Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 580 posts

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#551

Post by lazyeye »

bavell wrote: post #179
quadrifoliate wrote: post #125

I have been responsible a bit of content moderation myself, and interacted with mods on various forums. It's possible that this is responsible for some of my views, summarized here. - The "secret" aspect of all this can be largely ignored. Twitter is under no obligation to tell its users exactly how their Tweets are moderated. I am sure most moderation tools are secret, including whatever Twitter (or for that matter,…

> I don't think Weiss understands what "shadow ban" means. It means that you post Tweets, but no one ever sees them. None of the practices she describes amount to what is usually described as a shadow ban or a hellban. Preventing a post from showing up in trends or searches is not a shadow ban. Google SafeSearch does not "shadow ban" explicit images or links. Colloquially, I think many information suppression tactics…

If the rules are not being applied equally across the political spectrum then your comment is simply obsfucation and misdirection. Completely missing the point.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#552

Post by Izkata »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #294
scifibestfi wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Still trying to process my emotions on learning that @twitter blacklisted me. The thought that will keep me up tonight: censorship of scientific discussion permitted policies like school closures & a generation of children were hurt." https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya/status/16010379837793894...

I don’t know how other people think about this, but in my mind there is a large difference between censoring and not promoting , and the trends blacklist feels more like the latter.

IIRC the trending topics on Twitter are a mixture of automated and manually-selected. Not manually selecting him would be "not promoting", but putting him on a blacklist means he was prevented from naturally showing up - that's censoring.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#553

Post by iudqnolq »

spfzero wrote: post #549
iudqnolq wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like the term misinformation. I don't think Twitter should have restricted his tweets. However, it's important to remember Bhattacharya was wrong. In the op-ed posted above he guessed that the predicted death toll of 2-4 million people was off by multiple orders of magnitude. He said that dramatic interventions like lockdowns would be justified to prevent that kind of death toll, but that COVID was nowhere ne…

We can never know how many people Covid killed in America, because the rubric in the US is to count as a Covid "death" any death where the deceased tested positive for covid. In that group might be someone who would have not died had they not had Covid, but it also includes many people who would have died regardless of Covid positivity. It is also to count as a Covid hospitalization, anyone hospitalized who tests pos…

We can (and have) validated that measurement by comparing the total number of deaths of all causes to analogous past years.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#554

Post by ModernMech »

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #530
ModernMech wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> apparently it has to be on the front page or you are violating the first amendment rights of those who want it on the front page! This is a ridiculous strawman fallacy. HN loves gossip about tech companies getting caught doing things all of the other times it has happened. Hundreds of comments and upvotes on each one. But not this time? What's the difference?

> Hundreds of comments and upvotes on each one. But not this time?

These so called Twitter files have gotten over 2000 comments combined on HN. Not sure what your problem is.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#555

Post by TheHappyOddish »

ModernMech wrote: post #397
rhaksw wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ther's no obligation to have dialog with others who are actively threatening to kill you. I never said there was. Even free speech law has limits and may punish such speech. What I advocate is for authors of secretly removed content to be able to discover the removal, because even if the comment is vitriolic, the offending author may perceive the lack of a response as tacit approval of their words. > But there is a…

> Left wing extremists are currently saying that words are violence [1]. It’s the Republican, Trump-appointed, FBI director’s assessment that extremist right-wing political violence (read homegrown right-wing terrorism) is far and away a bigger problem than left-wing violence. Jan 6 I hoped would have demonstrated that clearly once and for all. After that day, it has become impossible to “both sides” political violen…

It's getting very boring hearing Americans going on about "Jan 6th". Some protesters entered a building. It's not that big a deal, no "political violence" happened.

