Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter's Fucked

degoes.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 398 posts

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#381

Post by atemerev »

eropple wrote: post #372
atemerev wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For that, there is another button: "stop receiving notifications". And another one: "don't allow anybody but the people I follow to spam me with shit". Both are easily activated on Twitter. What other button we need to invent? "Activate our hordes of ML algorithms to make sure that all replies you receive are about kittens or pink ponies"? Can be done, but we already have Facebook for that. For me, all this drama loo…

Do you realize that a big part of Twitter, for a lot of people, is making connections with different groups? I've made multiple friends on Twitter, people I now know and talk to through other channels (as well as Twitter). Even aside from those friends, I have had many conversations with people I don't follow and who don't follow me about issues--interesting ones that, in your weird little world, simply wouldn't happ…

So, you've got death threats and guro in your inbox while seeking new friends? (Both are serious, btw, and criminally punishable — nothing to do with free speech; however, e.g. comparing somebody with certain bodily orifice _is_ free speech. Little differences.)

And yes, crybullies. People like Melissa Click. I don't know why you are so enraged by this word, quite accurately describing them.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#384

Post by abiox »

snaky wrote: post #192
abiox wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what is "freedom of speech" outside the context of law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_and_the_Law

does this book contend that there is a thing such as "freedom of speech" which exists outside law? what is the reasoning?

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#385

Post by tim333 »

econner wrote: post #371
majani wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's never made a profit.

This is a good point. So I looked up some Twitter financials. In 2015 they posted a Net Income of -$521.03M and EBITDA of -$137.21M. I don't exactly understand how those two numbers can differ so much, but either way they're pretttty bad.

I was curious as to why the two numbers differed so much. A lot of it seems to be deprecation charges on servers and networking gear.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#386

Post by scholia »

gluelogic wrote: post #289
scholia wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're Verified, you have access to a Verified Twitter stream, which means you can avoid seeing anything from people who are not verified. This provides a civilized version of Twitter that is mostly populated by smart and funny people. So Twitter removed a professional jerk from the Verified streams while allowing him to continue as a rabble-rouser.

So Twitter's verification is more about access to this socially elitist feed? That may be a feature, but I think the primary function is to avoid people impersonating well-known public figures on the platform. Removing Milo's check out of politically-driven spite definitely undermines the validity of the entire verification system.

I didn't say it was the primary feature. I simply pointed out that verification wasn't as simple as is generally assumed.

> Removing Milo's check out of politically-driven spite definitely undermines the validity of the entire verification system.

That sounds like a prejudiced opinion expressed in prejudicial language. However, you might consider this section from I’m With The Banned

https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-ba...

QUOTE >>

Milo is excited. This is his night. How does he feel about his suspension?

“It’s fantastic,” he says, “It’s the end of the platform. The timing is perfect.”

He was planning for something like this. “I thought I had another six months, but this was always going to happen.”

Milo shows no remorse for the avalanche of misconduct he helped direct towards Leslie Jones, who is just the latest victim of the recreational ritual abuse he likes to launch at women and minorities for the fame and fun of it.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#387

Post by scholia »

Karunamon wrote: post #294
scholia wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We followed each other on Twitter, and have mutual acquaintances. I also know personal stuff about Milo that not many people know. If there were meanings that weren't obvious to you, that doesn't mean they weren't there.

It also means those meanings are completely worthless to bring into this discussion as they can't be evaluated - your comment is worded as if it's personal stuff you don't want to get in to.

Maybe it's a cultural thing. Milo is basically an example of British schoolboy humor, and the biggest joke for us, watching it, is that Republicans don't get the joke and take him seriously.

But then, Milo is just riding Trump, and plenty of Republicans take him seriously as well. (Not all, of course. Some have retained their integrity https://goplifer.com/2016/07/22/resignation-letter/ )

The problem is that people who are being taken for a ride obviously don't know they are being taken for a ride, or they wouldn't be. And they definitely don't want to know that: they'll just get angry. So it's much better not to tell them....

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#388

Post by michaelbuddy »

scholia wrote: post #386
gluelogic wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Twitter's verification is more about access to this socially elitist feed? That may be a feature, but I think the primary function is to avoid people impersonating well-known public figures on the platform. Removing Milo's check out of politically-driven spite definitely undermines the validity of the entire verification system.

I didn't say it was the primary feature. I simply pointed out that verification wasn't as simple as is generally assumed. > Removing Milo's check out of politically-driven spite definitely undermines the validity of the entire verification system. That sounds like a prejudiced opinion expressed in prejudicial language. However, you might consider this section from I’m With The Banned https://medium.com/welcome-to-the…

> Milo shows no remorse for the avalanche of misconduct he helped direct towards Leslie Jones.

He shows no remorse because she clearly didn't suffer from anything he said. Like I said before. Other people actually harassed, he didn't. Trolling a celebrity star of a bad movie isn't harassment by any measure. His comments were intelligent and funny. His article on Breitbart was scathing, which is why Jack targeted him, to set an example.

Also stated before, She was happy to leverage it for publicity. So much for being traumatized. And another thing, Milo doesn't launch abuse at Minorities. In fact, since he's in love with british black men, your comment has no value there because you're clearly uninformed on his background.

Milo attacks ideas and does sophisticated trolling. Judging by Twitter's crashing stock price right when this incident occurred, it can't be denied that Twitter's censoring of an minor media celebrity proved it made a bad move. So much so, Jack's been trying to put out the fire, even where he addressed it for a canned question during the investor phone call. He just wants it to go away.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#389

Post by michaelbuddy »

scholia wrote: post #249
Karunamon wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what, when you gain over some arbitrary amount of followers, you're not allowed to ever tweet about another person? What's the magic number at which you're not allowed to speak about anything but generalities? That's an plainly insane rule. How about Twitter actually ban people who actually break the site rules, act with some small measure of maturity, and stop moderating with a political bias that a child could s…

You're ignoring the context. Milo knew what he was doing. It was deliberate harassment. And thanks to his thuggish role in gamergate, he had plenty of "previous".

his 'thuggish role' you mean when he realized that the media were telling lies, where gaming websites were insulting gamers and he stood up for them on Twitter and Breitbart. What you call thuggish is really superior charisma and getting results.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#390

Post by michaelbuddy »

scholia wrote: post #250
michaelbuddy wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Milo had tens of thousands of flying monkeys to troll and harass people your claim. I was reading his tweets and you're wrong. It's simple. you don't have a leg to stand on. And thanks to twitter, we don't have the records to look at either. But since I was reading them I know, so I don't have to take your claim into consideration.

Your problem, I think.

Yeah I reread his tweets there. They were no where near harassment level, again I reiterate. This is twitter's failure and it didn't help them in their stock this week. It may be a fatal blow as things continue and replacement platforms start to surface.
Post reply on HN