3 ms·

Yes. They are not legally required to provide service to anyone. But indiscriminately providing services to everyone (within the laws of your country), without

Yes. They are not legally required to provide service to anyone. But indiscriminately providing services to everyone (within the laws of your country), without booting people based on a personal agenda, is the ABC of gaining the trust of your users.

mozumder 9y ago
Wrong. A respected editorial standard allows for even more trust. Example: Do you trust Washington Post or Twitter more?
- anonemouse145 9y ago
  Independent journalists who are getting banned from Twitter en masse.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  Comparing a centralized, unified group like a newspaper writing team with a diffuse, decentralized mob like Twitter makes me question your sincerity.
  - mozumder 9y ago
    Twitter is a single corporation. It can choose to limit the scope of its published tweets if it wishes, via stronger editorial rules.
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      It could also choose to open a steel factory and produce I beams -- why are we not criticizing its low steel output? Twitter would immediately lose all utility to me if it transitioned out of the business of being a forum/socialization platform to a poorly sourced algorothmic newspaper. (They're flirting with it -- and frankly, it doesn't seem to be going well, because that's not what people want.) It seems outright disingenuous to suggest that Twitter and the NYT are in the same business, and seems to be based entirely around a false equivalence about "publish". There are multiple kinds of businesses that publish things, and the solution to problems in one domain aren't just to be a differemt type of business.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Twitter and it’s not even close. A journalists synthesis of what he thinks the evidence is carries no weight. Twitter is like a mini trial. You hear the testimony from the horse’s mouth, people cite documentary evidence, and you weigh credibility to reach a conclusion.
  - mozumder 9y ago
    So you trust the Russian troll bots on Twitter?
    - eitland 9y ago
      That's absolutely not what rayiner wrote.
      - mozumder 9y ago
        Trial witnesses need to have their identity confirmed. You can't do that on twitter.
gfzfwizp 9y ago
But people aren't leaving twitter because they perceive it as favoring one side. People are leaving because they are being flooded with hateful, abusive comments from trolls and their bots. So it seems the key to gaining trust is creating a place where users don't experience rampant abuse.
GVIrish 9y ago
It depends on what you mean by 'personal agenda'. If someone is directing hate speech at other users, would it be pursuing a personal agenda to ban or otherwise sanction that user? It's not always easy to draw a line on conduct, but I think there is plenty of behavior on Twitter that 99% of people could easily identify as toxic.

mozumder 9y ago

Wrong. A respected editorial standard allows for even more trust. Example: Do you trust Washington Post or Twitter more?

anonemouse145 9y ago
Independent journalists who are getting banned from Twitter en masse.
SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
Comparing a centralized, unified group like a newspaper writing team with a diffuse, decentralized mob like Twitter makes me question your sincerity.
- mozumder 9y ago
  Twitter is a single corporation. It can choose to limit the scope of its published tweets if it wishes, via stronger editorial rules.
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    It could also choose to open a steel factory and produce I beams -- why are we not criticizing its low steel output? Twitter would immediately lose all utility to me if it transitioned out of the business of being a forum/socialization platform to a poorly sourced algorothmic newspaper. (They're flirting with it -- and frankly, it doesn't seem to be going well, because that's not what people want.) It seems outright disingenuous to suggest that Twitter and the NYT are in the same business, and seems to be based entirely around a false equivalence about "publish". There are multiple kinds of businesses that publish things, and the solution to problems in one domain aren't just to be a differemt type of business.
rayiner 9y ago
Twitter and it’s not even close. A journalists synthesis of what he thinks the evidence is carries no weight. Twitter is like a mini trial. You hear the testimony from the horse’s mouth, people cite documentary evidence, and you weigh credibility to reach a conclusion.
- mozumder 9y ago
  So you trust the Russian troll bots on Twitter?
  - eitland 9y ago
    That's absolutely not what rayiner wrote.
    - mozumder 9y ago
      Trial witnesses need to have their identity confirmed. You can't do that on twitter.

gfzfwizp 9y ago

But people aren't leaving twitter because they perceive it as favoring one side. People are leaving because they are being flooded with hateful, abusive comments from trolls and their bots. So it seems the key to gaining trust is creating a place where users don't experience rampant abuse.

GVIrish 9y ago

It depends on what you mean by 'personal agenda'. If someone is directing hate speech at other users, would it be pursuing a personal agenda to ban or otherwise sanction that user? It's not always easy to draw a line on conduct, but I think there is plenty of behavior on Twitter that 99% of people could easily identify as toxic.