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

131–140 of 398 posts

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#131

Post by atemerev »

braythwayt wrote: post #101
atemerev wrote: post #33

People are tired from crybullies. We need a place where freedom of speech still matters. Freedom of speech doesn't include invading someone's privacy (this is illegal; doxxing, stalking etc. should be banned and actively fought against). But if you can't handle insults, it is not anyone's job to prevent them. There's always "Block" button, and then, there's always "delete account" button.

First, I don't think you speak for "People," just the kind of people who are just like you. For example, I have never used the expression "crybullies," and if I did, it would probably be to describe the kind of white male who gets on a place like HN and cries that his freedom to be a raging asshole in somebody else's privately owned medium is being trampled by moderation. But back to your point, I will argue with it…

> First, I don't think you speak for "People," just the kind of people who are just like you.

Of course, just like you do and everybody else is doing. Therefore, my opinion is just my opinion, and if somebody insults me, it is their opinion, and I am not obliged to react to it in any way. I might, if it would be someone I know and respect, but an anonymous account created two weeks ago just to post a random insult in my direction? I'd be flattered I am _that_ important for somebody.

And as you have just said, Twitter is a private company. They can serve needs of people like you or people like me (and I do not engage in insults, this is immature — but I do value freedom of speech and its total independence from the current PC handbook du jour). The question is what is more profitable and what is more aligned with founder's values.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#132

Post by adrianratnapala »

sievebrain wrote: post #88
sksixk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

agree. all these "fixes" are to change what twitter is. twitter is a short-form, _immediate_ publishing platform. it's great for what's happening _now_. i don't want to read long-form pieces that took 2 days of editing. i think moments and periscope are good steps. not perfect, but they emphasize _now_.

There's a big spectrum in-between an essay that took two days to write and a tweet. Hacker News is a good example of messages that are long enough to say something useful and short enough to not require any commitment by the reader. I dislike the way the article uses the word "violence". Nothing that happens on Twitter is violent. The definition of violence right from a Google search for "define:violence" is behavior…

Yep.

I can understand that he wants to make a distinction between aggressive word usage, and non-aggressive. But calling it "violence" is hyperbolic, and dangerous to free speech.

Threats of and exhortations to violence are universally considered unprotected by free speech. So people who dislike other peoples speech have an incentive to call it "violence".

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#133

Post by bitL »

Twitter's role is in providing a nice mirror to narcissists. There is a huge population segment with these characteristics and Twitter's existence is guaranteed unless somebody comes with even more beautiful mirror. That's how they get their numbers; anything beyond that is just piggybacked on top of this.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#134

Post by MustardTiger »

ivraatiems wrote: post #103
snaky wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Definitely not true of current neocons. They use freedom of speech as a cover for "let me say whatever I want to say" while ignoring it when it suits them. As a live-right-now example, the mods of /r/The_Donald on Reddit are preemtively banning users before Trump's AMA to prevent dissent, and have stated plainly they will delete any unflattering questions.

That sub has never had anything to do with free speech. It is an incredibly restricted hubox/circlejerk, and is very clear about this. They don't use freedom of speech as a cover, they outright say they don't value it at all.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#135

Post by j2kun »

> In fact, it’s hard or even impossible to fit a single intelligent thought into 140 characters.

He said, in fewer than 140 characters...

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#136

Post by ajacksified »

ivraatiems wrote: post #40
gaius wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only "safe" way to use Twitter now is as an echo chamber - only follow people you like, only talk to people who think the same way you do. That is by no means safe, when brigaders are actively looking for opportunities for whipping up a mob.

True. I should add "and use copious blocklists and never look at your mentions" to that list. Basically, you'd get the same experience by having an email list of your friends.

Or Facebook.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#137

Post by Grue3 »

eropple wrote: post #85
atemerev wrote: post #33

People are tired from crybullies. We need a place where freedom of speech still matters. Freedom of speech doesn't include invading someone's privacy (this is illegal; doxxing, stalking etc. should be banned and actively fought against). But if you can't handle insults, it is not anyone's job to prevent them. There's always "Block" button, and then, there's always "delete account" button.

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…

There are social networks (Facebook, Tumblr) where you can turn off the ability to be messaged by people you don't friend/mutually follow. Getting attacked by trolls? Shut it down, and enjoy the silence.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#138

Post by MrZongle2 »

atemerev wrote: post #33

People are tired from crybullies. We need a place where freedom of speech still matters. Freedom of speech doesn't include invading someone's privacy (this is illegal; doxxing, stalking etc. should be banned and actively fought against). But if you can't handle insults, it is not anyone's job to prevent them. There's always "Block" button, and then, there's always "delete account" button.

"People are tired from crybullies. We need place when freedom of speech still matters."

That's not going to exist in any medium that is controlled by a single organization, whether that's a government, nonprofit, or corporation.

If one person (or a small group of people) can pull the plug, eventually it will get pulled.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#139

Post by jdp23 »

> I actually think that, for technology companies, more people will choose providers that are completely non-political.

There's no way for a tech company to be "completely non-political." So I actually think that people will continue to prefer providers whose politics they see as compatible with theirs. And it seems to me that tech companies like Google and Microsoft and Apple (in their public pushback against government surveillance) and AirBnB (bringing in Eric Holder to do a non-discrimination policy) see things similarly.

Specifically when it comes to harassment and hate speech, while I certainly agree with his points of making it easier for people to protect themselves, in the end there's no way to avoid taking a political stance. Twitter (like Facebook and most other large social networks) has a policy that "you may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease". Obviously that's an inherently political position. But conversely, not having a policy like that -- saying that attacking, threatening, and promoting violence against people based on these characteristics is okay and it's up to them to use the tools to insulate themselves from it -- is just as political. There really isn't a neutral position.

[Of course this is the same guy who doesn't see that a decision to let Curtis Yarvin speak at his conference is just as political as a decision not to. To be clear, I'm not saying it was a right or wrong decision; I'm just saying it was political either way.]

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#140

Post by braythwayt »

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…

FWIW, even attempting technological solutions sends a signal of a sort. It's probably a "Red Queen's Race" to stay ahead of determined abusers, just as it's difficult to conquer spam, but one side-effect of making a concerted effort to try is that Twitter would be sending an unambiguous message about limits on behaviour.
Post reply on HN