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

“Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#591

Post by hackerlight »

concinds wrote: post #587
hackerlight wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe the proper response is to make the sports and music contracts transparent and re-do them so they don't screw over black talent Why would you assume there's anything wrong with the contracts? He has the burden of proof and he hasn't shown it. Kanye believes he is being victimized by everyone . It's typical narcissist behavior. When someone says that everyone is an asshole, then they're probably the asshole…

I assume there's something wrong with the contracts, because it's obvious to anyone following the industry, and it's been widely and thoroughly covered for decades (see links at the bottom or search the press, university publications, or ProQuest). It's true for all these contracts, and especially those with black artists and athletes. Kanye made specific points that the contracts are unfair, with 'talent' not being…

> He has objectively been victimized

He hasn't met the burden of proof for this claim.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#592

Post by sixstringtheory »

cm42 wrote: post #495
sixstringtheory wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I’m just not willing to put in as much effort as you, but despite everything I tried I could not stop unwanted content from meeting my eyes. Except for the step of not using it any longer, of course.

I feel like "unwanted" and "hateful" content are potentially two very different circles in a Venn diagram.

So? That's beside the point we're talking about. If I can't hide content I don't want to see, what difference does it make what kind of content it is? How do you know the unwanted content I'm talking about wasn't hateful?

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#593

Post by jl6 »

catiopatio wrote: post #526
slg wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think is the fundamental joke the article is making? The only joke I see is "a trans person exists". The article isn't about her policies, her performance in her job, or even complexities in our evolving definition of either sex or gender like you are implying. The joke is that this person is trans. The message of that joke is the existence of a trans person in public is worthy of mockery. Therefore the o…

> What do you think is the fundamental joke the article is making? That a man was voted “Woman of the Year”. By any non-tautological definition of “woman” and “man”, that’s objectively true. Are we not allowed to point out obvious truths when people claim the opposite?

Generally we consider jokes to be cruel when they mock an affliction that someone didn’t choose to have. You can just about get away with making such jokes about the abstract idea of an affliction, but when you name someone directly it crosses a line.

Whether you think this particular example was cruel depends ultimately on whether you think it is targeting the individual’s gender dysphoria (the thing they didn’t choose to have), or whether it is targeting their claim to be something they objectively are not.

One might argue that there is no difference, if one believes that gender affirmation is the only treatment for gender dysphoria, and that everyone is obliged to participate in that treatment, and to do otherwise amounts to mockery of the unchosen affliction.

Personally I think it’s wrong to joke about people with schizophrenia, but equally wrong to tell them the voices in their head are real.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#594

Post by P5fRxh5kUvp2th »

beachy wrote: post #522

I wish that Twitter - or some other social network - would experiment with the type of moderation seen on HN. Some would maybe call it heavy handed but I think of HN as a place that is mercifully relatively free of trolling, outrage culture, political bullshit and other toxic behaviors. In my experience there's no place like HN on the internet, and that's due I suspect to having a highly professional moderator (@dang…

terrible idea, HN moderates tone too much.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#595

Post by blargey »

beachy wrote: post #522

I wish that Twitter - or some other social network - would experiment with the type of moderation seen on HN. Some would maybe call it heavy handed but I think of HN as a place that is mercifully relatively free of trolling, outrage culture, political bullshit and other toxic behaviors. In my experience there's no place like HN on the internet, and that's due I suspect to having a highly professional moderator (@dang…

I honestly don’t understand the consistent (self) praise for HN comments. Perhaps the mods make valiant efforts to enforce some vague standard of decorum and it would be worse without that thankless work, but any topic that doesn’t lend itself to software industry anecdote sharing is filled with the same vacuous, uninformed polemic as any other generalist social media site, just with a thin veneer of politeness. And even that supposed politeness is missing if I happen to open the comments section at the wrong time (presumably before a mod could clean them up, but isn’t that enough of a sign it doesn’t scale particularly well?)

