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

311–320 of 352 posts

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#311

Post by jacquesm »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #307
cmurf wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"airline's right to remove any passenger at any time for any reason" 1. Absurd. Flight attendant: Sir, you farted, we're going to remove you. Passenger: Umm, we're at 42,000 feet?! Flight attendant: Too bad, we can remove you at any time for any reason. 2. Citation for this "right"? In the airline's contract of carriage I see explicit reasons for being removed from an aircraft, and none of them apply to this case.

If I understand correctly, odor is in fact one explicitly-stated valid reason for being removed from an aircraft. (Not at 42,000 feet, of course.)

Usually caused by crappy airline food...

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#312

Post by cmurf »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #307
cmurf wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"airline's right to remove any passenger at any time for any reason" 1. Absurd. Flight attendant: Sir, you farted, we're going to remove you. Passenger: Umm, we're at 42,000 feet?! Flight attendant: Too bad, we can remove you at any time for any reason. 2. Citation for this "right"? In the airline's contract of carriage I see explicit reasons for being removed from an aircraft, and none of them apply to this case.

If I understand correctly, odor is in fact one explicitly-stated valid reason for being removed from an aircraft. (Not at 42,000 feet, of course.)

Yes, for United it's contract of carriage rule 21, H, reason 16: malodorous condition. It's funny that this is under the auspices of safety though. I guess the logic is if someone stinks enough it might cause disorderly conduct by other passengers?

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#313

Post by muninn_ »

danso wrote: post #239
d23 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all tweets to delete, why would they choose ones that aren't likely to be seen anyway?

The premise is so unlikely (given what we know of Twitter's past behavior) that if we accept it, we have to accept motives that are beyond our understanding. That said, it's hard to conceptualize even just the metric that they might be optimizing for. I mean, randomly pruning negative sentiment tweets for a given topic might allow Twitter to tell United, "Hey, we removed 12,000 negative tweets about your brand" (leav…

If they are selectively deleting a small number of tweets, they are probably running an algorithm to determine the most effective tweets (at damaging the brand) while also optimizing for low-visibility deleting.

The real question would be why are they deleting them at all?

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#314

Post by paulcole »

jerf wrote: post #250
paulcole wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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."

>Did you miss my last paragraph?

No.

>It'll take some serious thought to solve this.

I disagree. No amount of serious thought is going to come up with a solution to reroute an established aspect of modern human nature. The only way this happens is a black swan event that (by definition) nobody is going to see coming.

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#315

Post by paulcole »

Cozumel wrote: post #206
paulcole wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

There are tons of alternative social networks to Facebook, I run several of them. People are more than happy to pay a few $$ a month to not be tracked, censored or advertised at. Even completely free you can be profitable just selling 'credits' to send e-gifts etc. Facebook is functionally crippled, they still don't even have a dislike button.

> People are more than happy to pay a few $$ a month to not be tracked, censored or advertised at

Isn't the current state of the average person's use of the Internet completely contradictory to this?

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#316

Post by root_axis »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #291
root_axis wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter isn't "an important part of society largely subsumed by corporations", Twitter is a corporation and has been one from the start, but more importantly nobody is forced to use it . People use it because they like it, but frankly, in my opinion and in the opinion of pretty much everyone I know, twitter is mostly crap by a huge margin.

>nobody is forced to use it Social conformity is far more subtly persuasive than outright violence in this day and age. "Choosing" to opt out of corporate ownership is equivalent to a de facto excommunication from society.

>"Choosing" to opt out of corporate ownership is equivalent to a de facto excommunication from society.

Not using twitter isn't an excommunication from society, that's absurd hyperbole that might be a sign you're living in a bubble. I don't use twitter, most people I know don't use it, I'm willing to bet most people on this forum don't use it, which is all totally anecdotal, but the effect size is massive.

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#317

Post by nkkollaw »

ythn wrote: post #84
nkkollaw wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still deserved, also for the comments they made afterwards. At least pretend, and say something like "this will not happen again".

> Still deserved, also for the comments they made afterwards. Maybe, maybe not. We don't have all the facts yet. We still don't even know the identity of the victim - only hearsay from other passengers. This type of viral emotional response makes me weary. I see it happen so often - Michael Brown, Ahmed Mohammed, TSA Cancer Girl, etc. The lynch mob gets bloodlust and calls for complete destruction of the alleged perp…

The video was pretty factual...

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#318

Post by tylerjd »

cmurf wrote: post #296
tylerjd wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what they did. Someone up the chain made a mistake. Other airlines board must-ride passengers (i.e. crew deadheading to the next destination) before passengers, but this did not happen. Due to FAA regulations, the movement and sleep requirements of crew is enforced big time. In this case, they had a higher priority than a full-fare passenger (Must Ride), and even though it's morally wrong, it is well w…

"airline's right to remove any passenger at any time for any reason" 1. Absurd. Flight attendant: Sir, you farted, we're going to remove you. Passenger: Umm, we're at 42,000 feet?! Flight attendant: Too bad, we can remove you at any time for any reason. 2. Citation for this "right"? In the airline's contract of carriage I see explicit reasons for being removed from an aircraft, and none of them apply to this case.

Essentially, the Captains word is law while on the plane. He is responsible for the safety of everyone on board. According to FAA FAR 91.3,

  a. The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
Additionally ICAO code states

  The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#319

Post by diogenescynic »

scrollaway wrote: post #51
diogenescynic wrote: post #19

I'll definitely not be flying United or Delta ever again after this incident. Over-selling spaces on a plane is a scummy practice and shokldn't be allowed. When someone needs to cancel they still pocket the change fee or keep tne entire fee if they miss the flight. Seems like borderline fraud.

Overbooking is an extremely common practice. In fact, I don't know of a single airline that doesn't overbook. On a plane with hundreds of seats you almost always get cancellations; the small amount of times you don't, you almost always get people volunteering to be pushed to the next flight in exchange for money (I've done it myself a few times as I don't mind working in airports). Cases like these are exceedingly ra…

Just because it's common, doesn't make it not scummy. Yes there are cancellations, but airlines usually charge change fees and if you don't make the flight you don't get a refund either--so this policy is win-win for the airlines and lose-lose for consumers.

>in exchange for money

Sure, but not everyone knows that the airlines have to give you money. Usually they offer like $200-$600 in flight vouchers which can only be used $50 per flight... so not really a good deal for most people. Lastly, as a paying customer I find it beyond disgusting and degrading that after finding a seat that United would violently remove and humiliate their customer. That's absolutely not worth it. And United could have just rebooked the excess passengers on a Southwest flight for under $200/each. This was a colossal fuck up by United, no matter how you spin it.

Re: Twitter allegedly deleting negative tweets about United Airlines incident

#320

Post by diogenescynic »

brightball wrote: post #30
diogenescynic wrote: post #19

I'll definitely not be flying United or Delta ever again after this incident. Over-selling spaces on a plane is a scummy practice and shokldn't be allowed. When someone needs to cancel they still pocket the change fee or keep tne entire fee if they miss the flight. Seems like borderline fraud.

Wait wait wait....what's wrong with Delta?

I got them mixed up. I thought United bought Delta, but that was Continental.
Post reply on HN