Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 580 posts

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#31

Post by rhaksw »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #19
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A “secret blacklist” that’s been known forever, or at least for two years: https://twitter.com/dancow/status/1601017194456186881?s=20&t...

Here is an announcement from 2018[0]: >“It’s shaping up to be one of the highest-impact things that we’ve done,” the chief executive, Jack Dorsey ,said of the update, which will change how tweets appear in search results or conversations. “The spirit of the thing is that we want to take the burden off the person receiving abuse or mob-like behavior.” > The new system will use behavioral signals to assess whether a Tw…

IMO that's fine, but if you want me to trust such a system, the author should see on their tweet some indication that it's been demoted.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#32

Post by rhaksw »

krapp wrote: post #29
rhaksw wrote: post #24

Twitter calls it "visibility filtering" [1] Facebook gives mods a "Hide comment" button [2] TikTok calls it "visible to self" [3] [4] Truth Social does it [5] [6] [7] Reddit shows all removed comments to authors as if they're publicly visible [8] Open source tools are built to do it [9] [10] Textbooks advocate "disguise a gag or ban" [11] I call it Shadow Moderation [12]. The system intentionally does not show users…

>If there is now wide understanding that this happens everywhere, maybe we have a chance to build a platform whose express goal is to not withhold censorship actions from the author of the content. I want to know what rock people have been living under all this time, that this sort of thing is news to them.

It's a shock to most people [1]:

> ...what is the supposed rationale for making you think a removed post is still live and visible?

> ...So the mods delete comments, but have them still visible to the writer. How sinister.

> ...what’s stunning is you get no notification and to you the comment still looks up. Which means mods can set whatever narrative they want without answering to anyone.

> ...Wow. Can they remove your comment and it still shows up on your side as if it wasn't removed?

[1] https://www.reveddit.com/about/faq/#react

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#34

Post by fdasfdasfads »

michaelgrosner2 wrote: post #21

"New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach. Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted & demonetized, so no ads or other revenue to Twitter. You won’t find the tweet unless you specifically seek it out, which is no different from rest of Internet." How is this any different than Elon's stated goals from 3 weeks ago?

No post body was provided.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#35

Post by rhaksw »

Wow this post is #208 on HN: https://i.imgur.com/e4lQko4.png

It's only an hour old. The post must've been flagged, which I know has a pretty heavy influence on the ranking here.

For those flagging, this conversation is worth having. Whether platforms secretly demote people's content is important to them.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#36

Post by indoclay »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #11
scifibestfi wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's a Dr. and a Stanford professor of medicine. The Great Barrington Declaration was signed by almost a million doctors. They were warning about the harm lockdowns would do to kids and they were correct. Even if they weren't, this would still be unacceptable.

As I said, it’s debatable if the guy’s reach needed to be limited, the point you are arguing. What’s not debatable is that the breathless outrage-bait under discussion misrepresented the case for limiting the Dr’s reach with a straw-man argument, and so did you.

> misrepresented the case for limiting the Dr’s reach

Could you help me understand what the argument is that this person should have been put on any form of blacklist?

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#37

Post by andrew_ »

rhaksw wrote: post #24

Twitter calls it "visibility filtering" [1] Facebook gives mods a "Hide comment" button [2] TikTok calls it "visible to self" [3] [4] Truth Social does it [5] [6] [7] Reddit shows all removed comments to authors as if they're publicly visible [8] Open source tools are built to do it [9] [10] Textbooks advocate "disguise a gag or ban" [11] I call it Shadow Moderation [12]. The system intentionally does not show users…

Its newsworthy because Twitter has been publicly denying that shadowbanning has been in place, and they've denied that preferential treatment based on preferences of internal teams has been in place. Both of those are now being shown to be false statements. Glossing over that fact is a great disservice to the conversation.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#38

Post by foolinaround »

Discrimination as alleged by conservatives but pooh-poohed as others as merely delusional is now clearly proved.

How can tech self-regulate itself, or should there be external agencies who would watch the growing power of tech companies? and who would watch them?

Decentralization never seems to take off, so we seem to be left with these existing players like twitter, meta, google ...who are de-facto monopolies....

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#39

Post by godels_theorem »

rhaksw wrote: post #35

Wow this post is #208 on HN: https://i.imgur.com/e4lQko4.png It's only an hour old. The post must've been flagged, which I know has a pretty heavy influence on the ranking here. For those flagging, this conversation is worth having. Whether platforms secretly demote people's content is important to them.

Or shadowbanned, like me.
Post reply on HN