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

691–700 of 975 posts

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#691

Post by president »

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…

The problem is that "jerk" is relative and very sensitive people will tilt the scale. Also, occasionally jerks will have interesting insights that you would miss if you blocked the jerks. It's a problem of whether your platform cares more about having diverse viewpoints or about people being polite to each other.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#692

Post by adastra22 »

jxi wrote: post #675
jacobsenscott wrote: post #671

The solution is simple - only show users tweets from people they follow. People may say twitter can't make money this way, but with this model you don't need much money. You don't need moderation, or AI, or a massive infrastructure, or tracking, etc. You don't need managers or KPIs or HR, or anything beyond an engineer or two and a server or two. Musk could pay for this forever and it would never be more than a round…

I do want discovery though.

That’s what retweets accomplish.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#693

Post by ufo »

makeitdouble wrote: post #679
ufo wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

It’s a hurtful topic and has complicated ramifications, but… > other whatsapp groups that I'm not in, which are filled with hateful politics. That brings the discussion from you to others users, and your goal seems to be to change how other users are affected by their time on a platform. > The radical Bolsonaro whatsapp groups are a mix of top down and grass roots content. You seem to be talking about motivated indiv…

For sure, it would be foolish to assume that the problems could be solved by changing the software, or passing a new law. Policing private groups is impossible. We're living in a new world of social media and we still need to figure out how to deal with that. I hope that in the long term there is some kind of culture shift with how people interact with the internet, because whatever we're doing today isn't working.

By the way, I mentioned Bolsonaro explicitly because those groups are currently the better organized ones in the Brazilian social media space, masters at exploiting the Whatsapp dynamics. But the fundamental problem is not exclusive to the extreme right.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#694

Post by thomastjeffery »

est wrote: post #681
thomastjeffery wrote: post #653

The biggest problems with Twitter's moderation are what OP explicitly didn't talk about. 1. There isn't enough communication from moderators about why tweets are removed and users are banned. There is a missed learning opportunity when users don't get to hear why they are being moderated. 2. Bans are probably too harsh. If you can't come back having learned from your mistakes, why learn at all? Most of it is a scalin…

> enough communication People will learn from mistakes and create more problem for the platform with alt-accounts.

That's not what I mean by learning.

Most people aren't the nihilists you might expect them to be. Most people want discussion to lead somewhere new. That's why there is value in moderation: we use it to trim the patterns of discussion that lead nowhere.

So when a moderator deletes your comment because it was leading to nowhere, they can also tell you so. If they can teach you how you might lead your next discussion somewhere, then there is a good chance that you will do that next time. If they just quietly delete your comment, then that guarantees you will follow the same tired pattern next time, because you won't know any better. Rinse and repeat.

Of course, the nihilists (trolls) will still be there, but it's worth at least trying to teach people how to not be one.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#695

Post by wwweston »

jchw wrote: post #660
wwweston wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that it's not really about censorship the way that people think about it; it's not about blanket banning the discussion of a topic. Then we're far away enough from the topic of censorship that we should be using different language for what we're discussing. It's bad enough that people use the term "censorship" colloquially when discussing private refusal to carry content vs state criminalization. It'…

To be clear I am 100% suggesting that advertisers, staff and others participate in silencing this speech. Reddit is actually a funny example because Reddit admins have been accused by multiple subreddits of stepping in and forcing new rules to be instituted in subreddits.

"I would like to take this time to repeat my claim that important topics are being silenced without recognition of any obligation to actually even make the pretense that I'm replying or otherwise engaging in discourse, which may be a giveaway my motives/values here are not actually about discourse."

At least, that's what my translator makes of your comment, but freedom of speech being what it is, I certainly can't compel you to acknowledge it.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#696

Post by raz32dust »

jacobsenscott wrote: post #671

The solution is simple - only show users tweets from people they follow. People may say twitter can't make money this way, but with this model you don't need much money. You don't need moderation, or AI, or a massive infrastructure, or tracking, etc. You don't need managers or KPIs or HR, or anything beyond an engineer or two and a server or two. Musk could pay for this forever and it would never be more than a round…

This is such a gross simplification. First, even people who you follow might post both wanted and unwanted content, and the platform will be more useful if it can somehow show me the things I want to see. Second, it overlooks content creator side of things. How does a new person without any followers start gaining them, or vice-versa a new person who doesn't know whom to follow yet. People keep saying this is what they want from Twitter. But Twitter is not only for them, it is valuable for these other use cases.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#697

Post by skybrian »

jxi wrote: post #675
jacobsenscott wrote: post #671

The solution is simple - only show users tweets from people they follow. People may say twitter can't make money this way, but with this model you don't need much money. You don't need moderation, or AI, or a massive infrastructure, or tracking, etc. You don't need managers or KPIs or HR, or anything beyond an engineer or two and a server or two. Musk could pay for this forever and it would never be more than a round…

I do want discovery though.

It could be a separate tab.

I normally use the realtwitter.com redirect to get just the tweets from people I follow. Occasionally I look at the regular feed and the other stuff can be interesting, but I’m also reminded of why I don’t use it by default.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#698

Post by ehsankia »

est wrote: post #681
thomastjeffery wrote: post #653

The biggest problems with Twitter's moderation are what OP explicitly didn't talk about. 1. There isn't enough communication from moderators about why tweets are removed and users are banned. There is a missed learning opportunity when users don't get to hear why they are being moderated. 2. Bans are probably too harsh. If you can't come back having learned from your mistakes, why learn at all? Most of it is a scalin…

> enough communication People will learn from mistakes and create more problem for the platform with alt-accounts.

Not only that, another issue that no system of moderation at that scale will ever be fully consistent, and the more detail you give, the more people will pick at the subtle inconsistencies of the moderation. The classic "X did something similar and didn't get banned for it".

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#699

Post by wwweston »

ptero wrote: post #683
wwweston wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a lot of content, however well presented and rationally argued, just cannot be digested. Can you name the topic areas where even cautious presentation will not be sustained on twitter?

Covid lockdowns, vaccination requirements and mask mandates?

I see these topics regularly debated on Twitter and HN.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#700

Post by jacobsenscott »

jxi wrote: post #675
jacobsenscott wrote: post #671

The solution is simple - only show users tweets from people they follow. People may say twitter can't make money this way, but with this model you don't need much money. You don't need moderation, or AI, or a massive infrastructure, or tracking, etc. You don't need managers or KPIs or HR, or anything beyond an engineer or two and a server or two. Musk could pay for this forever and it would never be more than a round…

I do want discovery though.

You can still have search. And the people you follow can still post links (without those "cards") to content they find interesting - but in those cases you are in control. Nothing is forced into your feed.
Post reply on HN