Live data from Hacker News

Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation

blog.twitter.com

191–200 of 504 posts

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

#191

> 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. They recently unbanned many controversial accounts based solely on Twitter polls. Who do they expect will believe these statements?

[deleted]

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

#192

> Our Trust & Safety team... remains strong and well-resourced... > ...impressions on violative content are down over the past month... I think both of those claims are demonstrably false.

When Twitter determines what violates the policy, the numbers can be whatever Twitter needs them to be.

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

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That's fair. Though that gets into semantics which I don't find interesting or fun. In this context, I think it's fair to say we're talking about "things that can be experimented on to learn more things."

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

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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

This is incorrect.

"Based on a massive-scale experiment involving millions of Twitter users, a fine-grained analysis of political parties in seven countries, and 6.2 million news articles shared in the United States, this study carries out the most comprehensive audit of an algorithmic recommender system and its effects on political content. Results unveil that the political right enjoys higher amplification compared to the political left."

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8740571/

"Twitter reportedly won't use an algorithm to crack down on white supremacists because some GOP politicians could end up getting barred too"

- https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-...

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

#195
post #165
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t true. Science is ultimately the scientific method — make a hypothesis, test a change, observe the results, repeat. It’s an algorithm for learning and broadly gaining information about reality. It can equally be applied to things having to do with humans and things not having to do with humans.

Not gp, but there's a significant kink when this applies to humans; namely, that humans have the ability to reflect on publicly known outcomes, and change their behavior en-masse in light of information so gained. I put this earler in the phrase "reflection completeness": https://sdrinf.com/reflection-completeness ie there are things which stops working when people know about it. In particular with A/B testing, this…

I agree that it can be a difficult thing to analyze. There's also the Hawthorne Effect at play here too. But those are just confounding variables, they do not negate the fact that A/B tests are still "real science".

An A/B test just refers to observing how a dependent variable changes when an independent variable is in two different states, State A and State B.

Drug vs placebo - is an A/B test.

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

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/shrug, depends on how people view the problem. Smaller communities can be more focused and managed. Trying to get everyone in one place agreeing on one set of rules sounds impossible. At least federation has the potential to let groups exist differently as desired.

That is the thing, people do not go to twitter to be in "Small Focused Community" They do it to interact with the globe, and the more people on that network the better it is. There are a million ways to create a niche site (like hacker news) that allows a Small Focused Community to interact, that is not a replacement for Twitter

Agreed, but that's kinda the point in my eyes. Maybe a global forum with no moderation everyone can agree with is a bad thing? Ie maybe it makes everyone unhappy?

Everyone was on Facebook too. We're not all looking for Facebook 2.0 currently, are we? Yea, we have different form factors of social networks, definitely. But some (not all!) of the core features of Facebook were misguided or mismanaged. Some features of Facebook aren't looking to be replaced.

I'm not saying Mastodon is a replacement for Twitter. I'm simply saying maybe some features of Twitter aren't worth being replaced for many people.

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

#197
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…

Where does it say or even imply "rolling out new features to all users at once"?

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

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I guess it feels like this is just banter amongst bored people at work and demand for works cited comes off as sealioning or just maybe misreading the room

I find that anything related to Twitter/Musk produces some of the lowest quality comments on HN, and the top comment in this thread is one of them. It's a reddit style "amirite?" comment that does not engage with the topic (Twitter says they've limited reach for "hateful" content, so "impressions" could be down, even if the total number of hateful tweets sent might be up, so it's absolutely not obvious, and it's very questionable how some random person would know which tweets had what amount of impressions), doesn't care to present any reasoning or data, and the user vanishes when asked to substantiate.

Musk brings out the worst in some people. Hearing about him shuts down their brains and they "return to monkey", just throwing feces. And they're certainly not dumb, it just looks like those old spy movies with sleeper agents. One minute your friendly neighbor jokes and smiles and the next he hears some specific sentence on the radio and his programming takes over, his face freezes and he gets his gun and marches towards city hall. That's what I see happening to some people here when Musk gets mentioned.

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

#200
post #129

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.

"As the Los Angeles City Councilmember Mike Bonin noted on Twitter, the suspended users include Chad Loder, an antifascist researcher whose open-source investigation of the U.S. Capitol riot led to the identification and arrest of a masked Proud Boy who attacked police officers. The account of video journalist Vishal Pratap Singh, who reports on far-right protests in Southern California, has also been suspended."

"All four accounts had been singled out for criticism by Andy Ngo, a far-right writer whose conspiratorial, error-riddled reporting on left-wing protests and social movements fuels the mass delusion that a handful of small antifascist groups are part of an imaginary shadow army called “antifa.” In a public exchange on Twitter on Friday, Musk invited Ngo to report “Antifa accounts” that should be suspended directly to him."

https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...

Post reply on HN