Full of spite. We'll see. But moderation was kinda solved at Something Awful by demanding to pay 10 bucks at sign up. Mr. Musk may use something like this; he can demand 10 dogecoins in order to unblock someone mischievous. Hell, it could even be proportional to the reach of the account.
Welcome to Hell, Elon
301–310 of 315 posts
Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can, because your feedback is constructive and specific. If you said "idk, this phone just sucks, because i feel like it does and idk how it could be made better", that would fall under "useless complaints". But saying "my phone drops calls often" is a specific complaint with a very specific (implied) improvement suggestion ("make phone not drop calls").
So the cooking thing would be totally valid if the person just said "It was too salty?", allowing the relatively uneducated/unskilled to make claims about quality even though they could never reproduce it? That's not how the original claim was framed.
I agree thay even with "it was too salty", it could be entirely baseless. However, "it was too salty" is still infinitely better than "idk it isnt good". Even if "it was too salty" was incorrect. But that is purely a personal opinion, and imo there is nothing that can substantiate it much.
Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure you heard phrases like "Dead people don't lie" or "Dead people don't complain" These are so self-evident they pretty much can only be sarcastic. Unfortunately (but probably intentional) they do not allow some way to publicly prove these cases of "bad moderation". Yet there is plenty evidence that they get it wrong all the time. For example thebabylonbee is still banned.
No they cannot be only harmlessly sarcastic. Context is very important.
Are you telling me these phrases can cause harm?
As I said before the context was a pun but it should not matter these are factually true statements that any reasonable person would agree on.
Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon
#304My first thought when Musk bought Twitter was "His engineering has team figured out content moderation" but I've seen no evidence or talk of that. So I think it's true that he impulsively bought himself his worst nightmare.
He's going find it's tough growing a company without a constant flow of government contracts and subsidies.
Biz constraints on Twitter don’t really matter to Elon. I take him at his word that be bought Twitter for ideological reasons.
Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon
#305Is Twitter not dying? The youth don’t care, the elderly don’t care, and those in the middle (late twenties, early forties) are ending their terminally online lives for families, careers, travel, etc. Twitter is being distilled into a political tool - both side, endlessly crying into the void, appealing to their confirmation biases. Hop on over to /pol/ to see what unregulated politic speak turns into. I give it 10 ye…
I don’t think it’ll be like /pol/ if you mean that it’ll be a right wing monopoly. There are too many leftists for that to happen.
There wasn’t a right wing monopoly 10 years ago when Twitter barely had any moderation and people were more conservative. There won’t be one in the future, unless Elon bizarrely goes fascist and bans all the liberals.
Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon
#306half the article is about moderation because of advertisement, but he could just not do advertisement.
Then how does Twitter make money? According to their latest quarterly report they had $1.18B in revenue, $1.08B from advertising. Is there really enough potential in "premium users" or something else to forgo that billion dollars per quarter? https://s22.q4cdn.com/826641620/files/doc_financials/2022/q2...
Musk can afford to sink money into it. It’s an important enough propaganda platform to be worth operating even at a less.
Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon
#307It's very very unclear to me why he bought it. He said it was about free speech but Twitter is already about as free as it's possible to be without permitting a whole bunch of content that is NOT protected under the first amendment (CP, calls to violence etc). And if it is about free speech then it cannot be an automated moderation play, because there is nothing to moderate if you're a pure free speech platform. The…
Politics. He gets to use it as a giant media machine to support himself, his businesses and political goals.
Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's a serious question, it's something like: 1) Friendster 2) MySpace 3) Facebook 4) Twitter 5) Instagram 6) TikTok Obviously the exact list is a matter of opinion, but Twitter is definitely not current-generation, I think everyone can agree on that. Here, have fun exploring when each one was "born" and therefore its generation: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=t...
It was a serious question. I thought you were talking about the organizing computer science or social principle of the network but it seems you just meant the age the company was founded or became popular, which is unremarkable. Sorry to bother you.
I'm not the person you originally responded to, I was just clarifying what seemed to be the meaning.
But to say the generations are unremarkable isn't quite true -- the whole point is that previous generations are generally stagnant in growth, unlike the newest generation(s) that are still growing. This is a very valid factor in why investing in TikTok might be a smart idea while investing in Twitter is... not.
Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elon predicted in 2013 that Tesla would be shipping 500,000 cars a year by 2020. That was a crazy insane prediction that he delivered on, among many other similar predictions. Nobody expects all predictions to come true -- professional futurists have a batting rate of about 10%.
I'm talking about stuff people preordered and still didn't got, not on his predictions.
Maybe people should stop preordering then. It's a dumb practice anyway, in any field, not just Teslas.
Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a serious question. I thought you were talking about the organizing computer science or social principle of the network but it seems you just meant the age the company was founded or became popular, which is unremarkable. Sorry to bother you.
I'm not the person you originally responded to, I was just clarifying what seemed to be the meaning. But to say the generations are unremarkable isn't quite true -- the whole point is that previous generations are generally stagnant in growth, unlike the newest generation(s) that are still growing. This is a very valid factor in why investing in TikTok might be a smart idea while investing in Twitter is... not.
Ah, sorry. Yes, there is certainly some value in thinking about the age of the company. But it’s also so strsightforward that I wouldn’t have asked about if it they’d used less ambiguous wording. And I’m a little disappointed that I wasn’t able to be pointed to a cool research paper or something. :) I appreciate you clarifying for them; I like to do similarly on HN when I see two people missing each other’s meanings.