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

X Randomly Banning Users for "Inauthentic Behavior"

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: X Randomly Banning Users for "Inauthentic Behavior"

#71

Post by Mario9382 »

charcircuit wrote: post #29
Mario9382 wrote: post #15

I created an account in X yesterday because I'm trying to get more involved into building in public and the social aspect of development and I was shocked to see nowadays you can pay for X premium where the more you pay, the more interactions you get to your tweets. At the end I just deleted it and created an account into Bluesky instead.

>X premium where the more you pay, the more interactions you get to your tweets. You are confusing X ads for X premium or you are mistaken.

if you go to the premium section and look at the benefits it literally says (from memory) if you pay 3.5€/month you get a small boost on interactions for your tweets. If you pay 5€/month you get a bigger boost on interactions if you pay (I don't remember how much it is) 22€/month ~ you get the biggest boost for your tweets.

That to me sounds like if you don't pay, you're going to be in the bottom of the feed for everyone else.

Re: X Randomly Banning Users for "Inauthentic Behavior"

#72

Post by kotaKat »

crmrc114 wrote: post #2

Posting here since I am curious if any friends on HN have faced the same AI based banning. I have had a Twitter account since like 2008 and they just did this- like folks on reddit are reporting appeals just get robo-rejected. Is there any way to reach a human at X? I have some SWEs and SREs in my linkedin account as second and third person contacts but reaching out there just feels wrong. Putting AI in charge of Aut…

> Is there any way to reach a human at X?

Money. Lots of money. Pay the Advertising chuds. Back before reserved/paid usernames were even a thing I remember at least one recorded phone call kicking around one of my archives of a Twitter employee saying they'd release any handle I needed for a $10k ad commit over 3 months minimum pre-Musk.

Re: X Randomly Banning Users for "Inauthentic Behavior"

#75

Post by charcircuit »

Mario9382 wrote: post #71
charcircuit wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>X premium where the more you pay, the more interactions you get to your tweets. You are confusing X ads for X premium or you are mistaken.

if you go to the premium section and look at the benefits it literally says (from memory) if you pay 3.5€/month you get a small boost on interactions for your tweets. If you pay 5€/month you get a bigger boost on interactions if you pay (I don't remember how much it is) 22€/month ~ you get the biggest boost for your tweets. That to me sounds like if you don't pay, you're going to be in the bottom of the feed for ever…

I just looked and it doesn't say that. It only says that you have a higher chance to show up in front of other users in the reply section. It does not say that Premium Plus gets more of a boost than Premium. It is not a perk of Basic.

Re: X Randomly Banning Users for "Inauthentic Behavior"

#76

Post by 8593376393 »

throwaway132448 wrote: post #58
indy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of the anger inducing frying pan and into the group-think fire.

It’s funny how much people on X resent the freedom for alternatives to exist. As always it’s because it’s never actually about free speech, just freedom of consequences from their own choices and behaviour.

[dead]

Re: X Randomly Banning Users for "Inauthentic Behavior"

#77

Post by matsemann »

QuantumNomad_ wrote: post #68
matsemann wrote: post #14

"X" is in a weird place now. The monetization of engagement absolutely wrecked the feeds from my cursory glance. Just ragebaiting, vague posting, abuse (for a while, every female posting would have someone in the replies doing "grok, put OP in a bikini" and it would post sexualized images of them). Someone vent viral by posting a picture of Steve Jobs' daughter (?), and people try to replicate that as that now genera…

> Most of them left, so maybe that's making it hard for the algorithm, but my feed is now just far right immigration propaganda by blue checks Working as intended. It has been very clear for a very long time (in “Internet time”) that Mr “Free Speech Absolutist” Musk is only really interested in supporting far right propaganda. > Not a nice place to be, but I can see how it can be addicting / trigger something in the…

> Honest question, why would anyone willingly browse X?

