Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 352 posts

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#241

Post by root_axis »

chc wrote: post #230
root_axis wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The value of a social network is largely derived from the people in it. You can't take one of the people I follow and substitute an arbitrary person and assume I'll get equal value. The people I follow are on Twitter, and are mostly not on "other social networking apps and websites out there." You may be assigning zero value to everything because you personally don't get anything from it, but surely you can see why t…

> You may be assigning zero value to everything because you personally don't get anything from it

How much value I personally assign to it is irrelevant. The bottom line is that it is not a necessity.

> You can't take one of the people I follow and substitute an arbitrary person and assume I'll get equal value. The people I follow are on Twitter, and are mostly not on "other social networking apps and websites out there.

Great. It sounds to me like you use twitter because you like to read posts from certain individuals who also prefer to post on twitter (and not some other site). Those people aren't forced to use twitter, and it isn't anything more than an inconvenience if YOU decided not to use twitter because YOU have objections to how twitter operates their core business. You want to use twitter because you want to stay up to date on "the people you follow". That is not a description of a dystopia. Being able to follow your favorite celebrities is not important (except to you personally).

Maybe we should get the government involved in regulating League of Legends balance changes since they have 100 million+ customers most of which actually spend money to use the service.

No matter how much value you derive from the specific individuals that compose your twitter feed, you are not entitled to any of it because you never entered into an agreement with twitter where you compensated them in exchange for certain guarantees, barring that or something illegal, the government has reason to get involved in what kind of content twitter choose to allow on their site, period.

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#242

Post by daveguy »

maxerickson wrote: post #167
jacquesm wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They claimed it was overbooked but that has not been substantiated with any evidence other than the company making that claim and using it to pre-empt those passengers in favor of their dead-headers. The proof that they are bullshitting is that the passengers were already on board when suddenly the plane was declared overbooked. Which to me sounds like UA using an excuse to bump passengers off a flight they are alrea…

Sure I agree it is just a claim. But they overbook most flights, so it isn't really hard to believe. They could have paid some other passengers already to not board, prior to deciding that they wanted to fly the crew and needing to pull more passengers. That leaves the overbooking claim as misdirection, which isn't any better than a lie that they were overbooked, but it's a different situation. (sorry about the edit…

If it was overbooked those excess passengers weren't on the plane. United wanted to fly 4 of their own employees (who showed up after everyone was boarded and seated) and "asked" for 4 seats from boarded paying customers.

Without the employee passengers they were not overbooked or any overbooked passengers were not on the plane and we're irrelevant to the situation.

I have flown plenty of times with other airlines when they overbooked and asked for volunteers. They do it in the terminal before boarding starts and generally don't have any problem getting someone to take $800 to hang around for the next flight.

In those cases:

1) the terminal attendant can tell you exactly when you'll be able to resume your flight

2) you can know whether or not the delay will have you sleeping in an airport and can negotiate for a hotel if necessary.

In this case no one (and why would they) took them up on a game of $800 flight roulette, so they had security drag a random guy off the plane.

It was ridiculous when they made some kids have a dress code and refused to let them fly.

This, on the other hand, should be illegal.

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#244

Post by cmiles74 »

artursapek wrote: post #211
cmiles74 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much no one is. You're talking about something astronomically rare.

It's rare because it's hard. Look at Europe and see how easy it is to do it with a truck.

It's really hard to get a truck on a passenger airplane, I agree.

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#246

Post by Dylan16807 »

mmjaa wrote: post #89

Tools such as Akasha[1] and IPFS[2] and ZeroNet[3] can't arrive on the scene soon enough, imho. I think we're on the cusp of seeing these corporate-tools lose their grip on the populace, once Akasha becomes usable by the common man. [1] https://akasha.world [2] http://ipfs.io/ [3] http://zeronet.io/en

Hooking it onto blockchains provides what advantage over pure IPFS?

