4 ms·

Wait, isn’t most of the criticism at the _lack_ of censorship? I personally hate that half the platform is nutty conspiracy bots and hate speech.

vkou 8y ago
There's a group of people whose value system places "I want everyone to be able to say everything they want, with no repercussions" to be their most important value. From that point of view, Jack is a horrible person, and what he's doing will destroy Twitter. From the point of view of someone who doesn't want to wade into that cesspit, doing nothing will destroy Twitter. The two viewpoints are largely exclusive.
- detaro 8y ago
  But for the second category "features that would promote alternative viewpoints in Twitter’s timeline" also isn't a clear good: it could easily mean "show my tweets to more people that don't want to see them and will react badly to it, and show me more tweets from people I want to avoid". Limiting who you interact with is also a feature, not just a bad echo chamber.
  - Mindwipe 8y ago
    Quite. "Inserting tweets into my timeline to turn it into less of an echo chamber" seems like it cannot do anything other than insert tweets from the far right about how people with darker skin colours should be second class citizens (or worse). There is an entirely reasonable reading that Twitter is not competent enough to do this without making the platform more toxic, not less. I'm personally of the opinion that asking Twitter to do more moderation is not a great idea, because it's proven beyond all doubt that Twitter is no good at it and has no mechanism for improvement where it would ever get better. All they're going to do with more moderation is make more mistakes.
    - aplummer 8y ago
      I don’t know if it’s that slippery a slope. Couldn’t you start with conspiracies about child victims of shootings and see how it goes.
      - abnry 8y ago
        What do we do when the 1 out of 100th conspiracy theory turns out to be true? Just months ago there were massive conspiracy theorizing about the first lady's absence over a period of days. Should that discussion have just been shut down? It's not a clear judgment call, even for one person, for what to allow and what not to allow. That's the problem.
        happytoexplain 8y ago
        I agree with your description of what the real, practical problem is, but I'd like to hear your opinion about solutions. Personally, I do think a viable answer could involve rule-makers/enforcers making subjective judgements on sometimes unclear issues (even if that group must be small to feasibly operate). The practice is necessarily common because that's the nature of many of our social systems. We introduce as many abuse-curbing objective elements as possible, but in the end there will always be some amount of human judgement. If the balance tips one way, the system loses effectiveness, and if it tips the other way (the "slippery slope"), it becomes a new problem. Personally, in the example given, I don't think it would be impossible to find a balance that allows the mean-spirited speculation about why the first lady wasn't around, but disallows the borderline calls to violence and direct calls to hatred of people whose children have been murdered. Again, I agree that the problem is "how", but I absolutely am not pessimistic about it. I think we can use content moderation, despite its subjectivity, to find a balance - certainly not a perfect balance, but a better one than exists today.
- busterarm 8y ago
  Nothing is forcing people to wade into that cesspit though. Currently what's actually going on is "Jack, ban the people I don't like or I will leave." That's a really shitty ultimatum.
happyrock 8y ago
Both are valid criticisms of Twitter. However, Jack could simply state what they intend to do about these problems. Instead he obfuscates, stonewalls, says things that sound vaguely like plans of action, but increasingly look like a tactic to fend off critics while they continue to avoid accountability.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  I think it's because he doesn't know. They're just holding onto the tiger as best as they can.
lylecubed 8y ago
Twitter's getting it with both guns from both sides because Twitter is attempting to operate in American culture, which is currently in the middle of a civil war.
repolfx 8y ago
It's very unfortunate that people of a certain mindset have taken to describing any users they disagree with politically as "bots". The term bot has a clear meaning. What you're doing here is fantastically dangerous - you are dehumanising people with different politics to yourself. This is exactly how the very worst episodes in history started. Convince yourself that people you don't like are somehow not quite as human as yourself, that they're lower people, that they are best suppressed and shoved under the carpet. Half of Twitter isn't "nutty conspiracy bots", that's clearly itself a ludicrous conspiracy theory. Bots aren't capable of holding even Twitter-level conversations. They're people who believe things you don't.

