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

Twitter's Fucked

degoes.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 398 posts

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#121

Post by overcast »

SeanDav wrote: post #12

I am probably in a very small minority, but I have never seen the point of Twitter. It has almost limitless potential to destroy your life by taking something out of context and copying it to millions. I shudder to think of the number of times I have made a tasteless throwaway comment or colourful joke that, if taken out of context, would have had dire consequences. It has almost limitless potential to take up all yo…

You're obviously not in a small minority, most of the world does not use Twitter. I've had accounts on there for my name, random projects I've started, and I've to this day not found anything worth my time. Coupled with overall disinterest recently in social platforms, I've been systematically just removing myself from them. The amount of time wasted on things like Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc, is now redirected towards reading more, traveling more, finishing projects, sleeping more, and enjoying a social life outside of a virtual one.

I'm going to say something crazy, but I don't think the future of the internet is going to be a MORE social one. We're already at the saturation point, where people are just getting completely sick of updating their status, keeping up with a thousand conversations on Tinder that go no where, posting pics, tagging people, and on and on. I think there is going to be a breaking point where people are just going to actively unplug. You're already seeing it with the resurgence of board games. People want real human interactions.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#122

Post by adrianratnapala »

snaky wrote: post #89
gadders wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says that Milo didn't deserve what he got, and I agree. You may not agree with his politics but people of all stripes have done worse. I guess we'll end up with a conservative twitter clone, and a liberal twitter, and no-one will ever face the "danger" of seeing viewpoints they disagree with.

Conservatives are ok with freedom of speech, 'safe zones' are invented by progressives.

In the US, and in this particular decade it is true that the left is keenest on actual politicking to create censorship. But in terms of the human weakness of not wanting to hear arguments against your own POV, then the right is at least as bad.

I think the difference behind the political fireworks is this: conservatives already revel in sub-communities like churches where they can protect themselves from unwanted speech. Progressives are starting to dominate open places like universities to the extent that they want the same privilege there.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#123

Post by ivraatiems »

TorKlingberg wrote: post #109
ivraatiems wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, like any good social media platform, they have no actual support. It's impossible by design to ever speak to an actual human who works at Twitter except via form-email smoke signals.

Well, having people answer phones costs money, and you are not paying for Twitter. Your "data" and "eyeballs" aren't actually worth much. Would you be ok with a premium rate number where you pay per minute?

Actually, that's... not a terrible idea. It's not the best idea, but pulled off right, a simple "we'll help you but if it's not a security issue, site downage or a serious harassment incident you gotta pay" is way better than current help models for social media/large sites.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#124

Post by niftich »

guelo wrote: post #108

This makes no sense. Several of the issues he identifies are also problems on Facebook but they haven't hurt that network: 140 Characters: I rarely see "thoughtful exchange of complex ideas" on Facebook which allows as much text as you can type. Perverse Mechanics: it's the same metrics used on Facebook and every other social network out there. Terrible Filtering: Same filtering as Facebook.

Facebook requires a real name and most people provide it, because they also use it as a Friends & Family social network. We've also drilled into an entire generation's heads that employers will check Facebook, so realistically most of the conversation on Facebook these days is either carefully groomed, or Tumblr-style Buzzfeed reposts, or personal updates scoped to friends & family.

Twitter is intended to be public -- as private accounts vastly limit your audience, and at that point, you have much better alternatives to share content within your circle like Tumblr or Facebook or Instagram. You can adopt a pseudonymous identity, and most importantly, you can tag (ie. 'reply to') other public accounts, essentially arbitrary people.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#125

Post by codingdave »

The problem is deeper than these details -- Twitter's product doesn't solve a problem.

It adds communication to the world, with certain unique flavors... and some people have found ways to use it to improve reporting on news, events, or marketing. Some people have found ways to solve minor problems for themselves, specifically. And because of those things, it has found its traction.

But there is no major underlying problem shared by millions that Twitter solves. Which is why it also struggles to maintain a userbase.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#126

Post by nostromo »

Neetpeople wrote: post #105
ivraatiems wrote: post #3

Yep. Yep, yep, yep. And Twitter's response is to ban some, but not all harassers, using the algorithm of "whoever is high profile and we don't like politically." That gives said harassers surprisingly legitimate reasons to claim censorship by Twitter as a company, despite the fact that they were in clear violation of Twitter's ToS and deserved to be banned. I refer of course to the Milo Yiannopoulos situation (edit:…

I have personally lost the belief that you can actually change someone's opinion on almost anything. So an echo chamber doesn't have to be a bad thing. I think people overestimate the value of having your beliefs challenged, does it ever really change someone's mind? If that's the case, you might as well view twitter as entertainment and to clue into the things you care about, in which case it can be pretty useful.

