Live data from Hacker News

Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation

blog.twitter.com

371–380 of 504 posts

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

#371

> First, none of our policies have changed. Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach. They recently unbanned many controversial accounts based solely on Twitter polls. Who do they expect will believe these statements?

The policy has catch all clauses in it (like "we can do what we want whenever") to avoid lawsuits, so if they ban people who otherwise aren't explicitly in violation of a policy it's easy to unban them without changing policy.

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

#372

> First, none of our policies have changed. Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach. They recently unbanned many controversial accounts based solely on Twitter polls. Who do they expect will believe these statements?

> First, none of our policies have changed. 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 bullshit on its face. The first sentence and the second sentence directly contradict each other.

I think they're referring to their legal policy (like the one you sign with twitter when you sign up), and there's no reason that would have had to change for the changes he's implemented.

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

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think he'll make it. On what basis? Elon needs cash flow to pay the loans he took to buy Twitter. Banks don’t give a shit about politics, or mission, or popularity. Banks care about cash flow. Fact: advertisers (read: cash flow) are leaving Twitter. How will Elon pay off his loans?

It seems that he has about $200 Billion left, so I wouldn't worry too much about loans. https://www.forbes.com/profile/elon-musk/?sh=1b1e26227999

So you are suggesting He'll pay from his personal coffers? by selling tesla stock? thats not bad at all.

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

#375
post #345
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> using Tesla car owners as unpaid betatesters Almost right. Charging Tesla owners to beta test their autonomous driving software.

It's curious how many people are unhappy that someone choses to pay for an early-access product that's in beta.

Most people are probably just amused. I'm more on the unhappy side because a vehicle can actually kill people when it crashes and Musk seems like more of a "move fast and break things" personality, which is not a great combination for safety.

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

#376
post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I read the Intercept article, and clicked through and read some the screen captured tweets from the “antifascist” accounts that were banned that the article did not care to include.

The Intercept article is not journalism. It’s a PR piece for the accounts that were banned and quotes spokespeople for the impacted groups totally uncritically.

Calling them antifascists seems a misnomer too, they seem to me to be actually anti-capitalist rabble-rousers and professional rioters. Educating, equipping, funding and inciting violent riots seems a clear TOS violation to me.

The “no true antifa” arguments sounds like the sort of ploy that was used when these riots kicked off and democrats in Congress and MSM talking heads were trying to laugh off the idea of “antifa” as a violent domestic terrorist organization simply because they don’t have an org chart.

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

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

> their rhetoric is inherently more violent[0] in ways that were easier to detect.

Do you have any evidence for this generalization? The only overt violent threats I’ve seen on Twitter are men encouraging rape and murder of JK Rowling and other supporters of women’s rights. I don’t know if they’re “right wing” or not, but their surrounding rhetoric is what’s usually associated loosely with the “left”.

But surely this depends on what one happens to see. That’s why I’m wondering if you have any kind of random sample from which you can draw your conclusions.

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

#379

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]

The antifa fueled BLM riots were some of the most damaging riots in the country’s history.

The national guard was called out in dozens of cities during these months long protests… Portland and Seattle were basically under siege. City blocks were literally occupied for many days leading to inability of police and medical services to respond on those areas.

https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots-cost-property-damage

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

#380

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

> Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. Never heard sealioning before, "thanks, I hate it" I guess. Reminds me of "dog-whistling", and in a way is an exact example of what PM_me_your_math is getting at. You can decide someone is being disingenuous, but if y…

> The GP said "those claims are demonstrably false",

If you're going to quote me, please do it correctly. I said,

"I think both of those claims are demonstrably false."

You may not see a distinction between those two, but I see a large one.

Post reply on HN