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

641–650 of 975 posts

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#641

Post by vkou »

noasaservice wrote: post #267
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

"You have been found guilty of crimes in $State. Please submit yourself to $state_prison on the beginning of the next month. We're sorry, but we cannot tell you what you are guilty of."

"Look, I'd like you to stop being a guest in my house, you're being an asshole."

"PLEASE ENUMERATE WHICH EXACT RULES I HAVE BROKEN AND PROVIDE ME WITH AN IMPARTIAL AVENUE FOR APPEAL."

---

When you're on a platform, you are a guest. When you live in society, you don't have a choice about following the rules. That's why most legal systems provide you with clear avenues for redress and appeal in the latter, but most private property does not.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#642

Post by dragonwriter »

mikkergp wrote: post #636
MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> can anyone explain to me why Musk and Sacks seem to have developed the strategy of insulting their customers and potential customers? I find it fascinating that so many people are whip-crack quick to loudly criticize the $8 checkmark move. How many of these critics even use Twitter? And of those who do use Twitter, how can any of them know the outcome of such a move? Why not just wait and observe?

I think because Elon and Co. are acting so dismissive and entitled. They're acting frickin weird. Admittedly I think who you think sounds more entitled depends on your worldview. I do think the journalist reactions are strange, but probably just because they're acting to something so strange. Elon is hardly describing a vision for this new version of twitter that people might be inspired to spend $8 for, yes somethin…

> Elon is hardly describing a vision for this new version of twitter that people might be inspired to spend $8 for, yes something vague about plebs vs nobility,

Yeah, Elon calls the status quo a “lords & peasants system” and says that to get out of that model Twitter should have a two-tier model where the paid users get special visual flair, algorithmic boosts in their tweets prominence and reach, and a reduced-ads feed experience compared to free users.

And somehow doesn’t see the irony.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#644

Post by leereeves »

originalvichy wrote: post #623
ufo wrote: post #586

In the US, where Twitter & Facebook are dominant, the current consensus in the public mind is that political polarization and radicalization are driven by the social media algorithms. However, I have always felt that this explanation was lacking. Here in Brazil we have many of the same problems but the dominant social media are Whatsapp group chats, which have no algorithms whatsoever (other than invisible spam filte…

I actually went into a deep dive of any statistical efforts that showed bans on twitter based on American political leanings. Apparently in both studies I found the most statistically significant user behavior for bans was if the user had a tendency to post articles from low quality online ”news” sites. So essentially even the political controversy around moderation boils down to the fact that one side, the right, is…

The first concern is identifying "fake news".

One of the biggest political news stories of 2020, Hunter Biden's laptop, was falsely declared misinformation, and the NY Post was accused of being a low quality site. Now we know it's true.

On the other hand, the Steele Dossier was considered legitimate news at the time and "many of the dossier’s most explosive claims...have never materialized or have been proved false."[1].

So I'd like to know exactly what the study's authors considered low-quality news, but unfortunately I couldn't find a list in the paper you linked. In my experience, most people tend to declare sources "high-quality" or "low-quality" based on whether they share the same worldview.

1: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/business/media/spooked-pr...

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#645

Post by etchalon »

kelnos wrote: post #377
codemonkey-zeta wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But those users would be left alone in their pride in the put-up-or-shut-up model, because everybody else would see the mistakes of that user and abandon them. So the shame doesn't have to be effective for the individual, it just has to convince the majority that the user is in the wrong.

Right. To put it another way, this "put up or shut up" system, in my mind, isn't even really there to convince the person who got moderated that they were in the wrong. It's to convince the rest of the community that the moderation decision was unbiased and correct. These news articles about "platform X censors people with political views Y" are about generating mass outrage from a comparatively small number of moder…

The most high profile, and controversial, "moderation" decisions made by large platforms recently have generally been for obvious, and very public, reasons.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#646

Post by DelightOne »

Can there be a moderation bot that detects flamewars and steps in? It could enforce civility by limiting discussion to only go through the bot and by employing protocols like "each side summarize issues", "is this really important here", or "do you enjoy this".

