7 ms·

> Kudos to twitter Kudos? I wouldn't hand over a kudos to twitter. The article triggering this bot ban wave [1] was written by the Times and included behavior

> Kudos to twitter Kudos? I wouldn't hand over a kudos to twitter. The article triggering this bot ban wave [1] was written by the Times and included behavior analysis that Twitter easily could (and may have) done on its own years ago. Facebook's actions and marketer value has nothing to do with Twitter's own lack of action to prevent infiltration and manipulation of its platform. Twitter's action on stopping spam, bots and hate speech at best can be described as slow. I believe Jack Dorsey has repeatedly said the company hasn't / doesn't do enough. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/27/technology/social-media-bots.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/27/technology/so...

rtpg 8y ago
He keeps on saying they don't do enough, the times is able to do this despite not even having access to raw internal data I feel like Twitter as an organization doesn't actually care about the problem, just about their image. Why else would they talk about the hate speech stuff and continuously elevate groups like The Proud Boys through their verification process (that also affects their suggestion algorithms). And we shouldn't forget that many Gamergate people are still active on Twitter and often use their accounts to direct harassment to people on a regular basis! The even more cynical view is that there's a group of employees within Twitter actively protecting these kinds of users
- ridgeguy 8y ago
  Twitter cares about its bottom line. If otherwise, they'd have suspended Trump's account for ToS violations long ago.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  That's the problem with companies once they go public, and I'd argue once they accept any kind of investment; the new owners have the company by the balls and expect Results, expect the stock price to rise. Twitter's artificially maintained that stock price by not banning their users, because it seems user quantity and growth are far more important metrics that influence stock price than the quality of users.

rtpg 8y ago

He keeps on saying they don't do enough, the times is able to do this despite not even having access to raw internal data I feel like Twitter as an organization doesn't actually care about the problem, just about their image. Why else would they talk about the hate speech stuff and continuously elevate groups like The Proud Boys through their verification process (that also affects their suggestion algorithms). And we shouldn't forget that many Gamergate people are still active on Twitter and often use their accounts to direct harassment to people on a regular basis! The even more cynical view is that there's a group of employees within Twitter actively protecting these kinds of users

ridgeguy 8y ago
Twitter cares about its bottom line. If otherwise, they'd have suspended Trump's account for ToS violations long ago.
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
That's the problem with companies once they go public, and I'd argue once they accept any kind of investment; the new owners have the company by the balls and expect Results, expect the stock price to rise. Twitter's artificially maintained that stock price by not banning their users, because it seems user quantity and growth are far more important metrics that influence stock price than the quality of users.