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

481–490 of 504 posts

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

#481

Post by etchalon »

staunch wrote: post #470
etchalon wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The network is the value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect But what matters beyond the network is how well it can be utilized by users. That layer of tools and functionality on top of the network is where Twitter could charge users. Particularly power users and businesses that can justify spending some money on it because they get so much value or even generate revenue from it.

Twitter was already trying this with Twitter Blue.

It was not wildly successful.

Certainly not successful enough to replace advertising.

As for the network effect … that's the point of "the value comes from the users."

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

#482

Post by return_to_monke »

torginus wrote: post #456
ilyt wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think calling Mastodon and friends "federation" is too generous, "fiefdoms" fits much better, each with king/admin (not actual users) deciding what's allowed and what is banned.

Isn't that how regular internet forums work?

internet forums don't really have a way to talk with each other natively.

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

#483

Post by throwaway290 »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #464
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..."

Has anyone shown actual data that proves Twitter has dropped the ball on this front, despite all the raging commentary about how many people have been let go or left?

To me it was obvious without the numbers. Saw a spike in "hateful conduct and abusive behaviour" in replies on tweets by others, though I think it subsided again. A number of accounts went private. Myself got burned by using Twitter search in public places as innocent queries started returning porn media.

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

#484

Post by andirk »

dragonwriter wrote: post #170
gfodor wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the thing that has changed explicitly is Twitter is no longer going to ban users based on hateful conduct, but deboost their tweets.

Except they actually keep suspending accounts for violations of the hateful content policy, specifically for Tweets with fairly mild criticism of Musk and nothing that even superficially relates to what is prohibited by the hateful content policy.

The idea that the suspensions are restricted to only hateful content is simply false. It's a popular lie by political propagandists who know the truth and want to push the myth of systematic distortion, and I guess your argument is a natural way for someone who has internalized that propaganda, doesn’t know the methodology, but has seen the definition to try to rationalize what they have internalized, but its just not true.

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

#485

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

CameronNemo wrote: post #475
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

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

I don't know who Andy Ngo is, and I don't care, but if we're talking about misleading cuts, let's talk about the ENTIRETY of the mass media making out like Trump said Nazis were "fine people." All it took was 2 minutes of looking at the transcript when the furor broke out to understand that's NOT what he said, but half the country still believes he somehow came out in direct support of them. And this is precisely the back and forth I was alluding to when I say that there is literally no overlap on what is considered truth any more.

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

#486

Post by phpisthebest »

lijogdfljk wrote: post #480
phpisthebest wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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…

>>To think of it differently, we have to acknowledge we have a problem before we can fix it.

That is the thing, outside of mass censorship it is unsolvable problem

You either allow people to speak freely, in which case misinformation will spread, and emotions will be harmed. or you restrict speech eliminating the very concept of free expression

There is no utopia to be found here

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

#487

Post by lijogdfljk »

phpisthebest wrote: post #486
lijogdfljk wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>>To think of it differently, we have to acknowledge we have a problem before we can fix it. That is the thing, outside of mass censorship it is unsolvable problem You either allow people to speak freely, in which case misinformation will spread, and emotions will be harmed. or you restrict speech eliminating the very concept of free expression There is no utopia to be found here

> That is the thing, outside of mass censorship it is unsolvable problem

Completely agree there. edit: Or rather, that it's an unsolved problem. I misread `able` for `ed`

> You either allow people to speak freely, in which case misinformation will spread, and emotions will be harmed. or you restrict speech eliminating the very concept of free expression > There is no utopia to be found here

Yes, those are the current available options. I'm not questioning that.

I'm challenging your assertion that we're capable. More specifically, saying we must acknowledge that we're not capable. We must acknowledge and identify the problem.

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

#488

Post by cutemonster »

fortuna86 wrote: post #257
schemescape wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The policy is still there—-they just aren’t enforcing it. Corporate doublespeak at its finest.

Is a policy or a law that is not enforced even a law or policy? They are just words on paper then.

At least you can use it for selective enforcement

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

#489

Post by rovolo »

unconed wrote: post #454
linasj wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter after musk is welcoming misinformation https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-63796832 - this means worse.

Don't be ridiculous. Claims that were classified as COVID misinformation include: - surgical masks don't work against aerosol viruses - lockdowns and curfews will not stop covid - natural immunity due to prior infection is more effective - mRNA shots don't stop transmission - mRNA shots don't stop infection - mRNA shots cause myocarditis One by one these have been revealed as true, with naysayers looking like ass-cov…

Claims (2, 4, 5, 6) are very weak because you are making them absolutes (e.g. "don't stop"). By themselves, these 4 claims don't tell us what our plan of action should be. They become misinformation when they are used as recommondations because they are missing so much context.

For example, claim (6) about myocarditis is usually used to say that vaccines are dangerous and should be avoided. This is a wrongheaded examination of the risks:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/risk-of-myocarditis-followi...

> Given that >90% of cases of myocarditis will completely recover, that means in young men the vaccines prevent six deaths per million doses while causing > We also have to keep in mind that COVID-19 infection itself causes myocarditis. ... That’s 1,500 cases of myocarditis per million COVID-19 infections, vs 40 per million in the high-risk group of young men from mRNA vaccines, and 1-2 per million doses in lower risk groups. The risk is literally 1-2 orders of magnitude (10-100x) greater from getting infected than from the vaccine.

P.S. Claim (3) misses the entire point? The point of vaccines is to not get as sick and possibly avoid getting sick altogether. "Natural immunity" requires you to have a "prior infection" as you say.

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

#490

Post by imiric »

torginus wrote: post #457
CrypticShift wrote: post #11

> What has changed, however, is our approach to experimentation including I suppose Elon's experimental approach to management. I hope that in 10 years, we will look back at this twitter 2.0 (= musk's debacle) as the impetus that lead to more widespread adoption of social media 2.0 (= federation) I already see the snowball effect getting momentum with all this coverage (NPR, NYT...) and big name exits (Apple...)

I don't understand why people put an equals sign between less moderation and the inevitable fall of the platform to trolls? I feel HN is not that moderated - bar - I don't feel like it happens that often that people's opinions get disappeared - Imo the main appeal of the site is that people of differing opinions are and worldviews are able to have informed debates about stuff here - even if limited to the world of te…

HN is still a very niche community where Eternal September hasn't happened yet. Moderation is largely enforced by the community itself thus far, and one(?) superhuman moderator.

You can be sure that if a flood of new users happens, the current system won't scale, and we'd see a diminishing quality of content and comments posted. Some old timers would probably say that has already happened, but it's still largely under control.

This site doesn't have the benefit of, say, Reddit, where niche communities can still exist in relative isolation and with their own moderation rules, even with the amount of users and low quality content on the rest of the site.

Post reply on HN