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

801–810 of 975 posts

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#801

Post by dang »

bombcar wrote: post #452
dang wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are so many heuristics like that, and I fear making the guidelines so long that no one will read them. I want to compound a bunch of those explanations into a sort of concordance or whatever the right bibliographic word is for explaining and adding to what's written else where (so, not concordance!)

Commentary or gloss on the text, I believe, is sometimes used.

You're correct, but there are other more precise words that come from hermeneutics and whatnot. Grad school was a long time ago.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#802

Post by dang »

kashyapc wrote: post #542
dang wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are so many heuristics like that, and I fear making the guidelines so long that no one will read them. I want to compound a bunch of those explanations into a sort of concordance or whatever the right bibliographic word is for explaining and adding to what's written else where (so, not concordance!)

Fair enough. Yeah your plans of "compounding" and "bibliographic concordance" (thanks for the new word) sound good. I was going to suggest this (but scratch it, your above idea is better): A small section called "a note on moderation" (or whatever) with hyperlinks to "some examples that give a concrete sense of how moderation happens here". There are many excellent explanations buried deep in the the search links tha…

Thanks for reading and absorbing those old comments—I always leave them in the hope that someday somebody will :)

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#803

Post by sdafdasfds »

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…

"This working paper has not yet undergone peer-review."

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#804

Post by anthropodie »

JauntyHatAngle wrote: post #779
piskerpan wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It lies in us. As despicable as Facebook is, I wish someone there would just come out and say “have you looked at yourself in the mirror?” It’s mindboggling to see them passively accept the questioning without mentioning that people are wolves and sheeples, and you don’t really need Facebook to join the two. Platforms like Facebook only bring us closer but the rotten core is within us.

People act based on circumstance. If there is a lot of food, people will lean towards sharing their food, and helping others - even anonymously in a truly "altruistic" sense. If everyone is starving, people will lean towards violence and stealing. Does this "expose the rotten core within us?", or is it just saying we have the capacity for both? If we were truly completely rotten we wouldn't share in either case. The…

I agree people are not rotten to the core but we keep blaming system and thus get rid of any personal accountability. Both are important. But so far it seems people have forgotten "looking at mirror". Everyone keeps blaming everyone else. So many conflicts would automatically get diffused if people looked within. Nobody wants to do that because it's hard. Blaming others and system is easy. Platforms providing healthy environment is equally important to personal accountability.

Also comparing our social media squabbles to food security is not right imho.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#805

Post by anthropodie »

agumonkey wrote: post #726
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This to me is a vital point. One of the things rarely touched on about Twitter / FB et al are that they are transmission platforms and then a discovery / recommendation layer on top. The "algorithm" is this layer on top and it is assumed that this actively sorts people into their bubbles and people passively follow - there is much discussion about splitting the companies AT&T style to improve matters. But countries w…

> The problem is not (just) the social media companies. It lies in us. my take is that social networks opened a new 'space' and just like every new spaces, old rules / regulations / institutions got thrown out to enjoy the newfound freedom, until people experience the same issues.. aka the need for organization and will thus reinvent similar rules they went away from. It's a kind of cycle. such freedom itself is not…

I wouldn't be surprised if future generations looked at these few decades and wondered "crazy times". You are right this is new and it would take decades before we master this new "space".

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#806

Post by t-3 »

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…

USians are heavily propagandized to believe that everyone else is too stupid to form their own opinions and is being manipulated by malicious media and elite cabals to think the wrong things. So we see demands for censorship, meddling with school curricula, etc. Isolation from opposing views due to pandemic lockdowns + remote work boom + network effect helps to keep the divide from healing.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#807

Post by _gabe_ »

acdha wrote: post #762
MikePlacid wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Filtering your feed doesn’t cause them not to vote against their interests, firebomb your store, or attempt to assassinate leaders. Silencing people so that they will vote against their own interests - it’s the last thing I ever can wish. Ends badly. As to firebombing and assasination - wouldn’t you rather have them discuss and plan such things openly, so that police can easily apprehend them? Or, as I’ve already d…

> wouldn’t you rather have them discuss and plan such things openly, so that police can easily apprehend them? That’s not the threat here: the problem are the changes constantly promoting messages which stay on the legal side but encourage people to do things. People like the woman behind LibsOfTikTok are careful not to incriminate themselves but they know there are people who will hear what they say and act on it. T…

> People like the woman behind LibsOfTikTok are careful not to incriminate themselves

From what I know, this person literally just reposts crazy liberal videos verbatim. The same thing has and will continue to be done to crazy conservative ideas.

