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

71–80 of 412 posts

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

#71

Post by krapp »

fsckboy wrote: post #68
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.

Either you believe free speech is absolute or you don't. If you're willing to compromise on those principles with advertisers, you don't.

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

#72

Post by mistermann »

throwaway290 wrote: post #63
mistermann wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I am serious, and it is indeed that sometimes...but I wonder if that's the intent Ztynovovk had when making the comment (or: what it "is" from within the initial frame of reference, as "is-ness" is relative to the observer).

I think it's fun and informative to draw attention to cognitive functionality of humans when they are opining on the cognitive functionality of other humans, particularly in "smart" communities when the topic of discussion tends to exploit cultural norms and catalyze ~unforced (note: speculation) cognitive errors.

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

#73

Post by friend_and_foe »

Sounds reasonable. I'm a bit of a free speech absolutist, so I say no to censorship no matter how insulting the content may be, but that doesn't mean anyone is required to amplify anything.

The argument I hear most often from pro censorship people is that it's not as simple as having a voice, your voice is amplified by algorithms on these sites, you're giving someone a megaphone. This decision appears to solve that problem while not censoring anyone. I'd say a shadow ban would go too far, but just not promoting it sounds like a reasonable compromise.

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

#74

Post by zamalek »

commandlinefan wrote: post #64
zamalek wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What about Chinese nationals?

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

#75

Post by thomascgalvin »

nimbius wrote: post #38

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is the sort of damage control id expect to see from someone only peripherally aware of or involved in their businesses accountability or strategic operations. This concern from advertisers has existed far too long for an executive action to have any meaning. the marketing conference call on november 3rd was your red flag where advertisers voiced their displeasure with firin…

> At this point its best to hope markets dont start reconsidering your other companies as risky business.

I think this is inevitable.

One, Elon is trying to prop up Twitter by using SpaceX money to buy ads. He's dipping his hand into other companies to keep his new toy afloat for a while longer. I don't know if the word "contamination" is appropriate here, but it's pretty clear that Elon doesn't see any kind of sharp boundaries between his various enterprises.

And two, I think a lot of customers are going to start rethinking Elon's offerings. Tesla used to be a status symbol. Driving one meant you were forward thinking, that you were on the bleeding edge, and probably conscientious about the environment. Now, Tesla is "that company Elon owns." There is no way this doesn't hurt Tesla's bottom line, and there's no way investors don't realize this.

All Elon had to do was shut up and bask in the accomplishments of others, but he couldn't manage to take his own ego out of it. Will it ruin him? Probably not. We he still be the richest man in the world in a year or two? Also probably not.

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

#76

Post by memish »

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”?

Hopefully not. This would bring Twitter back to where it was, just swapping one bias for another.

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

#77

Post by zamalek »

mh- wrote: post #55
zamalek wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That last one would already fail the Brandenburg test [0], wouldn't it? (I'm not a lawyer.) [0] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/inciting-to-...

> Brandenburg test

The Brandenburg Test doesn't apply to free speech absolutism.

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

#78

Post by [deleted] »

kweingar wrote: post #12
memish wrote: post #5

There's still a question of how "negative/hate" is defined and whether this will be transparent. I'm skeptical, but the general principle of discouraging and not profiting from negativity is, uh, positive.

Negativity is an extremely broad concept. There is no chance that “negative” tweets will be uniformly deboosted. Will Elon deboost tweets from Ukrainians condemning Russian war crimes? Will he deboost his own negative tweets toward US politicians? Will he deboost US politicians’ tweets criticizing the other party? Will he deboost tweets critical of his management of Twitter? Discouraging “negativity” necessarily mean…

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by zamalek »

endominus wrote: post #69
zamalek wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

What if I followed you around and shouted my speech really loudly every time you tried to speak?
Post reply on HN