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

391–400 of 504 posts

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

#391

Post by DesiLurker »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #382
DesiLurker wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What else to spend money on, than to ... influence Western culture and thought? If you only have a few billion you can buy a sports team, but if you have a few hundred, and still your youthful energy, what else could you do?

well if thats all he wanted to do than sure he could do it with his pile of money but that (would) makes twitter a failed business as far as the rest of us are concerned. thats clearly not what his claim was on before & after the purchase. not to mention its highly disingenuous to claim that you just want free speech and then try to boot the speech you dont agree with.

Also, I'd argue there are better/efficient ways to influence western thought. you just have to look at some other billionaires like Koch brothers to see how its done, if you have any doubts read the book titled 'dark money' by Jane Meyer.

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

#392

Post by BillSaysThis »

leephillips wrote: post #378
kmeisthax wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What you see is anecdotal, not data.

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

#393

Post by lmm »

sosodev wrote: post #50
Macha wrote: post #8

> 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. "Nothing has changed, except..." > Our Trust & Safety team continues its diligent work to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct, abusive behavior, and any violation of Twitter's rules. The team remains strong and well-resourc…

Yeah... Also, the unbanning of users previously considered hateful also directly conflicts with "to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct"

Only if you trust the judgement of the previous team.

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

#394

Post by timeon »

streb-lo wrote: post #20
nmz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its certainly a town square, just because you have your own little tavern/forum doesn't mean the town square isn't the town square.

A town square is usually a public project, maintained by the city on behalf of taxpayers. This is more like a big private club.

What Twitter is an tries to be is pseudo-public space.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/04/pops-privatel...

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/privately-owned-public-sp...

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

#395

Post by giantrobot »

bryananderson wrote: post #342
giantrobot wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except when a poll gets a lot of votes that he doesn’t like, in which case he says “looks like the bots are out in force today!”

Good ol' Schrödinger's bots.

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

#396

Post by darknavi »

latchkey wrote: post #79

Our Trust & Safety team continues its diligent work to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct, abusive behavior, and any violation of Twitter's rules Should have prefixed that with "What is left of our trust & safety team..."

Hey, Dave is doing great work these days!

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

#397

Post by leephillips »

BillSaysThis wrote: post #392
leephillips wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What you see is anecdotal, not data.

That’s exactly my point.

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

#398

Post by eduction »

CrypticShift wrote: post #135
janoc wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't. Federation doesn't solve any of the problems Twitter now has. That instead of one poorly managed understaffed silo full of trolls and abusers you have 2000 poorly managed, even more understaffed systems with 2000 different approaches to moderation and content doesn't make anything easier or fixed for people who use Twitter today. It is the same like we had federated chat with Jabber for 20 years now - and n…

> doesn't solve any of the problems Twitter now has > you have 2000 poorly managed, even more understaffed systems with 2000 different approaches It is not about short-term problem solving. It is about long-term investment in more decentralized social networks. 2000 different approaches is exactly what is needed for "natural selection" to do it job. > are first and foremost human, business, management and social prob…

>2000 different approaches is exactly what is needed for "natural selection" to do it job… The more (and sooner) people jump ship, the better chance we have to test and iterate.

I don’t think users are going to participate in these sorts of experiments long term. People are signing up now out of fear and anger and hope but Mastodon still lacks the user base — people for you to follow and people to amplify your posts. (Partly because it’s still a fraction as popular as Twitter and partly because the hosts all seem to be blocking a different half of the other hosts so even if two people are both on Mastodon they may not be able to connect.)

If, on top of all that, people are expected to tolerate “a lot of iterations” before things work right I see them leaving. Let’s not forget that the Twitter/Mastodon mode of interaction can be pretty toxic so there needs to be a big carrot for people. Mastodon doesn’t have it. Twitter barely did tbh.

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

#399

Post by palata »

renewiltord wrote: post #364
davesque wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well here it sounds more like "break things and be an asshole", to be honest.

I wonder what would have happened, had he fired 75% of the engineers when he took control of Tesla /s.

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

#400

Post by zaroth »

timeon wrote: post #390
zaroth wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 actuall…

What does it tell about people who wants to paint black mark on antifascist label in thread about unbanning far right?

Ah, classic. So this is actually all just shitposting and looking for ideological battle then.

The “antifascists” literally wore the mark themselves while committing upwards of a billion dollars of property damage over the course of a year+ of riots.

But seriously, please just take it elsewhere. Your innuendo is borderline if not actual libel.

Post reply on HN