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

741–750 of 975 posts

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#741

Post by chiefalchemist »

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 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.

Devil's Advocate here...Let's presume you're correct. The question is: who gets to decide? Who gets to says, "Sorry, no soup or megaphone for you."

On the other hand, light sanitizes.

However, as you noted, reputation matters. And too many who should be able to outshine a jerk, don't have the juice, nor the will.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#742

Post by pstuart »

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."…

Hunter Biden's "laptop" is a misdirection campaign.

The contents appear to be from Biden but whether or not it was actually sourced as claimed will likely never be verified (the recipient is conveniently effectively blind).

But those that care about this story only seem to care about the story about the story, i.e., that there was effort to prevent propagating it.

I find it fascinating that every person who is hung up on this story doesn't care about the substance or relevance of it.

In regards to substance, it's a story about corruption. The corruption on its face is irrefutable (i.e., Hunter Biden was paid money in an attempt to purchase the influence of his father). That's genteel, old school corruption.

But the relevance of it is that Hunter himself is a private citizen and his (mis)conduct is not really newsworthy. But the implication of it is that his father is equally corrupt (which has not been shown), and that is the entire point of the story.

That charge of corruption is important to deflect any reports of corruption by the political rival of Hunter's father (of which there's significant reporting of such).

My commenting here is pointless yet necessary: pointless because I've yet to see a cogent rebuttal, and necessary because this topic is toxic and should be countered as best possible.

edit: 4th paragraph substance to relevance

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#743

Post by leereeves »

pstuart wrote: post #742
leereeves wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."…

Hunter Biden's "laptop" is a misdirection campaign. The contents appear to be from Biden but whether or not it was actually sourced as claimed will likely never be verified (the recipient is conveniently effectively blind). But those that care about this story only seem to care about the story about the story, i.e., that there was effort to prevent propagating it. I find it fascinating that every person who is hung u…

It wasn't my intention to litigate this story here. I was simply citing it as an example of the difficulty of identifying misinformation.

Also, I think a fair discussion of Twitter moderation should include a post-mortem of one of their most famous mistakes, discussing what Twitter did and what should they have done differently, and not so much the story itself.

(Of course, the substance is also important, but this isn't the right place for that discussion.)

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#744

Post by krapp »

bandyaboot wrote: post #737
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever, wherever, without any repercussions. It solely means the government can't restrict your expression. On a private platform you abide their rules.

You seem to be conflating the general principles of free speech with the specific protections defined by the US first amendment.

There are no "general principles of free speech," there are conflicting principles over which people constantly disagree.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#745

Post by tempestn »

concordDance wrote: post #730
slg wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personal user filtering can't be the only form of moderation. There is some content that I don't care if it exists as long as I don't see it. Spam is one example of this. However there is some content that its existence on the platform makes me less likely to use the platform even if I never see it. I'm sure Yishan knows this from his time at Reddit. They seem to go through a controversy about this every year or two[…

> However there is some content that its existence on the platform makes me less likely to use the platform even if I never see it. This really confuses me. Does the fact that people send racist insults at each other in Call of Duty matches via the Internet make you less likely to use the internet?

I think the idea is that the platform has the power to prevent people from saying these things you find (extremely) objectionable, and so you feel compelled not to use said platform if they refuse to do so (and thereby appear to be passively endorsing the behavior).

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#746

Post by darig »

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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#747

Post by anonyme-honteux »

didericis wrote: post #668
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…

Everything in that thread seems correct, but it doesn't address why its so bad on social media sufficiently, as those philosophical language and principal problems apply to all forms of written communication that have managed to avoid the problems of social media, including wide open written communication (remember actual bulletin boards instead of virtual bulletin boards? Wide open text forums are not a new thing) I…

Please write that article, I want to read it and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#748

Post by photochemsyn »

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…

This point he made aligns with non-specific features of user behavior:

> "In fact, once again, I challenge you to think about it this way: could you make your content moderation decisions even if you didnʻt understand the language they were being spoken in?"

However, I think discussions of controversial subjects often fall under 'this content is a problem' type of thinking. I was banned from all the major Reddit Covid subreddits for politely noting that a lab leak was entirely plausible, even likely. I was banned from their major news subreddits for regularly discussing the economic agendas behind the vast majority of military invasions in both the present day and historically - for example, I'd note that the USA-Russia split seems to have got started in 2003 when Putin rejected an Exxon bid for majority control of Russia oil production, and then started jailing the Wall Street-linked oligarchs like Khodorkovsky. I was also banned from the Ukraine subreddit for noting that a negotiated settlement to the regional war was inevitable, even if Ukraine had to relinquish some territory inhabited mainly by Russia-speaking citizens. Banned from Neoliberal, for pointing out failures of neoliberalism. Etc.

In none of those cases did I start hurling nasty insults, spam-posting, etc. Clearly those subreddits and their mods have a particular 'keep the conversation on our preferred message' agenda, i.e. 'align with the hive mind or be excommunicated'. (Eventually I tired of this and deleted my account at Reddit).

Now, if Elon can change Twitter such that polite, even-tempered but off-desired-message content isn't actively suppressed, it will be a much better platform. However, will advertisers and other sources of revenue be pleased with such changes? That may be a major factor in how it all plays out.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#749

Post by lazide »

didericis wrote: post #704
acdha wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How precisely does that protect you from the people who are seeking those out? Filtering your feed doesn’t cause them not to vote against their interests, firebomb your store, or attempt to assassinate leaders.

People are not seeking those groups out of nowhere. Most of them are getting pushed there from automated platforms bombarding them with things they can't stand. The automated outrage machines are what radicalize people, not the private message groups. By the time you have private message groups propagating the same messaging the damage has already been done. To get people out, you need to cut off the source of the ou…

This is all quite naive.

People flock to other people that make them feel the way they want to feel, and tell them what they want to do is okay.

People find these groups organically too, or form them themselves, through friend associations, not just by having them pushed.

A lot of people like to feel angry against someone (the other), as it gives them a sense of control and power. Joining others who are similarly aligned, also gives them the sense of belonging.

People who are in these states aren’t going to filter out their friends, or filter out the people telling them things they want to hear.

They’re going to filter out things that make them feel uncomfortable, or that they don’t agree with - like anyone who would stop them from going further down the rabbit hole!

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#750

Post by leereeves »

haberman wrote: post #650
leereeves wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 possibl…

Of course, that also raises the question of who they asked to rate the sites, and they don't provide that information either.
Post reply on HN