Welcome to Hell, Elon • Hacker News Board

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#201

Post by pipeline_peak » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 4:03 PM UTC

happytoexplain wrote: post #147

pipeline_peak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think what I'm saying is broad, there are many SJW minded people who fall into harassing/blacklisting/doxxing

I think it's as broad and uncharitable as saying Republicans are racist. It's not that there aren't a lot of people who fall into the category, it's that, by itself, the phrase adds nothing and acts only as an insult to the entire group. You can certainly say that same thing as part of a larger, refined context that trims away the implied spit-at-the-feet of the broader group.

I said SJW bullies, that is people of the SJW type who bully, not SJW's are bullies

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#202

Post by muaytimbo » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 4:03 PM UTC

rospaya wrote: post #168

muaytimbo wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ye got his deals with Adidas (and others) cancelled and Louie CK got a Netflix show and comedy tour cancelled. In both of your own examples "shit" happened.

Both still have profitable businesses and communication channels. Both are celebrities that still have large fanbases. If and when they end up poor and forgotten, then they'll be canceled, now they just lost the privilege of being promoted via some media channels. I'm having a hard time defending wealth people who lost a Twitter account because they acted like dicks. Some of them literally.

There's a vast difference between defending them and saying their actions had no consequences. You seem to think that since they are not immediately forgotten, disowned by the public and de-celebrityfied, and plunged into poverty that nothing happened. That's not true, their actions did have consequences. You can not defend them while also acknowledging something did, in fact, happen when they were cancelled.

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#203

Post by zach_garwood » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 4:03 PM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #175

minimaxir wrote: post #96

The key quote which other comments are overlooking: > Here are some examples: you can write as many polite letters to advertisers as you want, but you cannot reasonably expect to collect any meaningful advertising revenue if you do not promise those advertisers “brand safety.” That means you have to ban racism, sexism, transphobia, and all kinds of other speech that is totally legal in the United States but reveals p…

To play the devil's advocate: So why haven't advertisers abandoned Fox News? As long as Musk limits his newly acquired toy to being no worse than Fox News (which is plenty bad!), he can still keep advertising dollars coming in.

There are some outrageous takes on Fox News sometimes, and advertisers do abandon certain talking heads from time to time. But Fox isn't non-stop firehose of bile. Twitter is by default, even with it's current moderation. It's already worse than Fox News.

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#204

Post by muaytimbo » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 4:05 PM UTC

mikkergp wrote: post #148

muaytimbo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there could be a balance here, allow that which is legal but distasteful but don't promote it or advertise beside it. You could probably repurpose some already pre-existing ML models searching for users to ban over takes that are too hot for twitter to mark as un-monatizable. Cleaning house is the way to make this vision of twitter a reality. Bots I think is both the harder and existential problem.

I agree this is definitely possible, but if you do all that, is it still the public square open to debate, if you are selectably promoting / monetizing "tasteful" tweets?

I think distasteful nonsense gets deprioritized in all public squares as a natural consequence of our social mores.

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#205

Post by thunderbong » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 4:05 PM UTC

Koshkin wrote: post #104

thunderbong wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, the world would be a better place of people who're qualified in a particular subject would opine in their area of expertise. Nowadays, we have every Tom, Dick and Harry commenting on anything and everything, regardless of how informed, educated or even experienced in the area they want to criticize.

> IMHO I would like to hear an expert's opinion on this though.

Touché

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#206

Post by uni_rule » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 4:05 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #75

erellsworth wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, I guess folks here don't like Key & Peele jokes.

Funny references alone will get down voted. It's just the culture of this board. If you want to joke you'll need some more substance as well.

I think a lot of the people here also just haven't outgrown the "Elon Musk real life iron man" mode of thinking. You see a lot of apologism for it everywhere on this site, even on things like safety incidents.

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#207

Post by ilyt » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 4:06 PM UTC

Schroedingersat wrote: post #127

joshstrange wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, I used to be a free speech absolutist when I was younger, back when I thought the world was black and white and that simple ideas could "solve everything". Then I participated in forums/groups that had zero moderation and it was hell. Even then I didn't recognize the issues fully. It wasn't until I moderated a community myself that it finally clicked. I tried to be unbiased as possible but that lead to me silenc…

> It wasn't until I moderated a community myself that it finally clicked. The key is that each community needs to moderate itself. The second you give one entity centralised or external control over moderation it can be used for terrible things. I can't think of any solution for the toxic communities other than to cut themoff and let them fester. The youtube/facebook/etc strategy of 'all engagement is good, show them…

> I can't think of any solution for the toxic communities other than to cut themoff and let them fester. The youtube/facebook/etc strategy of 'all engagement is good, show them more' is incredibly harmful.

It's entirely fine. The problem YT/Facebook have is user's lack of control on what gets recommended. Play the "wrong" video once or twice and you will be flooded by stuff you don't want.

The fact someone somewhere on the site says something you don't like is not a problem. The problem is that it's kinda easy to go "you follow Xpotato12" -> "X potato12 is outraged by Y and hates it" -> click to see what is happens -> now YT recommends you Y because you "engaged" with it. There should be a better system to deal with that.

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#208

Post by uni_rule » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 4:06 PM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #158

SilverBirch wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that... reddit?

I don’t think so. Reddit is about topical groups. Circles are more like trusted connections between people. Like how society works. I should be able to see the content “everyone” makes or be able to limit myself to exclude certain groups or only include certain groups of people. This way if there is content that you consider harmful to yourself or you are unable to live with it, you can still participate on the platf…

Sounds like what Discord is slowly becoming as it adds forum pages with comment threads as an option on public servers.

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#209

Post by twoWhlsGud » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 4:06 PM UTC

"Content moderation is what Twitter makes" - that's a brilliant summation of the problem. These social networks have turned themselves into publishers (by centering the recommendation algorithms where else could you end up?). That's the thing no one wants to think too hard about because of the very uncomfortable implications...

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#210

Post by noxer » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 4:08 PM UTC

spacemadness wrote: post #174

noxer wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it's absolute shit. So is twitter. At least in the last years it turned to absolute s*it. In mid 2021 I resurrected my old long not used account. I made maybe 20 comments in 3 month before I got "banned". I'm probably not really banned I would just have to remove my last comment but I cant do that because I can not login anymore (which may or may not be related to the "banning"). The post in question was an obvious…

No offense, but I see this a lot from folks claiming they got banned but they never say exactly why and keep it as vague as possible while claiming innocence.

Did you read the post? I dont know why, they wont tell me.

Its just a generic "you violated our rules about offensive content/abuse/self-harm and suicide" or something like that. Then a link to where you can get help if you have some kind of mental breakdown. They actually twisted this as If I was suicidal so they can ban me for my own protection.

But I would bet a monthly salary some triggered long time twitter user with high reputation who just didn't understand the joke or does not have a compatible humor reported my tweet and the twitter admins just cater to these people and not to their own rules.