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

181–190 of 504 posts

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

#181

Post by jsmith45 »

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, I'm betting that a lot of advertisers will have concerns being on a platform that does not try to delete things like hate speech, but merely "demonetize it, and negatively boost it.

If I were an advertiser Twitter would be on my "never advertise here again" list, and I might re-evaluate in a decade or so. Besides look at the slimy ads have been common on twitter in the last 2 weeks. I would not want my ads showing up alongside those.

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

#182

Post by philippejara »

Waterluvian wrote: post #163
williamstein wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some pure mathematics is actually rigorous.

Hah! You're fast. I was about to comment on that: "actual math" probably exists. "actual science" probably doesn't. I'm not sure any experiment can ever be free from error, uncertainty, trade-offs. (And now I'm super curious about this...) Thanks though. I've narrowed my original comment to more accurately represent the scope I am referring to.

to be fair whether mathematics is a science or not is debated[0], so your initial claim might very well stand true depending on which side one takes in the argument.

[0]:https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/10178/is-math...

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

#183

Post by therouwboat »

rvz wrote: post #58
monero-xmr wrote: post #18

First Twitter was going to crash in a week, then it was everyone would flee to Mastodon, now it’s that all the advertisers would leave. Maybe Twitter really didn’t need 7500 people, and maybe having more voices speak is a good thing (there is always block button), and maybe advertisers won’t flee forever. That seems more likely to me than Twitter imploding.

> Maybe Twitter really didn’t need 7500 people, and maybe having more voices speak is a good thing (there is always block button), and maybe advertisers won’t flee forever. That seems more likely to me than Twitter imploding. Exactly. 7,500 is far too much to run a site like Twitter which at the time, it was already running itself to the ground. But it seems just like the so-called mass advertiser migration from Face…

Why are remaining workers asked to be hardcore and do long days if there is nothing to do? These are the best of the best, so they should probably get their work done really fast and leave early.

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

#184

Post by spamuel »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #103
memish wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just referencing the fact that the new Twitter is more open and transparent. I can't believe how many people are spinning this as a bad thing. We heard almost nothing from Parag and little from Jack when he was running it and experiments were opaque from the outside. Now we're hearing from the CEO and employees like George Hotz about what they are doing and planning, and they're involving the community, asking f…

> previous Twitter wasn't as transparent as it is now Reinstating accounts on the basis of a poll, on a platform you have spent months railing for having too many bots, is a good example of CYA transparency.

Elon specifically mentioned that his polls were actually a great way to obviate bots, as reflected by the bot activity seen on them. He was going to reinstate the accounts anyway.

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

#185

Post by dragonwriter »

bilbo0s wrote: post #154
jonfw wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anybody would agree with you given the following two assumptions- That these previously banned users were banned for conduct that they would consider hateful That banning users is the only way to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct If twitter disagrees with either of these statements, you can see why they would disagree with your point

Problem in the long run is that it doesn't matter whether or not Twitter believes they are hateful. Heck, it doesn't even matter if the person you're responding to thinks they are hateful. For Musk to not lose gobs and gobs of money, it only matters whether advertisers, in their sole estimation, consider those people hateful. The guys with the nine figure ad budgets will almost certainly fall on the "cautious" side o…

> For Musk to not lose gobs and gobs of money, it only matters whether advertisers, in their sole estimation, consider those people hateful.

Or, more accurately, “content they don’t want their advertising seen near”.

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

#186

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

staunch wrote: post #76

There's no way to run a platform supported by ads that upholds anything resembling free speech. The advertising model is Twitter's fatal flaw. It puts the fate of the platform in the hands of a tiny corporate mob that are themselves subject to larger mobs. If "the mission" was truly driving Twitter, they'd drop all advertising and build enough value that some decent percentage of users would pay for it. In a few year…

> There's no way to run a platform supported by ads that upholds anything resembling free speech.

I think that's what we have been conditioned into believing, but I see no reason that the a sponsored post about Tide Pods has to have anything but platform coincidence to someone using the same tool to troll about how "the jews" bla bla bla.

Our selective outrage is insane. This is all political. I'm tired of it.

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

#187

Post by ARandumGuy »

Terretta wrote: post #130
bastardoperator wrote: post #15

Twitter is totalled. There is no recovery or any amount of repair that will convince anyone that the platform is worth consuming or saving.

Granted there's all sorts of pearl clutching, but odds are Twitter is probably just fine for now as there's no actual alternative.* Majority of users have no awareness of any of this angst, they're just using it for its niche. It's popcorn-worthy drama because of the headcount carnage and the culture clash with increasingly vapid corporate ESG posing, while in reality both headcount bloat (particularly non-maker role…

> odds are Twitter is probably just fine for now as there's no actual alternative.

Just because there isn't a direct alternative doesn't mean Twitter's future is bright. Twitter users can just quit Twitter without signing up for a new social media site. They can use other social media more, or find something else to do with their time.

Keep in mind, a vast majority of Twitter users don't actually post. To these users, Twitter is just a source of entertainment. And if these users aren't getting enough entertainment, they'll just stop using the site. Maybe not immediately, and maybe not in an organized fashion. But people can and do change their social media habits, and there's nothing forcing people to stick with Twitter.

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

#188

Post by dragonwriter »

dismantlethesun wrote: post #180
lijogdfljk wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea.. how does he expect this to be interpreted? Their stance hasn't changed.. cool, except before Twitter said some people posted hateful content, and banned them. Now they unbanned them, so what is the non-change? Does twitter agree that the comments were hateful, did that not change? If didn't change, then twitter agrees they were hateful comments and twitter is now happy to have them on the platform. Musk can't k…

Maybe their stance is that people shouldn't be banned forever? I personally, don't believe in eternal bans. I always hate the horror stories where someone has made a mistake and thus Google bans them from all non-related activities for life, then bans the account of anyone who gave that person privileges too. With respect to Twitter, I'd say sure Trump is an insurrectionist and a shameful individual, but it's been 2…

> Maybe their stance is that people shouldn't be banned forever?

They are entitled to that stance, and advertisers uncomfortable with either the actual or anticipated results of that stance are entitled to not advertise on Twitter.

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

#189

Post by spamuel »

cyberphobe wrote: post #143
toolz wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You need to be more specific - he wasn't banning George Takei or Occupy Democrats. He banned ANTIFA accounts that were being used to plan "direct action", ie: riots. Something that was previously against Twitter's TOS, but it wasn't being enforced specifically against ANTIFA accounts because Twitter employees were sympathetic to the cause.

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

#190

Post by dragonwriter »

querulous wrote: post #156
lijogdfljk wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm starting to question how much he has ever. Has something changed with him? Or has he always been like this? If it's always been this rash, hasty and questionable then i can only imagine the real heroes are the people around him who managed to refine what he says and wants into tangible, achievable and coherent goals. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his actions these days, it does at least seem a signi…

he had very capable partners/lieutenants at spacex and tesla (shotwell and straubel, respectively). elon's undeniably great at cheerleading and fundraising but it's unclear how much credit he deserves for the technical accomplishments of spacex and tesla. at paypal he was run out almost immediately upon becoming ceo and at twitter he's surrounded himself with non entities like jason calcanis and alex spiro

> at paypal he was run out almost immediately upon becoming ceo

Technically, he was never CEO “at Paypal”. He was forced out as CEO of X.com the second time just before it took the name of the main product (which it had acquired with the company that developed it, with Elon returning as CEO with the acquisition) and became PayPal.

Post reply on HN