vkou 8y ago

There's a group of people whose value system places "I want everyone to be able to say everything they want, with no repercussions" to be their most important value. From that point of view, Jack is a horrible person, and what he's doing will destroy Twitter. From the point of view of someone who doesn't want to wade into that cesspit, doing nothing will destroy Twitter. The two viewpoints are largely exclusive.

detaro 8y ago
But for the second category "features that would promote alternative viewpoints in Twitter’s timeline" also isn't a clear good: it could easily mean "show my tweets to more people that don't want to see them and will react badly to it, and show me more tweets from people I want to avoid". Limiting who you interact with is also a feature, not just a bad echo chamber.
- Mindwipe 8y ago
  Quite. "Inserting tweets into my timeline to turn it into less of an echo chamber" seems like it cannot do anything other than insert tweets from the far right about how people with darker skin colours should be second class citizens (or worse). There is an entirely reasonable reading that Twitter is not competent enough to do this without making the platform more toxic, not less. I'm personally of the opinion that asking Twitter to do more moderation is not a great idea, because it's proven beyond all doubt that Twitter is no good at it and has no mechanism for improvement where it would ever get better. All they're going to do with more moderation is make more mistakes.
  - aplummer 8y ago
    I don’t know if it’s that slippery a slope. Couldn’t you start with conspiracies about child victims of shootings and see how it goes.
    - abnry 8y ago
      What do we do when the 1 out of 100th conspiracy theory turns out to be true? Just months ago there were massive conspiracy theorizing about the first lady's absence over a period of days. Should that discussion have just been shut down? It's not a clear judgment call, even for one person, for what to allow and what not to allow. That's the problem.
      - happytoexplain 8y ago
        I agree with your description of what the real, practical problem is, but I'd like to hear your opinion about solutions. Personally, I do think a viable answer could involve rule-makers/enforcers making subjective judgements on sometimes unclear issues (even if that group must be small to feasibly operate). The practice is necessarily common because that's the nature of many of our social systems. We introduce as many abuse-curbing objective elements as possible, but in the end there will always be some amount of human judgement. If the balance tips one way, the system loses effectiveness, and if it tips the other way (the "slippery slope"), it becomes a new problem. Personally, in the example given, I don't think it would be impossible to find a balance that allows the mean-spirited speculation about why the first lady wasn't around, but disallows the borderline calls to violence and direct calls to hatred of people whose children have been murdered. Again, I agree that the problem is "how", but I absolutely am not pessimistic about it. I think we can use content moderation, despite its subjectivity, to find a balance - certainly not a perfect balance, but a better one than exists today.
busterarm 8y ago
Nothing is forcing people to wade into that cesspit though. Currently what's actually going on is "Jack, ban the people I don't like or I will leave." That's a really shitty ultimatum.

happyrock 8y ago

Both are valid criticisms of Twitter. However, Jack could simply state what they intend to do about these problems. Instead he obfuscates, stonewalls, says things that sound vaguely like plans of action, but increasingly look like a tactic to fend off critics while they continue to avoid accountability.

pavel_lishin 8y ago
I think it's because he doesn't know. They're just holding onto the tiger as best as they can.

lylecubed 8y ago

Twitter's getting it with both guns from both sides because Twitter is attempting to operate in American culture, which is currently in the middle of a civil war.

repolfx 8y ago

It's very unfortunate that people of a certain mindset have taken to describing any users they disagree with politically as "bots". The term bot has a clear meaning. What you're doing here is fantastically dangerous - you are dehumanising people with different politics to yourself. This is exactly how the very worst episodes in history started. Convince yourself that people you don't like are somehow not quite as human as yourself, that they're lower people, that they are best suppressed and shoved under the carpet. Half of Twitter isn't "nutty conspiracy bots", that's clearly itself a ludicrous conspiracy theory. Bots aren't capable of holding even Twitter-level conversations. They're people who believe things you don't.