Earlier quoted context omitted.
my guess is that people can like () individual posts. The positive of that is: a) possibility to like () just one post, or 2, 3… depending of who good the thread is b) the fine granular way to like () gives the algorithm way better possibilities to whom to show a thread and even better, to first show just one intereting post out of that thread (also people can mores easily quote or retweet individual parts of a threa…
Or retweet individual posts. It makes each one a possible pull-quote.
Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
81–90 of 975 posts
Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#82Reading these threads on twitter is like listening to a friend having a bad mdma trip replaying his whole emotional life to you in a semi incoherent diarrhea like stream of thoughts Please write a book, or at the very least an article... posting on twitter is like writing something on a piece of paper, showing it to your best friend and worst enemy before throwing it in the trash
Right now, I could make a comment on either your first or second paragraph, or on your entire comment. However, there is no way to determine which category my reply falls into until you have read it entirely. On a platform like Twitter, where there can be up to 100,000 comments on a given piece of content, this is very useful.
Better yet, it allows the author himself to dig down into tangent. In theory, someone could create an account and then have all of their interactions stay on the same tree without ever cutting off. Essentially turning their account into an interconnected "wiki" where everyone can add information.
With enough time your brain no longer registers the metadata around the tweet. If you ignore it and read it as an entire text it is not very different from a regular article or long form comment: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1586955288061452289.html
Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#83Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, I would not disagree with that. Very 'the only winning move is not to play'.
To be honest, and maybe this will be panned, but the real answer is for people to grow thicker skin and stop putting one's feelings on a pedestal above all.
I'm 33. I grew up playing multiplayer video games (including having to run a db9 COM cable across the house from one machine to another to play warcraft 2 multiplayer, back when you had to explicitly pick the protocol for the networking in the game menu)
My family worked with computers, so I had DSL since I have memories. I played a ton of online games. The communities are BRUTAL. They are insulting, abusive, misogynistic, racist, etc... the spectrum of unmonitored teenage angst, in all it's ugly forms (and to be fair, some truly awesome folks and places).
As a result - I have a really thick skin about basically everything said online. But a key difference between the late 90s and today, is that if I wanted it to stop, all I had to do was close the game I was playing. Done.
Most social activities were in person, not online. I could walk to my friend's houses. I could essentially tune out all the bullshit by turning off my computer, and there was plenty of other stuff to go do where the computer wasn't involved at all.
I'm not convinced that's enough anymore. The computer is in your pocket. It's always on. Your social life is probably half online, half in person. Your school work is online. Your family is online. your reputation is online (as evidenced by those fucking blue checkmarks). The abuse is now on a highway into your life, even if you want to turn it off.
It's like the school bully is now waiting for you everywhere. He's not waiting at school - he's stepping into the private conversations you're having online. He's talking to your friends. He's hurling abuse at you when you look at your family photos. He's in your life in a way that just wasn't possible before.
I don't think it's fair to say "Just grow a thicker skin" in response to that. I think growing a thicker skin is desperately needed, but I don't think it's sufficient. The problem is deeper.
We have a concept for people who do the things these users are doing on twitter in person - They're called fighting words, and most times, legally (even in the US) there is zero assumption of protected speech here. You say bad shit about someone with the goal of riling them up and no other value? You have no right of free speech, because you aren't "speaking" - you're trying to start a fight.
I'm not protecting your ability to bully someone. Full stop. If you want to do that, do it with the clear understanding that you're on your own, and regardless of how thick my skin is - I think you need a good slap upside the head. I'd cheer it on.
In person - this resolves itself because the fuckwads who do this literally get physically beaten. Not always - but often enough we have a modicum of civil discussion we accept, and a point where no one is going to defend you because you were a right little cunt, and the beating was well deserved.
I don't know how you simulate the same constraint online. I'm not entirely sure you can, but I think the answer isn't to just stop trying.
Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
idk man Maybe we could put more Words in a single Please visit my new website and subscribe to my podcast Line so it would be More readable random user comment: yes you're right mark that would be better and much more user friendly _ insert latest Musk schizophrenic rant_ Ah and I forgot the "sign up to read the rest" pop up that seemingly appears at random interval
are you reading on the computer? maybe thats the disconnect. for me each tweet has around 4 lines of text. so it reads more like the post you are reading now. where each tweet is a decent chunk of text. making the reading experience only marginally worse than reading something on hacker news.
I understand why people tweet rather than write blogs. Twitter gives more visibility and is a far lower barrier of entry than sitting down and writing an article or a blog. That Twitter hasn't solved this problem after years of people making long threads and this being a big way that people consume content on the platform is a failure on their part. Things like ThreadReader should be in-built and much easier to use. I think they acquired one of these thread reader apps too
Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#86Just add a dislike button and put controversial tweets collapsed at the bottom. It works well for reddit. Let the community moderate themselves.
Reddit tried to just let communities moderate themselves. It resulted in rampant child pornography, doxxing, death threats, gory violence etc. It epitomised the worst of humanity. Now the Reddit admins keep a watch on moderators and if their subreddits do not meet site-wide standards they are replaced.
Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#87> Moderating spam is very interesting: it is almost universally regarded as okay to ban (i.e. CENSORSHIP) but spam is in no way illegal. Interesting, in my country spam is very much illegal and I would hazard a guess that it is also illegal in the US, similar to how littering, putting up posters on peoples buildings/cars/walls, graffiti (a form of spam), and so on is also illegal. If I received the amount of spam I g…
Unsolicited phone calls are somewhat illegal, but it's dependent on circumstances. It's the same with email spam and mail spam. One person's spam is another person's cold call. Where do you draw the line? Is mailing a flier with coupons spam? Technically yes, but some people find value in it. In the US, spam is protected speech, but as always, no company is required to give anybody a platform.
[citation needed]
Doesn't the CAN-SPAM act explicitly declare otherwise?
Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#88Every single social media platform that has ever existed makes the same fundamental mistake. They believe that they just have to remove or block the bad actors and bad content and that will make the platform good. The reality is everyone , myself included, can be and will be a bad actor. How do you build and run a "social media" product when the very act of letting anyone respond to anyone with anything is itself the…
> The reality is everyone, myself included, can be and will be a bad actor. But you likely aren't, and most people likely aren't either. That's the entire premise behind removing bad actors and spaces that allow bad actors to grow.
Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#89This really was an outstanding read and take on Elon, Twitter, and what's coming up. But it literally could not have been posted in a worse medium for communicating this message. I felt like I had to pat my head and rub my tummy at the same time reading through all this, and to share it succinctly with colleagues resulted in me spending a good 15 minutes cutting and pasting the content. I've never understood people p…
Twitter is ultimately at the behest of its advertisers who are constantly on a knife edge about whether to bother using it or not. We have already seen GM and L'Oreal pull ad spend and many more will follow if their moderation policies are not in-line with community standards.
If Musk wants to make Twitter unprofitable then sure relax the moderation otherwise might want to keep it the same.
Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#90This CEO did the same thread 6 months ago and was blasted off the internet. You can see his thread here: https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1514938507407421440 edit/ Guess it is working now? The most important post in his older thread: https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1514939100444311560 He never ever justifies this point. The world absolutely has not changed in the context of censorship. Censorship apologetics notwi…
Citation needed