> Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
Switching from normal bans to something even shadowier than ordinary shadowbans?
Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation
61–70 of 504 posts
Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation
#62First Twitter was going to crash in a week, then it was everyone would flee to Mastodon, now it’s that all the advertisers would leave. Maybe Twitter really didn’t need 7500 people, and maybe having more voices speak is a good thing (there is always block button), and maybe advertisers won’t flee forever. That seems more likely to me than Twitter imploding.
> First Twitter was going to crash in a week Was it? I read a lot of comments saying that mass-firing people is going to cause immediate degradation in some areas like content moderation (which we have seen) and eventual unpredictable failures in others. If you saw people predicting a sudden crash I'd take their opinion with a pinch of salt in the future, sounds like quite a reactionary take. > then it was everyone w…
>Maybe. It remains to be seen whether axing so many so suddenly was survivable in the long-term financially or operationally, though.
a lot of tech companies is laying off people. Amazon, Facebook...etc.
DoorDash is laying off 1,250 corporate workers. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/30/doordash-lays-off-1250-emplo...
i believe the winter (recession) is coming if not then something is going on that most if not all tech companies is doing layoff or freeze hiring.
Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation
#63> Our Trust & Safety team... remains strong and well-resourced... > ...impressions on violative content are down over the past month... I think both of those claims are demonstrably false.
Can you demonstrate them as such? And can you validate your demonstration by eliminating the content produced by bots and sock puppets?
Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation
#64First Twitter was going to crash in a week, then it was everyone would flee to Mastodon, now it’s that all the advertisers would leave. Maybe Twitter really didn’t need 7500 people, and maybe having more voices speak is a good thing (there is always block button), and maybe advertisers won’t flee forever. That seems more likely to me than Twitter imploding.
> First Twitter was going to crash in a week Was it? I read a lot of comments saying that mass-firing people is going to cause immediate degradation in some areas like content moderation (which we have seen) and eventual unpredictable failures in others. If you saw people predicting a sudden crash I'd take their opinion with a pinch of salt in the future, sounds like quite a reactionary take. > then it was everyone w…
things this big rarely fail instantly, it's usually a long slow decline
either way none of what's being done or talked about recently makes me want to start using twitter, maybe they will figure something out i guess
Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its certainly a town square, just because you have your own little tavern/forum doesn't mean the town square isn't the town square.
A town square is usually a public project, maintained by the city on behalf of taxpayers. This is more like a big private club.
Twitter is those public-use bulletin boards at the entrances of grocery stores.
(are those still a thing? Practically every store of any size had one in the 90s, at least, but I haven't paid attention and can't for-sure recall seeing one in years)
Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation
#66Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation
#67TLDR: 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…
It might be just an escape plan when Musk uses platform for his own needs. Banning users he does not like or allowing certain speech when filtering others and so on….
Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation
#68'Town Square' is a misnomer on their part. The town square is the Internet at large and not some single silo'd gatekeepery app.
I think the idea is more about Twitter functioning as a public square. The claim is usually that if Twitter functions sufficiently similar to a public square, then the public should reasonably concerned about how/if Twitter amplifies or restricts certain people.
Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation
#69TLDR: 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…
It's only weird, if you attempt to parse it with a straight face. This is some B-grade best-effort spin on what has been uncontrolled chaos with predictably awful effects. The only thing keeping Twitter rolling is the majority percentage of the casual niche user in non-political and non-technical niches, who haven't been paying attention to the chaos; and who by virtue of being casual users are not notably surprised…
̶u̶n̶s̶t̶a̶g̶e̶d̶ ̶r̶o̶l̶l̶o̶u̶t̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶f̶e̶a̶t̶u̶r̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶C̶E̶O̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶s̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶o̶l̶ ̶
public testing/experiments
Re: Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation
#70First Twitter was going to crash in a week, then it was everyone would flee to Mastodon, now it’s that all the advertisers would leave. Maybe Twitter really didn’t need 7500 people, and maybe having more voices speak is a good thing (there is always block button), and maybe advertisers won’t flee forever. That seems more likely to me than Twitter imploding.
> First Twitter was going to crash in a week Was it? I read a lot of comments saying that mass-firing people is going to cause immediate degradation in some areas like content moderation (which we have seen) and eventual unpredictable failures in others. If you saw people predicting a sudden crash I'd take their opinion with a pinch of salt in the future, sounds like quite a reactionary take. > then it was everyone w…
Stuff also actually did break.