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

691–700 of 1001 posts

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

#691

Post by mochomocha »

enumjorge wrote: post #678
mikkergp wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if you think that “everyone is happy with Elon’s content moderation strategies” was one of the possible outcomes, well then I disagree, I think Elon is going to take heat for content moderation across the political spectrum.

> I think Elon is going to take heat for content moderation across the political spectrum The difference now is that Elon went from being one of the loudest members of the peanut gallery to the guy running the show.

Yep. Much harder to be the one bearing the responsibility of the calls being made than being an armchair commentator complaining about the decisions. I don't anticipate that he'll be any more successful at this than other leadership teams of social media companies. There's no way of "winning" at this game: damned if you do, damned if you don't.

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

#692

Post by tenpies »

hansthehorse wrote: post #625

Twitter moves way faster than any council possibly could. By the time a council decides some content is bad the damage has been done and people have moved on. Unbanning all the extreme right accounts will blow up twitter.

I would love to see some testing.

For two weeks: ban every Blue checkmark. Evaluate.

The next two weeks: ban every reporter. Evaluate.

The next two weeks: ban every politician. Evaluate.

The next two weeks: ban anyone without a Ukraine flag, vaccine, or mask on their profile. Evaluate.

The next two weeks: ban everyone with a Ukraine flag, vaccine, or mask on their profile. Evaluate.

Make it interesting and never tell people what you will ban for two weeks this time, but leave it up to them to figure out.

Run enough tests and you'll find the magical blend. Or conclude that the best course of action is simply to ban everyone.

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

#693

Post by Retric »

shadowgovt wrote: post #512
mikkergp wrote: post #7

This sort of justifies the viewpoint that despite all his bluster, Elon will probably run Twitter the way a "reasonable executive" would. Not just release the hounds. Keep the advertisers happy, but try to reduce the reliance on advertisers. Keep moderating content to reduce abuse, maybe eliminate the high profile banning but a person on the ground will have largely the same experience. (probably less action on more…

I don't see anything in Elon Musk's past operation of businesses as CEO that suggests to me he's going to have a better sense of how to run a social network than the previous operators. I predict the best case scenario is that he does no worse.

The most likely result seems to be he sells it within 5 years after making zero meaningful changes and taking a massive loss. I don’t know if that’s a good or bad result.

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

#694

Post by cvwright »

fckgw wrote: post #372
mytailorisrich wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we stick to a grown-up discussion, please? You are not replying to my points in any meaningful way. It's shocking that HN commenters could be so toxic, indeed.

Not sure what there is to discuss? I wholly disagree with your idea. There's plenty of other social network sites that have a similar moderation policy and they are overrun by people who wish to turn it into a platform to spread hate. Any content moderation needs to extend beyond "Legal? (Y/N)" unless your main goal is to drive any real community away.

Twitter is full of awful people too. They’re just on the other end of the political spectrum.

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

#695

Post by anonymousab »

concinds wrote: post #368
Waterluvian wrote: post #264

I got a 7 day ban for a tweet that included “political suicide pact” as an idiom. I then got permanently banned for including the line, “sending their children to die in Ukraine” in a tweet. The “appeal” button causes me to get a denied email within one minute. This tells me no humans are in the loop on any of this. I don’t think these tweets were controversial or require any diversity of viewpoints. They just requir…

Twitter ignored multiple reports of personal threats directed at me specifically (involving concentration camps and general death threats, etc.) "This tweet doesn't violate Twitter rules." People I didn't know, who I had zero negative interactions with before. That was way before Musk. You just can't have human moderation at that scale. They have to brainstorm how to prevent these tweets in the first place, rather th…

> You just can't have human moderation at that scale

Effective human moderation - or at least, followup to moderation - should be the necessary cost of scale. If you can't operate at a certain number of users under that constraint then you shouldn't.