You can change someone's mind once you know someone's mind, through deep empathy.

My friends and I can change each other's minds quite often, by approaching arguments from their own rubric. For example, by drawing an analogy between the topic of discussion and one of their deeply held views, exposing some dissonance.

But it takes time, empathy, and understanding. Which is to say I doubt it ever happens on the internet.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#127

Post by bleair »

Neetpeople wrote: post #105
ivraatiems wrote: post #3

Yep. Yep, yep, yep. And Twitter's response is to ban some, but not all harassers, using the algorithm of "whoever is high profile and we don't like politically." That gives said harassers surprisingly legitimate reasons to claim censorship by Twitter as a company, despite the fact that they were in clear violation of Twitter's ToS and deserved to be banned. I refer of course to the Milo Yiannopoulos situation (edit:…

I have personally lost the belief that you can actually change someone's opinion on almost anything. So an echo chamber doesn't have to be a bad thing. I think people overestimate the value of having your beliefs challenged, does it ever really change someone's mind? If that's the case, you might as well view twitter as entertainment and to clue into the things you care about, in which case it can be pretty useful.

I think you're right, but it's my hope that if you both communicate with true intentions you can come to understand a part of the perspective of the other person and why they believe what they believe.

You won't charge their mind, but maybe you won't see each other in such negative light for what each person believes.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#128

Post by eropple »

throwanem wrote: post #106
eropple wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain to me how effective blocking individuals is when you're being spammed by dozens and hundreds of people with so little to do that they will happily go create egg accounts to continue harassing you. It's not practical or feasible to block all of them. So people should delete their accounts because they get brigaded? To hell with that, and with the people who think that is a social norm worth protecting. "Crybul…

Without taking a stance on either side of this contentious issue, I would note that it should be technically feasible to offer an option which would auto-block any account that hasn't established a certain extent of "not a troll sockpuppet" bona fides - for example, by being more than a few weeks old, and having a certain degree of engagement with the community at large. Accounts which fail to meet these criteria, an…

I hear and respect what you're saying, but I don't think you can technologically fix a social problem. Twitter needs moderation, and I don't think that's practically accomplished with a purely technological solution. Assholes simply don't have a right to be there, and Twitter has a responsibility to its userbase to not subject them to it at all, rather than merely "well, machine learning" to a merely intermittently abusive, rather than constantly abusive, state.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#129

Post by throwanem »

eropple wrote: post #128
throwanem wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without taking a stance on either side of this contentious issue, I would note that it should be technically feasible to offer an option which would auto-block any account that hasn't established a certain extent of "not a troll sockpuppet" bona fides - for example, by being more than a few weeks old, and having a certain degree of engagement with the community at large. Accounts which fail to meet these criteria, an…

I hear and respect what you're saying, but I don't think you can technologically fix a social problem. Twitter needs moderation , and I don't think that's practically accomplished with a purely technological solution. Assholes simply don't have a right to be there, and Twitter has a responsibility to its userbase to not subject them to it at all, rather than merely "well, machine learning" to a merely intermittently…

Of course you're absolutely right. What I'd really like to see out of Twitter is a fair, unbiased moderation team that's up to the challenge of operating at Twitter scale.

But I'm not even sure that's possible, and even if it is, it'll take a long time to build - and in the meantime, a system like the one I sketched in my prior comment, augmented with an ability to communicate "hey something looks to be going on here" to human moderators when necessary, seems like a reasonable stepping stone.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#130

Post by drabiega »

snaky wrote: post #89
gadders wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says that Milo didn't deserve what he got, and I agree. You may not agree with his politics but people of all stripes have done worse. I guess we'll end up with a conservative twitter clone, and a liberal twitter, and no-one will ever face the "danger" of seeing viewpoints they disagree with.

Conservatives are ok with freedom of speech, 'safe zones' are invented by progressives.

The liberals are who take safe zones too far are the same type of people as the conservatives who view any disagreement with them as censorship.
Post reply on HN