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

431–440 of 504 posts

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

#431

Post by RonaldRaygun »

phpisthebest wrote: post #109
aaroninsf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only weird, if you attempt to parse it with a straight face. This is some B-grade best-effort spin on what has been uncontrolled chaos with predictably awful effects. The only thing keeping Twitter rolling is the majority percentage of the casual niche user in non-political and non-technical niches, who haven't been paying attention to the chaos; and who by virtue of being casual users are not notably surprised…

Twitter has never been more fun, useful, and engaging for me. I signed up for an account after years of refusing to do so after elon took over

That's because you're a right wing troll, no? You're exactly the target demographic Musk is rolling out the red carpet for, so it stands to reason you're having a great time with it. This clearly doesn't refute the OP though.

Will certainly be interesting to see if there are enough of y'all willing to shell out $8/mo to have your speech boosted above the free variety to make up for the lost ad spend of the Pinochet-helicopter-meme-adverse.

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

#432

Post by UncleMeat »

willcipriano wrote: post #423
UncleMeat wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some of the most damaging riots in the country’s history Stunning that anybody could believe this.

Over a billion dollars in damage, the most expensive in history. https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots-cost-property-damage

> the most expensive in history.

Stunning that anybody could believe this.

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

#433

Post by subsection1h »

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…

> Censorship is not the solution

LOL. You posted this to a moderated forum.

> I experienced the Wild West of the internet

I was on USENET in the early 90s, and newsgroups like comp.lang.c.moderated were created for a reason. Unmoderated forums end up as cesspools.

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

#435

Post by spamuel »

cyberphobe wrote: post #298
spamuel wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to be more specific - he wasn't banning George Takei or Occupy Democrats. He banned ANTIFA accounts that were being used to plan "direct action", ie: riots. Something that was previously against Twitter's TOS, but it wasn't being enforced specifically against ANTIFA accounts because Twitter employees were sympathetic to the cause.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to make your little delusion work. Obviously the banned accounts were not calling for any form of violence, otherwise the bans wouldn't have been news

Other people seeing and understanding what is going on does not require your participation.

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

#436

Post by m-p-3 »

> 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-resourced, and automated detection plays an increasingly important role in eliminating abuse.

And yet they lock accounts for tweets like "Elon Musk should pay taxes"

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

#437

Post by xyzelement »

Imnimo wrote: post #218

>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. Sounds like a change in policy to me.

I read this as "we are maintaining our stance on what is and isn't acceptable (policy), we are tweaking how we respond to breaches (enforcement)"

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

#438

Post by akomtu »

subsection1h wrote: post #433
phpisthebest wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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…

> Censorship is not the solution LOL. You posted this to a moderated forum. > I experienced the Wild West of the internet I was on USENET in the early 90s, and newsgroups like comp.lang.c.moderated were created for a reason. Unmoderated forums end up as cesspools.

Censorship and moderation are very different things. Moderation is more about format than content: too frequent posting, adding hyperlinks to irrelevant sites, intentionally poor formatting (all capslock) and so on. And moderators are usually public figures, because the rules are simple and widely supported. Censorship is "wrongthink moderation": censors dont care about format of the message, but care about the thought behind it. Censors are usually anon figures and the rules are usually unpopular and secret for this reason.

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

#439

Post by halfmatthalfcat »

Imnimo wrote: post #218

>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. Sounds like a change in policy to me.

So...status quo. This is what Twitter was essentially doing before, no?

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

#440

Post by sjs7007 »

Nextgrid wrote: post #283
etchalon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any social networks, in existence, at scale, which do not rely on advertising as their primary revenue source?

Closest thing to it would be WhatsApp, which during its early days charged a token sum to access and still managed to gain significant marketshare. Other than this I don't know - the problem with social media is that you need network effects to make the platform valuable - nobody is going to pay for an empty place, and similarly nobody will join because they'd have to pay (so the platform would need to provide value…

> Closest thing to it would be WhatsApp, which during its early days charged a token sum to access and still managed to gain significant marketshare.

This was never really enforced.

Post reply on HN