5 ms·

I can't parse your third paragraph. Who do you think is responsible for this? I say it is Twitter. Any public service must plan for its ToS to be broken by bad

by inimino 10y ago

I can't parse your third paragraph. Who do you think is responsible for this? I say it is Twitter. Any public service must plan for its ToS to be broken by bad actors.

KirinDave 10y ago
There is blame enough for both twitter and the asinine people here who engage in the deliberately misleading communication, fraud and harassment. Capability is not a moral license to hurt others. If it were, you'd be morally responsible to kill as many people as possible. My third paragraph is saying this: The US elections were decided by and large by social media plays. There are hints of illegal use by campaign actors, but even beyond that it was the first election we had where widespread bots on facebook and twitter were engaging the electorate. That and the repeal of the VRA are definitely factors in why the democrats lost while still keeping the popular vote. I've been in this industry since a time when I was a teenager being laughed at for texting ("It'll never catch on."), using social networks ("Why not just call them?"), and reading online news ("WIRED doesn't put real journalism on their website, and slashdot isn't news"). Many people who are on the internet today take for granted that society has accepted this state of affairs, but it's the work of decades of amassing respectability and providing value. And now in the public eye: dismantling the ability to associate and speak freely because the majority of even first world rich actors cannot use it responsibly. Sure, there is blame for Twitter and Facebook for not ignoring the problem. But the people here relating in a chipper tone how they're undermining the system because, "Tragedy of the commons?" They're so stupid they're literally biting the hand that feeds them because it's a rush to commit minor fraud. (Aside: It's very sad that Twitter fired blake so long ago, because he predicted exactly this would happen. Twitter's management didn't want to think about it, so they made him leave. Typical execs.)
- inimino 10y ago
  Ever since email spam, we have learned that systems have to be made resistant to abuse. There is enough blame to go around, but it is reasonable to blame Twitter. It is not reasonable to expect bad actors to go away. Systems designed on this assumption will always fail. Yes, we can rightly rail against the people abusing the system, but ultimately there are 7 billion people and expecting all of them to be ethical is foolish. However, we should expect Twitter to behave ethically and hold it to account when it so clearly fails. By all means, keep fighting the good fight, but the only thing that can realistically improve the situation is Twitter.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    > Yes, we can rightly rail against the people abusing the system, but ultimately there are 7 billion people and expecting all of them to be ethical is foolish. I don't really get this. You seem to agree with me, but then also seem to be chastising me for blaming individuals here proudly abusing the system? > By all means, keep fighting the good fight, but the only thing that can realistically improve the situation is Twitter. The HN mods could grab the IP history of the fraudster user and pass them to twitter. That'd make the world incrementally better for a small period of time. Who knows, maybe Twitter could bring a lawsuit to bear. Technically that dude is describing a felony.
    - inimino 10y ago
      Maybe I can explain better. There are two concerns. One is, what is ethical and right for a person to do? On this we agree. Building botnets to spam Twitter is not ethical and people shouldn't do it. The other concern is, what should we do about it? This is where I "chastised" you, because focusing on the ethical behavior of members of the public is generally useless. If the people commenting here didn't do it, someone else would. That doesn't excuse them, but it does mean going after them isn't an effective strategy. Imagine trying to fight email spam by shaming individual spammers. Many people have done it. It doesn't work. If those people had redirected their energy towards fixing the system, rather than the people, the spam problem could have been solved decades ago. > The HN mods could grab the IP history of the fraudster user and pass them to twitter. Besides setting a bad precedent for HN, this would be useless. Twitter already has access to much more information than the BBC did when they did their investigation. Twitter simply doesn't care to act on it. If it was a priority for Twitter, they would fix it, certainly not by bringing a lawsuit, but by applying a technical solution across the board. By blaming the bad actors, you take heat off of Twitter, and encourage people to waste their efforts doing things that will never make a difference.
      - KirinDave 10y ago
        > because focusing on the ethical behavior of members of the public is generally useless. If the people commenting here didn't do it, someone else would. That doesn't excuse them, but it does mean going after them isn't an effective strategy. But... we're talking to the people that did. It is no hypothetical, no question. Past tense. Done. Did. I'm not expecting this to axiomatically solve all twitter abuse. I do hope it will spark a conversation about how absolutely ruthlessly amoral many people here are. I hope young people looking for funding for a startup will think twice when they see what kind of environment HN creates. Do you really want to plant your flag and take money from people who enable fraudsters from the very ecosystem you plan to engage with? I point out people like that all the time in many venues. Because I think that raising awareness of the utter amorality of the software industry means more amoral assholes will be penalized for their actions. Perhaps this is naïve, but it is a conceit I will not easily give up. > Besides setting a bad precedent for HN, Yeah the bad precedent of, "Don't boast about how you're destroying the ecosystem we're trying to build a living on." We wouldn't want to disenfranchise the wretched thieving toe-rags who think making political twitterbomb networks, now would we? > Twitter already has access to much more information than the BBC did when they did their investigation. Twitter simply doesn't care to act on it. If it was a priority for Twitter, they would fix it, certainly not by bringing a lawsuit, but by applying a technical solution across the board. It's curious how the instant I mention sending data to twitter for enforcement suddenly that, too, is useless. We should focus on making twitter do something but since they don't care we shouldn't bother. Lower our arms from supplication and sink into the mud, I suppose? > By blaming the bad actors, you take heat off of Twitter, No see, I have enough incandescent bile that I can do both. But you seem to want to do neither.

by inimino 10y ago

I can't parse your third paragraph. Who do you think is responsible for this? I say it is Twitter. Any public service must plan for its ToS to be broken by bad actors.

