221–230 of 352 posts
Do not ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity or in this case probably engineering oversight. No affiliation or affection to twitter.
Is it stupidity to think that twitter wouldn't try to monetize itelf by selling "reputation management services" to corporate customers? I guess one can get away with a lot of malice if they just affect the outward appearance of stupidity.
Do not ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity or in this case probably engineering oversight. No affiliation or affection to twitter.
Is it stupidity to think that twitter wouldn't try to monetize itelf by selling "reputation management services" to corporate customers? I guess one can get away with a lot of malice if they just affect the outward appearance of stupidity.
> Do you think rich people on their own jets get TSA patdowns the same way? No. What we are creating is a state of freedom for the rich, and compliant abuse for the majority of the citizens. Rich people aren't going to hijack their own jet and kill themselves in the name of Allah.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14088238 and marked it off-topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My tweet from last night is gone. It's not "alleged".
Yes, it is still an allegation. Nothing has been proven beyond your assertion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surprised that people here are taking this at face value. Really?
Yes. Many people here have had IT experiences where laypersons swear their computer spontaneously did something ridiculous as if the computer was out to commit personal malice. And HN users generally are skeptical of the Internet media's ability to understand and write about technical concepts, especially when click bait is on the line. And there are more than a few users who understand how Twitter's massive data out…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is still an allegation. Nothing has been proven beyond your assertion.
You could settle this by experiment easily if we're trying to prove this to you: go ahead and try posting one, in similar vein to the others. There'd be a false-negative rate if you do it too late so I would try it now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus Christ, what's going on? How can we counteract this? They absolutely deserve the bad publicity they're (or would be) getting!
Let's not act like this is some massive conspiracy. It's one /r/videos thread was deleted because it broke the sub's rules. There were literally dozens of other /r/videos posts on the subject upvoted to /r/all. It's not like the sub's mods were hiding the incident.
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_4_-_no_...
If overbooking ever happens, here is what they should do: Ask a representative of each atomic passenger group to write down a number of dollars on a napkin, and the number of tickets they represent. An individual flying alone might write down $1000-1. A mother of 2 kids might write down $2500-3. Collect the bids, and sort them. Then if you need to swap 4 seats, select the four lowest bids, and give them cash. Overboo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your analogies are strained. A better analogy might be to a broadcaster, who because of a monopoly on a scarce public resources, does have certain responsibilities. But Twitter isn't a broadcaster (nor are they a public utility), and their value is in their network, which they literally have spent billions of dollars creating. It's theirs to do with as they see fit.
The broadcaster has also spent billions for their network [1] but that doesn't absolve them from responsibilities. Like it or not, Twitter has become a major platform for public speech and it's practically impossible to pack up and take thousands and millions of followers elsewhere. So yes, they have a monopoly on a scarce public resource and should act accordingly. At the very least they should have transparency for…
You feel justified in controlling the behavior of a public company, not through the commercial code or any legal basis, but because you ex post decided the terms of service everyone agreed to upset you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if someone doesn't like how twitter operates, nothing is stopping anyone from moving to another platform. This statement is weirdly detached from reality. The value of a social network is the ability to connect to people. Unless you're, like, Oprah, you cannot unilaterally decree that everyone you follow and everyone who follows you is going to move to another social network. So yes, there is a huge thing stopping…
> This statement is so detached from reality that it's almost like you don't know what Twitter is. I think that statement is the one that is detached from reality; the reality where twitter is of negligible importance beyond shitposting with famous people. > This is kind of like saying, "There's nothing stopping you from eating sand." It's technically true, but eating sand will not yield the same results as eating fo…