Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by trs8080 » Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 9:46 PM UTC

phpisthebest wrote: post #234

trs8080 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 re…

> 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

Yes, on Twitter, which according to you was "Extreme left authoritarian" until recently. Odd that leftist authoritarians allow right wing content to dominate their platform.

> twitter employee based censorship was largely in one direction

Any evidence for this claim?

> the fact that twitter policies were written and enforced in one ideological direction

Evidence? Twitter's own data says that this is not the case in the links I provided.

> No your link proves and supports nothing

My links (there were two) prove and support my point - you haven't read them though.

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

#272

Post by nvrspyx » Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 9:49 PM UTC

ska wrote: post #224

nvrspyx wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We haven't been doing science for very long.

Again, this comes back to your definition. Many would disagree in that science has existed for, at least, as long as recorded human history because an actual tenable definition of science is something along the lines of "the endeavor to build knowledge by experimenting and observing the results". The rigor of the experiment is part of the quality of the science, not whether it's science itself.

No one is arguing that rigor isn't important to good science. It is important because rigor lends to reliable and valid results. What we ultimately want is results that are reproducible and can be used to predict. If you observe bad results, it's because you did a bad experiment, thus bad science, not that you didn't do science at all.

As an analogy: if I took notes during a meeting that no one can understand or use, that doesn't mean I didn't take notes. It just means that I took bad notes.

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

#273

Post by cornel_io » Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 9:49 PM UTC

generalizations wrote: post #35

jzelinskie wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter was previously doing A/B tests. Spaces, communities, downvotes, circles, and even moderation were applied only to a subset of accounts while they actively experimented. The new policy is an objectively less scientific approach to testing functionality than what was occurring before.

It's not like A/B tests approach anything like the rigor that we expect from actual science, though.

If they're done right, they are exactly as rigorous as we'd expect from science, since they are literally the same as randomized control trials. You can do even better with A/B testing because you have much tighter control over inclusion criteria, treatment compliance, and outcome analysis.

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

#274

Post by compiskey » Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 9:49 PM UTC

typest wrote: post #102

compiskey wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertisers and marketers use the equations but measure contemporary trends. Science is more “what’s true if humans didn’t exist.” Marketing is more “what widget generates more revenue?”

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.

Agreed. My point is I am not going to see a marketer as aiming for the same goal “as an experimental physicist.”

To borrow the Lindy effect; whether someone likes the jacket in color A or B is of such short lived value it’s a huge waste of the resources that went into the pipeline needed to come to the conclusion.

Here’s an A/B test; rethink logistics to increase customization of outputs or continue to create design jobs who define what’s trendy and acceptable?

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

#275

Post by phpisthebest » Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 9:49 PM UTC

jaredcwhite wrote: post #230

phpisthebest wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

Well it is good thing for you all major platforms have the ablity to block, mute, or otherwise curate your experience, including sharing "block lists" and other innovations so your personal experience is what you make it to be

I support giving people the power to create their own echo chambers and safe spaces, feel free to do so..

No one should be forced to communicate with anyone they do not want to, however you also should not be able to prevent me from communicating with others that I desire to

>>What a ridiculous thing to say

Not really, it is sad parents have stopped teaching "Sticks and Stones my break my bones but words will never harm me"

We really have lost the cultural axiom "I may hate what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" haven't we.

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

#276

Post by jjfoooo5 » Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 9:51 PM UTC

Terretta wrote: post #130

bastardoperator wrote: post #15

Twitter is totalled. There is no recovery or any amount of repair that will convince anyone that the platform is worth consuming or saving.

Granted there's all sorts of pearl clutching, but odds are Twitter is probably just fine for now as there's no actual alternative.* Majority of users have no awareness of any of this angst, they're just using it for its niche. It's popcorn-worthy drama because of the headcount carnage and the culture clash with increasingly vapid corporate ESG posing, while in reality both headcount bloat (particularly non-maker role…

The advertiser exodus (already well underway) is a far bigger threat to Twitter than a user exodus. The subscription model is dead on arrival.

There's plenty of options if you want a forum without "corporate ESG posing" - 4chan et al. They just don't make money, or interest the majority of people.

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

#277

Post by esotericimpl » Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 9:51 PM UTC

willcipriano wrote: post #256

threeseed wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cla…

What's odd to me is if this question came up a few months ago we would see lots of "it's a private platform" and "freedom of association" comments that aren't as prevalent all the sudden. Those left wing people that were banned, very likey supported the system that just got them banned.

I don't think people care if left wing or right wing people are banned. People want consistency, safety and the rules applied equally.

Right wing people seemed to act like shitheads more often so they are banned more often.

I'd continue arguing however, conservative law, jurisprudence and overall culture seems to always boil down to that there are in groups who the law protects BUT does not bind, and out groups who the law binds but does not protect.

You can pretty much view all of twitter's new moderation capability through that lens and then it starts to make perfect sense.

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

#278

Post by AustinDev » Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 9:52 PM UTC

alexandre_m wrote: post #262

BoxFour wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off the top of my head: He was peddling the conspiracy that Paul Pelosi was attacked by a spurned lover. He had to quickly walk that one back by deleting the reply and pretending it never happened.

No, he said "more than meets the eye" because of contradicting news reports in the medias early on when the story broke, with many unknowns and incoherencies remaining today. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/miguel-almaguer-remains...

Body cam footage even censored would do a lot to sort out the unknowns and incoherencies. Sadly, we'll never see that out of SFPD

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

#279

Post by fundad » Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 9:52 PM UTC

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...)

How much did any of us think about or notice social network ads for Apple products? I remember the #AppleEvent hashtag emoji campaigns that cost a pretty penny but that's not what's going on now.

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

#280

Post by fundad » Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 9:53 PM UTC

VikingCoder wrote: post #51

> 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.

no law against lying to your investors and regulators right?