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#596

Post by Beltalowda »

retrac wrote: post #119
PaulsWallet wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Internet would have us believe that civil war is imminent. The person who could arguably be considered the third most powerful politician in the US just had their own broken into and their spouse assaulted in a suspected act of domestic terrorism. I wouldn't say "imminent" but if you don't think the possibility is at least somewhere on the table I would consider that being naive.

In 2020 in Ottawa, a man rammed through the gates of the Prime Minister's residence with a vehicle. He was in body armour and carrying multiple firearms. He claims he just wanted to meet with the PM, who thankfully wasn't home at the time. Is Canada on the verge of civil war? Multiple US presidents have been assassinated! Political violence is shocking but not actually so rare that we should latch on to any specific…

The thing isn't so much that there are incidents of violence, but rather that there are ideas where violence is both logical and even moral.

Let's take Trump's election fraud claims for example; if you genuinely believe that the election was stolen then violence would be a very reasonable and even moral action in literal defence of democracy. I sure hope a lot of people would rise up if such an event would ever actually happen. Of course, Trump's claims are a load of utter nonsense, but my point is that people seem to genuinely believe it and that violence is a logical and moral result.

This is what worries me. That there's the occasional nutjob or conflict that gets out of hand: yeah, that's "normal". But these kind of ideas ... I'd say not so much. That we haven't seen more violence leads me to suspect many "election deniers" don't actually believe Trump's claims as strongly as they say they do.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#597

Post by freejazz »

such12 wrote: post #263
hedora wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not lone wolf terrorism though, it's an organized + well funded movement to end US democracy. They control a bit over 50% of the Republican party, and a growing percentage of the courts (including the supreme court). Heck; Biden is would be considered right wing in most developing countries, and here's his take: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20... > Donald Trump and the MAGA Republica…

> (including the supreme court) This seems like paranoid thinking. The Supreme Court has shifted ideologically to the right, but I haven’t seen any evidence they are part of a conspiracy to end democracy.

Hmm, why don't you wait until they let state legislatures throw out elections to be so sure?

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#598

Post by hairofadog »

mquander wrote: post #589
ajross wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a perspective thing. But I just don't see that. I mean, sure, there are Internet Yahoos everywhere who run around calling people Nazis and whatnot. But do you have any examples of major abuse directed by big accounts with big audiences (i.e. the ones that attract the censors' attention) that should have been banned but weren't? The Bee went way out on a limb with that article as I see it. And they got banned.…

I don't actually use Twitter, so I don't really have specific examples of huge Twitter accounts tweeting nasty things? I am just thinking of what's clearly considered normal among my peers. For example, here is a random thing I find if I Google "mean tweets about donald trump": https://twitter.com/dadsaysjokes/status/1062806755229474824?... > What's the difference between Donald Trump and a worm? One of them is a sli…

The notable difference is that one insult is criticizing behavior, while the other is criticizing the person for their core identity (and no, I don't count political affiliation as being central to identity).

From my perspective it's OK to criticize Trump (or Biden) for their policies and conduct, but I don't think people should fat-shame Trump, for example, or make fun of Biden's occasional stutter.

The issue isn't that people are being mean, it's that they're trying to ostracize people for aspects of their being that are out of their control. That's why, generally, trying to cast someone out for being of a certain race, gender, or sexual orientation are considered unacceptable, but criticizing their political opinions or corrupt or otherwise slimy behavior are fair game.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#599

Post by freejazz »

such12 wrote: post #378
hedora wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's some evidence. They ruled to allow state legislatures to override voters by changing state law to allow that: https://news.yahoo.com/analysis-supreme-court-tilted-electio... and an upcoming case to watch, where they're expected to further undermine laws: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1106866830/supreme-court-to-t...

> Here's some evidence. These are opinion pieces. > They ruled to allow state legislatures to override voters by changing state law to allow that No they didn’t. Nothing in the pieces linked states this. > and an upcoming case to watch, where they're expected to further undermine laws: This isn’t a meaningful sentence.

"These are opinion pieces."

That refer to facts such as throwing out the voting rights act, and the decision on gerrymandering? Maybe try reading the opinion pieces??

Post reply on HN