6 ms·

Twitter's problem isn't just that they have to fix harassment, it's that they have to do it without touching social justice activism that sure looks similar to

by makomk 10y ago

Twitter's problem isn't just that they have to fix harassment, it's that they have to do it without touching social justice activism that sure looks similar to it from the outside, right down to the doxing, threats, and smears. Oh, and they'll get no sympathy for getting this wrong as the difference is apparently obvious... except that everyone defines it differently (usually based on who their friends are) and simply assumes the world shares their definition. Good luck.

angry-hacker 10y ago
Isn't the platform just the best medium for harassing and trolling? What else can you do with 140 chars? Have you ever heard about good tweets? It's always negativity.
- makomk 10y ago
  Twitter's popular with journalists for some reason, most likely because it's an easy way to find potential stories and promote their work. This is probably part of the problem - it means that when ordinary users are nasty to them or their friends it's personal, and the same when they or their friends get their accounts suspended.
  - redthrowaway 10y ago
    And twitter being popular with journalists makes it a fantastic platform for news junkies like myself. But that's mostly a one-way street.
  - angry-hacker 10y ago
    Because only celebrities and journalists benefit from Twitter. It's boring for regular joe's, unless you like to only consume. Or troll :)
- inimino 10y ago
  Since the election I've been spending time on HN and to a lesser extent Twitter. Every time I visit Twitter I find myself instinctively reaching for the downvote button, but there isn't one. About the only thing you can do when someone says (or retweets) something totally idiotic on Twitter is either unfollow, or, of course, reply. In other words, there is no way to register disapproval without simultaneously calling attention to the very thing you disapprove of. One of the absolute best features of HN is the downvote button and the way it is implemented. Downvotes are stronger than upvotes, and the downvoted content gets buried. A community that lets anyone join has to work hard to maintain a high standard. Downvotes don't kick people out, but they kick bad content off. Twitter has nothing like this, so the worst content gets the most attention. You can choose who you follow but users get no negative feedback on inappropriate tweets. So the norms shift towards whatever creates engagement, which is often outrage, fear, and strongly negative emotional content, with or without any rational foundation. If Twitter wants engaging and constructive dialog, they need a way to take out the trash. Unfortunately, Twitter's problem is that their potential for social good and their potential for revenue may never align. Since they are failing at turning a profit, it is unsurprising that they seem to be giving no consideration whatsoever to social responsibility.
  - roystonvassey 10y ago
    +1. I spent a considerable amount of time on Twitter between August and November of this year. I quit cold turkey primarily because of the widespread negativity. Plus, its endless stream of tweets had a certain cheap novelty factor that coaxes you to spend more time on it than is warranted or necessary. HN and Reddit, to some extent, mitigate this in just the way I want. I'd be interested to hear about what are the reasons and ways people find Twitter useful/interesting.
    - inimino 10y ago
      In contrast with HN, I find the most salient characteristic of Twitter is that negativity. In the days after the election I started referring to it as the national amygdala. It just became an echo chamber for fear. I mostly solved it by ruthlessly unfollowing people who are just venting their emotions and not engaging in critical thought. I made up for it by following people I disagree with and randomly following people that are followed by people I respect. The thing I like about Twitter is who you can follow. Where else can you engage with Obama, Trump, etc. in a public forum? Without the big name political users, the press, the public intellectuals, Twitter would have nothing. The way the big shots are effectively equal to ordinary users is very democratic. I can @ the POTUS and at least in theory get a reply. There's nothing else out there that enables that kind of communication. It's a shame that Twitter has done so little with so much. Think of the great newspapers of the past and how seriously many of them took their civic responsibility, and how they crowed about it in their editorial pages. They understood their role in society and the responsibility that came with the power they had. Yet here Twitter finds itself in possession of an unprecendented opportunity and they totally squander it. Completely oblivious to their social responsibility, they chase after ad dollars, and even there they fail.
      - Mathnerd314 10y ago
        The problem IMO is the limits. Humans can only read so many tweets and follow so many people. Beyond Dunbar's number (150 - 1500 depending on selectivity) they just blur into a big mess. Twitter's added some tools for curation (likes, user lists) but they aren't really powerful enough to filter tweets in real-time. They need something like Reddit's automod or a machine-learning filter. The point of Twitter & other social media is empowering the user; they can encourage community members to step up and take civic responsibility, but Twitter's responsibility as such is to provide the platform rather than to run the show. I guess they could openly declare Twitter to be part of the DNC platform, but that would lose a ton of users (although not so much in terms of content). They're better off following a policy similar to Facebook of attempted neutrality.
rtpg 10y ago
Twitter could simply "choose sides". Yes, they could have the courage to not allow neo-Nazis to use their site as a platform.
- hyperdunc 10y ago
  They might have the courage, but do they have the judgement to decide who's an actual neo-nazi? Twitter has a history of political partisanship. They'll ban "racist" conservatives but allow minority "terrorist" organizations.
  - rtpg 10y ago
    There's a Pacific Ocean-sized gulf between the current policy and your nightmare scenario. Slippery slope and all that, but they un-suspended Richard Spencer for "reasons".
    - inimino 10y ago
      After the neo-nazis, who's next? As soon as they "take sides" they are now directly putting a finger on the scale of national and international politics. That's a rathole they absolutely do not want to go down and would very likely be totally unsustainable. On the other hand, it works pretty well for the Chinese social media.
    - whywhywhywhy 10y ago
      It's not a nightmare scenario, they literally let terrorists use the platform no problem
the8472 10y ago
> harassment I do wonder if this word is even appropriate to the situation. Using twitter seems akin to stepping on a soap box on the town square and shouting every single word you say. Maybe nobody will pay attention to you. Or maybe you'll get a crowd of people who think favorably of you. Maybe someone else will step on his own box and have a conversation with you, but still there for everyone to hear. And it goes even further, you even have an official scribe who records everything you say and then pins it to the great proclamation board of the city plaza so that everyone who was not there at the time can still follow what you're saying. This is an incredibly public mode of conversation that people don't realize what they're doing. And well, if you say something that people disagree with you will get booing, hissing, insults, threats from a whole mob... maybe just because you're too loud. This would be the risk if you stepped on a box of a real place. You have to realize that the mob shouting you down probably doesn't really mean to attack a person. It is verbally attacking a public speaker on the city plaza. You get treated akin to an unpopular politician, not as regular citizen discussing things with friends.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > maybe just because you're too loud. This would be the risk if you stepped on a box of a real place. Or maybe just because you're Jewish. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-of-mr-justice-spencer-r-v-joshua-bonehill-paine-harassment-of-luciana-berger-mp/ https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-of... > You have to realize that the mob shouting you down probably doesn't really mean to attack a person. It is verbally attacking a public speaker on the city plaza. You get treated akin to an unpopular politician, not as regular citizen discussing things with friends. The case I linked above put someone in fear of their life. It's disappointing to see people claim this is not really an attack.
  - the8472 10y ago
    Well, actually illegal behavior is for the legal system to deal with. But if twitter is a public, open platform with global reach then you will also get people who react to you like a public speaker. Which includes things that do not meet the legal harassment standards. Just the texual equivalent of booing, hissing and throwing insults at people to get them off the stage. And I think people need to be aware of this when they state political opinions on the global twitter soapbox instead of doing it among their friends. I'm sure changes can be made to dampen it. But this is the current situation. And I'm not sure harassment is a good way to describe it.

