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

311–320 of 504 posts

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

#311

Post by BoxFour »

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...

Lol no, the "news report" Musk linked explicitly accused Paul Pelosi's attacker of being a spurned lover. Even the report you linked was apparently retracted because of some weird minor details about how the encounter with police went down, not the overall premise which is that the Pelosi house was broken into by a stranger looking for Nancy.

Attempts to paint it otherwise are either just covering for Musk for some reason (which I don't know why you would feel the need to do that) or trying to rewrite the narrative on what the right-wing conspiracy theory here is that Musk peddled in the first place.

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

#313

Post by craftsman »

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…

You: "...Extreme left authoritarian political opinions, which is what Political Twitter was isolated to before elon"

If true, then we would not find much, if anything, that was not "extreme left authoritarian political opinions" amongst the detritus of "political twitter", right?

And yet, when shown that not only did there exist content from the political right, it was amplified more than content from the political left, you reply:

"you responded with an unrelated fact"

Let's try it this way. Let's say I make a statement that the birds at my feeder are isolated to crows. If you then point to my own videos which show not only that there are many other kinds of birds, but these other kinds of birds eat the most seed from it, what should I reply? "Oh, I'm sorry but that is an unrelated fact"? Or perhaps, "That proves nothing, how do we know the other birds were not brought there by the crows?" Or how about, "The fact that there were other kinds of birds at your feeder does not refute the fact that you prevent non-crows from coming to your feeder." Etc.

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

#314

Post by bri3d »

MangoCoffee wrote: post #62
smcl wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First Twitter was going to crash in a week Was it? I read a lot of comments saying that mass-firing people is going to cause immediate degradation in some areas like content moderation (which we have seen) and eventual unpredictable failures in others. If you saw people predicting a sudden crash I'd take their opinion with a pinch of salt in the future, sounds like quite a reactionary take. > then it was everyone w…

>Maybe. It remains to be seen whether axing so many so suddenly was survivable in the long-term financially or operationally, though. a lot of tech companies is laying off people. Amazon, Facebook...etc. DoorDash is laying off 1,250 corporate workers. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/30/doordash-lays-off-1250-emplo... i believe the winter (recession) is coming if not then something is going on that most if not all tech c…

According to 10-K filings, Doordash went from 3,886 to over 8,600 employees in calendar year 2021 (!!!). While the global macroeconomic situation is certainly fragile right now, the current trend towards corporate-tech layoffs needs to be viewed through this lens. Most public tech companies hired a truly ludicrous number of people in 2021, and the 2022 layoff season is more of a market rebalancing than an overall market shrinkage.

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

#315

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#316

Post by RonaldRaygun »

phpisthebest wrote: post #214
trs8080 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 This is incorrect. "Based on a massive-scale experiment involving millions of Twitter users, a fine-grained analysis of political parties in seven countries, and 6.2 million news articles shared in the United States, this study carries o…

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

This is an utterly bizarre chain of comments.

You quite literally stated that Political Twitter was isolated to "Extreme left authoritarian political opinions" prior to Musk's takeover. Which is of course both demonstratively false and a ridiculous claim on its face.

If anything, the person responding to you gave you the benefit of the doubt, presuming you may have meant that views outside the "extreme authoritarian left" were systematically de-emphasized by the recommendation algorithm. Which is also false but at least not a mindbogglingly stupid thing to actually believe.

Someone interested in an actual discussion might have taken the opportunity to clarify their initial statement. But abrasiveness and the "read what I meant, not what I wrote" approach also works I guess.

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

#317

Post by insin »

fortuna86 wrote: post #253
lesuorac wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> TLDR: this post is entirely to calm advertisers, How though, Twitter has had week(s) to prepare this post and its so bare. > First, none of our policies have changed. ... The team remains strong and well-resourced. If you're Eli Lily, why would you re-advertise on twitter. Nothings changed from when you stopped!

> If you're Eli Lily, why would you re-advertise on twitter. Nothings changed from when you stopped! Not only would I not buy ads, i'd rethinking even having a corporate presence considering the lack of protections against fraud.

Looking forward to a verified @RealEliLilleyCEO account appearing 5 minutes after Twitter Blue 2.0 3.0 comes out, which only allows you to trivially impersonate people, after which Musk will completely independently invent Verification 2.0 3.0 which will either just be the old system again or a separate Twitter Blue badge. Visionary genius at work.

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

#318

Post by alfalfasprout »

andreyk wrote: post #12

TLDR: this post is entirely to calm advertisers, it can be boiled down to "don't worry, we still prioritize brand safety like before". It does have this gem in it: "What has changed, however, is our approach to experimentation. As you’ve seen over the past several weeks, Twitter is embracing public testing. We believe that this open and transparent approach to innovation is healthy, as it enables us to move faster an…

More like Twitter now lacks staffing of its ML and experimentation infra to actually do experiments carefully.

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

#319

Post by kmeisthax »

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're missing a lot of things.

The right-wingers that got banned presumably broke one of Twitter's rules - maybe they said "I wish someone would shoot (insert politician they don't like here)". Even if you take "pre-Musk Twitter had a left wing bias" as granted, that doesn't mean the right-wingers were wrongfully banned.

>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?

The only way to boil this down to a politically neutral rule is if we banned every right-winger who was at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 alongside everyone who went to a BLM rally that turned violent in 2020. And as far as I can tell neither behavior alone was a violation of Twitter rules as they stood at the time. The rule was no inciting violence on-platform, not no being involved in violence whatsoever.

As far as I can tell, pre-Musk Twitter had two biases:

- Their moderation team was understaffed and overworked because Twitter was too big of a target to effectively moderate. Twitter moderation would overprosecute easy-to-detect cases (i.e. LMG staff getting banned for months because of them sarcastically saying "I'll kill you") and underprosecute difficult ones (i.e. everyone harassing Twitter's villain-of-the-day).

- As a direct consequence of this, right-wingers were more likely to be banned. This is because their rhetoric is inherently more violent[0] in ways that were easier to detect.

Musk has basically decided to cut the moderation team in half and unban all the right-wingers in the name of "balance". All this does is say "we are now letting right-wingers break all the rules, but left-wingers must be on their best behavior, if we let them stay on the platform at all".

[0] Specifically, left-wingers were saying to smash windows, right-wingers were saying to smash people.

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

#320

Post by knolax »

mlindner wrote: post #304
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...)

Mastodon doesn't do any of the things I want out of social media, and has the most backwards thinking to moderation. The moderation system is based on witch hunting. Federation can't work when there are discrete sets of people that absolutely hate each other. Right now Mastodon is full of the most far-left people.

First it's "The government can't stop me from saying anything I want", then it's "Corporations can't stop me from saying anything I want on their platform", and now you've progressed to "Private individuals running their own instances have to federate with me and listen to what I say or else they're witch hunting leftists". It's my own instance, I will federate with who I want. You have the right to run your instance, I have the right to tell you to fuck off.
Post reply on HN