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

#696

Post by fleddr »

throwaway4837 wrote: post #658

I would imagine a uniform distribution of people from across racial, political, age, and socio-economic classes would be a good start. The theory is that if a moderation council is mostly well-off, white liberals, then their decisions will more likely contain bias from those sorts of people. A moderation council needs people of various ages, races, and political backgrounds so that the net bias in their decisions is…

In such a diverse council, which in theory is good, you'll find that moderation policy will be dominated by whatever the "marginalized" members say. Which quite likely is the way it already works.

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

#697

Post by jl6 »

howinteresting wrote: post #660
jl6 wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people believe sex is a spectrum, or that it can be changed, but it’s super-fringe and mostly reflects ignorance of the difference between sex and gender rather than being a serious philosophical position.

"Sex is a spectrum" is hard scientific truth. Unlike computers, biology doesn't work in binaries. Intersex people exist and are surprisingly common.

“Sex is a spectrum” is nonsense:

https://areomagazine.com/2022/01/05/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-i...

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

#698

Post by slg »

partiallypro wrote: post #645
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…

The joke of the article was that she was named "Woman of the Year," so they named her "Man of the Year" to point out the ridiculousness of such an award for her. You can disagree with that, or you can agree with that, but it's still a very tame joke. I don't think the debate on transsexualism is a closed case in many regards. There are important topics to discuss on it; and satire, even if you don't find it funny, is…

>The joke of the article was that she was named "Woman of the Year," so they named her "Man of the Year" to point out the ridiculousness of such an award for her.

The award is only ridiculous if you think trans people shouldn't exist in public as openly trans. I mean you even referred to her as "her" so you seemingly recognize that her being eligible for "Woman of the Year" is more appropriate than "Man of the Year". The perceived ridiculousness comes from the same fundamental concept underlying the joke, the existence of trans people is funny and their desire to simply live their life as they see fit is worthy of mockery.

>I mean the idea that a tran-woman could actually feel and experience the challenges a biological woman faces...is pretty controversial; or the fact that many base their identity on media stereotypes rather than the very diverse experiences of womanhood, also is a pretty important debate, especially among feminists.

No one is arguing that here. This is a person identifying as a woman and being recognized in public as a women. That is the only political statement being challenged. You are free to continue debating whether trans women and cis women have the same experience or whatever, but neither the USA Today or the Babylon Bee was making a statement in that debate.

>We can't just close the debate off and disallow any discussion on it (or jokes about it), and call anything against it a hate crime. That's not how things work. It could also have massive political fallout if Progressives are unwilling to join in the debate and stifle any attempts at it.

I don't know why this is framed as progressives shutting down the debate on the topic. The conservatives viewpoint that the Babylon Bee seems to subscribe to is that gender and sex are they same thing and they are binary. There is no way to debate against that viewpoint. There is no possible compromise position. It denies the very existence of someone like Levine. There is nothing Levine could have said to the Babylon Bee to stop them from targeting her specifically because they weren't criticizing any of her beliefs or actions. They were criticizing an innate quality of her being.

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

#699

Post by ghayes »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #233

Potentially of intellectual interest: Some people here might be wondering about speech that is "harmful," with the famous quote about "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater." That quote from the Supreme Court is commonly used to justify why there need to be restraints on free speech. This is actually a popular misconception. The decision where "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" was from was actually overtu…

There is clearly speech that is harmful without considering that case. Basically the entire concept of “conspiracy” is harmful speech. That said, Twitter is a private company and the First Amendment isn’t the holding factor.

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

#700

Post by IanCal »

sangnoir wrote: post #270
TulliusCicero wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is rather confusing to me. Earlier this year he seemed pretty set on the idea of allowing whatever's legal, making Twitter all about free speech. But now it'll just get some minor changes? If it's true, why the change of heart?

His money is now on the line: He has sunk $44B and has to get it back somehow. It is no longer a cute thought experiment, but cold, harsh reality.

You might be right, though I do wonder how much Elon and Zuckerberg look at risks and think "doesn't matter I'll still be insanely wealthy".

He has to deal with actual issues if he's bought Twitter, I agree, but I don't know if the financial incentive is so key, even with borrowed money.

Post reply on HN