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#247

Post by pcthrowaway »

dev_head_up wrote: post #88
cheath wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short, because they think you'd engage less with Scott Adams' content. Filter bubbles are an algorithmic attempt to give you the content that you want the most. For example, Twitter might have identified at some level that you like and retweet sports related content more often than political content. Or even further, that you like left-leaning content more than right. So, they'll do everything they can to serve yo…

I've seen that and I'm sorry, but I really don't accept your explanation. I've never retweeted/liked/replied or tweeted, ever. I'm a passive consumer. I don't follow political accounts, or search out political views there. If anything, I reckon I was clicking a lot on his blog links via tweets, so (presumably) he should have been showing up more... rather than not at all. I don't mean to sound like I'm holding you ac…

Just a thought, but even of clicking his blog links means you're engaging more, perhaps twitter is guiding their users to engagement in the form of scrolling through their feeds, since that's what twitter makes their money from. Thinking about it that way, maybe it makes sense to filter out tweets that are more likely to take you away from the site

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#248

Post by pcthrowaway »

dev_head_up wrote: post #88
cheath wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short, because they think you'd engage less with Scott Adams' content. Filter bubbles are an algorithmic attempt to give you the content that you want the most. For example, Twitter might have identified at some level that you like and retweet sports related content more often than political content. Or even further, that you like left-leaning content more than right. So, they'll do everything they can to serve yo…

I've seen that and I'm sorry, but I really don't accept your explanation. I've never retweeted/liked/replied or tweeted, ever. I'm a passive consumer. I don't follow political accounts, or search out political views there. If anything, I reckon I was clicking a lot on his blog links via tweets, so (presumably) he should have been showing up more... rather than not at all. I don't mean to sound like I'm holding you ac…

Just a thought, but even if clicking his blog links means you're engaging more, perhaps twitter is guiding their users to engagement in the form of scrolling through their feeds, since that's what twitter makes their money from. Thinking about it that way, maybe it makes sense to filter out tweets that are more likely to take you away from the site

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#249

Post by pcthrowaway »

dev_head_up wrote: post #88
cheath wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short, because they think you'd engage less with Scott Adams' content. Filter bubbles are an algorithmic attempt to give you the content that you want the most. For example, Twitter might have identified at some level that you like and retweet sports related content more often than political content. Or even further, that you like left-leaning content more than right. So, they'll do everything they can to serve yo…

I've seen that and I'm sorry, but I really don't accept your explanation. I've never retweeted/liked/replied or tweeted, ever. I'm a passive consumer. I don't follow political accounts, or search out political views there. If anything, I reckon I was clicking a lot on his blog links via tweets, so (presumably) he should have been showing up more... rather than not at all. I don't mean to sound like I'm holding you ac…

Just a thought, but even of clicking his blog links means you're engaging more, perhaps twitter is guiding their users to engagement in the form of scrolling through their feeds, since that's what twitter makes their money from. Thinking about it that way, maybe it makes sense to filter out tweets that are more likely to take you away from the site

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#250

Post by jerf »

paulcole wrote: post #144
jerf wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This was inevitable. All the above-mentioned services are funded - in large part - by ads." Unsustainable situations always seem to go on for longer than you expect, but I wonder if we're finally getting to be just a year or three out from Adpocalypse, when the ad-supported internet companies finally end up having to face head on that you can not serve two masters. I wonder if there's going to be a market developing…

>I wonder if there's going to be a market developing for services that look like current services, but actually cost money somehow. Probably a billion-dollar-level opportunity for figuring out how to charge for a Facebook or Google or Twitter a couple of bucks a month. You're really overestimating people's willingness to pay for a service that's already free and convenient. There's really no good comp for tens of mil…

"You're really overestimating people's willingness to pay for a service that's already free and convenient."

Did you miss my last paragraph?

I mean, if "just reconceptualize the entire idea of a social network" sounds easy to you, well... go for it. But it doesn't sound easy to me, which is why I said "It'll take some serious thought to solve this."

Post reply on HN