361–370 of 412 posts
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.
Banning accounts vs reducing reach? Vastly different
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trust me, once you get the hang of it, 4chan is surprisingly wholesome. Sure I've been called a nigg r/fagg t/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…
> 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 There is no going above that. That's what psychological abuse looks like, and you're justifying it to yourself You can have a community that isn't full of passive aggressive people and also not a disgusting shithole. Look at hn as an example. You're only hurting yourself in the long run
HN is like a forced "after office" with snob coworkers you don't get along with, and you have to tiptoe around the topics and what you say, while HR is around. It has interesting moments, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ok, now scale to a few hundred millions users in lots of languages.
I'm not using twitter (and not going to), so please explain, what that means, exactly. So, let's say it is decided by Musk&co that X (written by xxx) is a hateful Tweet. - I am a follower of xxx. Will I see it? - I specifically go to twitter.com/xxx. Will I find X on that page? - X is a reply to a popular thread I'm reading right now. Will I see X? So, what exactly being "deboosted" means on Twitter? It just won't ap…
I've discovered that if you tweet the name "Michael Griffin" + "Elon" (or "Musk"), nobody will see your tweet organically unless they search for it directly. Michael Griffin is an important person in Elon's real (non-mythical) history that he'd probably rather you not know about, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career
So, what percentage of Musk's tweets would be max deboosted? Examples start about halfway down the list. https://www.insidehook.com/article/tech/elon-musk-worst-twee...
Earlier 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…
This could control top posts, but theoretically also their replies.
It's the stupid replies that make Twitter annoying, not so much the top posts for me.
It's much harder for people complaining about toxicity if they can filter it out. Then it'll be harder for them to argue someone should be deplatformed. Because then they would be arguing that you and I should be barred from reading that person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is delusional. When you have a big tech company with thousands of employees, the pareto principle comes into play in a huge way: proably only 10% of these people are actually doing any work that directly impacts the platform. At least half the employees are probably not doing anything really useful. This applies even to tech companies with a mere 100 total employees. At 3000 employees it's probably even more so.…
love to do the work of 10 people, receive the pay of 1, and getting fired because i wasn't "hardcore" enough
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…
I don't like platforms deciding what I see. I connect with people to get their posts. Period. I want them all, or let me control my filters if there are any.
if a comment section is all spam for penis enlargement pills no one hangs out there. instead, they go to comment sections where the platform owners actively decide to remove spam. they censor away posts for all different kinds of spam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is delusional. When you have a big tech company with thousands of employees, the pareto principle comes into play in a huge way: proably only 10% of these people are actually doing any work that directly impacts the platform. At least half the employees are probably not doing anything really useful. This applies even to tech companies with a mere 100 total employees. At 3000 employees it's probably even more so.…
>He is good at making engineers a "high status class" From what I've seen, Elon's companies pay below-market for most roles. Levels.fyi indicates that, on average, engs take a 10-15% pay cut by deciding to work for Tesla. I'm sure there are a handful of engineers that exist that could save Twitter single-handedly, but none that would do it for the pay he's offering.
This is the relevant part of the "Fork in the road" email:
> Design and product management will still be very important and report to me, but those writing great code will constitute the majority of our team and have the greatest sway.
Most companies put engineers _below_ design and product management: the designers and product people make decisions, and programmers just implement.
Once you're past the $120k/year mark does a higher salary matter that much really? It only matters if you don't find anything fulfilling about your job.
What would you rather?
$180k/year with great say over the product or $220k/year with little say on the product?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
Any meddling? Like when people of one ethnic group use social media to organize a massacre of another group (as has happened in a number of countries)? Social media have correctly tried to suppress that, and I worry about what happens when people who speak the language get fired because they aren't coders.