Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 412 posts

Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”

#61

Post by achenatx »

elgenioso wrote: post #34
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #22

I'm certainly not a fan of how Musk has handled the Twitter takeover, but this sentiment, "New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach", seems highly reasonable to me, no? That is, what I find so awful about most social media (and places like YouTube) is how they focus on some of the most anger-inducing content for "engagement". That is, I think the problem is much more their algorithms than wha…

This is not a solvable problem. There is no algorithmic way to detect speech that needs to be boosted and deboosted on social media because there is no way to actually algorithmically detect what is truthful and what is just manipulative propaganda and marketing.

it isnt about truth or fiction, it is negative/hate tweets. I run a politics forum and the one rule is no insulting other people, groups, or positions.

This makes for a very civil, but bland conversation. People engage with negative/hate tweets.

I personally like talking politics without insults, but most people are incapable of it.

It is easy to detect insults.

Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”

#62

Post by Ztynovovk »

mistermann wrote: post #43
Ztynovovk wrote: post #2

Elon “free speech” Musk. >Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted & demonetized. Guess this guy finally realized that a free for all model is not feasible.

> Elon “free speech” Musk. Is your usage of quotations marks intended to adhere to one of these? If so, which one, and how? If not, what is the intent of them? ------------------------------------------------- https://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp - Rule 1. Use double quotation marks to set off a direct (word-for-word) quotation. Correct: “I hope you will be here,” he said. Incorrect: He said that he “ho…

They indicate how much of a clown he is.

Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”

#63

Post by throwaway290 »

mistermann wrote: post #43
Ztynovovk wrote: post #2

Elon “free speech” Musk. >Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted & demonetized. Guess this guy finally realized that a free for all model is not feasible.

> Elon “free speech” Musk. Is your usage of quotations marks intended to adhere to one of these? If so, which one, and how? If not, what is the intent of them? ------------------------------------------------- https://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp - Rule 1. Use double quotation marks to set off a direct (word-for-word) quotation. Correct: “I hope you will be here,” he said. Incorrect: He said that he “ho…

If you are serious, it's a common way of specifying a nickname.

Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”

#64

Post by commandlinefan »

zamalek wrote: post #42
ibejoeb wrote: post #15

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.

> "You are not allowed to criticize the CCP" is speech

Yes... speech I'm allowed to (and do) ignore. You're not making the point you think you're making.

Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”

#65

Post by commandlinefan »

paxys wrote: post #48

I have lost count of the number of caveats that have been applied daily to his “free speech absolutism”. Any bets on how soon he will permanently ban folks like AOC and Elizabeth Warren under some new “policy”?

> ban folks like AOC and Elizabeth Warren

If he does, look for the exact same people who defended Twitter bans a year ago to suddenly become "free speech absolutists" (for a while...)

Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”

#66

Post by googlryas »

Ztynovovk wrote: post #2

Elon “free speech” Musk. >Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted & demonetized. Guess this guy finally realized that a free for all model is not feasible.

Is there any reason to naively interpret his view of free speech as "anyone can say anything at any time"?

Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”

#67

Post by karmelapple »

elgenioso wrote: post #34
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #22

I'm certainly not a fan of how Musk has handled the Twitter takeover, but this sentiment, "New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach", seems highly reasonable to me, no? That is, what I find so awful about most social media (and places like YouTube) is how they focus on some of the most anger-inducing content for "engagement". That is, I think the problem is much more their algorithms than wha…

This is not a solvable problem. There is no algorithmic way to detect speech that needs to be boosted and deboosted on social media because there is no way to actually algorithmically detect what is truthful and what is just manipulative propaganda and marketing.

It is a solvable problem: eliminate your algorithm.

Facebook and Twitter both grew very popular without an algorithm. Then they chased the almighty engagement metrics.

Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”

#68

Post by fsckboy »

TheLoafOfBread wrote: post #39

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.

a person who holds free speech absolutism as a value, trying to navigate a compromise with advertisers is a far sight better than a person who does not believe in free speech.

It is not true that what twitter was doing was already the inevitable perfect compromise, or that advertisers were demanding that the sitting POTUS be banned even though SCOTUS had ruled people had a right to interact with him on twitter.

Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”

#69

Post by endominus »

zamalek wrote: post #42
ibejoeb wrote: post #15

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.

Except this doesn't prove the point asked. I can literally write your second example and in fact, I will; I hereby order whatever shadowy figures monitor all internet communications to kick zamalek off of the internet. There; has that in any way impacted your ability to respond to me? Has my speech at all affected yours? The thing you're actually against is the execution of an action, killing or hanging or whatever else. The basic right of freedom of speech is not that. This equivocation between speech and action, this insistence that speech itself is fundamentally harmful and must be controlled, censored, and limited, is pretty fundamentally undemocratic in ways that most actual authoritarians who rose to power in the past century would be quite familiar with.

Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”

#70

Post by [deleted] »

elgenioso wrote: post #34
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #22

I'm certainly not a fan of how Musk has handled the Twitter takeover, but this sentiment, "New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach", seems highly reasonable to me, no? That is, what I find so awful about most social media (and places like YouTube) is how they focus on some of the most anger-inducing content for "engagement". That is, I think the problem is much more their algorithms than wha…

This is not a solvable problem. There is no algorithmic way to detect speech that needs to be boosted and deboosted on social media because there is no way to actually algorithmically detect what is truthful and what is just manipulative propaganda and marketing.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN