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

391–400 of 412 posts

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

#391

Post by oxfordmale »

nomel wrote: post #269
oxfordmale wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is unfortunately not how Twitter works. It is very hard to restrict freedom of reach. If you follow a person with extreme opinions, you will still see their posts. Even if Twitter managed to address that problem, there will be users that created curated list of Tweets of interest to their followers. ...and not to forget the mainstream media that love to refer to extremist tweets as it is an easy article to write.

> If you follow a person with extreme opinions, you will still see their posts. Even if Twitter managed to address that problem The purpose of following a person is to see their tweets. How is this a "problem"?

Elon Musk is talking about restricting freedom of reach. That works for Google, however, not for Twitter. The entire point of Twitter is to be able to follow people you are interested in.

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

#392

Post by SantalBlush »

luckylion wrote: post #390
SantalBlush wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was this comment transmitted via internet, and are we on Twitter?

The point is a more general one: deplatforming is censorship in all but name because of coordination. You're gone from Twitter, "go build your own", you do and the CDN blocks you, "go build your own", you do and providers don't peer with you. Limiting reach on the other hand is a much better alternative. I can still communicate with other experts about the inconvenient truth that cows are not real, I just don't pop u…

I completely reject the notion that asking someone to build their own site is censorship, or that a private company turning away users is censorship. If someone has an internet provider, they have the means to communicate. It has always been this way, and only recently have certain groups raised an issue with the way internet content creation works.

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

#393

Post by trompetenaccoun »

not2b wrote: post #370
not2b wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wow. I suppose the downvoters have never heard of what happened to the Rohingya people in Myanmar.

Your own example is the best argument against such censorship. Myanmar is a heavily censored military dictatorship, the violence is against the Rohingya is state sanctioned. Journalists have been arrested for as much as reporting on it:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-journalists/reute...

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

#394

Post by luckylion »

SantalBlush wrote: post #392
luckylion wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is a more general one: deplatforming is censorship in all but name because of coordination. You're gone from Twitter, "go build your own", you do and the CDN blocks you, "go build your own", you do and providers don't peer with you. Limiting reach on the other hand is a much better alternative. I can still communicate with other experts about the inconvenient truth that cows are not real, I just don't pop u…

I completely reject the notion that asking someone to build their own site is censorship, or that a private company turning away users is censorship. If someone has an internet provider, they have the means to communicate. It has always been this way, and only recently have certain groups raised an issue with the way internet content creation works.

> If someone has an internet provider, they have the means to communicate.

Right, but what if that internet provider turns them away? How do they communicate? Do they ask Space X to shoot up a few satellites for them? If Musk says No, do they build their own rockets?

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

#395

Post by bastawhiz »

oska wrote: post #345
bastawhiz wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He appears to be at least somewhat delivering on that hope. Unless they're pretending to be him (or advertisers) for a joke on Twitter, in which case they seem to very quickly get banned.

This is not being banned for what you say, however controversial (i.e. prevention of free speech). This is being banned for pretending someone else is saying something. Such bans are not a free speech issue. Fraud is fraud. (As for the joke angle, twitter has decided it's too risky to allow humour that relies on brazen impersonation. Parody accounts that are clearly indicated as such are still allowed.)

What's the difference between being prevented from lying and beyond prevented from lying about your identity? If you're going to advocate for absolute free speech, you should be ready to commit.

And frankly, if this was a concern, maybe eliminating the way to tell whose account is who they say they are was a terrible business move.

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

#396

Post by Pxtl »

This is his worst idea yet, it's basically the ideal approach for bullying. Only the target will see the bullying so their supporters will be ignorant, and continuous bullies will be permitted to continue indefinitely.

People treating this as a backpedal or a commitment to keep back moderation have not thought this through -- this is a fig-leaf.

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

#397

Post by hn_go_brrrrr »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #384
hn_go_brrrrr wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, except the people pushing to "deplatform" someone are usually trying to get them banned everywhere .

That's not an issue of the platform, that's simple boycotting and companies just have to make the choice of either biting the bullet and keeping them, or banning them. In all this however, lies a question that nobody asked, what's the responsibility of the party getting banned? Why should the person have the right to spill bigotry and hatred without facing any consequences?

This question is asked and answered all over HN, any time a debate touching on "free speech" comes up, including the current top-voted comment.

Independent of that: what crosses the line is nowhere like settled. Many people like to act as if what they find offensive must obviously be treated as if it were beyond the pale. They're probably living in a small filter bubble where the speech in question is unquestionably offensive. Their views are rarely majority opinions, however.

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

#398

Post by amadeuspagel »

ropeladder wrote: post #331
phphphphp wrote: post #142

Earlier 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…

Anyone's ability to broadcast on Twitter is only as far as the system dynamics of Twitter and its users allows them. Retweeting is not some pure expression of speech that needs to be "free", it is limited already shaped and limited by all kinds of incentives and technological particularities (character limit, anyone?). I think media should function to encourage speech that balances social and individual utility. That…

> Anyone's ability to broadcast on Twitter is only as far as the system dynamics of Twitter and its users allows them. Retweeting is not some pure expression of speech that needs to be "free", it is limited already shaped and limited by all kinds of incentives and technological particularities (character limit, anyone?).

There is no pure expression of speech in this sense. All speech is shaped and limited by incentives and technological particularities.

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

#399

Post by nomel »

oxfordmale wrote: post #391
nomel wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you follow a person with extreme opinions, you will still see their posts. Even if Twitter managed to address that problem The purpose of following a person is to see their tweets. How is this a "problem"?

Elon Musk is talking about restricting freedom of reach. That works for Google, however, not for Twitter. The entire point of Twitter is to be able to follow people you are interested in.

I don’t understand your answer to my question, or maybe I don’t understand your original statement.

Were you saying it’s a problem that you can see extreme tweets of people you follow?

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

#400

Post by nomel »

blitzar wrote: post #388
nomel wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They opted out by not deleting the tweet. This is misleading. They were banned for the tweet. They opted out of removing the tweet, which would lift the ban. In the new policy, they would not be banned for the tweet. The fact that they were banned in the old policy, and would not be banned in the new policy, is irrefutable proof that the policies are very different, which means, by definition, it's not "status quo"…

Were employees who didnt click the "sign up for twitter 2.0 hardcore" banned from their jobs or did they resign?

I’ll need help understanding how this is related to changes in Twitter’s content moderation policy.
Post reply on HN