201–210 of 412 posts
What does deboosted mean? Does twitter show you tweets from people you don't follow (and people you follow don't retweet)? Or does that mean you won't see the tweets from the people you follow?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is never going to be a way to conclusively ascribe the drop in stock price to any one event. However, the act of pointing out the high cost of insulin to a large audience not causing a drop in stock price would be highly suspect. I personally doubt it was the Tweet itself that caused the drop. No one should/would have believed it was an actual statement by Eli Lilly. But in a bear market, this bad publicity abo…
> I personally doubt it was the Tweet itself that caused the drop. No one should/would have believed it was an actual statement by Eli Lilly. Your second sentence is probably true, but the first one is questionable. It's well-known that there are high-frequency stock trading bots which watch Twitter, news headlines, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only thing that will change now is that liberal politicians and views will start being targeted rather than conservative/alt-right ones. Conservative speech like "lower taxes are better", "extract more petroleum", and "prayer should be allowed in public school" were never targeted. The "conservative" speech banned were things like "LGBT people should have their human rights denied" and "Let's get together and a…
> That raises the question of what are the "dividends" for those parties, regardless of the financial success of Twitter. My guess is that they see twitter as the central online hub of anti-capitalist ideology, which is also correlated with marginalized identity politics. If the bankers could nip that growing movement in the bud before it fully coalesces into something with real political power, then that would seem…
Then joke is on them because the far right is also anti-capitalist, but in the form of ethnonationalist socialist authoritarianism (Yes, there are many shorter names for that).
Or perhaps they're actually on board with that approach since they have found that an increasingly pluralistic democracy does not serve their interests.
But in the end, it's probably just that owning an tool of chaos is itself a form of power.
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.
There's some interesting discussion in this thread about whether this is the right or wrong move for Twitter. However, after the debacle last night, I think it's a moot point, I simply don't see twitter.com still running within the next few months, possibly within the next few weeks. He's fired 50% of the company, reports seem that conservatively 50% of the remainder just quit yesterday, their subscription service ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There is a large corpus of English[1] text that would belie your assertion[3].
Indeed, you could probably just take Hansard and get thousands of non-detectable[2] insults.
[1] Other languages are available.
[2] At least without causing mass false positives in other text.
[3] e.g. "The founders have a vision and they stick rigidly to it." Insult or no?
There's some interesting discussion in this thread about whether this is the right or wrong move for Twitter. However, after the debacle last night, I think it's a moot point, I simply don't see twitter.com still running within the next few months, possibly within the next few weeks. He's fired 50% of the company, reports seem that conservatively 50% of the remainder just quit yesterday, their subscription service ha…
Many commentators seem to think this is a sudden, recent backpedaling from a previous absolutist view on free speech. However, Musk has been promoting the "freedom of speech" vs "freedom of reach" distinction for a while, at least months before his takeover, including describing how such a policy should be implemented at Twitter. Here's one example quote from June, 2022: “I think there’s this big difference between f…
That analogy doesn’t really fit with the model of Twitter. If we are using the town/time square example, what Elon is describing is the digital version of putting a noise-cancelling box around the people saying “bad” things so that nobody can hear them. A message spreads on Twitter because individuals on Twitter amplify it (with engagement, retweets etc.) which is itself a form of speech: if you say something bad, an…
I'd equate it more to people in Nebraska can't hear the guy yelling in Times Square, nor should they.
If people like this guy and want to hear him, they can go to Nebraska and listen to him (follow on Twitter).
If he does something outlandish and makes the national news, people will know about it (a lot of retweets).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct. All of my few encounters with a Tesla in the wild were a near accident. That + the attitude I see from Tesla fans online cement a negative view.
My partner was sideswiped by a Tesla engineer testing Autopilot. Tesla's insurance did pay for the damages, FWIW.