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

401–410 of 412 posts

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

#401

Post by sixstringtheory »

zamalek wrote: post #80
endominus wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Then, while you aren engaging in free speech, you are also engaging in stalking/harassment. If you stopped following the person who, presumably, doesn’t want you following them, you are still free to say whatever you like at any volume.

Free speech isn’t just “I can say whatever I want.”

It’s also “nobody can make me say something I don’t want to.”

And then also “I don’t have to listen to anything I don’t want to.” (You are here.)

And finally, “I can’t stop other people from listening to what they want to hear.”

This is the point of “if a tree falls in a forest and nobody js around to hear…” Speech is communication which is bidirectional, it can’t be free unless both sides are free to engage or not.

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

#402

Post by EFreethought »

not2b wrote: post #281
boole1854 wrote: post #105

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…

This might be what Elon is thinking, but some of his fans will be bitterly disappointed if he executes on it and no one sees their tweets any more because they are hateful. How can they own the libs if the libs don't see their attacks (likewise for the reverse direction)?

I think conservatives are more concerned with owning the libs than the reverse direction.

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

#403

Post by oxfordmale »

nomel wrote: post #399
oxfordmale wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My original point was directed on Elon's Musk belief he can solve hate issues on Twitter by limiting the reach of negative or hateful tweets. It is an approach that works for Google, as they can filter such results. As you point as well, Twitter is about networks and if you are interested in a controversial person, you will follow them. That is good from an individual perspective, as you should have this freedom, however, it can be negative for the society as a whole. A good example is fake news.

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

#404

Post by oska »

bastawhiz wrote: post #395
oska wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The difference is very clear. One is saying whatever you want to say under your own public identity or under a pseudonym. The other is pretending that someone else is saying something. It's not 'lying about your identity', that's a miscasting. It's pretending someone else is saying things that they are not. Free speech does not include fraudulently pretending that other people are saying things that they have not / would not say. Claiming that Free Speech must include this is intellectually dishonest and intellectually uninteresting as an argument.

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

#405

Post by SantalBlush »

luckylion wrote: post #394
SantalBlush wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not worth debating the slippery slope that is conjured up here, unless you can prove that someone actually needed to build their own rockets because every IP has turned them away from hosting a legal website.

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

#406

Post by anticensor »

pixl97 wrote: post #110
commandlinefan wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> those rules are existing for a reason If they had applied the rules consistently, they'd be reasonable enough, but they never did or even particularly tried. I don't have any hope that Elon will, either, though.

For profit businesses will never apply rules consistently, there is too much profit in inconsistency. Hell, anything ran by humans, in by belief, is incapable of applying any set of complex rules consistently. Individuals can't even apply moderation rules consistently as our emotions and how we're feeling on a particular day can dictate what we ignore and the punishments we choose.

> For profit businesses will never apply rules consistently, there is too much profit in inconsistency.

A for profit business definitely could definitely codify how to profit and how to price in its charter. Too much profit is just a bad excuse.

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

#407

Post by FollowingTheDao »

duskwuff wrote: post #360
FollowingTheDao wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know it will be an algorithm? He did not even say how it would be implemented yet. It may be a dislike button. FWIW, I do not like the dislike or like buttons.

> How do you know it will be an algorithm? Well, it seems unlikely to be human-driven, given how many of the employees and contractors who were responsible for content moderation have been laid off. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-twitter-layoffs-outso...

It will be driver by other users.

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

#408

Post by nomel »

oxfordmale wrote: post #403
nomel wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My original point was directed on Elon's Musk belief he can solve hate issues on Twitter by limiting the reach of negative or hateful tweets. It is an approach that works for Google, as they can filter such results. As you point as well, Twitter is about networks and if you are interested in a controversial person, you will follow them. That is good from an individual perspective, as you should have this freedom, how…

> however, it can be negative for the society as a whole.

Society wouldn't see the persons tweets, only the followers would. So, it "protects" society, and lets the follower see the controversy they desire.

Or, are you suggesting that the individual shouldn't be allowed to see the controversial speech, because they can influence society? I think there have been far too many examples, in history, where the individual was right and the larger opinion of society was incredibly wrong, for this to be a goal to move towards.

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

#409

Post by nomel »

root_axis wrote: post #266
nomel wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears that three of these that you listed, which are the most silencing, will no longer be used (assuming legal content): post removals, temporary bans, permanent bans. I don't understand how the new policy is "status quo", if this is true. That's a very significant change of policy.

Nothing that Elon said suggests that twitter will no longer issue bans or remove posts. In fact, we know that permanent bans are still in place, and he will obviously continue to do both.

> Nothing that Elon said suggests that twitter will no longer issue bans or remove posts.

I don't see anyone claiming that there will be no bans. I take this post as communication that comments, that previously would have been banned, will be max de-boosted, instead.

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

#410

Post by phkahler »

SantalBlush wrote: post #323
phkahler wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>I don't like platforms deciding what I see. Hacker News does exactly this, and the people using this site like it.

I do not subscribe to specific people on HN though. I don't consider it "social media" which is what I meant.
Post reply on HN