KirinDave 10y ago

There is blame enough for both twitter and the asinine people here who engage in the deliberately misleading communication, fraud and harassment. Capability is not a moral license to hurt others. If it were, you'd be morally responsible to kill as many people as possible. My third paragraph is saying this: The US elections were decided by and large by social media plays. There are hints of illegal use by campaign actors, but even beyond that it was the first election we had where widespread bots on facebook and twitter were engaging the electorate. That and the repeal of the VRA are definitely factors in why the democrats lost while still keeping the popular vote. I've been in this industry since a time when I was a teenager being laughed at for texting ("It'll never catch on."), using social networks ("Why not just call them?"), and reading online news ("WIRED doesn't put real journalism on their website, and slashdot isn't news"). Many people who are on the internet today take for granted that society has accepted this state of affairs, but it's the work of decades of amassing respectability and providing value. And now in the public eye: dismantling the ability to associate and speak freely because the majority of even first world rich actors cannot use it responsibly. Sure, there is blame for Twitter and Facebook for not ignoring the problem. But the people here relating in a chipper tone how they're undermining the system because, "Tragedy of the commons?" They're so stupid they're literally biting the hand that feeds them because it's a rush to commit minor fraud. (Aside: It's very sad that Twitter fired blake so long ago, because he predicted exactly this would happen. Twitter's management didn't want to think about it, so they made him leave. Typical execs.)

inimino 10y ago
Ever since email spam, we have learned that systems have to be made resistant to abuse. There is enough blame to go around, but it is reasonable to blame Twitter. It is not reasonable to expect bad actors to go away. Systems designed on this assumption will always fail. Yes, we can rightly rail against the people abusing the system, but ultimately there are 7 billion people and expecting all of them to be ethical is foolish. However, we should expect Twitter to behave ethically and hold it to account when it so clearly fails. By all means, keep fighting the good fight, but the only thing that can realistically improve the situation is Twitter.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  > Yes, we can rightly rail against the people abusing the system, but ultimately there are 7 billion people and expecting all of them to be ethical is foolish. I don't really get this. You seem to agree with me, but then also seem to be chastising me for blaming individuals here proudly abusing the system? > By all means, keep fighting the good fight, but the only thing that can realistically improve the situation is Twitter. The HN mods could grab the IP history of the fraudster user and pass them to twitter. That'd make the world incrementally better for a small period of time. Who knows, maybe Twitter could bring a lawsuit to bear. Technically that dude is describing a felony.
  - inimino 10y ago
    Maybe I can explain better. There are two concerns. One is, what is ethical and right for a person to do? On this we agree. Building botnets to spam Twitter is not ethical and people shouldn't do it. The other concern is, what should we do about it? This is where I "chastised" you, because focusing on the ethical behavior of members of the public is generally useless. If the people commenting here didn't do it, someone else would. That doesn't excuse them, but it does mean going after them isn't an effective strategy. Imagine trying to fight email spam by shaming individual spammers. Many people have done it. It doesn't work. If those people had redirected their energy towards fixing the system, rather than the people, the spam problem could have been solved decades ago. > The HN mods could grab the IP history of the fraudster user and pass them to twitter. Besides setting a bad precedent for HN, this would be useless. Twitter already has access to much more information than the BBC did when they did their investigation. Twitter simply doesn't care to act on it. If it was a priority for Twitter, they would fix it, certainly not by bringing a lawsuit, but by applying a technical solution across the board. By blaming the bad actors, you take heat off of Twitter, and encourage people to waste their efforts doing things that will never make a difference.
    - KirinDave 10y ago
      > because focusing on the ethical behavior of members of the public is generally useless. If the people commenting here didn't do it, someone else would. That doesn't excuse them, but it does mean going after them isn't an effective strategy. But... we're talking to the people that did. It is no hypothetical, no question. Past tense. Done. Did. I'm not expecting this to axiomatically solve all twitter abuse. I do hope it will spark a conversation about how absolutely ruthlessly amoral many people here are. I hope young people looking for funding for a startup will think twice when they see what kind of environment HN creates. Do you really want to plant your flag and take money from people who enable fraudsters from the very ecosystem you plan to engage with? I point out people like that all the time in many venues. Because I think that raising awareness of the utter amorality of the software industry means more amoral assholes will be penalized for their actions. Perhaps this is naïve, but it is a conceit I will not easily give up. > Besides setting a bad precedent for HN, Yeah the bad precedent of, "Don't boast about how you're destroying the ecosystem we're trying to build a living on." We wouldn't want to disenfranchise the wretched thieving toe-rags who think making political twitterbomb networks, now would we? > Twitter already has access to much more information than the BBC did when they did their investigation. Twitter simply doesn't care to act on it. If it was a priority for Twitter, they would fix it, certainly not by bringing a lawsuit, but by applying a technical solution across the board. It's curious how the instant I mention sending data to twitter for enforcement suddenly that, too, is useless. We should focus on making twitter do something but since they don't care we shouldn't bother. Lower our arms from supplication and sink into the mud, I suppose? > By blaming the bad actors, you take heat off of Twitter, No see, I have enough incandescent bile that I can do both. But you seem to want to do neither.