> but they know there are people who will hear what they say and act on it.

What is the account saying and hoping people will act on? It's bringing crazy ideas to the forefront to expose the ridiculousness of them. It's no different then people bringing the "lizard people" conspiracy theories to the forefront. It exposes how ridiculous these ideas are by taking the ideas out of the deeply nested echo chambers they're started in.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#808

Post by pstuart »

haberman wrote: post #792
pstuart wrote: post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My original comment in this thread never contested that. There's worthy conjecture of the provenance of same, but that's a different discussion. What was found to be true was that Hunter Biden was open to profiting from his association with his father (among other distasteful things). What has not been found to be true (read the report and tell me otherwise), and that is that Joe Biden himself was corrupt and sold fa…

Yes I am against corruption regardless of which party engages in it. Trump is as corrupt as they come, the only way he knows how to run anything is like a mob boss who expects loyalty above all. But we're commenting on a story about moderation of online forums, not corruption of politicians. I don't find the emails especially incriminating, and I honestly find Joe Biden to be a pretty admirable person, not especially…

I didn't downvote you earlier (and upvoted you now), I save downvotes for special occasions (and I think HN rations them, which is an interesting angle).

I share your opinion of Biden (not my first choice but a breath of fresh air after his predecessor).

I'd really like to come to a true understanding with you, because I want the truth to be promoted and lies and misinformation to be unamplified.

But I still don't understand what "true story" you are concerned about. The facts about Hunter himself seem to be true (corrupt and sleazy). But the whole point of the story wasn't about Hunter, it was an implied corruption of Joe.

So squelching the laptop story was about silencing effectively baseless conjecture that impugned the integrity of Joe Biden. That was the only point of the story -- to smear Joe.

Just like with Hillary's emails -- all that mattered was "she did bad" (which she did do, but in context it was quite insignificant. The amazing thing is these stories only seem to work one way: agains the Dems. There doesn't seem to be a single accusation against Trump that would dissuade his followers (his shooting someone on 5th Ave quote was frighteningly prescient).

The Steele Dossier was lurid but there's so much shady shit about Trump that it did raise credible concerns: is there kompromat on Trump? His behavior suggests so (absolute deference to Putin, money laundering accusations, etc.)

The essence of my concern is that we're flooded by misinformation and it's horribly effective, and more horribly so in the direction it seems to be effective (against the Left).

The laptop story is a lose/lose scenario. We lose if the story continues to echo and destabilize trust, and we lose when we try to prevent that act of erosion.

I'm not a fan of censorship but I also see the results of unfettered hate speech and lies that have literally demonized the Left and divided this country with no sign of letting up.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#809

Post by foogazi »

dang wrote: post #603
user3939382 wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sufficiently controversial opinions are flagged, downvoted til dead/hidden, or associated users shadow banned. HN's policies and voting system, both de facto and de jure, discourage controversial opinions and reward popular, conformist opinions. That's not to pick on HN, since this is a common problem. Neither do I have a silver bullet solution, but the issue remains, and it's a huge issue. Evolution of norms, for be…

That's true to an extent (and so is what ativzzz says, so you're both right). But the reasons for what you're talking about are much misunderstood. Yishan does a good job of going into some of them in the OP, by the way. People always reach immediately for the conclusion that their controversial comments are getting moderated because people dislike their opinion —either because of groupthink in the community or becau…

> The more contrarian the view—the further it falls outside the community's tolerance—the more responsibility that commenter has for not triggering degenerative effects like flamewars.

This sounds similar to the “yelling fire” censorship test

it’s not that we censor discussing combustion methods, there would be no effect if everyone else was also yelling fire

But people were watching a movie and now the community’s experience has been ruined (with potential for harm), in exchange for nothing of value

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#810

Post by tempestn »

MikePlacid wrote: post #772
tempestn wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> and thereby appear to be passively endorsing the behavior). This “passive endorsing” is a great social construct! It allows anybody to go after TMobile for passively endorsing all the lies I said to pretty women over the phone.

That seems like a bit of a strawman. There's a pretty significant difference between public and private speech. Regardless, I'm not arguing what or when these platforms should censor. Just trying to explain why certain content on a platform could cause someone to choose to stop using that platform, even if they're not personally exposed to that content.
Post reply on HN