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

471–480 of 504 posts

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

#471

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

CameronNemo wrote: post #414
guywithahat wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok but groups like the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club are not a trivial account (or frankly even a journalist). They're a radical antifa group who follow people (include government agents) officials around with guns, openly assaulting them, and has been part of deadly riots. It's like the proud boys x2 I also wouldn't call Andy Ngo, a gay asian journalist who's spoken in front of congress, far right. He basically recor…

You have not presented any evidence that any John Brown Gun Club chapters have assaulted or killed anybody. The Gun Club arms itself to defend against far-right violence and often appears as a security force at protests to protect against expected far-right violence. To date, Gun Club members have reportedly not engaged anyone with their weapons during one of these protests. https://www.counterextremism.com/supremacy…

> Being invited by Republicans to speak before Congress is just more evidence that Andy Ngo is far right, from my perspective.

I guess as long as you hold that being invited by Democrats to speak before Congress makes someone far left, that would be fair.

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

#472

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

threeseed wrote: post #204
felipesoc wrote: post #88

> 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?

Musk also asked people to report suspected Antifa accounts to Andy Ngo a right-wing conservative journalist. All of whom have now been suspended despite there being no infringement on terms of service.

> All of whom have now been suspended despite there being no infringement on terms of service.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Musk said they were in "clear violation of ToS." I want to see both the pro- and the anti- on that before passing judgement on the move.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1596071799410003969

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

#473

Post by P5fRxh5kUvp2th »

sayrer wrote: post #383
throwawaymaths wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're also problematic because you'll likely optimize for whatever metric you pick with no regard to the ethics of the optimization. Sometimes a double blind test is not the right thing to do.

I've never really bought this argument. There might be unethical growth hackers in the company, but A/B tests are not the problem in that situation. In my experience, they mostly just catch bugs. Stuff like "hmm, our much better looking signup flow underperforms... oh, the form is broken on Safari." That kind of thing.

To make it easier for everyone to understand the other posters point...

a double blind test can help you determine the most effective way to cause pain to a monkey, but it will never answer the question of whether you should be doing so.

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

#474

Post by CameronNemo »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #471
CameronNemo wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have not presented any evidence that any John Brown Gun Club chapters have assaulted or killed anybody. The Gun Club arms itself to defend against far-right violence and often appears as a security force at protests to protect against expected far-right violence. To date, Gun Club members have reportedly not engaged anyone with their weapons during one of these protests. https://www.counterextremism.com/supremacy…

> Being invited by Republicans to speak before Congress is just more evidence that Andy Ngo is far right, from my perspective. I guess as long as you hold that being invited by Democrats to speak before Congress makes someone far left, that would be fair.

Perhaps. Let's look at Andy Ngo's invitation in context. Republican lawmakers asked him to testify during hearings about the January 6 insurrection attempt. His testimony mainly aimed to downplay the feeble insurrection attempt, and shift focus to riots. Of course, he fails to mention that the riots were often directly caused by police action.

https://www.courthousenews.com/domestic-terror-still-thorny-...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/opinion/sunday/police-rio...

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

#475

Post by CameronNemo »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #467
CameronNemo wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And banned accounts when fringe far right "journalists" complained about them. https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...

> fringe far right "journalists" I'm having a hard time thinking that anyone should be called a journalist -- without mocking quotes -- at this point. After the past couple of years of "reporting" about COVID, vaccines, protests, Ukraine, China, Twitter, etc., et. al., EVERYONE has taken positions at the "fringe." For 20 years, I've made sense of the news by looking for the pieces of the puzzle where people agree. Th…

Sure, the truth doesn't exist and reality is an illusion.

But Andy NGO has an especially concerning history of misrepresenting facts, using misleading cuts, and closely associating with far right insurrectionary groups such as the Proud Boys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Ngo#Credibility

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

#476

Post by lijogdfljk »

phpisthebest wrote: post #455
yosame wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

Emotions are real, but is it not the public responsibility to manage your emotions. Each person, solely, is responsible for their own emotions. If "emotional harm" becomes the basis for what speech is allowed and what is not then we cease to have a culture of free expression “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... tha…

> Emotions are real, but is it not the public responsibility to manage your emotions. Each person, solely, is responsible for their own emotions. If "emotional harm" becomes the basis for what speech is allowed and what is not then we cease to have a culture of free expression

Yea, this is bunk. What do you think fuels things like mass hysteria? What do you think fuels illogical decisions made in mass?

I'm not advocating for mass censorship, but lets not pretend humans are either logical or capable of handling their own emotions. They're terrible at it. Look at any collection of humans. You can't walk forward without stubbing your toe over examples. Daily commute traffic is full of humans who can't manage their own emotions. edit: Even police know that human memory can't be trusted. What do you think fuels decisions we make, if our memory is so mutable?

