51–60 of 412 posts
Note that this is the dictionary definition of shadowbanning, which is the primary thing the free speech advocates on Twitter were hoping Elon would stop Twitter from doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more fundamental than that. Some forms of speech can indirectly or directly limit the speech of others. Free speech absolutism in an unachievable panacea; it is a logical fallacy.
I'm not following you. What can I say that prevents you from saying something? That would seem to violate causality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's impossible to detect negative sentiment purely by text. It's an unsolvable problem.
As someone who specialized in this area for years in social media specifically, I have never seen evidence you can get past 80% accuracy with any known sentiment analysis method. Brute force stats like Naive Bayes is still as good as it gets on platforms like Twitter where speech patterns are too short and irregular for traditional NLP to be very useful.
There are no coherent long form texts generated by AI models but 280 characters is very easy because people will give the author the benefit of the doubt and interpolate the missing context.
So free speech absolutist is starting to adapt rules which are roughly similar to Twitter's current rules. And those rules are existing for a reason, rules don't popup from a thin air. What a surprise... Now he will figure out that the bloat of microservices and employees was there also for a reason.
If they had applied the rules consistently, they'd be reasonable enough, but they never did or even particularly tried. I don't have any hope that Elon will, either, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not following you. What can I say that prevents you from saying something? That would seem to violate causality.
That causal violation is the exact problem with free speech aboslutism. "You are not allowed to criticize the CCP" is speech. "I order you to kill/hang that vice president" is speech, and the dead don't speak.
(I'm not a lawyer.)
[0] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/inciting-to-...
Oh great, more unaccountable black-box "algorithms" that invisibly classify your tweets. Machines can't detect satire, they don't understand nuance or context, they don't understand tone. This will affect platform speech in strange ways as people naturally attempt to evade the algorithm. Twitter needs a dislike button. Every social media platform needs a mechanism for explicit negative feedback. Yes, people will use…
> Twitter needs a dislike button. This IS twitters dislike button.
No problem you say, let's just tweak the detector to let that through. So you're going to write exceptions? What happens when "mondays" becomes some sort of code word for racial epithets? How do you detect that? This has happened before, look up what happened to r/clownworld.
This is straight up an unsolvable problem. You need human labeling, which is what a dislike button accomplishes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Twitter needs a dislike button. This IS twitters dislike button.
No it isn't. It's an algorithm using rough sentiment analysis and god knows what else to judge your tweet, unaccountably and invisibly. "I hate mondays" I tweet. Whoops! Tripped the "negative tweet detector" and my tweet is deprioritized! No problem you say, let's just tweak the detector to let that through. So you're going to write exceptions? What happens when "mondays" becomes some sort of code word for racial epi…
FWIW, I do not like the dislike or like buttons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not following you. What can I say that prevents you from saying something? That would seem to violate causality.
That causal violation is the exact problem with free speech aboslutism. "You are not allowed to criticize the CCP" is speech. "I order you to kill/hang that vice president" is speech, and the dead don't speak.
Back to the twitter context: if I bought twitter and simply did nothing at all, anyone would be free to post anything, because in order to stop it, I'd have to act, which I already said I won't do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True! How would it detect sarcasm. For eg. I love what he is doing to Twitter
In my experience people most often convey sarcasm on social media with emoji and the emoji is typically the most informative feature. I hate my job :) -> probably loves their job. I love my job :( -> probably hates their job. Without emoji sarcasm is often hard to detect even for a human.
Note that this is the dictionary definition of shadowbanning, which is the primary thing the free speech advocates on Twitter were hoping Elon would stop Twitter from doing.
Here it seems like the poster and anyone else can directly search for the poster's account or the "filtered" post and still see it. But I guess the tags won't work. Kind of a middle ground. Perhaps they will explicitly remove/block the tags so the poster knows this is happening, which at least isn't tricking them.