I don't know the psychology, but there absolutely is something akin to "outrage porn". Like, something in your brain wants you to go in and be outraged and annoyed about how stupid other's are, and how much better you are.

Tried to search around for why it happens, this has some thoughts, "The dangerous pleasures of outrage": https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/domestic-intelligenc...

> The pleasure of strong negative judgment becomes so enjoyable we seek opportunities to trigger it

Re: X Randomly Banning Users for "Inauthentic Behavior"

#78

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

matsemann wrote: post #77
QuantumNomad_ wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of them left, so maybe that's making it hard for the algorithm, but my feed is now just far right immigration propaganda by blue checks Working as intended. It has been very clear for a very long time (in “Internet time”) that Mr “Free Speech Absolutist” Musk is only really interested in supporting far right propaganda. > Not a nice place to be, but I can see how it can be addicting / trigger something in the…

> Honest question, why would anyone willingly browse X? I don't know the psychology, but there absolutely is something akin to "outrage porn". Like, something in your brain wants you to go in and be outraged and annoyed about how stupid other's are, and how much better you are. Tried to search around for why it happens, this has some thoughts, "The dangerous pleasures of outrage": https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b…

My guess is that outrageous things were important to pay attention to when we were in tribes?

Re: X Randomly Banning Users for "Inauthentic Behavior"

#79

Post by KaiserPro »

rglullis wrote: post #41
KaiserPro wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> any platform that is aggressively tone policed all platforms are tone policed, yes even real life. If you don't notice it, you're either not looking, or you agree with the tone.

Not all platforms are agressive about the tone-policing and "real life" is not a platform. AFAIK, we still don't live in a world where the moneyed class get to set the rules about who is allowed to exist in "real life". Also: scale and context matters. Someone telling you to shut up on a movie theater is not out of place, but whoever was next to you in the theater does not get to decide what you say in a bar or a PTA…

> AFAIK, we still don't live in a world where the moneyed class get to set the rules about who is allowed to exist in "real life".

I mean thats just the legal system, its also deciding what is taught in schools, or churches (other religions are available). Currently in the USA there is "tone policing" about trans people. Laws are being put in place to enforce a certain style of living for people who are trans. Regardless of you opinion of trans people, that is very much real life tone policing.

> but whoever was next to you in the theatre does not get to decide what you say in a bar or a PTA meeting.

but the people in the bar/PTA meeting do. In the same way that newspaper decide who to publish, TV which programmes to air, student organisations what cause to adopt, charities what people to fight for.

I think you are saying that one organisation doesn't get to control the patterns and types of speech for an entire country, which is mostly true apart from a authoritarian places.

But, each platform has its own tone, be that X, bluesky, the local darts club, PTA, or church. that tone is enforced by the people who support/take part in that platform. Those rules vary by factions that live on those platforms. The issue with X/bluesky etc is that they make money by deliberately forcing separate factions to engage. If you fall out with your local pub, you find a different pub, and hopefully never see those people again. But that pub is selling you pints, not advertising. so it needs to keep you happy to keep you buying pints.

Re: X Randomly Banning Users for "Inauthentic Behavior"

#80

Post by accountofthaha »

QuantumNomad_ wrote: post #68
matsemann wrote: post #14

"X" is in a weird place now. The monetization of engagement absolutely wrecked the feeds from my cursory glance. Just ragebaiting, vague posting, abuse (for a while, every female posting would have someone in the replies doing "grok, put OP in a bikini" and it would post sexualized images of them). Someone vent viral by posting a picture of Steve Jobs' daughter (?), and people try to replicate that as that now genera…

> Most of them left, so maybe that's making it hard for the algorithm, but my feed is now just far right immigration propaganda by blue checks Working as intended. It has been very clear for a very long time (in “Internet time”) that Mr “Free Speech Absolutist” Musk is only really interested in supporting far right propaganda. > Not a nice place to be, but I can see how it can be addicting / trigger something in the…

[dead]
Post reply on HN