I'm not actually against the idea, but arbitrary blocklists would accelerate bubbling people away from anyone who could possibly think differently from them, which has its own issues.
Radicalism and inciting to violence should be bubbled not amplified.
Can't challenge ideas if you are so afraid that you hide them.
The only way to actually change someone is conversation.
Only those who don't want honest change fight to prevent actual conversation from happening.
Twitter has never been a "Utility" in the way that you may be imagining it to be.
The argument is that it's getting there. It's the leading platform for public debate in the US right now. Journalists spend their days refreshing their Twitter feed, so the effect isn't just in the size of Twitter's platform but its influence.
Twitter is a plague on public discourse. We'd be better off as a society if it were never invented. If I knew how to put the genie back in the bottle, I would advocate for it.
Twitter has never been a "Utility" in the way that you may be imagining it to be.
The argument is that it's getting there. It's the leading platform for public debate in the US right now. Journalists spend their days refreshing their Twitter feed, so the effect isn't just in the size of Twitter's platform but its influence.
As someone of mixed ethnicity who, if I was there could easily be victimized by a senseless mob to whom I owe nothing and have committed no crime against.. yea I am not happy with how the mainstream media promotes and covers this story, downplaying the victims of the chaos and sympathizing with outpourings of anger even if illegal. To clarify, looters should not be shot, law should prevail, and the policeman involved…
Relevant: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/us/la-riots-korean-americans/... > The Rodney King verdict and the ensuing riots are often framed as a turning point for law enforcement and the African-American community. But it's also the single most significant modern event for Korean-Americans, says Edward Taehan Chang, professor of ethnic studies and founding director of the Young Oak Kim Center for Korean American Studi…
> these complexities don't have any place in the media narratives
I'm reminded of the film "Do the Right Thing", by Spike Lee. 1989. Not much has changed in America.
One angle I don't see discussed: I wonder if Trump commits to more risky/bombastic/divisive plans as president because he feels confident that he can directly frame them and control the narrative by using his audience on Twitter, and he feels emboldened by how immediately Twitter is able to deliver the reactions. If there's a chance this is true, I can especially understand Twitter wanting to have no part in this. It…
Twitter should have suspended the account of a repeated rule breaker a long time ago. If I threatened to shoot the president, I would be in jail already, not to mention my twitter account would be suspended.
I don't disagree; I think my point is just another reason on top of that.
> However, I'm half expecting them to ban him about twelve seconds after he leaves office. At the top management level, they are probably weighing the possibility that he never leaves office (a plausible scenario at this point), and how that scenario affects their bottom line. They probably don’t want US institutions to dissolve into full-blown autocracy... But on the other hand, if that were to happen, then it would…
I agree that this system is more fragile than most people think; somehow almost preferring automatic government than the tediousness that functioning democracy requires. And sometimes people get a rude reminder of this. I do not agree that the scenario you're talking about is probable (which is indicated by plausible). Perhaps you mean possible? Sure, but in that case it's also possible money instantly has no meaning…
I agree with you. But what Trump is doing is, he's paving the way for a real autocrat, by breaking down the norms and systems that keep an autocrat from being able to function.
Twitter policy: "We start from a position of assuming that people do not intend to violate our Rules. Unless a violation is so egregious that we must immediately suspend an account, we first try to educate people about our Rules and give them a chance to correct their behavior. We show the violator the offending Tweet(s), explain which Rule was broken, and require them to remove the content before they can Tweet agai…
I would imagine that accounts of "important" people are handled personally rather than by automated algorithm. As Jack Dorsey points out in this[0] Joe Rogan podcast, the reported tweets by public or algorithm are manually checked at some point. Approx. 4000 employees of Twitter all around the world. Every day 100k (edit: 100M) tweets are sent. The reports of tweets that violate the platform policy are (reported by p…
> Every day 100k tweets are sent
When I worked there we handled about ~6k tweets/sec all day every day. (~500,000,000 tweets/day)
If we're being honest, Twitter is basically a machine that glorifies violence. It rewards it at the platform and algorithmic level. An endless volume of tweets under every charged trending topic violates these rules, which are being surfaced and promoted by the platform. And it enables mob mentality like nothing we've seen before. Moderation is mostly just theater, especially as long as the platform itself is quite l…
Twitter's design is fundamentally broken beyond repair. Your Twitter feed is yours. It's like your home territory. People feel like they're entitled to defend this territory. Twitter assists inflammatory media as it attempts to invade this territory, originally with retweets, but more recently with algorithmically selected tweets coming from people who you didn't follow, selected for "engagement". But it does more th…
What Twitter needs is algorithmically enforced moderation. So when a twitter reply calls for extremism, the user will then be prone to see more calls for peace in reply to that comment. Or when somebody asks for dox on a subject, the user then sees tweets mentioning all the previous times doxxing went wrong and innocent people were hurt. The user would not know this was taking place, but they would avoid radicalization and echo chambers currently happening on Twitter. Also instead of showing the opposition to break their thought bubble, which probably wouldn’t be helpful, the user sees their own side, just more moderate and centrist. If no tweets showing moderation exist, twitter could use a bot that appears to be a real human to make these moderating tweets. Most of these twitter conversations are bots anyways.
This is amazing news, and I hope Twitter adopts this policy for all rules violations. Much better than deleting tweet or banning accounts, this lets people decide what they want to see. (Except for obvious spammers etc. which should probably be banned.) Even better would be if there were user-configurable "lists", whereby you could decide upfront what you want / don't want to see (like many sites do right now with NS…