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

Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 975 posts

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#201

Post by madsmith »

foobarbecue wrote: post #23
lm28469 wrote: post #11

Reading 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

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1586955288061452289.html Agreed, though, Twitter threads are a really poor communications medium.

This thread was a delightful read.

Just NOT in twitter. I gave up on twitter and signed out of it years ago and refuse to sign back in.

I spent a good hour of my life looking for ways to read this thread. I personally know Yishan and value the opinions he cares to share so I new this would be interesting if I could just manage to read it.

Replacing the url to nitter.net helped but honestly it was most cohesive in threadreaderapp although it missed some of the referenced sidebar discussions (like the appeal to Elon to not waste his mental energy on things that aren’t real atom problems).

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#202

Post by atchoo »

boredhedgehog wrote: post #185
atchoo wrote: post #76

I think you have to be quite credulous to engage in this topic of "twitter moderation" as if it's in good faith. It's not about about creating a good experience for users, constructive debate or even money. It's ALL about political influence. > Iʻm heartened to know that @DavidSacks is involved. I'm not. I doubt he is there because Twitter is like Zenefits, it's because his preoccupation over the last few years has b…

You are showcasing exactly the behavior he blames for the degeneration of dialogue: take any kind of question and turn it into a political us vs them.

When the context of the discussion is twitter moderation in the wake of Musk's takeover and who his team is, it's already political. For Yishan to pump up Sacks and his confidence in him to fix moderation, without acknowledging that today he is a political operator, is close to dishonest. Contributing this information is hopefully helpful.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#203

Post by sangnoir »

10000truths wrote: post #198
sangnoir wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly, every ban should come with a public explanation from the network, in order to deter similar behavior This only works on non-adversarial systems. Anywhere else, it will be like handing over to bad actors (i.e. people whose interests will never align with operator's) a list of blindspots

Imagine for a moment what would happen if this rationale were extended to the criminal justice system. Due process is sanctified in law for a good reason. Incontestable assumptions of adversarial intent are the slow but sure path to the degradation of any community. There will always be blind spots and malicious actors, no matter how you structure your policies on content moderation. Maintaining a thriving and produc…

> Imagine for a moment what would happen if this rationale were extended to the criminal justice system.

It already is!

The criminal justice system is a perfect example of why total information transparency is a terrible idea: never talk to the cops even if they just want to "get one thing cleared up" - your intentions don't matter, you're being given more rope to hang yourself with.

It's an adversarial system where transparency gets you little, but gains your adversary a whole lot. You should not ever explain your every action and reasoning to the cops without your lawyer telling you when to STFU.

Due process is sanctified, but the criminal justice system is self-aware enough to recognize that self-incrimination is a hazard, and rightly does not place the burden on the investigated/accused, why should other adversarial system do less?

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#204

Post by atchoo »

mikkergp wrote: post #152
atchoo wrote: post #76

I think you have to be quite credulous to engage in this topic of "twitter moderation" as if it's in good faith. It's not about about creating a good experience for users, constructive debate or even money. It's ALL about political influence. > Iʻm heartened to know that @DavidSacks is involved. I'm not. I doubt he is there because Twitter is like Zenefits, it's because his preoccupation over the last few years has b…

Yeah, I saw David Sacks tweet: “ The entitled elite is not mad that they have to pay $8/month. They’re mad that anyone can pay $8/month.” There must be quite a few people in here who are well versed in customer relations, at least in the context of a startup, can anyone explain to me why Musk and Sacks seem to have developed the strategy of insulting their customers and potential customers? I can think of two reasons…

I think their general plan will be to discourage/silence influential left-wing voices with enough cover to keep the majority of the audience for an emboldened right-wing.

If thinking imaginatively, then the proposal framed as "$8/mo or have your tweets deranked" is a deal they actively don't want left-wingers to take. They want to be able to derank their tweets with a cover of legitimacy.