Likewise, if it was just emotions up for discussion that would be one thing. But it's not, it's so much more. It's "facts". A mass information war is taking place. Standing on the sidelines saying again, people can handle it, has already been proven false. Repeatedly. People cannot nor will not handle it, at least without help.

The more quickly we recognize how horrible humans are at handling emotions and information ingestion the better we can make reasonable decisions about how to aid humans in actually making progress.

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

#477

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

p0pcult wrote: post #458
AustinDev wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, but the whole situation is implausible on its face. It doesn't have to be a right-wing conspiracy.

Guy with severe mental health issues [checks notes] in an era when the former president led an uprising--one which actually broke into the capitol building--to stay in power and [checks notes] breaks into the house of the [checks notes] super-vilified(1) speaker of the house, and--fining only Paul Pelosi there--attacks him. Yes, implausible on the face of it. Of course. How could this happen? (1) https://www.nytimes.…

Pelosi goes into the bathroom to call police.

Pelosi leaves the bathroom to go back this "intruder".

Pelosi opens the door for police, and goes back to the "intruder". Where this is finally an argument and he is attacked in front of police.

...

You should update your notes.

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

#478

Post by p0pcult »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #477
p0pcult wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guy with severe mental health issues [checks notes] in an era when the former president led an uprising--one which actually broke into the capitol building--to stay in power and [checks notes] breaks into the house of the [checks notes] super-vilified(1) speaker of the house, and--fining only Paul Pelosi there--attacks him. Yes, implausible on the face of it. Of course. How could this happen? (1) https://www.nytimes.…

Pelosi goes into the bathroom to call police. Pelosi leaves the bathroom to go back this "intruder". Pelosi opens the door for police, and goes back to the "intruder". Where this is finally an argument and he is attacked in front of police. ... You should update your notes.

And you should cite sources.

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

#479

Post by phpisthebest »

lijogdfljk wrote: post #476
phpisthebest wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emotions are real, but is it not the public responsibility to manage your emotions. Each person, solely, is responsible for their own emotions. If "emotional harm" becomes the basis for what speech is allowed and what is not then we cease to have a culture of free expression “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... tha…

> Emotions are real, but is it not the public responsibility to manage your emotions. Each person, solely, is responsible for their own emotions. If "emotional harm" becomes the basis for what speech is allowed and what is not then we cease to have a culture of free expression Yea, this is bunk. What do you think fuels things like mass hysteria? What do you think fuels illogical decisions made in mass? I'm not advoca…

>>I'm not advocating for mass censorship, but

then proceed to advocate for mass censorship, you are functionally saying we need fact checkers the problem is I do not trust the fact checkers that have been appointed in the past because they have been proven to be partisan hacks that spread "approved" disinformation only dispelling unapproved disinformation

Nor do I trust government agencies (like the CDC or the WHO) to be the "source of truth"

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

#480

Post by lijogdfljk »

phpisthebest wrote: post #479
lijogdfljk wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Emotions are real, but is it not the public responsibility to manage your emotions. Each person, solely, is responsible for their own emotions. If "emotional harm" becomes the basis for what speech is allowed and what is not then we cease to have a culture of free expression Yea, this is bunk. What do you think fuels things like mass hysteria? What do you think fuels illogical decisions made in mass? I'm not advoca…

>>I'm not advocating for mass censorship, but then proceed to advocate for mass censorship, you are functionally saying we need fact checkers the problem is I do not trust the fact checkers that have been appointed in the past because they have been proven to be partisan hacks that spread "approved" disinformation only dispelling unapproved disinformation Nor do I trust government agencies (like the CDC or the WHO) t…

> then proceed to advocate for mass censorship, you are functionally saying we need fact checkers the problem is I do not trust the fact checkers that have been appointed in the past because they have been proven to be partisan hacks that spread "approved" disinformation only dispelling unapproved disinformation

I did not, you misunderstand.

I merely advocate for acknowledging that humans are terrible at the things i pointed at. Which conversely, you seem to advocate that we are capable there. You can both identify that we are terrible at information and not advocate for surveillance/censorship. Why do you jump to those contrasts?

To think of it differently, we have to acknowledge we have a problem before we can fix it. Information is a gun, and we have not taken gun safety. We need tools and acknowledgement of our limitations before we can wield the power you so haphazardly throw around. I do not trust young children with guns. We are nothing more than children in our current state.

My previous post advocated that we don't pretend the children can handle guns safely without training and safety tooling. edit: That we should find ways to prove gun safety training / tooling, rather than remove guns (in this analogy lol)

Post reply on HN