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

201–210 of 580 posts

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

#201

Post by MallocVoidstar »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #175
grmnygrmny2 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Abusive and spammy behavior. When abuse or manipulation of our service is reported or detected, we may take action to limit the reach of a person's Tweets. Learn more about actions we take, including temporary and permanent account suspensions, and limiting account functionality. https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/160101566099344998...

By all means, everyone, feel free to be pendatic about the language here, and deferring to their weasels words, in the direct light of the documentation that has been released, because you agree with the editorial direction. It has been SPECIFICALLY revealed that they frobbed the knobs when they didn’t like what was being posted, while admitting that their own policies weren’t being triggered, and they had no justifi…

> It has been SPECIFICALLY revealed that they frobbed the knobs when they didn’t like what was being posted, while admitting that their own policies weren’t being triggered

Where was this revealed? I saw Bari Weiss claim it happened but the screenshot she posted as evidence specifically says the account violated their policies.

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

#202

Post by harry8 »

tedunangst wrote: post #117

I think it's funny that the outrage tourists also managed to be angry that libs of tiktok was also put on a "no action" whitelist. They're not even reading the disclosures; they're just screaming. https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601018810495995904

"no action" whitelist meaning in this case that nobody can reverse (possibly found to be incorrect) previous actions without taking additional steps?

ie "Even if this is wrong don't touch it"

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

#203

Post by anigbrowl »

godelski wrote: post #167

This all seems like a major publicity stunt. We all know that Twitter is filtering users. The question is why they are filtered. There's a clear bias to specifically show right wingers being banned but other independent sources say it is roughly even. I don't want to really see political leanings so much as I want to see the content that caused them to be flagged in the first place. If someone promotes Nazism or some…

It's kinda ridiculous that 'bad tweets' are hidden so nobody is any the wiser unless they screenshotted it in time. I think it would be better if they were given a frame or put in a different color with a tag like 'user was banned for this tweet.'

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

#204

Post by MallocVoidstar »

threeseed wrote: post #181
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First hit on google: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-t...

Limiting reach is not the same as shadow banning which has a specific meaning.

"Limiting reach" is what Twitter users think shadowbanning is. I've seen major accounts declare that, because less people are retweeting them than they think is normal, they must be shadowbanned. Obviously, if they were actually shadowbanned, nobody would be retweeting them.

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

#205

Post by someNameIG »

Zuiii wrote: post #199
someNameIG wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to say what they did wasn't how Twitter defines shadow banning. https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1601019554980761600?s...

Reminds me how certain governments redefined mass surveillance then denied it.

Is it really redefined though? iirc it's how Reddit also implements shadow bans, no one else can see your messages other than you, to you it looks normal.

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

#206

Post by Zuiii »

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…

> Reddit shows all removed comments to authors as if they're publicly visible [8]

This is not true. There are cases where comments are silently removed without any public indicator; To the author, it appears as if the comment is posted normally. To other accounts however, there is no indication that the comment was ever posted.

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

#207

Post by bavell »

godelski wrote: post #174
rswail wrote: post #120

Why is anyone surprised that the major/globally operating social media companies have extensive internal systems for controlling the content that appears via their platforms? Irrespective of whether or not you agree with individual decisions, the fact that such systems exist should not be a surprise. These companies operate within legal frameworks across multiple jurisdictions that have endless variations of restrict…

> Why is anyone surprised that the major/globally operating social media companies have extensive internal systems for controlling the content that appears via their platforms? No one is. These Twitter Files are just building on a right wing prior of them being shadow banned. But they have yet to demonstrate that right wingers are specifically targeted. They don't show why these accounts got flagged (the crux of the…

If this[0] is accurate, then 99.7% of political contributions made by Twitter employees went to Democrats in 2022.

Is it unreasonable to suspect people on the right are targeted more often than the people on the left? Wouldn't that be the default assumption and the opposite position would need evidence to prove otherwise?

[0] https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598829996264390656?s=20&...

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

#208

Post by tedunangst »

harry8 wrote: post #202
tedunangst wrote: post #117

I think it's funny that the outrage tourists also managed to be angry that libs of tiktok was also put on a "no action" whitelist. They're not even reading the disclosures; they're just screaming. https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601018810495995904

"no action" whitelist meaning in this case that nobody can reverse (possibly found to be incorrect) previous actions without taking additional steps? ie "Even if this is wrong don't touch it"

Meaning no matter how egregiously this account violates the content policy, do not suspend until first consulting with higher ups.

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

#209

Post by [deleted] »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #125

I have been responsible a bit of content moderation myself, and interacted with mods on various forums. It's possible that this is responsible for some of my views, summarized here. - The "secret" aspect of all this can be largely ignored. Twitter is under no obligation to tell its users exactly how their Tweets are moderated. I am sure most moderation tools are secret, including whatever Twitter (or for that matter,…

[deleted]

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

#210

Post by tptacek »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #196
bavell wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think Weiss understands what "shadow ban" means. It means that you post Tweets, but no one ever sees them. None of the practices she describes amount to what is usually described as a shadow ban or a hellban. Preventing a post from showing up in trends or searches is not a shadow ban. Google SafeSearch does not "shadow ban" explicit images or links. Colloquially, I think many information suppression tactics…

> Colloquially, I think many information suppression tactics get lumped under the term "shadow-ban" and that your definition is very narrow. It reinforces your position so I understand why you're defining it as such but it's not very convincing to anyone who doesn't share your position. Of course, that's assuming you're genuinely interested in persuasion instead of yelling into the echo chamber. Reasonable criticism.…

It's not reasonable criticism, because Twitter provided their definition of "shadow-ban" at the time, and it's unambiguously not what Weiss is talking about.

You can disagree with the definition Twitter chose, but you can't retcon your own definition onto Twitter's policy statements.

Post reply on HN