31–40 of 156 posts
What would it take to replace Twitter and Facebook?
It was trending on product hunt yesterday and many alternatives are created every week.
I don't understand people on HN. They don't want mainstream social media but won't try these smaller alternatives because they are not mainstream. Seems pretty contradictory, no?
This isn't a real alternative because it doesn't have [insert the reason why people here hate twitter or Facebook]
Among 30 news organisations in the United States, none of them were trusted by more than 50% of Americans according to Pew Research. [1] This indicates the dramatic damage done to news organisations when they have been caught in egregious lies and falsehoods, again and again. Remember, when Twitter cites "official sources", it doesn't mean it's correct, or even that it's not totally fabricated. It means it's probably…
No, it mostly reflects the rise of ideological tribalism supported by the rise of a diverse array of media outlets catering to (and reinforcing) preconceived biases (some originally driven by propaganda interests, but more driven by the business desire to capture a distinct demographic market for advertising; in the end, the interests overlap and coexist.)
What would it take to replace Twitter and Facebook?
Objective truth as revealed to us by the anointed technocrats and fact checkers has been accepted by partisans where it suits their biases. Questioning these official truths amounts to blasphemy in the social media space. The premise of democracy rests upon the concept of free and open debate. If we cannot trust the public to consume information without hand holding, why should we trust them to vote on issues which i…
True censorship is when government does it. If you go to jail for promoting some information, that's censorship. Twitter and Facebook are part of "the public". You are even using right now a website very heavy on "censorship", or how I call it "moderation". If you don't follow HN guidelines you will be silenced. The efforts by members of public to reduce spread of misinformation and polarization is part of why we sho…
Completely the opposite experience of what quite literally is the first sentence on their homepage:
> Speak freely and express yourself openly, without fear of being “deplatformed” for your views.
Among 30 news organisations in the United States, none of them were trusted by more than 50% of Americans according to Pew Research. [1] This indicates the dramatic damage done to news organisations when they have been caught in egregious lies and falsehoods, again and again. Remember, when Twitter cites "official sources", it doesn't mean it's correct, or even that it's not totally fabricated. It means it's probably…
> enormous bias and propensity for lies So based on your citations, "enormous" is roughly a handful between the thirty of them over the last decade? Get some perspective, do you actually think the WaPo literally made up a story or do you think they (let's be uncharitable) ran with a story they should've done more due diligence on?
Related: Why unmoderated online forums always degenerate into fascism
https://www.salon.com/2019/08/05/why-unmoderated-online-foru...
Sounds good to me. Twitter is not really slowing down the like action, but it will say to you only “hey, this may be a fake news, are you sure you want like it?”. People are stupid, in a perfect world this is useless but we live here...
Ironicaly you missed the most important point: who decides what is fake news? You still don't get it that _NO ONE_ can claim they know what is/is not fake news because everyone has their own incentives.
Have you been arguing with OP before? Or is this just how you address people in general? It doesn't set a very nice tone.
Doubt that would've gone over well.
I’ll just point out: if you’re a free speech purist, you are perfectly OK with this. Twitter isn’t removing these tweets, just adding their own messages. That is, they are responding to free speech with their own free speech. If they use this feature on high-profile figures it’s even better: free speech to authority.
Twitter is not free speech system to begin with so ”free speech” purists are not obligated to be ok with this unless the whole platform is based on free speech. In that kind of system any user would be able to prompt any popup for any user when they are about to like any tweet. Now only twitter has that power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironicaly you missed the most important point: who decides what is fake news? You still don't get it that _NO ONE_ can claim they know what is/is not fake news because everyone has their own incentives.
You still don't get it that _NO ONE_ can claim they know what is/is not fake news because everyone has their own incentives. This is precisely why it's important that Twitter calls out when things are stated as fact without evidence. Twitter never actually say things are fake; they say things are baseless and without evidence. If you want to post things that are influential you simply need to back that claim up with…
Trust is a massive optimization. You just have to accept that maybe 0.1% of the time you'll be wrong, and provide recourse.