No post body was provided.
The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
71–80 of 580 posts
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For those flagging, this conversation is worth having. Whether platforms secretly demote people's content is important to them. It is an important topic but the Twitter thread linked is not a particularly useful resource. For one, none of this is new information: https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgxd3d/twitter-insider-acces... That it’s being brought out now with such fanfare smells like corporate propaganda.
> none of this is new information It is news to many when social media takes action against content without telling the author: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33916519
It’s also not new news that Twitter did this. Elon recently pledged to do exactly this!
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#73[deleted]
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that gross? It's their speech to decide what they want to promote or not promote. Why are you anti-free speech?
It's not trustworthy when a system actions a user's content without telling them. Free speech principles are also a thing. The question is not what is getting demoted, it's how . In this case, it's being done secretly, and Twitter isn't the only one doing it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33916414
No. I don't assume I have any rights other than vis-a-vis the government. I've dealt with a lot of corporate bullshit from tech companies, it's an annoyance but I just handle it and don't make a career out of whining about it as some do.
I've been arrested and kept in jail overnight on false charges for being a political activist, people complaining about being in Twitter or facebook jail don't impress me much (especially when almost all of them have a backup account).
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not trustworthy when a system actions a user's content without telling them. Free speech principles are also a thing. The question is not what is getting demoted, it's how . In this case, it's being done secretly, and Twitter isn't the only one doing it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33916414
This outrage is hilarious coz HN shadowbans people too. Which increases site quality which is why all the complainers are on here.
Transparently removing content is the normal way to moderate a forum. This research [1] suggests it reduces mod workload because users learn the rules. Discourse doesn't secretly remove content and is popular.
It isn't accurate to say secrecy increases site quality. No such qualitative study has been done.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/duwdco/should_mode...
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#76Quoted post unavailable.
No post body was provided.
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
> none of this is new information It is news to many when social media takes action against content without telling the author: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33916519
It’s also not new news that Twitter did this. Elon recently pledged to do exactly this!
Indeed he did suggest "free speech doesn't equal free reach".
If we're now saying that statement is bad then we should hold his feet to the fire. Conflicting statements doesn't mean there is no principle to espouse; it just means there are conflicting statements.
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#78Twitter 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…
> .win domain
lol, you had me going for a moment there.
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#79"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?
A shadowban has the property that it's hidden from the user. Elon seems to want to make these kinds of actions transparent, like, for instance, deboosted tweets being visible as deboosted by their creator/other users, which is a pretty big difference. This difference is already visible in initial intent: Twitter hid what they were doing https://twitter.com/Twitter/status/1022658436704731136 , while Elon is explicitly…
That tweet is referencing this[0] blog post.
> We do not shadow ban. You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile). And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.
It specifically mentions factoring in user behavior:
>What actions you take on Twitter (e.g. who you follow, who you retweet, etc)
> How other accounts interact with you (e.g. who mutes you, who follows you, who retweets you, who blocks you, etc)
How was Twitter hiding this?
[0]: https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2018/...
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#80Love to see non-employees of Twitter having access to my DMs. I don't think that's consistent with the user agreement or the privacy laws in the state of California.