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

181–190 of 398 posts

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#181

Post by abiox »

MustardTiger wrote: post #141
exolymph wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other people choose do with their privately-owned platforms does not limit anyone's freedom of speech, as the law currently stands.

You are confusing freedom of speech with "the right to freedom of speech". Me restricting your freedom of speech is still restricting your freedom of speech, it is just legal and does not violate the first amendment. The government restricting your freedom of speech is not legal, and violates the first amendment.

what is "freedom of speech" outside the context of law?

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#183

Post by ivraatiems »

michaelbuddy wrote: post #168
ivraatiems wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yeah and that's a Trump specific forum and they have RULES on the side for what is banned. Contrast that with r/news where it's purported to be 'news' not some partisan subreddit. You will get banned for having an opinion mods don't like. Not only that but those same mods will simply ban you from other subreddits they are mods for. r/news and r/worldnews was hit with that the other day. You're example is false equiva…

No, that's exactly my point. They have no desire to make a concession to free speech. They don't value free speech. Their ideology does not value free speech. My point is that modern neocons (who are really just neoprogressives progressing down a different line of reasoning) don't value free speech or reasonable discourse.

Having rules that say "we don't value free speech or discourse" doesn't excuse them.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#184

Post by dabockster »

>This means if you follow someone for what they have to say about professional improv comedy, you also get to hear them trash your religion, berate the intelligence of people who vote the way you do, and otherwise rant about and retweet topics you don’t want to hear about.

I actually like this aspect of non-filtering. It forces exposure to differing opinions and makes people think.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#185

Post by EGreg »

csixty4 wrote: post #118
EGreg wrote: post #44

In addition, Twitter lets anyone contact anyone with any kind of content, and will send a notification to the recipient. As a result, any person or bot with a Twitter account has the ability to interrupt your life with an invasive, hateful message at any time. What? I thought they had to follow you for your Direct Message to reach them. So I can contact potential advisors through twitter if I can't figure out their e…

You can open up your DMs so anybody can message you now.

I believe you are wrong:

https://cl.ly/0a2C3d432i1W

https://support.twitter.com/articles/14606

It does say If you are sending Direct Messages to accounts that do not follow you, you may need to verify your phone number. and I did verify my phone number - still nothing.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#186

Post by TheOneTrueKyle »

ivraatiems wrote: post #114
Neetpeople wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 somebody's opinion, just not through one direct interaction. An opinion change requires time, internal rationalization, and repeated exposure. An echo chamber is bad because it not only repeatedly re-broadcasts beliefs, it also amplifies them. "The President is wrong and should be voted out of office" can turn into "The President is wrong and ought to be shot" in an echo chamber environment much faster…

Most likely at that point, they are making the opinion for themselves and you probably have very little in the decision making

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#187

Post by dabockster »

ajacksified wrote: post #136
ivraatiems wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or [insert 2016 social network] for that matter.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#188

Post by tedunangst »

devishard wrote: post #116

My rule is that if nobody would pay for your service, you probably don't have a worthwhile business. If Google instituted a $0.99 monthly fee to use Google search, people would line up to pay it. They don't have to, because their business model works differently, but they could do that, and it would work. I'd probably pay for an account. If Facebook instituted a $0.99 monthly fee to use that, a lot of people would do…

Is that not exactly what app.net is? They have hardly taken all of Twitter's users.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#189

Post by dabockster »

intoverflow2 wrote: post #27
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.

>It's impossible by design to ever speak to an actual human who works at Twitter There absolutely is, if you have a friend of a friend work there in which case you can get special backchannel treatment and they'll ban whomever tweets something unpleasant at you.

Isn't this the case at most of the "trendy" tech companies?

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#190

Post by stcredzero »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #86
stcredzero wrote: post #66

The severe limitation on the size of tweets selects for puerile violence rather than thoughtful, mutually satisfying interactions. It's not just the size of tweets, though that does exacerbate things. The entire attention economy of online social media rewards viral attention, and therefore it rewards outrage politics. (Politics in the general sense of Homo sapiens following its social mammal instincts.)

Give them 500 characters. It doesn't matter it's the commons. You want people to behave? Teach real civics in the schools.

It doesn't matter it's the commons.

Oh yes, it does! There's a ton of historical, economic, and game theoretic work that indicates this matters. A lot!

You want people to behave? Teach real civics in the schools.

That only provides the information, not the incentive. If you want people to behave, give them a stake in society.

Post reply on HN