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

391–400 of 580 posts

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

#391

Post by rhaksw »

anigbrowl wrote: post #371
rhaksw wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think there might be a reason two sides aren't talking. Both sides can certainly find a reason not to speak to each other. The left claims the right is hateful, the right claims the left is obscene. It's always been like that, with one having the power to censor the other. Here's an example [1]. One side, a well known entrepeneur/investor, is arguing for no censorship, and the other side, a well known disinformat…

Interesting though these points are (and I'm familiar, as I am personally acquainted with DiResta), I think you are looking at this issue in too abstract a manner. Ther's no obligation to have dialog with others who are actively threatening to kill you. Don't owe them a conversation or even a hearing. I don't disagree with your characterization that 'the left claims the right is hateful, the right claims the left is…

> Ther's no obligation to have dialog with others who are actively threatening to kill you.

I never said there was. Even free speech law has limits and may punish such speech.

What I advocate is for authors of secretly removed content to be able to discover the removal, because even if the comment is vitriolic, the offending author may perceive the lack of a response as tacit approval of their words.

> But there is a clear qualitative difference between the two sides in terms of the willingness to insinuate, actually issue, and finally carry out death threats

Left wing extremists are currently saying that words are violence [1]. This is wrong, short of something that "in context, directly causes specific imminent serious harm", a definition from Nadine Strossen [2].

[1] https://archive.ph/1NeiV

[2] https://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&id=whBQDwAAQBAJ&q=in+c...

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

#393

Post by iinnPP »

croes wrote: post #299
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…

Isn't near zero visibility the norm for most users?

I have been shadowbanned on Twitter and it is very different, even with no followers. I don't even know what caused it but it might have been reporting a person who was inciting violence (who subsequently committed said violence). Ever since then Twitter has been blocked on my network.

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

#394

Post by user3939382 »

michaelmrose wrote: post #292
user3939382 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The people I disagree with politically can have free speech in the mediums that have the least reach while my political tribe will freely exercise our speech on the mediums with the most reach” is a bad faith argument I keep hearing from fake leftists who are really hardline authoritarians.

The mediums which have the most reach have the most reach explicitly because they have less spam porn hate and crazy. If twitter gets more "democratic" more crazy, more hateful, less desirable and less popular shall we suggest the next big platform welcome an equal number of undesirables?

The problem is that for a lot of people “hate and crazy” is a euphemism for “political ideas I disagree with”.

This isn’t new or original. Anyone can classify their political opponents as crazy, dumb, misguided, “hateful” is the new one, ignorant, *ist.

I think a healthier framing is, people who disagree with me politically have their reasons for doing so and the best for everyone is if we have a dialog.

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

#395

Post by nrki »

oska wrote: post #377

Here's a hint to a further revelation for those who continue to pretend that the Twitter Files are a 'nothingburger'. Ian Miles Cheong : > So here’s a question for @elonmusk and @bariweiss: were any political candidates — either in the US or elsewhere — subject to shadowbanning while they were running for office or seeking re-election? Elon : > Yes https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1601123235755487233

Come now, this could be verified with evidence. I'm sure these actions exist in a database and email trail. Musk could release the evidence himself, or use an actual journalistic process and have someone impartial review it. But there is none, and so he hides behind his disdain of "the MSM" and posts yes/no answers to leading questions that only serve to rile up his base.

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

#396

Post by mandmandam »

iudqnolq wrote: post #314
mandmandam wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't like the term misinformation. I don't think Twitter should have restricted his tweets. However, it's important to remember Bhattacharya was wrong. In the op-ed posted above he guessed that the predicted death toll of 2-4 million people was off by multiple orders of magnitude. He said that dramatic interventions like lockdowns would be justified to prevent that kind of death toll, but that COVID was nowhere ne…

He was responding to an estimate that placed the death toll at 3.4%.

The highest estimates now seem to be at around .28%.

That's more than an order of magnitude. He wasn't all that wrong.

Also, he advised focusing efforts on the most vulnerable; the elderly and people with comorbidities. He was very right there too. All those vaccines into kids and lockdowns of schools after the elderly were triple-vaccinated was a stunning misallocation of resources.

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

#397

Post by ModernMech »

rhaksw wrote: post #391
anigbrowl wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting though these points are (and I'm familiar, as I am personally acquainted with DiResta), I think you are looking at this issue in too abstract a manner. Ther's no obligation to have dialog with others who are actively threatening to kill you. Don't owe them a conversation or even a hearing. I don't disagree with your characterization that 'the left claims the right is hateful, the right claims the left is…

> Ther's no obligation to have dialog with others who are actively threatening to kill you. I never said there was. Even free speech law has limits and may punish such speech. What I advocate is for authors of secretly removed content to be able to discover the removal, because even if the comment is vitriolic, the offending author may perceive the lack of a response as tacit approval of their words. > But there is a…

> Left wing extremists are currently saying that words are violence [1].

It’s the Republican, Trump-appointed, FBI director’s assessment that extremist right-wing political violence (read homegrown right-wing terrorism) is far and away a bigger problem than left-wing violence.

Jan 6 I hoped would have demonstrated that clearly once and for all. After that day, it has become impossible to “both sides” political violence in the US — it really is asymmetrically coming from the right.

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

#399

Post by rhaksw »

ModernMech wrote: post #397
rhaksw wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ther's no obligation to have dialog with others who are actively threatening to kill you. I never said there was. Even free speech law has limits and may punish such speech. What I advocate is for authors of secretly removed content to be able to discover the removal, because even if the comment is vitriolic, the offending author may perceive the lack of a response as tacit approval of their words. > But there is a…

> Left wing extremists are currently saying that words are violence [1]. It’s the Republican, Trump-appointed, FBI director’s assessment that extremist right-wing political violence (read homegrown right-wing terrorism) is far and away a bigger problem than left-wing violence. Jan 6 I hoped would have demonstrated that clearly once and for all. After that day, it has become impossible to “both sides” political violen…

It's not my intent to pick sides. I highlighted the left there only because parent focused on the right.

Regarding shadow moderation, I can promise you that every side of every issue in every geography and on every major platform uses it. See the talk linked in my profile for examples.

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

#400

Post by notacoward »

bavell wrote: post #179
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,…

> 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…

> It reinforces your position so I understand why you're defining it as such

The same could be said of Weiss or (by implication) you. "Shadow banning" sounds scary, which is precisely why people are flinging it around carelessly but also precisely why they shouldn't.

Post reply on HN