5 ms·

I guess the point is that Twitter could easily tone down pile ons by noticing that a tweet is generating many more replies than likes. Then reduce display of th

by wmil 7y ago

I guess the point is that Twitter could easily tone down pile ons by noticing that a tweet is generating many more replies than likes. Then reduce display of that tweet instead of boosting it to non-followers. Perhaps not for blue checkmarks (they've declared themselves central to the public debate), but for average users Twitter should try to calm down pile ons.

izzydata 7y ago
That doesn't sound like a solid indicator of an issue. Two friends could be having a back and forth discussion with no harassment or conflict. You'd end up with 25+ replies and 1 like.
- MBCook 7y ago
  That would only be two people. You could factor in # of users.
  - shakyshakyshaky 7y ago
    additionally, there's no real need for technically public discussions to be promoted or made more public, so it's not really a failure state if the algorithm doesn't promote a high reply rate exchange between two users exclusively.
- moorhosj 7y ago
  You could simply add the number of distinct users replying. Seems like a pretty simple fix.
  - izzydata 7y ago
    I'm still not very convinced that replying without liking is an indicator of negativity. Maybe in most cases, but definitely not all cases. I don't use the like feature on the website at all and often comment on artwork saying how nice it is or whatever.
    - moorhosj 7y ago
      They have all the data to be able to make a relatively simple change like this. They don't want to, likely because it "drives engagement".
      - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
        In general, whenever people say something is relatively simple, and yet this thing has not happened, it can often be a sign that we are missing some hidden complexities. Not always, but often.
    - bradstewart 7y ago
      I almost exclusively use the like feature.
- freehunter 7y ago
  What's the point of locating in Silicon Valley and hiring the smartest programmers in the world if you can't figure out an algorithm to make hateful posts not show up as often in someone's feed? I doubt it's because they can't. The more likely answer is they don't want to.
  - otakucode 7y ago
    I would imagine the issue is certainly because they can't. What is hateful to you is charming and encouraging to someone else. Social norms and cultural differences are gigantic. Look at the recent controversy with the conservative guy on YouTube who referred to a reported from Vox as their 'queer Latino reporter' and it was seen as hate speech... despite the Vox reporter openly and frequently labelling themselves as Voxs queer Latino reporter. How is a computer supposed to interpret that? How is it supposed to know that when person A says something and when person B says the exact same words, referring to the exact same subject, that the greater context of the speakers background political affiliations and those of their audience actually determine the 'meaning' behind the statement, not the statement itself? This is not an easy problem, and it does no one any good to pretend that it is. Tackling the issue also requires those considering it to consider other social situations. Is someone supporting equal treatment of women in Saudia Arabia practicing hate speech against the conservative ruling party? If we'd had systems that let us actively regulate speech in the way we can now, would it have been appropriate to block Martin Luther King Jr. because his message was growing civil disobedience and causing families to bicker over race politics? Why are we so damn certain that any argument today will necessarily be decided by a regression rather than a wider acceptance of more progress? Change in human societies is always ugly, always comes at the cost of pain and strife, and on the balance has usually moved us in a forward direction. I can't say the same for censorship. Censorship makes impossible any forward movement, and only serves to leave regressive mindsets to fester and make-believe that they have more support than they actually do.
    - freehunter 7y ago
      We're not talking about banning these posts, or hiding them, or censoring them. Just not showing them as widely as they do other posts. It doesn't even need to go as deep as "this is hateful", but rather "this has the potential to be hateful" or giving the author the ability to control how widely the message is being shared. I see these people here trying to debate solutions like good engineers, but unless they work at Twitter, it's a waste. We can guess all day and come up with a million solutions but when it comes down to it, Twitter absolutely has the ability to control posts that spiral out of control. What they don't have is the desire to do so.
ankushnarula 7y ago
Most of those problems would go away if they a) eliminated the gamification (displaying numbers of replies, retweets, and likes) and b) required textual comments of a particular length. But then so would the engagement and ad revenue.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by wmil 7y ago

izzydata 7y ago

That doesn't sound like a solid indicator of an issue. Two friends could be having a back and forth discussion with no harassment or conflict. You'd end up with 25+ replies and 1 like.

MBCook 7y ago
That would only be two people. You could factor in # of users.
- shakyshakyshaky 7y ago
  additionally, there's no real need for technically public discussions to be promoted or made more public, so it's not really a failure state if the algorithm doesn't promote a high reply rate exchange between two users exclusively.
moorhosj 7y ago
You could simply add the number of distinct users replying. Seems like a pretty simple fix.
- izzydata 7y ago
  I'm still not very convinced that replying without liking is an indicator of negativity. Maybe in most cases, but definitely not all cases. I don't use the like feature on the website at all and often comment on artwork saying how nice it is or whatever.
  - moorhosj 7y ago
    They have all the data to be able to make a relatively simple change like this. They don't want to, likely because it "drives engagement".
    - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
      In general, whenever people say something is relatively simple, and yet this thing has not happened, it can often be a sign that we are missing some hidden complexities. Not always, but often.
  - bradstewart 7y ago
    I almost exclusively use the like feature.
freehunter 7y ago
What's the point of locating in Silicon Valley and hiring the smartest programmers in the world if you can't figure out an algorithm to make hateful posts not show up as often in someone's feed? I doubt it's because they can't. The more likely answer is they don't want to.
- otakucode 7y ago
  I would imagine the issue is certainly because they can't. What is hateful to you is charming and encouraging to someone else. Social norms and cultural differences are gigantic. Look at the recent controversy with the conservative guy on YouTube who referred to a reported from Vox as their 'queer Latino reporter' and it was seen as hate speech... despite the Vox reporter openly and frequently labelling themselves as Voxs queer Latino reporter. How is a computer supposed to interpret that? How is it supposed to know that when person A says something and when person B says the exact same words, referring to the exact same subject, that the greater context of the speakers background political affiliations and those of their audience actually determine the 'meaning' behind the statement, not the statement itself? This is not an easy problem, and it does no one any good to pretend that it is. Tackling the issue also requires those considering it to consider other social situations. Is someone supporting equal treatment of women in Saudia Arabia practicing hate speech against the conservative ruling party? If we'd had systems that let us actively regulate speech in the way we can now, would it have been appropriate to block Martin Luther King Jr. because his message was growing civil disobedience and causing families to bicker over race politics? Why are we so damn certain that any argument today will necessarily be decided by a regression rather than a wider acceptance of more progress? Change in human societies is always ugly, always comes at the cost of pain and strife, and on the balance has usually moved us in a forward direction. I can't say the same for censorship. Censorship makes impossible any forward movement, and only serves to leave regressive mindsets to fester and make-believe that they have more support than they actually do.
  - freehunter 7y ago
    We're not talking about banning these posts, or hiding them, or censoring them. Just not showing them as widely as they do other posts. It doesn't even need to go as deep as "this is hateful", but rather "this has the potential to be hateful" or giving the author the ability to control how widely the message is being shared. I see these people here trying to debate solutions like good engineers, but unless they work at Twitter, it's a waste. We can guess all day and come up with a million solutions but when it comes down to it, Twitter absolutely has the ability to control posts that spiral out of control. What they don't have is the desire to do so.

ankushnarula 7y ago

Most of those problems would go away if they a) eliminated the gamification (displaying numbers of replies, retweets, and likes) and b) required textual comments of a particular length. But then so would the engagement and ad revenue.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]