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

191–200 of 398 posts

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#191

Post by ivraatiems »

TheOneTrueKyle wrote: post #186
ivraatiems wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, that's exactly what is happening. You can't reach into somebody's brain and make them change, but you can plant little idea-seeds that grow into change.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#192

Post by snaky »

abiox wrote: post #181
MustardTiger wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_and_the_Law

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#193

Post by michaelbuddy »

dspillett wrote: post #32
67726e wrote: post #7

I don't think the author knows the definition of "violence"

I think he has a fair idea: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/violenc... 2. Strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force

You're broadening / redirecting that definition. One can have violent feelings or reactions to something, such as someone suffering PTSD, mental breakdown, emotional reaction to medicine. But one can't just claim that words that they don't like spoken by someone are violence committed on them. At that point you get into the "you're raping me with your thoughts" and that's just irrationality. If one were irrational words will no longer retain meaning anyway.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#194

Post by dabockster »

ivraatiems wrote: post #123
TorKlingberg wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with the overall idea, but let's keep it affordable. Something like $10-15 per call.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#195

Post by shortformblog »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #14

Does Twitter have to be Facebook to not be "fucked"? I don't understand these statements that "Twitter is fucked". Twitter could improve filtering and safety but if it never changed I'd probably still get my news from it for the rest of my life. I just can't think of a better app for my use cases. I often like Twitter Moments, like something funny or some pop culture stuff I wouldn't have picked up on. Every time the…

This guy speaks for me. I read this piece thinking that all the reasons he thinks Twitter sucks (minus the harassment issue) are all the reasons I like it.

You have to manage Facebook. Twitter is just a way to convey thoughts and ideas, occasionally with things turning into a discussion. That is an important service with a definite need that Facebook has never filled.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#196

Post by harryh »

jonstokes wrote: post #87

True story: I was at a fundraiser in SF in about 2009, and over the course of the evening I found myself chatting about Twitter on two different occasions: once with Bill Maris of Google Ventures, and once with Joi Ito. Bill and I were actually talking about what kind of investments GV was looking to make. He stressed that GV was looking to invest in businesses that were actually good businesses. As a counterexample,…

Bill is wrong. Twitter's revenue per user is quite good. Their problem is that user growth is poor. They can't get enough users to meet their goals. Joi was correct that focusing on users first was the correct decision. They just haven't been able to execute on that goal as well as they hoped for.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#197

Post by snaky »

ivraatiems wrote: post #183
michaelbuddy wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the difference between neoprogressives (Trump) and conservatives (Cruz).

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#198

Post by ivraatiems »

exolymph wrote: post #120
snaky wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

You're right, but it does show an endemic lack of respect for the concept of free speech.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#199

Post by dddrh »

I'll bite on the Twitter 2.0 comment.

In some sense, I see the descriptions he made in Snapchat. The ability to consume content from where ever I choose, but my ability to reach out and converse with people who create content is limited by their desire to create a 1:1 connection with me. I wasn't a big fan of Snapchat when it first came out, but over time it has interested me with some of the decisions that they have made to really make the product about consuming moments that are personal to me, as well as interesting to me.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#200

Post by gluelogic »

michaelbuddy wrote: post #155
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:…

>The man deserved what he got No. Twitter incorrectly used him as some kind of example. They had also did temp bans on him in the past and also the immature move of removing his check mark. The harassment was happening WELL before Milo was tweeting the ghostbuster. Milo wrote the article. Milo's tweets weren't anywhere NEAR harassment level. Trolling a famous person on twitter is not harassment and brigading. And as…

Removing his blue check was especially ridiculous to me. "Because you are who you are, you can no longer be verified."
Post reply on HN