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

511–520 of 580 posts

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

#511

Post by root_axis »

darkpatterns wrote: post #508
root_axis wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't prove that. This reasoning is like saying the law oppresses men because they are disproportionately convicted of violent crimes.

Don't read anything into this, but can you see the next step here if you replace "men" with "black men"? Is this actually the point you want to make?

I don't see how that changes anything except to make the analogy politically fraught and easier to derail. The logic remains the same. Certainly, conservatives have no problem with the logic if you modify the analogy as you have suggested.

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

#512

Post by throwawayacc3 »

ergocoder wrote: post #312
throwawayacc3 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Four Stages: 1. It's not happening. 2. It's happening, but it's equally applied. 3. It's not equally applied and that's a good thing. 4. We already knew about it. Why is this news? ^---- You are here.

5. TruthSocial does it too

Exactly!

"Fascist do it, but it's justifiable when we do it because we are moral and the ends justify our means. We're moral because our name is literally antifascist!"

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

#513

Post by pablok2 »

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,…

If we had insight about why the restrictions were applied, it would likely be more alarming. But this response in particular is a product of desensitized, you can't argue that morals and views have shifted even if you were a mod at some point, especially now e.g. post-Covid, post-Trump.

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

#514

Post by hmoodie »

A priori, I think the idea of someone buying a prominent company and releasing internal communications about controversial decisions of the past is super interesting. Is it unprecedented?

It's a shame that he's choosing to go about it in this way. Releasing things in a slow drip via two uhhhh lets say highly polarizing pundits is bad for transparency. Everything people are seeing is first filtered through and framed by these two people. Wouldn't it be better to simply release the raw data all at once and let people comb through it? I know he says he's going to do that later, but why not now?

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

#515

Post by darkpatterns »

root_axis wrote: post #511
darkpatterns wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't read anything into this, but can you see the next step here if you replace "men" with "black men"? Is this actually the point you want to make?

I don't see how that changes anything except to make the analogy politically fraught and easier to derail. The logic remains the same. Certainly, conservatives have no problem with the logic if you modify the analogy as you have suggested.

My only point that as with anything (and especially with crime statistics), "it's just not that simple" and nuance matters, in the sense that (in the modified analogy), to say at least some systemic racism doesn't exist in the way the prison stats play out seems naive at best, it seems similarly naive to assume there's no bias in this case as well.

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

#516

Post by yucky »

etchalon wrote: post #470
yucky wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we can now expect the leading health experts in the world to be potentially speaking in hyperbole, then we can't expect the public to trust what they say to be accurate. That's a problem.

If you take someone casually rounding up from 90% to 100% as a deep reason for concern, I have some bad news for you regarding weather forecasts.

No expert in any field would tell you that "casually rounding from 90% to 100%" should ever be done in any serious setting. Ever.

Idiots on the Internet are free to do so, but not the Director of the CDC or the US President. That gets people killed.

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

#517

Post by root_axis »

darkpatterns wrote: post #515
root_axis wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that changes anything except to make the analogy politically fraught and easier to derail. The logic remains the same. Certainly, conservatives have no problem with the logic if you modify the analogy as you have suggested.

My only point that as with anything (and especially with crime statistics), "it's just not that simple" and nuance matters, in the sense that (in the modified analogy), to say at least some systemic racism doesn't exist in the way the prison stats play out seems naive at best, it seems similarly naive to assume there's no bias in this case as well.

Obviously nothing is "just that simple", if that's your only point so be it, but that isn't telling us much since this is true of literally everything.

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

#518

Post by michaelmrose »

user3939382 wrote: post #466
HDThoreaun wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is that you can't accept that twitter users don't want to engage with your bs, and that lead to twitter shadow banning it.

They banned political speech they disagreed with, and it sounds like you're happy they did. > your bs I have no dog in the fight. > twitter users don't want to engage with The country, however, is pretty evenly divided along ideological lines so there is no homogeneous "twitter users" group.

You are free to run your own website if you don't like your placement in trending topics or users feeds kind of like you can share your videos on your blog if ABC wont carry it.

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

#519

Post by oska »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #424
oska wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twitter is a private company that wants to sell advertisements by enabling people to have happy conversations. No, Twitter's mission statement is "to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers" [1] Nothing in there about 'happy conversations' and, while selling advertising has been and may continue to be a means to fund this mission, it is not part of their mission.…

Enron's company values were "Respect, Integrity, Communication and Excellence". https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/19/opinion/enron-s-vision-an...

So what's your point? That Twitter's mission statement has always been purely empty PR?

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

#520

Post by tptacek »

vxNsr wrote: post #339
tptacek wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thread is about the false claims Weiss is making, not about your own opinions on moderation. What you should do, if you want to share those, is start a new top-level thread on this story. I'm sure what you have to say is germane to the story. It's just not germane to the thread you're commenting on.

You seem very set on keeping this top level thread on the topic you believe you won the argument on, and are refusing to discuss anything else in a very condescending tone. Just thought you should know your thinly veiled attempts at controlling the conversation to "win" aren't going unnoticed. I'll also add that you're wrong about the topic of the thread, bavell's point is absolutely on topic and the only reason you'…

If a person makes an argument, and you rebut it with a bunch of unrelated arguments, the original arguer isn't obligated to address the unrelated arguments. You think they are, but in fact, that's the coercive argument, not mine.

The assumptive close might sell a used car, but "you just won't admit it" isn't especially persuasive on a message board.

If I wanted to control the debate (or however you'd choose to put it) on this benighted subject, all I'd have to do is keep posting on the thread, which immediately and thankfully got yanked off the front page by the flamewar detector. Oh, wait. You caught me! :)

Post reply on HN