So hypothetically could 4chan-esk threads live on twitte but not be found unless someone searches for them? Perhaps through a hashtag?
“Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”
241–250 of 412 posts
Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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. 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 s…
>people will know about it (a lot of retweets)
Yeah, unless those get suppressed too which is what currently happens on social media sites like Facebook, Reddit and (pre-Musk) Twitter.
There is no way authorities can gently steer public debates in the "right" direction. Any meddling is overstepping a line and problematic.
Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”
#243Many 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…
>So you’re probably right to say this isn’t a sudden 180 on his thoughts, but it still highlights how faulty his framing of free speech is.
I still don't understand what his logic is. What is the philosophical value of free speech if no one is able to hear that speech? Is his viewpoint that free speech is just about babbling on into an empty void? What is the value in protecting that? How does one argue that shadowbanning isn't infringing on someone's speech. And for the record, I think shadowbanning is generally a good thing for online communities, but I also support outright bans and don't go around pretending I'm a free speech absolutist.
Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”
#244The main reason some of us go on Twitter is it is where the politicians and other leaders tweet. It is the only place where we can talk back to them. This talking back is probably considered negative. If our voices will be silenced, I will just subscribe to a few of the people still there using RSS feeds. All real discussion will move elsewhere.
And all the above is very bad for commerce. Social media should be lubricants for commerce, that's how they make money. Or in Twitter case they dont.
Given all that, the only way to monetize twitter is to use it as leverage on political leaders and business leaders. This was most likely Musk plan, he then got out-framed by the Delaware courts and lost all his confidence to punch up, so he's punching down by abusing employees.
Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”
#245Ah yes, reach. That thing that is definitely independent of your ability to actually have your opinion heard. Mmmhm. /s
Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. 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 s…
>people will know about it (a lot of retweets) Yeah, unless those get suppressed too which is what currently happens on social media sites like Facebook, Reddit and (pre-Musk) Twitter. There is no way authorities can gently steer public debates in the "right" direction. Any meddling is overstepping a line and problematic.
Are you able to provide a citation for Twitter suppressing retweets?
Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, there should be no like nor dislike button. Just number of replies. 4chan does this and it works surprisingly well.
Er, Twitter is most definitely not trying to be like the notoriously-toxic 4chan.
Let's see where Musk takes it... but of course one of the biggest differences is that 4chan is anonymous, while Twitter at least requires some sort of name.
Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not just ditch the algorithms. Go back to what twitter was in the beginning: you see the tweets of people you follow. That's it.
I don't want purely that, because I end up drowning in uninteresting tweets from everyone I follow. I want to see notable tweets, from the people I follow, because I don't care if they're eating a sandwich. I also want to see tweets I would find notable/interesting, from people I don't follow, if I knew they existed. An algorithm would help with that suggestion. What I really want is Spotify's "Discover Weekly", and…
That's clearly part of the disagreement. Some people want to think and decide for themselves what to like and follow while others want private corporations/algorithms do some of that thinking for them. Or at least narrow down the choices, which is effectively the same thing.
Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, there should be no like nor dislike button. Just number of replies. 4chan does this and it works surprisingly well.
Er, Twitter is most definitely not trying to be like the notoriously-toxic 4chan.
Trust me, once you get the hang of it, 4chan is surprisingly wholesome. Sure I've been called a niggr/faggt/subhuman/kike/retard, I've been asked to kill myself countless times, countless people told me they had fucked my mom, etc. But when you go above that, you see that it's refreshing and lot less toxic than passive-aggresiveness and the brigading that upvotes/downvotes/retweets bring (in places such as Twitter or Reddit, or even here). There's some sort of camaraderie that goes beyond.
And the nice thing is that there's no oversight board, there's just your comment, you can always reply if you don't agree. The only measure of success is the number of replies, and funny, insightful or contrarian posts usually get those. Plus, everyone is completely anonymous so you can really be anyone.
Re: “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
The status quo - to ban accounts completely, due to repeated violations combined with refusal to remove violating content. More permissive perhaps, but not by much, and Trump remains banned - so bans remain a part of the toolkit.
> More permissive perhaps, but not by much I don't understand this perspective. The Babylon Bee was banned for misgendering someone. It looks like they would not be banned under the new policy. That is an extreme difference.
"We're told our account will be restored in 12 hours, but the countdown won't begin until we delete the tweet that violates the Twitter Rules."
They opted out by not deleting the tweet. Under the new policy the tweet would just not really appear with or without the consent of the user.
"We're not deleting anything. Truth is not hate speech. If the cost of telling the truth is the loss of our Twitter account, then so be it."