Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An account was suspended

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 398 posts

Re: An account was suspended

#371

Post by Ferrotin »

morby wrote: post #363
MikePlacid wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So. 1. There were bad people on the site, whom other people (you included) wanted to shut up. The site refused to do so. This speaks to the quality of the site, no? They refused to censor something while there was a strong push to censor it - that means they will probably not censor you , when your opinion will differ from the opinion of powerful people. That means that a person should rather support the site that do…

1. First of all I didn’t care about Parler, it was a dump doomed to fail. Second this point is purely opinion. Third, your notion of what free speech is in this country is flawed. calls to commit violence and/or riot are not protected free speech under the constitution 2. I don’t care if you choose not to do business with AWS. My comment is on your opinions on whether what AWS did were legitimate. 3. Explain? How is…

> 3. Explain? How is a mall restricting you?

That is California law because of the Pruneyard decision. Read it if you want an explanation.

Re: An account was suspended

#372

Post by lapcat »

tshaddox wrote: post #370
lapcat wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm just saying that one of those posting patterns looks very clearly like spam and the other very clearly does not appear to be spam. I disagree. Tweeting links without interacting in any way with other accounts is to me clearly not spam.

It’s all about age of the account, number of followers, and rate and origin of the automated tweets. Perhaps a way to think about it is to ask, if there was a new account created just to have a bot spam out links at a high rate, how would it look different than this account?

> rate and origin of the automated tweets

There were no automated tweets. https://twitter.com/benthompson/status/1583163548708241410 "Account was not scripted. Everything was posted by a human"

> if there was a new account created just to have a bot spam out links at a high rate, how would it look different than this account?

I think we differ on the definition of "spam".

Tweeting links on your own profile is not spam. Tweeting links in replies to other users can be spam. Ben's account was not replying at all, just tweeting in its own profile. A Twitter user would generally only see those tweets if they followed Ben's account. The was no unsolicited pushing.

Re: An account was suspended

#373

Post by panarky »

hellojesus wrote: post #358
panarky wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This episode demonstrates the foolishness of Twitter's prospective new owner. He promises to allow all speech that is legal under the first amendment to the US constitution, while simultaneously eliminating spam. That's an instant contradiction, of course, because spam is perfectly legal under the US constitution. And every attempt to eliminate spam and bots, whether human or automated, will necessarily sweep up many…

He could change it to a pay-to-play model where the payment is miniscule. It may not eliminate all spam, but I wouldn't be surprised if accounts have to go through a kyc payment mechanism in order to prove their identity. It would eliminate multiple accounts per user, make all users known for wrongspeak prosecution, and largely cure the spam issue unless you're a well funded organization that can pay poor people to r…

A pay-per-Tweet scheme would reduce the total number of Tweets by 90% or more. We can all discuss whether that would be net-good or net-bad, but the vast majority of that reduction of speech would come from speech that is legal under the US constitution.

Re: An account was suspended

#374

Post by Turing_Machine »

pessimizer wrote: post #213
Turing_Machine wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> I think I'd prefer to find a different line of business, if it were me. It's almost every line of business. You probably need a mildly active twitter/facebook/instagram presence if you have a nice nail salon, or toy store. Anything not in a huge popular franchise. edit: this sentiment puts me in mind of a watch or shoe repair shop guy in the 1960s who refuses to install a telephone because he wouldn't want customer…

Twitter is a toxic cesspool of vile people.

I really wouldn't want those people as customers. Really. You get enough toxic customers through organic acquisition.

Re: An account was suspended

#375

Post by Turing_Machine »

luckylion wrote: post #61
dimitrios1 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a false choice. 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.

If your business outreach succeeding requires you to first convince people that they should stop using some platform that is important to them, you might as well give up on your original business because you're probably going to spend all your time on that effort.

You misunderstand. I don't want them to stop using Twitter. I want them to stay on there where I can ignore them completely.

Re: An account was suspended

#376

Post by Turing_Machine »

Shish2k wrote: post #292
Turing_Machine wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What lines of business don’t require customers being able to find you?

I have never in my life interacted with a business on Twitter.

Hint: I am not alone in this.

Re: An account was suspended

#377

Post by Krustopolis »

z9znz wrote: post #65
_madmax_ wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point in time I think I am comfortable saying the web is more detrimental to humans than Television ever was.

It's going to take a lot more time and a lot worse crap on the internet to have a greater negative impact than FoxNews has had over its last 10 years. So for that reason, TV is still far worse for humanity. On the positive side, internet has given us access to a lot of valuable information (for those who seek it out), whereas TV only makes available what the media companies want you to have access to.

I am always amazed when I see (justified) criticism of Fox News without mentioning CNN and MSNBC as equally culpable for a decline in American society. To not see this has to be the result of political partisanship or willful ignorance.

Re: An account was suspended

#378

Post by rjzzleep »

panarky wrote: post #373
hellojesus wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He could change it to a pay-to-play model where the payment is miniscule. It may not eliminate all spam, but I wouldn't be surprised if accounts have to go through a kyc payment mechanism in order to prove their identity. It would eliminate multiple accounts per user, make all users known for wrongspeak prosecution, and largely cure the spam issue unless you're a well funded organization that can pay poor people to r…

A pay-per-Tweet scheme would reduce the total number of Tweets by 90% or more. We can all discuss whether that would be net-good or net-bad, but the vast majority of that reduction of speech would come from speech that is legal under the US constitution.

I think he means something like WhatsApp, which was 1 dollar per year in the beginning. But then again their model wouldn't work here either, because you could gift a 1 year membership to someone else. Given how much more valuable those bots are than 1 dollar per year, it would mean nothing to gift it to large amounts of people.

Similarly if you enforce it for everyone to pay for themselves, there would immediately be large parts of the world population that wouldn't be able to pay for it. Note that afford and be able to pay isn't the same thing. Which would turn it into the same western echo chamber they basically want it to be.

Re: An account was suspended

#379

Post by andirk »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #42
andirk wrote: post #22

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.

Personally, I think this might have been the right decision, though not for the reason given. If you remove accounts of people who frequently do not contribute anything useful to discussions, you'll get overall better discussions.

What I said was true. I challenge any1 to say a more true statement. And I commented it bc he said "we'll all likely eventually be exposed to the virus". That isnt useful information.

Re: An account was suspended

#380

Post by Semaphor »

rchaud wrote: post #246
Semaphor wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that he goes into detail why he is so pissed: > It’s the “after careful review” line that has me riled up tbh. I can understand why an automated system suspended it. Don’t lie to me! -- https://nitter.kavin.rocks/benthompson/status/15830633139484...

This is childish though. Ben has written about Twitter long enough to know how it works. Careful review doesn't mean that a human reviewed it, just that a group of them were highly paid to implement the system of rules that banned him.

I also know that the underpaid delivery person who marked "business already closed" on their app when they couldn’t find my apartment building entrance has to pick something to avoid getting paid less, that does not mean I’m not mad at the delivery company for creating the circumstances that resulted in them lying to me.
Post reply on HN