Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We don’t need a new Twitter

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 102 posts

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#91

Post by Bye_Felicia »

dragonwriter wrote: post #83
Bye_Felicia wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the only thing I concede is that there is a gray area, the in between, as you put it... but aside from that gray area in between, large corporations do not have rights. the end. I understand that libertarian logic uses gray areas as a means to an end of furthering their ideology, but that is not an issue for me.

I'm not asserting a gray area. People have rights. Governments, as a condition of granting the privileges asscoiated with the corporate form, could specifically apply limits to its use (and should do so much more than they do, generally), but to the extent they haven't, people who control corporations don’t lose rights merely because they are acting through them. Corporations don't have rights, because corporations d…

ugh.... do I really have to spell it out for you. LARGE corporations should not have the same rights as individuals.

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#92

Post by Dan_Sylveste »

krapp wrote: post #88
Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and it's restricted in the case of providers of infrastructure deemed essential to the operation of a civil society. Electricity and landline providers can't decline to serve either the KKK or the Black Panthers. Twitter, being the de facto modern public square, should soon be covered by this type of legislation.

Twitter is in no way "the de facto modern public square." It isn't infrastructure.

Twitter is very much the de facto modern public square. I wouldn't call it 'infrastructure' but it's definitely a utility, which is probably why a person who specialises in utilities bought it.

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#93

Post by Dan_Sylveste »

orwin wrote: post #85
Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and it's restricted in the case of providers of infrastructure deemed essential to the operation of a civil society. Electricity and landline providers can't decline to serve either the KKK or the Black Panthers. Twitter, being the de facto modern public square, should soon be covered by this type of legislation.

The only left-wing group i followed on twitter was banned so quickly i thought they posted CP or violence. They did not[0]. [0] https://fr.crimethinc.com/2022/11/25/elon-musk-bans-crimethi...

Lots of pictures of France burning on their site, intriguing.

I guess when it comes down to it I do believe that the platform should be open to all, but there may well be specific times (such as during active and extensive rioting) that strategic delays and slowdowns may need to be inserted to prevent bad actors from using it as a coordinating tool.

I find this regretful, but necessary.

Condemn me. It is of no importance. History will absolve me.

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#94

Post by [deleted] »

TrevorJ wrote: post #86
jryle70 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are participating in a social media site, with "Show HN", "Ask HN", upvotes, downvotes, with appearance controlled by "The Algorithm", all of the hallmark of social media. Your comment is typical social media, with language that provokes extreme emotion ("period", "hate", "stupid", "going to shit"). You fit right in with what you feel outraged about.

Person A: "I think the ship is sinking!" Person B: "Haha, you are ON the ship, you hypocrite!"

[deleted]

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#95

Post by mvdwoord »

KevinMS wrote: post #87
mvdwoord wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't follow people, they don't show up in your feed. If you lurk on the firehose you get it all. Including all the parts you may disagree with or find despicable or... Perhaps also something nice? I really don't get this point... What do you expect exactly on a large platform?

Twitter hasn't change for me in years, I just follow some accounts and read their posts. I'm not interested in what any social media app thinks I will like, I don't have time to waste on that, so I don't use their "discovery" algorithms, it would be like random blogs showing up in my RSS feeds.

This. I even block a bunch of elements, and sponsored tweets. But it seems a lot of people use the app rather than web interface. Not sure why.

Discovery best done via the curated list of accounts I follow.

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#96

Post by orwin »

Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #93
orwin wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only left-wing group i followed on twitter was banned so quickly i thought they posted CP or violence. They did not[0]. [0] https://fr.crimethinc.com/2022/11/25/elon-musk-bans-crimethi...

Lots of pictures of France burning on their site, intriguing. I guess when it comes down to it I do believe that the platform should be open to all, but there may well be specific times (such as during active and extensive rioting) that strategic delays and slowdowns may need to be inserted to prevent bad actors from using it as a coordinating tool. I find this regretful, but necessary. Condemn me. It is of no import…

So I guess removing legal content you don't agree with is okay. Which, I mean, it is, but I just want people to understand the 'new Twitter' isn't as high on 'free speech' as they sell themselves. They banned an account just because they disagreed on their politics (and the motivation was a deleted tweet from 2013 apparently).

The ban wasn't regretful nor necessary, and why should I condemn anyone? I understand why Elon don't like anti-corporate discourse and why it bans it from his platform. I have trouble understanding that he apparently rescinded a ban of someone who posted CP, but at least he's coherent.

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#97

Post by MattDemers »

erickhill wrote: post #46
mvdwoord wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't follow people, they don't show up in your feed. If you lurk on the firehose you get it all. Including all the parts you may disagree with or find despicable or... Perhaps also something nice? I really don't get this point... What do you expect exactly on a large platform?

The default feed is "For You" which absolutely includes people/posts you never followed. Users have to explicitly choose the "Following" feed to only see those posts. And, the setting resets itself constantly. If you aren't diligent, you get the firehose whether you wanted it or not.

While I realize this does nothing for mobile (RIP third-party clients), Control Panel for Twitter [1] has been nice for me to use as a browserscript. Defaults/hides "For You" and tweaks a bunch of other stuff (hideable trends, etc).

[1]: https://github.com/insin/control-panel-for-twitter

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#98

Post by w0de0 »

Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #92
krapp wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is in no way "the de facto modern public square." It isn't infrastructure.

Twitter is very much the de facto modern public square. I wouldn't call it 'infrastructure' but it's definitely a utility, which is probably why a person who specialises in utilities bought it.

Nah. It’s a midsize forum. Reddit is bigger. Mumsnet tier.

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#99

Post by imbnwa »

chilmers wrote: post #37

The article presents small discussion forums as safe and cosy, which they can be, but their insular nature also makes them a perfect breeding ground for extremist views. We shouldn’t ignore that most of the radical politics and conspiracy theories swirling Twitter are born in such small forums.

I mean are we really comparing the niche impact of 00s 4Chan w/ modern Twitter? 00s 4Chan didn't radically alter political discourse in America, and as far as conspiracies go, I mean its not even comparable.

Re: We don’t need a new Twitter

#100

Post by BlueTemplar »

adminu wrote: post #54
ulrischa wrote: post #4

One important part is missing in this article: RSS Feeds! The missing aggregation of news can be done easily with RSS. I'm waiting for a online service that adds tue conversation part to the aggregation part that RSS feeds offer for years

That sounds interesting. Are you thinking about a comment system build into RSS? I am interested in potential future RSS capabilities. Would you mind a chat about that? If so, please drop me an email, see profile.

Google Reader used to have that. Then Google shut it down, probably because they wanted people to use Google+ instead.
Post reply on HN