by makomk 10y ago

angry-hacker 10y ago

Isn't the platform just the best medium for harassing and trolling? What else can you do with 140 chars? Have you ever heard about good tweets? It's always negativity.

makomk 10y ago
Twitter's popular with journalists for some reason, most likely because it's an easy way to find potential stories and promote their work. This is probably part of the problem - it means that when ordinary users are nasty to them or their friends it's personal, and the same when they or their friends get their accounts suspended.
- redthrowaway 10y ago
  And twitter being popular with journalists makes it a fantastic platform for news junkies like myself. But that's mostly a one-way street.
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  Because only celebrities and journalists benefit from Twitter. It's boring for regular joe's, unless you like to only consume. Or troll :)
inimino 10y ago
Since the election I've been spending time on HN and to a lesser extent Twitter. Every time I visit Twitter I find myself instinctively reaching for the downvote button, but there isn't one. About the only thing you can do when someone says (or retweets) something totally idiotic on Twitter is either unfollow, or, of course, reply. In other words, there is no way to register disapproval without simultaneously calling attention to the very thing you disapprove of. One of the absolute best features of HN is the downvote button and the way it is implemented. Downvotes are stronger than upvotes, and the downvoted content gets buried. A community that lets anyone join has to work hard to maintain a high standard. Downvotes don't kick people out, but they kick bad content off. Twitter has nothing like this, so the worst content gets the most attention. You can choose who you follow but users get no negative feedback on inappropriate tweets. So the norms shift towards whatever creates engagement, which is often outrage, fear, and strongly negative emotional content, with or without any rational foundation. If Twitter wants engaging and constructive dialog, they need a way to take out the trash. Unfortunately, Twitter's problem is that their potential for social good and their potential for revenue may never align. Since they are failing at turning a profit, it is unsurprising that they seem to be giving no consideration whatsoever to social responsibility.
- roystonvassey 10y ago
  +1. I spent a considerable amount of time on Twitter between August and November of this year. I quit cold turkey primarily because of the widespread negativity. Plus, its endless stream of tweets had a certain cheap novelty factor that coaxes you to spend more time on it than is warranted or necessary. HN and Reddit, to some extent, mitigate this in just the way I want. I'd be interested to hear about what are the reasons and ways people find Twitter useful/interesting.
  - inimino 10y ago
    In contrast with HN, I find the most salient characteristic of Twitter is that negativity. In the days after the election I started referring to it as the national amygdala. It just became an echo chamber for fear. I mostly solved it by ruthlessly unfollowing people who are just venting their emotions and not engaging in critical thought. I made up for it by following people I disagree with and randomly following people that are followed by people I respect. The thing I like about Twitter is who you can follow. Where else can you engage with Obama, Trump, etc. in a public forum? Without the big name political users, the press, the public intellectuals, Twitter would have nothing. The way the big shots are effectively equal to ordinary users is very democratic. I can @ the POTUS and at least in theory get a reply. There's nothing else out there that enables that kind of communication. It's a shame that Twitter has done so little with so much. Think of the great newspapers of the past and how seriously many of them took their civic responsibility, and how they crowed about it in their editorial pages. They understood their role in society and the responsibility that came with the power they had. Yet here Twitter finds itself in possession of an unprecendented opportunity and they totally squander it. Completely oblivious to their social responsibility, they chase after ad dollars, and even there they fail.
    - Mathnerd314 10y ago
      The problem IMO is the limits. Humans can only read so many tweets and follow so many people. Beyond Dunbar's number (150 - 1500 depending on selectivity) they just blur into a big mess. Twitter's added some tools for curation (likes, user lists) but they aren't really powerful enough to filter tweets in real-time. They need something like Reddit's automod or a machine-learning filter. The point of Twitter & other social media is empowering the user; they can encourage community members to step up and take civic responsibility, but Twitter's responsibility as such is to provide the platform rather than to run the show. I guess they could openly declare Twitter to be part of the DNC platform, but that would lose a ton of users (although not so much in terms of content). They're better off following a policy similar to Facebook of attempted neutrality.