It's been 20 years and Americans have finally recently stopped harping on about "9/11", after decades of them murdering orders of magnitudes more innocents. It's incredible to see them committing some of worst attrocities in the world and still loudly yell about their own tiny issues.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#556

Post by howinteresting »

lazyeye wrote: post #551
bavell wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think Weiss understands what "shadow ban" means. It means that you post Tweets, but no one ever sees them. None of the practices she describes amount to what is usually described as a shadow ban or a hellban. Preventing a post from showing up in trends or searches is not a shadow ban. Google SafeSearch does not "shadow ban" explicit images or links. Colloquially, I think many information suppression tactics…

If the rules are not being applied equally across the political spectrum then your comment is simply obsfucation and misdirection. Completely missing the point.

To the extent that rules don't get equally applied by social media platforms, they're generally biased in favor of the right.

However, the right, due to its inherent animus for large sections of society, breaks the rules so much more often and so much more egregiously (eg Babylon Bee) that actual enforcement decisions are applied against the right more often.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#557

Post by lazyeye »

howinteresting wrote: post #556
lazyeye wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the rules are not being applied equally across the political spectrum then your comment is simply obsfucation and misdirection. Completely missing the point.

To the extent that rules don't get equally applied by social media platforms, they're generally biased in favor of the right. However, the right, due to its inherent animus for large sections of society, breaks the rules so much more often and so much more egregiously (eg Babylon Bee) that actual enforcement decisions are applied against the right more often.

Nonsense. You just define the rules such that this is the conclusion ("everyone that disagrees with me is a nazi etc...")

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#558

Post by howinteresting »

lazyeye wrote: post #557
howinteresting wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the extent that rules don't get equally applied by social media platforms, they're generally biased in favor of the right. However, the right, due to its inherent animus for large sections of society, breaks the rules so much more often and so much more egregiously (eg Babylon Bee) that actual enforcement decisions are applied against the right more often.

Nonsense. You just define the rules such that this is the conclusion ("everyone that disagrees with me is a nazi etc...")

The rules used to prohibit deliberate misgendering, which any reasonable person would regard as cruelty to a marginalized group. The right (such as the Babylon Bee) disproportionately engages in this action, so it used to get banned more for this.

This is also why anti-trans actions by right-wing state governments in the US have been consistently shut down by the courts (e.g. [1]). There is no evidence to support their actions -- they're driven by sheer animosity.

Nothing "nonsense" about this.

The way the right plays the refs is by claiming that the fact that the right gets banned disproportionately ipso facto means that the rules are biased. That's what's "nonsense" here.

[1] https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/bongo-productions-llc-et...

> Although at least one key supporter of the Act in the General Assembly justified its requirements in relation to supposed risks of sexual assault and rape, there is (1) no evidence, in either the legislative record or the record of this case, that there is any significant problem of individuals’ abusing trans-inclusive restroom policies for that purpose and (2) no reason to think that, if such a problem existed, the mandated signs would address it.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#559

Post by lazyeye »

howinteresting wrote: post #558
lazyeye wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. You just define the rules such that this is the conclusion ("everyone that disagrees with me is a nazi etc...")

The rules used to prohibit deliberate misgendering, which any reasonable person would regard as cruelty to a marginalized group. The right (such as the Babylon Bee) disproportionately engages in this action, so it used to get banned more for this. This is also why anti-trans actions by right-wing state governments in the US have been consistently shut down by the courts (e.g. [1]). There is no evidence to support the…

Again, nonsense. You could make these kind of claims along any lines, for example, christians are the target of discrimination for their beliefs etc. You just choose the ones that align with left-wing ideology and everything else is "hate" and deserving of censorship.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#560

Post by howinteresting »

lazyeye wrote: post #559
howinteresting wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rules used to prohibit deliberate misgendering, which any reasonable person would regard as cruelty to a marginalized group. The right (such as the Babylon Bee) disproportionately engages in this action, so it used to get banned more for this. This is also why anti-trans actions by right-wing state governments in the US have been consistently shut down by the courts (e.g. [1]). There is no evidence to support the…

Again, nonsense. You could make these kind of claims along any lines, for example, christians are the target of discrimination for their beliefs etc. You just choose the ones that align with left-wing ideology and everything else is "hate" and deserving of censorship.

Noticing a startling lack of evidence in your posts here. You're in good company with those right-wing state governments over there.
Post reply on HN