4 ms·

I'd love to see an example of what these accounts were saying. "Discouraging voting in the midterms" doesn't sound like something an account should get deleted

I'd love to see an example of what these accounts were saying. "Discouraging voting in the midterms" doesn't sound like something an account should get deleted for. If they're referencing the satirical NPC accounts, then I have even more of a problem with it. If Twitter is going to engage in this type of censorship they should provide some transparency. It's extra concerning that it was the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committe pushing Twitter to do that. All the more reason to avoid the impression of impropriety.

makomk 8y ago
It is all very partisan. Like, the official North Dakota affiliate of the Democratic Party ran Facebook ads a day or two ago falsely claiming that people could lose their hunting licenses if they voted in the election to try and scare Republican supporters away from voting, their state senator stood behind those ads, and no-one much cared.
MilnerRoute 8y ago
Reuters has some examples. Posing as Democrats, some of the tweets were telling men that they shouldn't vote, because it would be wrongly drowning out the voices of women who needed to be heard more loudly in this election. https://www.marketscreener.com/TWITTER-INC-38965267/news/Exclusive-Twitter-deletes-over-10-000-accounts-that-sought-to-discourage-U-S-voting-27536635/ https://www.marketscreener.com/TWITTER-INC-38965267/news/Exc...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- malvosenior 8y ago
  ”The Tweets included ones that discouraged Democratic men from voting, saying that would drown out the voice of women, according to two of the sources familiar with the flagging operation.” So yes, they’re pretty much banning satire and jokes not aligned with the Democrats.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
chasing 8y ago
> ...deleted thousands of automated accounts... This article is not about deleting accounts of normal human users. It’s about halting coordinated propaganda campaigns.
- harshreality 8y ago
  I don't think that's how it works, according to everything I've heard reported by the media. When Twitter or Facebook talk about automated accounts, I believe the people saying that have good (but naive) intentions (in short, I don't think they have much grasp of classical liberal theory or philosophy regarding free speech), but what they actually mean in practice seems to be this: "Only bots display X communication pattern, this account shows a similar communication pattern, therefore this account is a bot." In short, they work backwards. They don't determine something's a bot and then nuke it (they do that too, but that's not what these mass bannings and reporting of it are all about). They observe offensive communications, and if that fits into a certain pattern, the communications alone prove the account is a bot. I'm sure they do ban bots, true bots, to the best of their ability, with automated detection that blocks signups or blocks accounts from communicating when it can determine that there's unauthorized bot-like behavior on the protocol/timing level. That's not what this is about. This is about (semi-)manually blocking of "bots" based on communication content after their automated detection couldn't be sure the account was a bot. How do you think they know they're bots? If someone held a serious penalty over their heads, and told them if they blocked a single non-bot claiming it's a bot, and got it wrong, they'd be in trouble, do you think any of these "bots" would be blocked? I'm not even saying they're not bots (I can't know), but that those companies aren't as certain that they're banning bots as you assume they are. "Bots" seems to have become a code word that also includes agent provocateurs, whether they're Russian operatives or people in some Asian sweat shop being paid to retweet certain things. Newspeak, much? And if you label them truthfully, not as bots, but as propagandists, you have a huge problem because banning based on propaganda is done selectively — provocateurs with some agendas are banned, but others are not.
  - MilnerRoute 8y ago
    I think that "communication pattern" is inaccurate information. But maybe that points to the real issue. Do we agree that harmful inaccurate information should be screened for and eliminated? That leads to a follow-up question: how do you screen for inaccurate information at scale?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

makomk 8y ago

It is all very partisan. Like, the official North Dakota affiliate of the Democratic Party ran Facebook ads a day or two ago falsely claiming that people could lose their hunting licenses if they voted in the election to try and scare Republican supporters away from voting, their state senator stood behind those ads, and no-one much cared.

MilnerRoute 8y ago

Reuters has some examples. Posing as Democrats, some of the tweets were telling men that they shouldn't vote, because it would be wrongly drowning out the voices of women who needed to be heard more loudly in this election. https://www.marketscreener.com/TWITTER-INC-38965267/news/Exclusive-Twitter-deletes-over-10-000-accounts-that-sought-to-discourage-U-S-voting-27536635/ https://www.marketscreener.com/TWITTER-INC-38965267/news/Exc...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
malvosenior 8y ago
”The Tweets included ones that discouraged Democratic men from voting, saying that would drown out the voice of women, according to two of the sources familiar with the flagging operation.” So yes, they’re pretty much banning satire and jokes not aligned with the Democrats.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

chasing 8y ago

> ...deleted thousands of automated accounts... This article is not about deleting accounts of normal human users. It’s about halting coordinated propaganda campaigns.

harshreality 8y ago
I don't think that's how it works, according to everything I've heard reported by the media. When Twitter or Facebook talk about automated accounts, I believe the people saying that have good (but naive) intentions (in short, I don't think they have much grasp of classical liberal theory or philosophy regarding free speech), but what they actually mean in practice seems to be this: "Only bots display X communication pattern, this account shows a similar communication pattern, therefore this account is a bot." In short, they work backwards. They don't determine something's a bot and then nuke it (they do that too, but that's not what these mass bannings and reporting of it are all about). They observe offensive communications, and if that fits into a certain pattern, the communications alone prove the account is a bot. I'm sure they do ban bots, true bots, to the best of their ability, with automated detection that blocks signups or blocks accounts from communicating when it can determine that there's unauthorized bot-like behavior on the protocol/timing level. That's not what this is about. This is about (semi-)manually blocking of "bots" based on communication content after their automated detection couldn't be sure the account was a bot. How do you think they know they're bots? If someone held a serious penalty over their heads, and told them if they blocked a single non-bot claiming it's a bot, and got it wrong, they'd be in trouble, do you think any of these "bots" would be blocked? I'm not even saying they're not bots (I can't know), but that those companies aren't as certain that they're banning bots as you assume they are. "Bots" seems to have become a code word that also includes agent provocateurs, whether they're Russian operatives or people in some Asian sweat shop being paid to retweet certain things. Newspeak, much? And if you label them truthfully, not as bots, but as propagandists, you have a huge problem because banning based on propaganda is done selectively — provocateurs with some agendas are banned, but others are not.
- MilnerRoute 8y ago
  I think that "communication pattern" is inaccurate information. But maybe that points to the real issue. Do we agree that harmful inaccurate information should be screened for and eliminated? That leads to a follow-up question: how do you screen for inaccurate information at scale?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]