rtpg 10y ago

Twitter could simply "choose sides". Yes, they could have the courage to not allow neo-Nazis to use their site as a platform.

hyperdunc 10y ago
They might have the courage, but do they have the judgement to decide who's an actual neo-nazi? Twitter has a history of political partisanship. They'll ban "racist" conservatives but allow minority "terrorist" organizations.
- rtpg 10y ago
  There's a Pacific Ocean-sized gulf between the current policy and your nightmare scenario. Slippery slope and all that, but they un-suspended Richard Spencer for "reasons".
  - inimino 10y ago
    After the neo-nazis, who's next? As soon as they "take sides" they are now directly putting a finger on the scale of national and international politics. That's a rathole they absolutely do not want to go down and would very likely be totally unsustainable. On the other hand, it works pretty well for the Chinese social media.
  - whywhywhywhy 10y ago
    It's not a nightmare scenario, they literally let terrorists use the platform no problem

the8472 10y ago

> harassment I do wonder if this word is even appropriate to the situation. Using twitter seems akin to stepping on a soap box on the town square and shouting every single word you say. Maybe nobody will pay attention to you. Or maybe you'll get a crowd of people who think favorably of you. Maybe someone else will step on his own box and have a conversation with you, but still there for everyone to hear. And it goes even further, you even have an official scribe who records everything you say and then pins it to the great proclamation board of the city plaza so that everyone who was not there at the time can still follow what you're saying. This is an incredibly public mode of conversation that people don't realize what they're doing. And well, if you say something that people disagree with you will get booing, hissing, insults, threats from a whole mob... maybe just because you're too loud. This would be the risk if you stepped on a box of a real place. You have to realize that the mob shouting you down probably doesn't really mean to attack a person. It is verbally attacking a public speaker on the city plaza. You get treated akin to an unpopular politician, not as regular citizen discussing things with friends.

DanBC 10y ago
> maybe just because you're too loud. This would be the risk if you stepped on a box of a real place. Or maybe just because you're Jewish. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-of-mr-justice-spencer-r-v-joshua-bonehill-paine-harassment-of-luciana-berger-mp/ https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-of... > You have to realize that the mob shouting you down probably doesn't really mean to attack a person. It is verbally attacking a public speaker on the city plaza. You get treated akin to an unpopular politician, not as regular citizen discussing things with friends. The case I linked above put someone in fear of their life. It's disappointing to see people claim this is not really an attack.
- the8472 10y ago
  Well, actually illegal behavior is for the legal system to deal with. But if twitter is a public, open platform with global reach then you will also get people who react to you like a public speaker. Which includes things that do not meet the legal harassment standards. Just the texual equivalent of booing, hissing and throwing insults at people to get them off the stage. And I think people need to be aware of this when they state political opinions on the global twitter soapbox instead of doing it among their friends. I'm sure changes can be made to dampen it. But this is the current situation. And I'm not sure harassment is a good way to describe it.