“Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints” • Hacker News Board

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

#711

Post by motoxpro » Sat, Oct 29, 2022, 1:06 AM UTC

josh_carterPDX wrote: post #420

mikkergp wrote: post #7

This sort of justifies the viewpoint that despite all his bluster, Elon will probably run Twitter the way a "reasonable executive" would. Not just release the hounds. Keep the advertisers happy, but try to reduce the reliance on advertisers. Keep moderating content to reduce abuse, maybe eliminate the high profile banning but a person on the ground will have largely the same experience. (probably less action on more…

"Keep the advertisers happy, but try to reduce the reliance on advertisers." I actually think the opposite is going to happen. He's already said he wants Twitter to be the most prolific site for advertisers saying that he thinks advertising can "delight, entertain, and inform you." If he introduces a subscription model TikTok will pull ahead and take over the entire social media space.

"pull ahead?" You know it's like 5 times the size?

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

#712

Post by aiperson » Sat, Oct 29, 2022, 1:09 AM UTC

fleddr wrote: post #663

hackerlight wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All categories are arbitrary distinctions that someone made up at some point, including the categories of biological sex, race, and your birth name. At the very least it would be bullying behavior for me to single you out and call you a different name or different racial group to what you actually are (as defined by the constructs that society has agreed upon).

Biological sex is not a construct, it's a simple observable reality. Biological sex is factual and immutable.

No post body was provided.

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

#713

Post by rayiner » Sat, Oct 29, 2022, 1:12 AM UTC

andsoitis wrote: post #685

rayiner wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orthogonal means uncorrelated. Sex and gender are in reality highly, though not perfectly, correlated.

Concur. What’s a better word/phrase?

I’d say “not coextensive.” Unfortunately no single word that means exactly that.

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

#714

Post by howinteresting » Sat, Oct 29, 2022, 1:12 AM UTC

jl6 wrote: post #697

howinteresting wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

“Sex is a spectrum” is nonsense: https://areomagazine.com/2022/01/05/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-i...

Binary means 0 and 1. It does not mean 0, 1, or 2 1.7% (or even 0.018%) of the time.

Of course, the word "binary" is a social construct, and "spectrum" is a social construct as well. However I would expect that in a forum focused on computers, binary generally means 0 or 1 with no other values possible even 0.0000001% of the time.

"Some men choose to identify as women." Really? This is not a serious statement that engages with the science behind gender transition.

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

#715

Post by fknorangesite » Sat, Oct 29, 2022, 1:13 AM UTC

megablast wrote: post #710

sangnoir wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His money is now on the line: He has sunk $44B and has to get it back somehow. It is no longer a cute thought experiment, but cold, harsh reality.

He did't sink 44b, more like 33b.

Thanks for the correction; this changes everything.

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

#716

Post by jrmg » Sat, Oct 29, 2022, 1:13 AM UTC

catiopatio wrote: post #547

Zagill wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I “still” haven’t wrapped my head around it because not once have I been presented with non-tautological replacement definitions for “man” and “woman”. I will immediately change my mind and recant my views — here and now! — if someone provides: - A specific definition of what “gender” is, if not a synonym for “sex” - Non-tautological definitions of “man” and “woman” that are consistent with your definition of “gender…

Non-tautological definitions of “man” and “woman” that are consistent with your definition of “gender”

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re looking for, but this seems like a non-attainable standard to me. Language is _so_ fuzzy. Do many nouns have ‘non-tautological’ definitions? Like, could you define ‘house’ or ‘boat’ ‘non-tautologically’?

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

#717

Post by systemvoltage » Sat, Oct 29, 2022, 1:13 AM UTC

bmitc wrote: post #543

mikkergp wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe shareholders was the wrong term, doesn’t he have a duty to like the banks and Saudis and other investors

Oh, I see. I have no idea. My intuition is that it's like a standard loan, as in he can do whatever he wants but if he doesn't pay it back then they'll come after his other assets he supposedly put up as collateral. That's just me guessing. I have no idea how that works at that scale of financing.

Debt financing is different than buying shares in the company. There is no fiduciary responsbility in the strict sense of the meaning. But, there is an obligation to pay back the loan with interest.

Crappy link but it tells you the basics: https://www.zeni.ai/blog/debt-financing-for-startups

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

#718

Post by dane-pgp » Sat, Oct 29, 2022, 1:15 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #111

jszymborski wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bunch of accounts like The Babylon Bee and Ye have been unbanned w/o input from any such committee of diverse viewpoints. I don't have much faith that Musk will not act unilaterally in service of his friends and allies.

There have to be grades between banning and free for all.

If we're dreaming big here, how about a slider that users can adjust for how much free speech they want to be exposed to? Or perhaps separate toggles for if they want to opt-in to seeing election misinformation, antivax conspiracies, bigotry against various groups, etc.

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

#719

Post by blagie » Sat, Oct 29, 2022, 1:17 AM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #512

mikkergp wrote: post #7

This sort of justifies the viewpoint that despite all his bluster, Elon will probably run Twitter the way a "reasonable executive" would. Not just release the hounds. Keep the advertisers happy, but try to reduce the reliance on advertisers. Keep moderating content to reduce abuse, maybe eliminate the high profile banning but a person on the ground will have largely the same experience. (probably less action on more…

I don't see anything in Elon Musk's past operation of businesses as CEO that suggests to me he's going to have a better sense of how to run a social network than the previous operators. I predict the best case scenario is that he does no worse.

Ho boy was Twitter mismanaged up to now. I think that's why he bought it.

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

#720

Post by slg » Sat, Oct 29, 2022, 1:19 AM UTC

partiallypro wrote: post #707

slg wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The joke of the article was that she was named "Woman of the Year," so they named her "Man of the Year" to point out the ridiculousness of such an award for her. The award is only ridiculous if you think trans people shouldn't exist in public as openly trans. I mean you even referred to her as "her" so you seemingly recognize that her being eligible for "Woman of the Year" is more appropriate than "Man of the Year".…

> The award is only ridiculous if you think trans people shouldn't exist in public as openly trans. This is simply your skewed view and not how many people read the joke. She was named as "woman of the year" BECAUSE she was trans, not because she was/is a woman. That's the joke. USA Today itself probably doesn't care if she is or isn't a woman, the award was issued to get engagement. > I don't know why this is framed…

>This is simply your skewed view and not how many people read the joke. She was named as "woman of the year" BECAUSE she was trans,

Fine, and this is "simply your skewed view". Yours is not inherently more right than mine.

>Because that is how Progressives have treated the topic in general (at least publicly, privately not so much.)

You completely skipped my point. Progressives have treated this topic this way because there is no compromise position. What concession can a progressive hope to accomplish debating someone who believes that sex and gender are the same and binary?

>This is not true, it denies how this person views themselves, not their existence; and your existence isn't whatever reality you have chosen for yourself. For example, being gay is something you don't force society to see, you are simply attracted to the same sex. When you change your sex or gender, you are asking for a societal buy-in. That is much different.

Trans people don't need "societal buy-in" any more than any other group. They just want to live their life how they see fit. A trans person choice's don't impact you any more than a gay person's choice. Just leave them all alone and mind your own business.

>Actually, both are very much connected, because the idea that you could not experience what a naturally born biological female could is perceive in the eyes of many as to why you cannot yourself ever be a biological female...when you were born male. These are very integrated topics.

This has no relevance to the issue at hand. They weren't awarding the Cis Woman of the Year Award. They were awarding the Woman of the Year Award. Trans women should be just as eligible for that as cis women. This isn't a weightlifting competition. There is no reason to exclude trans women from this type of award.