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

221–230 of 504 posts

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

#221

Post by dexterdog »

w0m wrote: post #146
janoc wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that different from Tesla essentially using Tesla car owners as unpaid betatesters for their autonomous driving (and other) software while disclaiming all responsibility when anything happens? This "learn by doing" is going to end up well ... not. Especially when trying to learn by repeating mistakes with completely foreseable consequences, like that blue "verified" badge being available for anyone who pays wi…

> using Tesla car owners as unpaid betatesters Almost right. Charging Tesla owners to beta test their autonomous driving software.

Almost fully right. Charging and risking Tesla subscribers to beta test their autonomous driving software.

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

#222

Post by trs8080 »

phpisthebest wrote: post #214
trs8080 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

Nothing in your comment refutes my position. The very rules and actions of "Trust and safety" are what I am talking about, not what links users of the platform share. Try to actually talk about what I am complaining about

> Try to actually talk about what I am complaining about

> > 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

I literally quoted what you talked about and responded to your claim - please try to improve your reading comprehension skills.

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

#223

Post by Deukhoofd »

MKais wrote: post #211

Musk might be feeling the heat, among other things, from the EU's commissioner for internal market. https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1598015892457426944

I'm heavily amused by the "More details on #Mastodon" reply directly below it.

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

#224

Post by ska »

nvrspyx wrote: post #219
ska wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Science is just observation and experimentation. That's not enough. If you don't include some sense of both 'systematic' and 'rigorous' (and yes, these terms are slippery), you aren't doing science.

But both of those qualifiers exist on continuums and where an experiment lies on them is subject to opinion, so there's no singular threshold. It means it would depend on the person reviewing the experiment whether it's "systematic" and "rigorous" enough to (personally) be considered science. What you're describing is the quality of the science, not whether or not it is science. Until you can objectively measure how…

"Experiment and observation" is something we know humans have been doing for literally thousands of years (and without written evidence, probably 10s-100s). At least for loose versions of "experiment" which ties back to rigor.

We haven't been doing science for very long. The primary difference is the desire and effort to add rigor and systematic thinking. The difference in efficacy is hard to understate.

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

#225

Post by jaredcwhite »

janoc wrote: post #57
CrypticShift wrote: post #11

> What has changed, however, is our approach to experimentation including I suppose Elon's experimental approach to management. I hope that in 10 years, we will look back at this twitter 2.0 (= musk's debacle) as the impetus that lead to more widespread adoption of social media 2.0 (= federation) I already see the snowball effect getting momentum with all this coverage (NPR, NYT...) and big name exits (Apple...)

It won't. Federation doesn't solve any of the problems Twitter now has. That instead of one poorly managed understaffed silo full of trolls and abusers you have 2000 poorly managed, even more understaffed systems with 2000 different approaches to moderation and content doesn't make anything easier or fixed for people who use Twitter today. It is the same like we had federated chat with Jabber for 20 years now - and n…

Utterly disagree. I trust the people running a small/medium-sized instance I've personally vetted to host my account infinitely more than I trust some anonymous group of contractors in a content moderation farm somewhere…or Elon, lol.

Twitter's current issues by and large are a result of trusting corporate media silos with our precious time, data, and safety online. It's wildly unacceptable.

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

#226

Post by josteink »

CameronNemo wrote: post #205
felipesoc wrote: post #88

> 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?

And banned accounts when fringe far right "journalists" complained about them. https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...

So banning right wing users for having right wing opinions are OK…

But banning antifa-accounts, that is accounts held by people taking part in month long riots and looting and political real-world violence… that is bad?

Is this satire? Is this an honestly held opinion? Or am I missing something?

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

#227

Post by lijogdfljk »

phpisthebest wrote: post #216
lijogdfljk wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 F…

>>Maybe a global forum with no moderation everyone can agree with is a bad thing? Ie maybe it makes everyone unhappy? I do not agree, and it does not make me unhappy at all. I am late 70's child, I experienced the Wild West of the internet, nothing posted to twitter (or the chan's for that matter) shock me, or makes me unhappy I think people need thicker skin, and maybe more anonymity not less... Censorship is not th…

> I do not agree, and it does not make me unhappy at all. I am late 70's child, I experienced the Wild West of the internet, nothing posted to twitter (or the chan's for that matter) shock me, or makes me unhappy

Yea, i did say "everyone" but i didn't actually mean everyone. Lots of people enjoy Facebook in all it's glory, too.

> Censorship is not the solution, never has been in history and never will be in the future.

My comment wasn't about Censorship, though. It was about people and a possibility that they may prefer categorized focused communities like many of us grew up with. Which may or may not include moderation (aka "censorship")

I certainly enjoyed the forums of old more than the modern day global scroll feed. But i prefer focused/categorized content, clearly.

My point wasn't that you do or don't. Merely to pose a question. A question (among many) that could dictate whether or not the Forums of old have a place in the modern day. Whether or not the global attention draw that is Twitter is actually desired. edit: Desired enough to keep it alive and "successful", at least.

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

#228

Post by lesuorac »

schemescape wrote: post #174
borbulon wrote: post #110

> First, none of our policies have changed uh https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/covid19.html

The policy is still there—-they just aren’t enforcing it. Corporate doublespeak at its finest.

I feel like in any sort of legal setting this would go the same way as those "do X or resign" statements.

It'd count as a policy change and "we accept your resignation" would count as a firing.

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

#229

Post by giraffe_lady »

josteink wrote: post #226
CameronNemo wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And banned accounts when fringe far right "journalists" complained about them. https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...

So banning right wing users for having right wing opinions are OK… But banning antifa-accounts, that is accounts held by people taking part in month long riots and looting and political real-world violence… that is bad? Is this satire? Is this an honestly held opinion? Or am I missing something?

> Sp banning right wing users for having right wing opinions are OK…

Maybe! Being part of a group that also holds certain opinions isn't really relevant to whether expressing those opinions violates a policy. But which opinions did you have in mind?

Here have an extremely relevant tweet.

https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355267174...

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

#230

Post by jaredcwhite »

phpisthebest wrote: post #216
lijogdfljk wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 F…

>>Maybe a global forum with no moderation everyone can agree with is a bad thing? Ie maybe it makes everyone unhappy? I do not agree, and it does not make me unhappy at all. I am late 70's child, I experienced the Wild West of the internet, nothing posted to twitter (or the chan's for that matter) shock me, or makes me unhappy I think people need thicker skin, and maybe more anonymity not less... Censorship is not th…

> I think people need thicker skin

What a ridiculous thing to say. Actually plenty of us (and I've also been on the internet for many decades now) would like to hop online to engage with some cool folks about [insert interesting topic here] without having utter garbage and dreck thrown up in our faces like racism, transphobia, misogyny, bigotry, etc., etc.

Post reply on HN