91–100 of 398 posts
How about a rating system for people? And each rating could also be biased by the rating of the person giving the rating. Kind of like pagerank for people. Then the posts of those who have the most positive ratings float to the top of the stream. Sure trolls will support other trolls but I'm pretty convinced most people are good people and should easily outnumber and be able to take down gangs of trolls online. This…
Speech is not violence. The author's conflation of the two trivializes actual physical violence.
Speech can be hateful, harmful, hurtful, etc., but it is not violent. Speech can incite violence, but it is still not actually violence.
We see this all of the time when people want to resort to hyperbole -- "misgendering a trans person is violence!"
It doesn't further your case, it's just using a cheap rhetorical trick.
I am probably in a very small minority, but I have never seen the point of Twitter. It has almost limitless potential to destroy your life by taking something out of context and copying it to millions. I shudder to think of the number of times I have made a tasteless throwaway comment or colourful joke that, if taken out of context, would have had dire consequences. It has almost limitless potential to take up all yo…
I was right there with you for the longest time, until I realized it's all about very carefully curating your feed. Only follow thoughtful, interesting people who's opinions you respect, and purge the nonsense with extreme prejudice. It's probably the best way of staying on top of what's happening in any particular industry/field of study if you look at it that way.
Then I uninstalled. I just don't get it. Maybe I just like crap people or something.
Every platform that is public and anonmyous runs afoul of this, this isn't just twitter. You can look at Youtube comments, reddit, pretty much any forum. What's missing is that other platforms, like Facebook, took a very hard stance on this and forced people to signup as their real identities. Twitter, can easily follow suit. That won't fix all of the problems, but it will go towards improving things and it won't req…
To a slightly lesser extent, Slashdot has also licked that problem: for any story that attracts enough comments (more than 300) the top rated ones are often pretty good and the worthless ones start auto-collapsed. Even though Slashdot gets a lot of jip these days, some of it deserved, I've still spent many enjoyable hours reading some of the top rated comments there. Especially nice is the fact that upvotes must have an adjective attached, which gently nudges users into certain kinds of behaviour. For instance it's the only site I've encountered where people often post extremely funny comments despite the serious topics. The moderation system there encourages that sort of behaviour.
How about a rating system for people? And each rating could also be biased by the rating of the person giving the rating. Kind of like pagerank for people. Then the posts of those who have the most positive ratings float to the top of the stream. Sure trolls will support other trolls but I'm pretty convinced most people are good people and should easily outnumber and be able to take down gangs of trolls online. This…
I agree with a lot of this article, but want to call out this point for discussion: >This means if you follow someone for what they have to say about professional improv comedy, you also get to hear them trash your religion, berate the intelligence of people who vote the way you do, and otherwise rant about and retweet topics you don’t want to hear about. This sounds like the author is asking for Twitter to build an…