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

351–360 of 504 posts

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

#351

Post by jasonlotito »

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.

No one in this thread is arguing that people who violate the rules shouldn't be banned. We are discussing the hypocrisy of what Elon is saying vs what he is clearly doing.

He is free to do this all he wants. We are free to laugh and mock as he flails around, lying and making stuff up.

You just wanted to quickly jump in and make this comment because you "got 'em" but really you just missed the mark.

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

#352

Post by AustinDev »

p0pcult wrote: post #343
AustinDev wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As would not taking cues from right wing fever dream peddlers.

Of course, but the whole situation is implausible on its face. It doesn't have to be a right-wing conspiracy.

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

#353

Post by stonogo »

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?

Where are the month-long antifa riots?

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

#355

Post by bamboozled »

smcl wrote: post #34
monero-xmr wrote: post #18

First Twitter was going to crash in a week, then it was everyone would flee to Mastodon, now it’s that all the advertisers would leave. Maybe Twitter really didn’t need 7500 people, and maybe having more voices speak is a good thing (there is always block button), and maybe advertisers won’t flee forever. That seems more likely to me than Twitter imploding.

> 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…

Also I've heard stories by some pretty prominent Twitter users who just left the platform and feel like their time on there has mostly been a waste of their live and won't be going back.

Maybe people just don't need another "online community"

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

#357

Post by eternalban »

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…

> What a weird thing to say... A/B tests are a thing, does anyone buy that experimenting with new things by rolling out new features to all users at once is a good strategy?

What it means: 'Elon looked bad when the blue checkmark fiasco happened. And more boo boos are on the way. Now Elon doesn't like to look bad. Solution? Everything we do is now covered by "it was just a test" disclaimer. Problem solved.'

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

#358

Post by jasonlotito »

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?

> So banning right wing users for having right wing opinions are OK…

What views?

I saw some of the tweets people got banned for. Are you okay with me associating those views with right wing views?

> that is accounts held by people taking part in month long riots and looting and political real-world violence

So, you are saying that your alleged criminal activities off Twitter should feature into whether you are banned? (Note, you never claimed they violated ANY of Twitters rules in your comment)

Is this satire? Is this an honestly held opinion? Or am I missing something?

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

#359

Post by UncleOxidant »

> Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.

This is the only part of the statement that might possibly be referring to the algorithms. I think the worst thing twitter (and FB as well) has done in the past was to use algorithms to boost outrage and thus boost engagement. Are they saying they're going to change how this works? I'm skeptical.

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

#360

Post by jasonlotito »

KerrAvon wrote: post #239
josteink wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Antifa accounts. … All of whom have now been suspended despite there being no infringement on terms of service. Are we talking about the same Antifa? Political terrorists, violently attacking civilians for having opposing beliefs? If inciting real-world political violence and terror is not against the TOS, why were supposedly all those right wingers banned?

[flagged]

He can't provide it. He's failing in all regards with this "argument" and he knows it doesn't hold water.
Post reply on HN