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

Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation

blog.twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 504 posts

Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation

#141

Post by PM_me_your_math »

snapcaster wrote: post #117
PM_me_your_math wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you demonstrate them as such? And can you validate your demonstration by eliminating the content produced by bots and sock puppets?

I see comments like this frequently on hackernews and i'm curious on your motivation. Do you actually use twitter so this comment isn't lining up with your expectations? Do you not use twitter and expect this person to justify their experience by doing further research? What is _actually_ motivating you to comment like this?

In order presented: Yes. No. You mean, it is not obvious? I am motivated by curiosity.

A claim was made that is not supported. It isn't unreasonable to request such a claim to be validated by demonstration.

Personally, I have not seen an increase in "hate" or violence or bigotry or any other -ism or -ist. I've seen people disagree in a much more whole-hearted way, while at the same time, seeing prompts for reducing the strength of language. For example, you get a pop up if you write "I think you are stupid" but not "I think you are silly."

Quid pro quo: what is _actually_ motivating you to comment like this?

Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation

#142

Post by s2radhak »

pram wrote: post #105
chomp wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a town square - a town square is public. Twitter is a private organization. In this case, Twitter is the tavern. The Internet is the town square.

Is Facebook the town dilapidated mall full of geezers getting their daily walks?

No, it's the dilapidated mall full of geezers getting their daily walks that the Zuck creepily stares at for ad revenue

Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation

#143

Post by cyberphobe »

toolz wrote: post #129
cyberphobe wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon is pretty clearly unbanning violent right-wing extremists while banning rule-following accounts on the left, sometimes transparently at the direction of the right wingers. Why do you insist on pretending anything else?

Which rule following accounts on the left have been banned since musk bought the company? I only know of a couple accounts that were banned for very clearly violating terms of service, i.e. impersonating other people. I personally don't agree with even those bans, but I am curious to know which rule followers were banned.

https://www.newsweek.com/activists-accuse-elon-musk-banning-... mentions a few, although there are far more.

Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation

#144

Post by nickthegreek »

rnk wrote: post #123
nickthegreek wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that paul pelosi is a gay man who got beat up by a prostitute he picked up while drinking. https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/30/business/musk-tweet-pelosi-co...

Who is musk hanging out with or reading that encourages his crazy views; he didn't use to be that way, I almost feel sorry that one of the world's riches people is so full of self-justifying bs. For most humans, the idea that you'd laugh at an attack on an 80 year person with a hammer in their home is horrible, out of bounds. There's no reason to believe this story is true of course, but on top of not laughing at hor…

The issue might be he isn't hanging out with enough real people and instead just drinking the koolaid of those @'ing him. Lil bit of the ol' chronically online sickness.

Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation

#145

Post by HWR_14 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #84
generalizations wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like A/B tests approach anything like the rigor that we expect from actual science, though.

Most scientists likely wish they could get the rigor of a company like Twitter's a/b testing suite.

Why wouldn't Twitter (or similarly large companies) have open-sourced their a/b testing suite? It's not like the math there is proprietary.

I mean, I'm sure the parameters to the math are proprietary. But the basic math seems simple enough.

Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation

#146

Post by w0m »

janoc wrote: post #38
andreyk wrote: post #12

TLDR: this post is entirely to calm advertisers, it can be boiled down to "don't worry, we still prioritize brand safety like before". It does have this gem in it: "What has changed, however, is our approach to experimentation. As you’ve seen over the past several weeks, Twitter is embracing public testing. We believe that this open and transparent approach to innovation is healthy, as it enables us to move faster an…

How is that different from Tesla essentially using Tesla car owners as unpaid betatesters for their autonomous driving (and other) software while disclaiming all responsibility when anything happens? This "learn by doing" is going to end up well ... not. Especially when trying to learn by repeating mistakes with completely foreseable consequences, like that blue "verified" badge being available for anyone who pays wi…

> using Tesla car owners as unpaid betatesters

Almost right.

Charging Tesla owners to beta test their autonomous driving software.

Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation

#147

Post by radicaldreamer »

dragonwriter wrote: post #133
radicaldreamer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't "scientific" to begin with but what's happening right now is pretty clearly panicked throwing stuff at the wall based on Elon's intuition and day to day demands... while that may have worked for him in the past, I don't think it's going to work as well in this domain where you're working with a complex system dependent on millions of people's behaviors and incentives.

> while that may have worked for him in the past Did it? The nature of Tesla and his other current businesses buffer that a bit even if it has been his approach, and it seems to have gotten him thrown out as CEO at X.com twice ; among the things going on Twitter seems to be Musk trying to relitigate his failure at X.com without other investors being in a position to kick him out, but he seems to be piling up existent…

It does kind of seem like he's addicted to dancing on the edge of cliffs

Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation

#149

Post by phpisthebest »

snapcaster wrote: post #117
PM_me_your_math wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you demonstrate them as such? And can you validate your demonstration by eliminating the content produced by bots and sock puppets?

I see comments like this frequently on hackernews and i'm curious on your motivation. Do you actually use twitter so this comment isn't lining up with your expectations? Do you not use twitter and expect this person to justify their experience by doing further research? What is _actually_ motivating you to comment like this?

>>Do you actually use twitter so this comment isn't lining up with your expectations?

yes, and I see zero hate or other issues with content on my feed

> What is _actually_ motivating you to comment like this?

I hate when people attribute opening the Overton window to more than just Extreme left authoritarian political opinions, which is what Political Twitter was isolated to before elon, is some how a bad thing

Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation

#150

Post by [deleted] »

sosodev wrote: post #50
Macha wrote: post #8

> First, none of our policies have changed. Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach. "Nothing has changed, except..." > Our Trust & Safety team continues its diligent work to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct, abusive behavior, and any violation of Twitter's rules. The team remains strong and well-resourc…

Yeah... Also, the unbanning of users previously considered hateful also directly conflicts with "to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct"

[deleted]
Post reply on HN