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

231–240 of 504 posts

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

#231

Post by williamsmj »

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?

> 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.

This is bullshit on its face. The first sentence and the second sentence directly contradict each other.

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

#232

Post by josteink »

threeseed wrote: post #204
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?

Musk also asked people to report suspected Antifa accounts to Andy Ngo a right-wing conservative journalist. All of whom have now been suspended despite there being no infringement on terms of service.

> Antifa accounts. … All of whom have now been suspended despite there being no infringement on terms of service.

Are we talking about the same Antifa? Political terrorists, violently attacking civilians for having opposing beliefs?

If inciting real-world political violence and terror is not against the TOS, why were supposedly all those right wingers banned?

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

#233

Post by haliskerbas »

QuantumGood wrote: post #210
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?

On November 23, Twitter stopped enforcing its "COVID-19 misleading information" policy. The previous policy received acclaim from medical professionals: In an advisory to technology platforms, US Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy cited Twitter’s rules as an example of what companies should do to combat misinformation. When journalist Kara Swisher in September 2020 confronted Musk with the possibility that many people…

Elon cares more about money than actual people living today

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

#234

Post by phpisthebest »

trs8080 wrote: post #222
phpisthebest wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>and responded to your claim

No you did not, you responded with an unrelated fact that "right news" (which is widely over categorized in these research papers BTW) is the most shared link

This does not refute the position that twitter employee based censorship was largely in one direction, this does not refute the fact that twitter policies were written and enforced in one ideological direction, this does not even really indicate why those links where shared or the reaction to the link, where they shared for outrage or criticism, for support or derision?

No your link proves and supports nothing

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

#235

Post by shakezula »

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?

This is a false premise. Without understanding why each account was banned and what infraction was cited we can't make a clear comparison or judgment about either case. Otherwise it's just more outrage-porn.

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

#236

Post by boplicity »

If I had the time and resources, I would build a Twitter clone and focus on just getting journalists, editors, reporters, etc on the platform. This is a powerful community that is quite established on Twitter, but I suspect they would be willing to migrate. Maybe something like, Manuscript Wishlist or QueryTracker, but specifically with a Twitter vibe.

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

#237

Post by threeseed »

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?

You are missing the fact that no-one was getting banned merely for having an option or for their actions outside of the Twitter platform. They were banned for continuously violating the terms of service e.g. inciting violence, racist or xenophobic content, doxxing etc.

And what happened here is that those left-wing accounts were banned without any such violation i.e. it was purely arbitrary and the very thing you claim you don't want.

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

#238

Post by erulabs »

snapcaster wrote: post #168
PM_me_your_math wrote: post #141

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

> Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter.

Never heard sealioning before, "thanks, I hate it" I guess. Reminds me of "dog-whistling", and in a way is an exact example of what PM_me_your_math is getting at.

You can decide someone is being disingenuous, but if you can't demonstrate that somehow, I'm inclined to disbelieve you. The GP said "those claims are demonstrably false", and then a follow up comment said "okay, please demonstrate", and you can claim that's being disingenuous? Don't you see how that creates an iron-clad thought bubble?

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

#239

Post by KerrAvon »

josteink wrote: post #232
threeseed wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk also asked people to report suspected Antifa accounts to Andy Ngo a right-wing conservative journalist. All of whom have now been suspended despite there being no infringement on terms of service.

> Antifa accounts. … All of whom have now been suspended despite there being no infringement on terms of service. Are we talking about the same Antifa? Political terrorists, violently attacking civilians for having opposing beliefs? If inciting real-world political violence and terror is not against the TOS, why were supposedly all those right wingers banned?

[flagged]

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

#240

Post by Barrin92 »

One thing that I don't see talked about a lot is that this approach of experimentation which is effectively Musk conducting twitter polls, de-facto excludes the majority of users on the site.

Surprisingly enough there's almost as many Japanese users as Americans on Twitter, not to mention everyone else, do they also get an input on the style of the public conversation?

Apparently he's having trouble with the EU now as well because he's shuttered the office in Brussels. Is this a global public conversation, a local one, is everyone going to live by one standard, pretty hard to figure that all out if you've reduced the workforce to keeping the servers running.

Post reply on HN