The more they can turn this fee into a controversial "I support Musk" loyalty test, the more they can discourage left-wing / anti-Musk subscribers while encouraging right-wing / pro-Musk subscribers who will all have their tweets boosted.

Feels conspiratorial but it's a fee that mostly upsets existing blue tick celebrities which should be the last group Twitter The Business would want to annoy but they are the influential left-wingers. If you look at who Musk picked fights with about it e.g. AOC and Stephen King, then that is even more suggestive of deliberate provocation.

Whether planned or not, I suspect that this is how it play out.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#205

Post by dang »

PM_me_your_math wrote: post #30
madeofpalk wrote: post #17

Earlier 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.

That's asking human nature to change, or at least asking almost everyone to work on their trauma until they don't get so activated. Neither will happen soon, so this can't be the real answer.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#206

Post by Spivak »

10000truths wrote: post #198
sangnoir wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly, every ban should come with a public explanation from the network, in order to deter similar behavior This only works on non-adversarial systems. Anywhere else, it will be like handing over to bad actors (i.e. people whose interests will never align with operator's) a list of blindspots

Imagine for a moment what would happen if this rationale were extended to the criminal justice system. Due process is sanctified in law for a good reason. Incontestable assumptions of adversarial intent are the slow but sure path to the degradation of any community. There will always be blind spots and malicious actors, no matter how you structure your policies on content moderation. Maintaining a thriving and produc…

Being cagey about the reasons for bans is

1. To keep people from cozying up to the electric fence. If you don't know where the fence is you'll probably not risk a shock trying to find it. There are other ways one can accomplish this like bringing the banhammer down on everyone near the fence every so often very publicly but point 2 kinda makes that suck.

2. To not make every single ban a dog and pony show when it's circulated around the blogspam sites.

I'm not gonna pass judgement as to whether it's a good thing or not but it's not at all surprising that companies plead the 5th in the court of public opinion.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#208

Post by Spivak »

threeseed wrote: post #106
ItsBob wrote: post #61

Here's a radical idea: let me moderate my own shit! Twitter is a subscription-based system (by this, I mean that I have to subscribe to someone's content) so if I subscribe to someone and don't like what they say then buh-bye! Let me right click on a comment/tweet (I don't use social media so not sure of the exact terminology the kids use these days) with the options of: - Hide this comment - Hide all comments in thi…

You're not Twitter's customer. Advertisers are. And they don't want their brands to be associated with unpleasant content.

Like I can't believe that this reasoning doesn't resonate with people even outside of advertisers. Who wants to be on a social network where if one of your posts breaks containment you spend the next few weeks getting harassed by people who just hurl slurs and insults at you. This is already right now a problem on Twitter and opening the floodgates is the opposite of helping.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#209

Post by dang »

All: this is an interesting submission—it contains some of the most interesting writing about moderation that I've seen in a long time*. If you're going to comment, please make sure you've read and understand his argument and are engaging with it.

If you dislike long-form Twitter, here you go: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1586955288061452289.html - and please don't comment about that here. I know it can be annoying, but so is having the same offtopic complaints upvoted to the top of every such thread. This is why we added the site guideline: "Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats" (and yes, this comment is also doing this. Sorry.)

Similarly, please resist being baited by the sales interludes in the OP. They're also offtopic and, yes, annoying, but this is why we added the site guideline "Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article to complain about—find something interesting to respond to instead."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

* even more so than https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33446064, which was also above the median for this topic.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#210

Post by lazyeye »

atchoo wrote: post #76

I think you have to be quite credulous to engage in this topic of "twitter moderation" as if it's in good faith. It's not about about creating a good experience for users, constructive debate or even money. It's ALL about political influence. > Iʻm heartened to know that @DavidSacks is involved. I'm not. I doubt he is there because Twitter is like Zenefits, it's because his preoccupation over the last few years has b…

I think they are arguing its about removing political influence and restoring balance.

This will be seen as an "attack on the left" because Twitter has been controlled by the left till now.

Post reply on HN