation's borders. The bot moderation conundrum is a wholly second moderation question layered on to…
I commented on a Fauci video where he said every1 will likely eventually be exposed to the virus. I said "and eventually we will all die" which was marked as misinformation and I was cancelled.