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

281–290 of 580 posts

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

#281

Post by over_bridge »

wesleywt wrote: post #240

The problem with these "Twitter Files" is that it is being released in the form of "bombshells" when in reality they are exposing nothing. But by doing it in the form of a bombshell the right wing is making it look like they have been oppressed all these years, when it is their voices that are mostly promoted on these platforms.

Exactly. Elon is going for theatrics but none of the releases are big enough to break through to the average person. All of them together might but these scraps of news aren't doing it.

Also they cite these right wing personalities being suppressed but honestly there are so many of them, of course some will be flagged. I'm pretty left leaning and I'm struggling to even think who would be the leftwing equivalents of some of these names. We don't really coalesce around political personalities so who would there be to get flagged?

The presentation of these details is being done in such an overtly gleeful right-wing manner that it's hard to take it in objectively.

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

#282

Post by quadrifoliate »

4bpp wrote: post #273
quadrifoliate wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are using phrases like "blacklisting doctors" and "censorship" while discussing (essentially) a message board that is used to sell advertisements. I don't think that's a reasonable position. Twitter is a private company that wants to sell advertisements by enabling people to have happy conversations. Fundamentally, they are going to optimize for that, and not whatever high-minded ideals of censorship that we hold…

Well, as long as you are in fact consistent about the position that it is "(essentially) a message board that is used to sell advertisements", with the presumable implication being that it is unimportant, replaceable and/or not an important venue for political discussion - and therefore in particular it is not a big deal if it is run into the ground or flipped towards the cause of a political group you are opposed to…

> However, this whole discussion is happening against the backdrop of a seemingly overwhelming majority of people in this community and the wider political sphere in the US asserting that it is in fact a big deal

I disagree with this, you are clubbing two groups together here. Yes, the wider political sphere in the US might be concerned because a billionaire can upend their carefully orchestrated social media campaigns. And I personally couldn't care less about that. For that matter, do you care about how well your favorite politician's next Twitter ad campaign goes?

Users in this community, on the other hand, are almost certainly technically proficient enough to back up their Tweets and quickly migrate to Mastodon or Tumblr or their favorite social network, should the need arise. In fact, dozens of us have already done so! For us, Twitter turning into Truth Social tomorrow would not be a Big Deal. This is consistent with my statement that the (probably) slightly left-leaning moderation on old Twitter was also not a Big Deal.

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

#283

Post by mandmandam »

pcwalton wrote: post #259
mandmandam wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's the one. Are you implying that he's not esteemed? He is. He was right about lockdowns on school children having huge potential for harm. And it was very, very wrong to censor such posts. And again, this was far from an isolated incident. Millions of posts were removed, tens of millions were shadowbanned, delisted, deranked, hidded, supressed, etc. Views questioning natural origin, official policy, vaccina…

Twitter should have been more aggressive with taking down COVID misinformation, not less. I saw "#hydroxychloroquine" trend far too often, with posts advocating using it as a substitute for vaccines at the top of the results upon clicking it.

Are you call Dr. Bhattacharya's warning of the harmful effects on children of lockdowns in schools "COVID misinformation"? How so?

... Did Dr. Bhattacharya promote hydroxychloroquine? I don't think he did. Even searching for those terms, I'm not getting anything.

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

#284

Post by [deleted] »

bavell wrote: post #238
quadrifoliate wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

I very much appreciate your good-faith response even though I'm not entirely convinced (yet?). Getting late for me so I have to bow out for now. I hope we as a community continue to discuss these issues, as it seems to be central to a lot of the problems we face today and will be facing tomorrow.

[deleted]

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

#286

Post by amanaplanacanal »

4bpp wrote: post #273
quadrifoliate wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are using phrases like "blacklisting doctors" and "censorship" while discussing (essentially) a message board that is used to sell advertisements. I don't think that's a reasonable position. Twitter is a private company that wants to sell advertisements by enabling people to have happy conversations. Fundamentally, they are going to optimize for that, and not whatever high-minded ideals of censorship that we hold…

Well, as long as you are in fact consistent about the position that it is "(essentially) a message board that is used to sell advertisements", with the presumable implication being that it is unimportant, replaceable and/or not an important venue for political discussion - and therefore in particular it is not a big deal if it is run into the ground or flipped towards the cause of a political group you are opposed to…

I’m fairly certain that the majority of people don’t give a damn about Twitter. The numbers I’ve seen say that less than a quarter of adults in the US use Twitter. It does appear to be very popular among journalists and politicians though.

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

#287

Post by hyperdunc »

telaelit wrote: post #226

These “Twitter Files” have been so disappointing. I was really expecting to see some crazy stuff, but all I’m seeing is a company that was moderating their content. Even the incident that Weiss points out of someone being doxxed and Twitter doing nothing about it happened under Elon’s rule, and was probably not moderated because of the chaos that Elon created. Even the people that were “shadow banned” makes sense, I’…

In other words, Twitter was moderating user content according to a systemic far-left political bias at the company. But since your bias matches, you don't think it's a big deal.

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

#288

Post by bavell »

tptacek wrote: post #261
somenameforme wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would most people consider an account shadow banned when it can post as normal, yet its post are secretly set to have near zero visibility? The answer is self evident. Twitter tried to redefine shadowbanning to something they do not do, and then put out a post saying they don't shadowban. That is engaging in extremely bad faith. Using the definition as normally understood, is not. There was a post on Hacker News when…

It doesn't matter what "most people" would consider, because Twitter provided their definition of the term at the time. People disagree about all sorts of terms, and that's totally fair, but what Weiss is doing is retconning her own personal definition of the term on Twitter's policy statements, which were unambiguous. She is, in turn, being unambiguously dishonest. It's interesting how selective people are about the…

Right, Twitter provided their own definition which delicately tiptoes around the unsavory issue and Weiss expanded the definition to suit her own self-interests.

How does that make what "most people" would consider not matter? Seems like a non-sequitur to me but maybe I'm not understanding your point.

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

#289

Post by ajvs »

awacs wrote: post #258
user3939382 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They surreptitiously colluded with congressmen and FBI spooks to suppress political speech before an election. I think you’re missing the bigger story here.

Ok, let's say they did, it's a private company, 1st Amendment doesn't apply in the manner you seem to think. In fact it's the opposite, they as an entity / company have 1st Amendment rights to do as they please with content on their platform. That being said, yes they suppressed propaganda and disinformation that could lead to bodily harm (as on J6). People like Fox News hosts pushing disinformation that could lead t…

I'm not sure where to even start with this clearly agitated post. If you genuinely think all disinformation comes from "right wing kooks" you might be in an information bubble.

I would have thought at least the Hunter Biden laptop story pierced that bubble for most people recently by demonstrating these "right wing kooks' were the only ones NOT spreading misinformation.

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

#290

Post by hyperdunc »

wesleywt wrote: post #240

The problem with these "Twitter Files" is that it is being released in the form of "bombshells" when in reality they are exposing nothing. But by doing it in the form of a bombshell the right wing is making it look like they have been oppressed all these years, when it is their voices that are mostly promoted on these platforms.

Either you're kidding, or you're so far left that everything else looks right wing.
Post reply on HN