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

“Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#651

Post by ghostpepper »

Beltalowda wrote: post #584
gpm wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And really, random moderation is inevitable at scale. It's always going to be a judgment call made by different people in different moods. You can spend more money to reduce the std deviation, and spend less while increasing it, but you can't eliminate the randomness.

Every time I've reported something it's taken well over a week for Twitter to respond; all denied, and all of them were very clear-cut cases IMO (I don't have the exact phrasings at hand, but all involved people fantasising about smashing someone's face in with a brick because they didn't like something they said). I don't expect moderation to be 100% consistent or 100% perfect, but now it just seems like such a rand…

I'm not sure what country you're in, or what the law is in the US, but I think there's a difference between saying "I want to to smash their face in with a brick" and "someone should smash their face in with a brick"

It seems to me that the call to action or lack thereof is salient.

That being said I have no idea if this was the reason why it was allowed. There's no transparency.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#652

Post by fleddr »

Zagill wrote: post #501
mildmotive wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They didn’t even make a joke. They just called trans woman a man. It was hate speech, pure and simple. It’s not a crime nor hate speech to acknowledge someone’s biological sex. That’s what we do in sports and when we select partners for example. Most, if not all heterosexual men would not consider a “trans woman” to be an actual woman. Our way of selecting partners is proof of that. To punish a natural, and biologi…

How are we this far into the modern trans rights movement and people still haven't wrapped their brains around sex and gender being two distinct concepts?

Not very far. It's not a lack of understanding, it's a rejection of plain falsehoods.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#653

Post by bigmattystyles »

If twitter does want to be a public square and truly attempt to be neutral (as far as that is possible or realistic without letting it become a dumpster fire) should it have someone to act as a sort of an ombudsman? Is this what Musk is suggesting here? I guess the details will reveal that, one hopes that this group's decisions will be independent of the business implications or aspire to be.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#655

Post by nikodotio »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #519
monksy wrote: post #143

This is going to be an interesting claim considering that he's pro letting Trump back on the platform. That guy, despite being the president, repeatedly said things that got other people banned with their rules. Some how other leaders claimed this was a said day that he finally got punished for it.

I think Twitter should have a concept of silent ban i.e. only people that are following the account can see someone's tweet and other's could see that only by opening full link and not through search. While it was obvious that Trump's tweet was causing negative emotions in people, it is also clear that Trump had other sources in which he could express opinions and it was liberal newspaper who are the first to report…

As far as I understand all the major platforms do this all the time, and it’s called a shadow ban.

Often they even stop showing to followers, you just get blended out of the algorithm

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#656

Post by andsoitis »

partiallypro wrote: post #406
slg wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Babylon Bee being suspended was one of the dumber things the previous Twitter rules had done. It's a satire site, it's right leaning, nothing in the piece they said was hateful or even an unpopular view. Twitter banned the Babylon Bee for targeting a random and rather anonymous bureaucrat that likely isn't among the 1000 most powerful people in government in the US for the sole purpose that she is trans. This target…

The piece satirized the confusion between sex and gender. It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from "gender is a social construct" to "sex is a social construct." It's still a highly debated topic and well within the public sphere of debate. Also, this person was a public official and was in the news from general news outlets (named Woman of the Year) which puts them well within the public realm of…

> It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from "gender is a social construct" to "sex is a social construct."

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone say that sex is a social construct. Gender yes. And that gender and sex are orthogonal. And that gender is a spectrum but sex in humans is binary.

Maybe I missed the evolution of the conversation but I don’t think I’ve seen any volume of argument that sex is a social construct. I’m open to be convinced.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#657

Post by [deleted] »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #233

Potentially of intellectual interest: Some people here might be wondering about speech that is "harmful," with the famous quote about "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater." That quote from the Supreme Court is commonly used to justify why there need to be restraints on free speech. This is actually a popular misconception. The decision where "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" was from was actually overtu…

[deleted]

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#658

Post by throwaway4837 »

I would imagine a uniform distribution of people from across racial, political, age, and socio-economic classes would be a good start. The theory is that if a moderation council is mostly well-off, white liberals, then their decisions will more likely contain bias from those sorts of people. A moderation council needs people of various ages, races, and political backgrounds so that the net bias in their decisions is reduced.

I would also imagine that a dozen people isn't enough to achieve a good enough distribution over these variables. They might need a more scaled moderation approach that involves potentially hundreds of individuals, like a jury, but much bigger.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#659

Post by howinteresting »

mbesto wrote: post #427
partiallypro wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The piece satirized the confusion between sex and gender. It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from "gender is a social construct" to "sex is a social construct." It's still a highly debated topic and well within the public sphere of debate. Also, this person was a public official and was in the news from general news outlets (named Woman of the Year) which puts them well within the public realm of…

> It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from "gender is a social construct" to "sex is a social construct." What? Since when is sex a social construct?

All language is a social construct. We recognize patterns in the real world and assign words to them, but patterns in complex systems like human biology have all kinds of exceptions.

Social construct doesn't mean fake, though. It's real, and it describes a real thing, but is a simplified model of it. The fight is over which model is better.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#660

Post by howinteresting »

jl6 wrote: post #487
mbesto wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from "gender is a social construct" to "sex is a social construct." What? Since when is sex a social construct?

Some people believe sex is a spectrum, or that it can be changed, but it’s super-fringe and mostly reflects ignorance of the difference between sex and gender rather than being a serious philosophical position.

"Sex is a spectrum" is hard scientific truth. Unlike computers, biology doesn't work in binaries. Intersex people exist and are surprisingly common.
Post reply on HN