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

Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 156 posts

Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation

#61

Post by betwixthewires »

OneGuy123 wrote: post #7
OneGuy123 wrote: post #3

Who defines "misinformation"? The mainstream media? "If the news are fake imagine history". People need to understand that NO ONE can define what is "misinformation" because all sides have incentives to lie. This is purely thought policing.

Also I must say it's ironic that on a site with a bunch of programmers you still get downvoted for posting the fact that the media lies and that you cannot do anything other than laugh when the media decides to become "disinfo fact checkers". Do people really believe that when a company says "we will become independent fact checkers" that that is even possible? Did you learn nothing from your past experiences of what…

I agree with you, except I don't see a down vote button anywhere on this site.

But yes, generally, when a company promises to be your best buddy no strings attached it is time to get suspicious, and when someone believes them I begin to figure out if they're just naive or actually unintelligent.

Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation

#62

Post by onion2k »

k32 wrote: post #54
onion2k wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still don't get it that _NO ONE_ can claim they know what is/is not fake news because everyone has their own incentives. This is precisely why it's important that Twitter calls out when things are stated as fact without evidence. Twitter never actually say things are fake; they say things are baseless and without evidence. If you want to post things that are influential you simply need to back that claim up with…

> This is precisely why it's important that Twitter calls out when things are stated as fact without evidence. Twitter is a platform for stating things as fact without evidence. 120 (or whatever it is now) character limit is not suitable for having cogent conversations.

For what it's worth the limit is 280 characters. Your entire post, including the quote, would fit with room to spare. Tweets aren't that short.

As for posting without space to have a cogent conversation, sure I can accept that. The answer is to not post that thing on Twitter. It isn't to just have the conversation anyway and ignore the fact that you're not providing evidence behind what you're saying. Twitter's 'censorship' of their platform doesn't stop anyone posting on different platforms that allow longer posts.

Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation

#63

Post by rvz »

richardARPANET wrote: post #49
OneGuy123 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironicaly you missed the most important point: who decides what is fake news? You still don't get it that _NO ONE_ can claim they know what is/is not fake news because everyone has their own incentives.

There's little point trying to explain to the HN crowd. They're majority left leaning so are pro-censorship as long as it's not directed at them. The people who are aware that the "fact checkers" have an agenda either won't accept it through mental gymnastics or simply don't care. Something which will come back to bite them. i.e. > Don't let the Orange man speak. Orange man bad!

I won't be surprised of this being the case on the orange site but the downvoters will probably gaslight you for not having evidence of this; hence the downvotes.

As for Twitter, there's no question of the evidence of this bias. The Twitter CEO previously just admitted to this: 'I fully admit our bias is more left-leaning' [0]

Looks like the cool kids want their echo-chambers back.

[0] https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jac...

Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation

#64

Post by olladecarne »

"Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome."

This whole ad driven attention economy is probably as dangerous of an invention as nuclear weapons. We're caught in a state of psychosis and individually none of us can do anything to fight the billions of dollars spent on advertising that tries to make us feel inadequate. Targeted ads and recommendation engines need to be banned. I know some people say they like them, and some people also say they like tobacco but we generally agree it's bad for us. Companies will find other ways to innovate. Content curation, organization, and quality will become more valuable and eventually the experience will be better.

I say this because half-hearted measures like the one in the article are not going to make any difference when the entire business model of the internet is clickbait.

Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation

#65

Post by jfsanchez91 »

iso1631 wrote: post #4
OneGuy123 wrote: post #3

Who defines "misinformation"? The mainstream media? "If the news are fake imagine history". People need to understand that NO ONE can define what is "misinformation" because all sides have incentives to lie. This is purely thought policing.

I look out my window and see it's chucking it down I post "It's currently sunny where I live" That's misinformation.

No. that's not misinformation, that's your perception.

Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation

#66

Post by dredmorbius »

betwixthewires wrote: post #61
OneGuy123 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also I must say it's ironic that on a site with a bunch of programmers you still get downvoted for posting the fact that the media lies and that you cannot do anything other than laugh when the media decides to become "disinfo fact checkers". Do people really believe that when a company says "we will become independent fact checkers" that that is even possible? Did you learn nothing from your past experiences of what…

I agree with you, except I don't see a down vote button anywhere on this site. But yes, generally, when a company promises to be your best buddy no strings attached it is time to get suspicious, and when someone believes them I begin to figure out if they're just naive or actually unintelligent.

Why don't I see down arrows?

There are no down arrows on stories. They appear on comments after users reach a certain karma threshold, but never on direct replies.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation

#67

Post by jmull »

betwixthewires wrote: post #46
jmull wrote: post #30

I’ll just point out: if you’re a free speech purist, you are perfectly OK with this. Twitter isn’t removing these tweets, just adding their own messages. That is, they are responding to free speech with their own free speech. If they use this feature on high-profile figures it’s even better: free speech to authority.

That's some gymnastics if I've ever seen it.

Please explain.

Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation

#68

Post by input_sh »

betwixthewires wrote: post #61
OneGuy123 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also I must say it's ironic that on a site with a bunch of programmers you still get downvoted for posting the fact that the media lies and that you cannot do anything other than laugh when the media decides to become "disinfo fact checkers". Do people really believe that when a company says "we will become independent fact checkers" that that is even possible? Did you learn nothing from your past experiences of what…

I agree with you, except I don't see a down vote button anywhere on this site. But yes, generally, when a company promises to be your best buddy no strings attached it is time to get suspicious, and when someone believes them I begin to figure out if they're just naive or actually unintelligent.

Just as an FYI, you need a certain amount of "karma" before you see the downvote button.

Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation

#69

Post by rorykoehler »

aww_dang wrote: post #24
rorykoehler wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure no one here thinks what you proposed. The issue is that those protesting are also claiming to have the objective truth when most likely their "truth" is even further removed from the object truth than the mainstream media's is.

I don't accept the premise that we are qualified to judge the veracity of another man's truth. Nor do all those who protest fit within your generalization of assuming to have an exclusive license on objective truth. There's a fair amount of people who simply like to bounce ideas around and have a discussion.

The noise is significant enough that the signal is irrelevant.

Re: Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation

#70

Post by lhnz »

jmull wrote: post #67
betwixthewires wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's some gymnastics if I've ever seen it.

Please explain.

Why would a free-speech "purist" be okay with authorities having special abilities to append emphasized messages below other messages?

People that care deeply about free-speech tend to want a level playing ground for every person in a discussion, and to not have platforms that have a centralised bias for or against different messages or identities.

It's disingenuous to tell a bunch of people with principles towards discussions happening on a relatively level-playing ground ("fairness") that what they really wanted all along was a central authority fact-checking certain perspectives.

Free-speech is mainly about avoiding situations in which there is an authoritarian bias towards the speech of one group over another. It doesn't matter whether that bias is due to deletion, banning, shadow-banning, algorithmic/statistical manipulation, editorial notes, etc. All of these things are forms of bias that the powerful can use in an attempt to control the speech of others.

The thing is, most of us aren't purists at all. Many agree that there should be some limits to free speech, and that certain things like calls to violence, dehumanisation of people, disinformation that doesn't get corrected until too late, and so on, are big issues for democratic society. However, it would be better if we could discuss this, rather than having our position straw-manned into something contrary to its inner morality/logic, and then getting treated as if we are all strict adherents to this as opposed to practical people that try to balance it with other things.

Post reply on HN