In the early 00s forums dealt with “trolls” as we labeled them. Moderation was used to keep things on topic and deal with people who did not add to the community, made threats and really made being a moderator annoying. Total free speech gives you 4chan or kiwi farms. There needs to be a balance of content moderation to keep off literal hate speech and threats to prevent that. Twitter would not be a billion+ dollar company with out moderation. So if Elon wants to make the process more open I am all for that but really any one who has dealt with the cesspool forums and social networks can become knows content moderation is needed and moderators are human in the end. Sometimes you simply can’t have a conversation with a troll to correct the behavior.
The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
411–420 of 580 posts
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#412Sorry about off topic but am I banned on top pages of HN? Or is this topic filtered? Recently I don't see this thread on the first 10 pages. Now it's appeared on page 7. It should be more visible with the number of upvote and comment, shouldn't it?
Read HN through Serializer.io, HN homepage is heavily brigaded for years already, completely unusable full of nonsense. You would be better off even reading TOP 24 hours posts through besthackernews.herokuapp.com though I prefer chronological order at Serializer to see new items and it can also sync through unique URL across devices
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's literally in the same thread!
https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601020845224128512
I guess you're reading this and saying that "indirect" violations are the same thing as direct, i.e., defined, violations? Is that what's happening? People downvoting me are being absolute pedants about the definition of "shadow banning," and then just give this part a pass and say it's fine?
I guess this is the world we live in now, in every respect. There's so much STUFF going on, and so much written about the stuff, that people can choose to focus on whichever half they want, and find plenty to support their position. But I still live in a world where the general IDEA is the main thing, and Twitter has been shown to do things outside of their stated policy. And, sure, as someone else pointed out, they're allowed to do whatever they want. But they didn't have to hedge and lie about it.
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "deliberately making someone’s content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster." This happened to my tweet here [1]. It doesn't show up under the parent tweet [2]. It appears to be some sort of domain-based shadow filtering. It's probably because of the cheap .win domain I bought for $2. Why would Twitter censor that link? One could speculate it was because pat…
They explicitly say they don't shadowban people . Pattern matching for moderation is a completely different thing.
The public is still going to interpret that as shadow moderation of people's content.
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#415Quoted post unavailable.
[flagged]
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#416Here'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.
Your comment seems to me to be full of bad faith.
> use an actual journalistic process
There is a journalistic process being followed - two established journalists have been given comprehensive access to internal files and are documenting what they have found, while putting their discoveries in context. Elon is also promising that these files will be released publicly for other journalists and the interested public to pore over at a later date.
> this could be verified with evidence
And who's saying it won't be? This was not Elon volunteering this information himself. This was simply him replying in the affirmative to a question put to him. (And no, it was not a 'leading question'.)
> he hides behind his disdain
> questions that only serve to rile up his base
Not worth replying to these. Just quoting as examples of your bad faith.
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is unreasonable. This is not how companies work. The personal preferences of employees are not what govern the operations of their employer.
Sure would be easier if the world was that black and white but unfortunately there are a lot of gray areas employees encounter which are left up to their subjective judgement.
Tesla employees gave 93% to Democrats; do you think the cars work better if the owner is a Democrat?
Employees of Trump Entertainment Resorts gave 100% to Democrats!
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#418Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If Twitter had a far left moderating bias, explain how Donald Trump remained on the platform for years while repeatedly and unapologetically violating the TOS. It took him using the platform to launch a failed coup to get him banned. Very hard to buy that the platform was a political tool of Democrats when it was being used effectively as a political tool by the leader of the Republican party.
He was POTUS, that's why. And still they got rid of him as soon as they could. Less well known figures got booted for less.
Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#419Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists
#420Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Twitter had a far left moderating bias, explain how Donald Trump remained on the platform for years while repeatedly and unapologetically violating the TOS. It took him using the platform to launch a failed coup to get him banned. Very hard to buy that the platform was a political tool of Democrats when it was being used effectively as a political tool by the leader of the Republican party.
He was POTUS, that's why. And still they got rid of him as soon as they could. Less well known figures got booted for less.
He was POTUS when they got rid of him too. He also wasn’t POTUS while he violated the TOS before he got elected. So your reasoning doesn’t follow
All you’ve done here is confirmed that Trump, a conservative right-wing politician, got treated better by the supposedly biased left-wing Twitter mods than anyone else on the platform. He violated the Twitter TOS daily and got a free pass over and over again by Twitter mods. Really cuts against the “left-wing bias” narrative you’re pushing here imo.