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

441–450 of 504 posts

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

#441

Post by etchalon »

staunch wrote: post #409
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?

Not really? Maybe Patreon or OnlyFans represent the best examples. But there weren't any real EV companies or private space companies before Elon Musk threw his hat in the ring. Whatever you think of him, he's clearly capable of doing things people previously believed to be impractical. Taking a first principles approach, there's no reason to believe that a social network used by the most influential companies, peopl…

The notion that the social network provides value on its own is … weird.

Social networks are valuable because of users. They gain value by attracting large numbers of users.

They have limited inherent value, and the majority have features which are easy enough for rivals to replicate.

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

#442

Post by noisycarlos »

dorkwood wrote: post #324
Communitivity wrote: post #33

I do not see how they can say they still prioritize broad safety when there is reportedly only one person left on the child safety team.

One person for the Asia-Pacific region[1], not one person in total. [1]: https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-child-sexual-abuse-mater...

So one person for 3 billion people. Got it.

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

#443

Post by mlindner »

knolax wrote: post #320
mlindner wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mastodon doesn't do any of the things I want out of social media, and has the most backwards thinking to moderation. The moderation system is based on witch hunting. Federation can't work when there are discrete sets of people that absolutely hate each other. Right now Mastodon is full of the most far-left people.

First it's "The government can't stop me from saying anything I want", then it's "Corporations can't stop me from saying anything I want on their platform", and now you've progressed to "Private individuals running their own instances have to federate with me and listen to what I say or else they're witch hunting leftists". It's my own instance, I will federate with who I want. You have the right to run your instance…

It’s your own instance and I’ll never go there or any other instance that wants to control what people say publicly and to each other and spy on peoples private conversations.

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

#444

Post by dredmorbius »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #430
dredmorbius wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Others have addressed the ways in which A/B testing does hew quite closely to the standard of empirical observation under controlled circumstances, with which I largely agree. Where A/B studies may go wrong in my view is a few other elements: - A/B studies have difficulty in determining differences based on multiple interacting characteristics. In fairness, so does empirical science, and the principle of "holding all…

> it's quite possible that A/B testing has a long-term effect of pushing those participants whose tolerance has been exceeded out of the study population entirely. I'd compare this to how evaporation rate increases with temperature, as more particles find themselves with enough energy to escape the liquid. From my personal experience, even if I can tolerate a lot of UX abuse, each such "optimization" lowers my thresh…

Three excellent points, yes.

There's a reason that the technical term for "A/B testing in SaaS products" is gaslighting.

O hai werd uv yeer!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33784262>

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

#445

Post by rvz »

willcipriano wrote: post #256
threeseed wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the fact that no-one was getting banned merely for having an option or for their actions outside of the Twitter platform. They were banned for continuously violating the terms of service e.g. inciting violence, racist or xenophobic content, doxxing etc. And what happened here is that those left-wing accounts were banned without any such violation i.e. it was purely arbitrary and the very thing you cla…

What's odd to me is if this question came up a few months ago we would see lots of "it's a private platform" and "freedom of association" comments that aren't as prevalent all the sudden. Those left wing people that were banned, very likey supported the system that just got them banned.

There you go. Not a problem when right-leaning accounts were banned on the same ToS violations of inciting violence and impersonation, and now somehow it is a problem when it is applied to left-leaning accounts doing the same thing.

> Those left wing people that were banned, very likey supported the system that just got them banned.

Exactly, and the rules must be applied equally, which wasn't the case before.

If both sides are now angry over Twitter's moderation system and are building their own echo-chambers, then Twitter (2.0) will remain as a site for a more balanced discussion without either extreme screaming on the platform.

At the end of the day, I'm still laughing at the entire Twitter chaos and the screeching minority who are pretending to leave Twitter whilst keeping their accounts and screaming about Elon Musk elsewhere rent free unable to ignore him in their own echo chambers.

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

#446

Post by gloosx »

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…

He should unban Trump as an A/B test, like ones who answered Yes in that poll should be in B group, ones answered No in A group got him banned. It would be great even to separate these people completely into the A/B Twitter (2.0) so they don't see each other's tweets. The main metric should be better poll distribution. Like instead of stupid 51/49 polls better miniority-suppressing 85/15 polls, and these 15 go into C group then eventually getting us to fair 100/0 polls and poll-communism, preventing any pesky problems with different opinions, we all know they are easily solved by polls.

I wonder why they don't have 7/12 polls in court, surely 9/12 is enough to decide a sentence already, and all americans think it's fair, why twitter doesn't freakin comply with 75% poll rule?

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

#447

Post by Razengan »

Maybe online platforms should just stick to how social interactions work in meatspace:

You choose where and with whom you want to converse.

If you're indoors, you converse with your family/coworkers. If you're outdoors, you converse with friends or service providers + some public noise.

Privately, people can talk about whatever they want. If someone starts bothering someone, the "host" of the place can ask them to leave, kick them out, or call the police.

IRC almost figured it out like 900 years ago, but no then the centralized Hutts decided they want to control everything and "mOnEtIzE" all our interactions so now we have proprietary BS each trying to reinvent the damn wheel in its own broken half-baked way.

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

#449

Post by yosame »

phpisthebest wrote: post #275
jaredcwhite wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think people need thicker skin What a ridiculous thing to say. Actually plenty of us (and I've also been on the internet for many decades now) would like to hop online to engage with some cool folks about [insert interesting topic here] without having utter garbage and dreck thrown up in our faces like racism, transphobia, misogyny, bigotry, etc., etc.

Well it is good thing for you all major platforms have the ablity to block, mute, or otherwise curate your experience, including sharing "block lists" and other innovations so your personal experience is what you make it to be I support giving people the power to create their own echo chambers and safe spaces, feel free to do so.. No one should be forced to communicate with anyone they do not want to, however you als…

> "Sticks and Stones my break my bones but words will never harm me"

Emotions are real, and emotional pain is real. Of course words can hurt you, they evoke emotions.

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

#450

Post by blitzar »

yreg wrote: post #345
w0m wrote: 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.

He promised I would be able to earn income on my car driving around town all on its own while I was asleep at home by the end of 2016. Instead I have to pay him to have a computer drive full throttle into stationary objects - something that I am more than capable of doing on my own.
Post reply on HN