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

361–370 of 504 posts

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

#361

Post by edavis »

giantrobot wrote: post #330
14u2c wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they are referring to Elon's recent unhinged polls as testing.

Hey: vox populi, vox dei! It's Latin so it must be smart. Apparently Twitter had some huge problem with bots when Musk was trying to get out of the purchase. Thankfully he solved the bot problem after the purchase so he could run polls and really get the will of the people and not, you know, all those previously problematic bots.

> It's Latin so it must be smart.

It's perfect, in a way, that the full quote is "Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit." which translates to "And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness."

Refs: https://twitter.com/cagrimmett/status/1595967787339743232

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

#362

Post by tzs »

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?

Has CameronNemo's post been edited after your comment to add that link to the article at The Intercept?

If so, check out that article. It should clear things up.

If not, and you have read the article, you probably skimmed it and mixed up antifascist and antifa. Generally the later is a subset of the former.

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

#363

Post by simeonf »

HWR_14 wrote: post #161
joshuamorton wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not using an off the shelf one, chances are it's tightly integrated to your application framework. Trying to tease out the pieces that aren't coupled to Twitter's User class is probably more effort than it's worth

That makes sense. Thanks. I guess the comment I read implied Twitter had an amazing A/B test suite, as opposed to a tightly specialized A/B test suite.

It's called DuckDuckGoose - see https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/a/2015/twitter-ex...

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

#364

Post by renewiltord »

davesque wrote: post #72
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…

I think this new idea of "public testing" is really just a post hoc recasting of Elon's failed Twitter Blue rollout. Calling it by those words is...creative? But the failure was less an experiment as it was a lesson in humility.

A typical HN comment on a SpaceX post might have once looked like:

> Unfortunately, the "move fast and break things" attitude doesn't work with rockets.

You will likely find this comment verbatim from the last 10 years. Given that is so, I can't see how someone could claim that Elon Musk is new to visible experimentation.

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

#365

Post by guywithahat »

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…

It could make sense in the context of twitter. They're a "public square" so to speak, so if everyone experiences the same change, they can discuss it at the same time instead of small subsets experiencing it and being confused (or getting back data from the wrong people)

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

#366

Post by inquirerGeneral »

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…

I do not think it means A/B testing and such is going away, but that public testing is going to be more widespread about things most people will probably be interested in.

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

#367

Post by inquirerGeneral »

jzelinskie wrote: post #21
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…

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.

You are suggesting that A/B testing is going away rather than this being simply an addition to widespread testing.

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

#368

Post by VikingCoder »

luckylion wrote: post #198
snapcaster wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it feels like this is just banter amongst bored people at work and demand for works cited comes off as sealioning or just maybe misreading the room

I find that anything related to Twitter/Musk produces some of the lowest quality comments on HN, and the top comment in this thread is one of them. It's a reddit style "amirite?" comment that does not engage with the topic (Twitter says they've limited reach for "hateful" content, so "impressions" could be down, even if the total number of hateful tweets sent might be up, so it's absolutely not obvious, and it's very…

Hi, I didn't vanish. I have a busy life. And HN has Guidelines [1], and you may want to re-read the last two:

> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.

You appear to be violating both of those guidelines.

You assert that my comment "does not engage with the topic". I disagree. I think I analyzed the submission, and found parts of it worth discussing.

Why did I make the comment I did? I should have taken more time to establish myself, and I'm sorry I opted to quickly highlight rather than to explain. Allow me (now that I have a moment) to explain.

It's a puff piece.

Despite being a puff piece, does it make any actual claims? Yes. Hmmm - maybe it would be interesting to identify the actual claims.

Are any of the claims actually falsifiable? Yes. Hmm - maybe it would be interesting to point out the claims that are actually falsifiable.

Do I think any of the falsifiable claims are demonstrably false? Yes. Hmm - here they are.

Am I sure that they are demonstrably false, and do I have the evidence to back that up? No. Darn. I can't say they're definitively false, but I can at least highlight the two that I have the strongest belief that yes, they are probably wrong.

Hence the only thing I added to them: "I think both of those claims are demonstrably false."

I'm sorry I didn't have time to go find the primary sources that would back up my belief.

1) Our Trust & Safety team... remains strong and well-resourced...

Wow. If you scan through the comments complaining about my comment, I don't see anyone who seems to have any problem with me pointing this one out. We've all seen the articles about the layoffs, firings, and resignations. I believe a recent one identified that there is exactly one (1) person left, doing an important moderation job, in a major market...? I wish I had the reference at hand, to show a primary source.

2) ...impressions on violative content are down over the past month...

If you scroll through the comments, I think you'll see some interesting discussion, including bringing up the Overton Window, and someone even provided references. (Great username, trs8080!) So, it appears folks on HN thought it was worth discussing. I'm glad to see their discussion. Maybe it would have happened without me pointing out that section, but maybe it wouldn't.

Cheers.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#369

Post by [deleted] »

phpisthebest wrote: post #216
lijogdfljk wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, but that's kinda the point in my eyes. Maybe a global forum with no moderation everyone can agree with is a bad thing? Ie maybe it makes everyone unhappy? Everyone was on Facebook too. We're not all looking for Facebook 2.0 currently, are we? Yea, we have different form factors of social networks, definitely. But some (not all!) of the core features of Facebook were misguided or mismanaged. Some features of F…

>>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…

[deleted]

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

#370

Post by toolz »

trs8080 wrote: post #200
toolz wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which rule following accounts on the left have been banned since musk bought the company? I only know of a couple accounts that were banned for very clearly violating terms of service, i.e. impersonating other people. I personally don't agree with even those bans, but I am curious to know which rule followers were banned.

"As the Los Angeles City Councilmember Mike Bonin noted on Twitter, the suspended users include Chad Loder, an antifascist researcher whose open-source investigation of the U.S. Capitol riot led to the identification and arrest of a masked Proud Boy who attacked police officers. The account of video journalist Vishal Pratap Singh, who reports on far-right protests in Southern California, has also been suspended." "Al…

reading the article it seems Loder continued to tweet about some right wing extremist even after being court ordered to stop. I think this qualifies as "breaking the rules" even if I disagree with him being banned (based on the article, I don't care to research Loder in depth).

It seems to me a reasonable course of action to ban people violating restraining orders on your website. I do suspect the restraining order is being misapplied here, but that maybe isn't twitters responsibility to determine? Not sure how I feel about that since twitter is aiming to be pro free-speech and this case specifically seems to be a free-speech issue. I could go either way, but I don't know enough about this Loder person, maybe he isn't high profile enough to warrant in-depth thought about his ban and otherwise would be unbanned in the name of free speech? I certainly would be more likely to think he would be unbanned if he was a right-wing activist, though, but I don't know that I've seen substantial evidence here that shows a banning bias as this particular ban could be entirely justified.

Post reply on HN