Engaging with the bot is supposed to be a rational barrier, a tool to put unproductive discussions back on track.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#647

Post by sydd »

dbrueck wrote: post #458

At least one missing element is that of reputation . I don't think it should work exactly like it does in the real world, but the absence of it seems to always lead to major problems. The cost of being a jerk online is too low - it's almost entirely free of any consequences. Put another way, not everyone deserves a megaphone. Not everyone deserves to chime in on any conversation they want. The promise of online discu…

But the how would you address "reputable" people spreading idiotic things or fake news? How would you prevent Joe Rogan spreading COVID conspiracy theories? Or Kanye's antisemitic comments? Or a celebrity hyping up some NFT for a quick cash grab? Or Elon Musk falling for some fake news and spreading it?

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#648

Post by ufo »

MikePlacid wrote: post #621
ufo wrote: post #586

In the US, where Twitter & Facebook are dominant, the current consensus in the public mind is that political polarization and radicalization are driven by the social media algorithms. However, I have always felt that this explanation was lacking. Here in Brazil we have many of the same problems but the dominant social media are Whatsapp group chats, which have no algorithms whatsoever (other than invisible spam filte…

> I think Yishan is nailing the nail on the head by focusing the discussion on user behavior instead of on the content itself. But user behavior problem can be solved cheaply, easily and in a scalable way: Give each user an ability to form the personal filter. Basically, all what I need is: 1. I want to read what person A writes - always. 2. I want to read what person B writes - always, except when talking to person…

I disagree, we can't frame this discussion on only the content. My whatsapp "feed" is doing just fine. The problem are all the other whatsapp groups that I'm not in, which are filled with hateful politics. It hurts when I meet in real life a friend that you haven't met in a while, and then find out that they've been radicalized.

The radical Bolsonaro whatsapp groups are a mix of top down and grass roots content. On one end there is the central "propaganda office", or other top political articulators. On the bottom are the grassroots group chats: neightborhoods, churches, biker communities, office mates, etc. Memes and viral content flow in both directions. The contents and messages that ressonate in the lower levels are actively distributed by the central articulators, which have a hierarchy of group chats to circulate new propaganda as widely as possible. You can see this happen in real time when a political conundrum happens,e.g a corruption scandal. The central office will A-B test various messages in their group chats and then the one that resonates better with their base gets amplified and suddenly they manage to "change the topic" on the news. The end result is that we just had 4 years of political chaos, where the modus operandi of the goverment was to put out fires by deflecting the public discourse whenever a new crisis emerged. It's not merely a content problem that could be solved by a better filtration algorithm. It's a deeper issue of how social media can affect human behavior. How quickly ideas can spread, how easy it became for people to self-organize into "bubbles", and so on.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#649

Post by nfgivivu »

originalvichy wrote: post #623
ufo wrote: post #586

In the US, where Twitter & Facebook are dominant, the current consensus in the public mind is that political polarization and radicalization are driven by the social media algorithms. However, I have always felt that this explanation was lacking. Here in Brazil we have many of the same problems but the dominant social media are Whatsapp group chats, which have no algorithms whatsoever (other than invisible spam filte…

I actually went into a deep dive of any statistical efforts that showed bans on twitter based on American political leanings. Apparently in both studies I found the most statistically significant user behavior for bans was if the user had a tendency to post articles from low quality online ”news” sites. So essentially even the political controversy around moderation boils down to the fact that one side, the right, is…

No post body was provided.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#650

Post by haberman »

leereeves wrote: post #644
originalvichy wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually went into a deep dive of any statistical efforts that showed bans on twitter based on American political leanings. Apparently in both studies I found the most statistically significant user behavior for bans was if the user had a tendency to post articles from low quality online ”news” sites. So essentially even the political controversy around moderation boils down to the fact that one side, the right, is…

The first concern is identifying "fake news". One of the biggest political news stories of 2020, Hunter Biden's laptop, was falsely declared misinformation, and the NY Post was accused of being a low quality site. Now we know it's true. On the other hand, the Steele Dossier was considered legitimate news at the time and "many of the dossier’s most explosive claims...have never materialized or have been proved false."…

I had the same skepticism as you, but the study authors did attempt to be fair by letting a set of politically balanced laypeople (equal number Democrat and Republican) adjudicate the trustworthiness of sites. They also had journalists rate the sites, but they present the results of both results (layperson-rated and journalist-rated).

I wish they had included the list so we could see for ourselves. It's still possible that there are flaws in the study. But the it appears to take the concern of fairness more seriously than most.

Post reply on HN