6 ms·

I’m confused. What technology did twitter replace? Oh it didn’t? This is completely new, the ability to communicate to this many people at once? Okay so what an

I’m confused. What technology did twitter replace? Oh it didn’t? This is completely new, the ability to communicate to this many people at once? Okay so what ancient rights are being trampled exactly? If anything we probably need to be censoring people on Twitter right now as it doesn’t seem to convince anyone of anything other than that the people on the other-side of their argument are sub-human. Edit: Also, it always riles me up when someone refers to social media as a “main communication” provider. What fraction of the population gets its political discourse off of Twitter?

prepend 7y ago
In Q1 of this year, twitter had 68 million monthly active users in the US [0]. Hard to tell how many of them follow political discourse. But that’s 20% of the population (give or take) and it’s a substantial fraction. I’m not sure how but I want that fraction to get before appropriate rights are defined and adopted. The US common carrier rules were only enacted in 1934 [1] so it took a while before phone companies were forced to respect some US rights. Twitter is only 15 years old so it’s likely that this private company (and others) will be regulated just like the private telephone companies were regulated. I had hoped that technology had advanced enough so respecting human rights would be embedded into the design. But now I think it will take laws and regulations which will inevitably, and sadly I think, also squelch innovation. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/274564/monthly-active-twitter-users-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/274564/monthly-active-tw... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/201
- lancesells 7y ago
  I have no idea what the real MAU numbers of actual people are but I would think it's maybe a quarter (5%) of the population. There are so many bots on twitter along with company accounts, meme accounts, IFTT automation, etc. that I can't imagine it's 20% of the US using twitter each month.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    If you count the number of people indirectly reading twitter through other media the number is much higher than 20%. And it's not just media directly quoting and crediting twitter; I imagine journalists get a very high percentage of their leads and sources through twitter.
- hacknat 7y ago
  I don't buy those numbers for a second, and I certainly don't buy that everyone on Twitter is following political discourse. I have a Twitter account, but I only follow a very narrow slice of systems programming news.
- skinnymuch 7y ago
  Twitter does a loose definition of MAU, as most do. If it’s just logged in users in the past month, that’s going to include a boat load of duplicate/2nd/3rd accounts and bots. Twitter themselves say monetizable active users are around 40% of worldwide monthly active users. Your statista link links to that. That takes your percentage of US down to 8%. Account for Twitter exaggerating or missing out on anything and the number of users who don’t follow political discourse and you’re likely below 5%.
berbec 7y ago
The president of the United States.
moate 7y ago
But muh followers need muh rageposts! "Everyone gets a platform" is not a right. It's never been a right. If anything, I hope it's a societal anomaly that we fix in the next 10 years. Again, the first amendment gives you exactly fuckall protection on twitter, and that's how it should be. The New York Times isn't required to host your "Obama was the REAL racist" diatribes and Fox News doesn't need to have you come on every weekend to point out "Trump is probably a rapist" because you're not entitled to this. Same as Twitter. That said: ToS enforcement is always difficult, always subjective, and always "unfair". There is no good way to fix this. Whatever cool idea someone has for how to fix this doesn't actually fix this. And they don't need to. Twitter gonna ban what Twitter gonna ban.
- SuoDuanDao 7y ago
  Is Mastercard required to do business with the Bernie Sanders campaign, even though his stated policy goals might harm their business?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Why would Mastercard be required to do business with the Sanders campaign?
    - SuoDuanDao 7y ago
      Large corporations hamstringing reformist politicians rubs some people the wrong way. The major nonhuman players have always participated in politics, but when they prevent others from participating in politics it's seen as another line being crossed.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        You're describing a PR issue, not a legal one. Twitter has those, too, like having to carve out an exemption in the rules for Trump's account, or accusations of bias that lead to Congressional hearings.
Mirioron 7y ago
Even though Twitter and the like might be new technology, they are still replacing the old. People only have so much time in the day and all the other ways that people engage in politics compete with Twitter and the like. And it seems that Twitter and the like have won that competition. This means that a large chunk of political discourse now happens on services like Twitter.
- hacknat 7y ago
  Yes, but why isn't Twitter allowed to curate political content? They have a 1st amendment right to do so. Just like every newspaper before them got the right to curate who got published in their editorial section.
  - mrrrgn 7y ago
    There is a difference between a platform and a publisher. Publishers can curate, platforms aren't supposed to. As I understand it, whether social media companies are platforms or publishers forms the actual core and substance of this debate about "free speech." edit Apparently there is no legal distinction between a platform and a publisher? It looks like this article may explain the confusion that I myself had. => https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190613/03172142391/once-more-with-feeling-there-is-no-legal-distinction-between-platform-publisher.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190613/03172142391/once-...
    - hacknat 7y ago
      They are clearly both, just as newspapers were before them (heck they had classifieds and personals while I was alive, that's a platform). The editorial section of a newspaper is a platform, but a highly curated one, because of resource constraints that a platform like Twitter doesn't have.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      > As I understand it, whether social media companies are platforms or publishers forms the actual core and substance of this debate about "free speech." This is wrong. There is no such distinction between platforms and publishers and the opposite is actually true. The law explicitly states that website owners are not responsible for content provided by other parties and are also explicitly permitted to curate their platforms for what they deem to be objectionable content.
notyourwork 7y ago
I agree with you except for the last part about dismissing the power of social platforms to influence people through consumption of “news” and current events.
coldtea 7y ago
>I’m confused. What technology did twitter replace? Oh it didn’t? This is completely new, the ability to communicate to this many people at once? Okay so what ancient rights are being trampled exactly? What bizarro ideas people have. Rights exist outside of technologies, technologies, media, etc are just different spaces to apply them. Twitter, for example, can't treat people of color differently, just because it's a "new technology" and "thus" they should not have any expectation of equality there. They have the right to be treated as equals, regardless of whether it's a new technology that does the treatment or an old one. (Note also that what century/decade old laws based on a 3 centuries old constitution that's held as some holy scripture say, are not the be all, end all, and are not necessarily the same thing as what should be right in 2019. I say this cause Americans have the tendency to view everything under this lens, as if they can't possibly conceive of any improvements there, or as if that's even relevant to a global discussion). >Also, it always riles me up when someone refers to social media as a “main communication” provider. What fraction of the population gets its political discourse off of Twitter? A large enough for it to be actively targeted by political figures, political campaign advertising, and polling companies (heck, even foreign agents), and a large enough for it to have a big share in shaping public opinion. So there's that.

prepend 7y ago

In Q1 of this year, twitter had 68 million monthly active users in the US [0]. Hard to tell how many of them follow political discourse. But that’s 20% of the population (give or take) and it’s a substantial fraction. I’m not sure how but I want that fraction to get before appropriate rights are defined and adopted. The US common carrier rules were only enacted in 1934 [1] so it took a while before phone companies were forced to respect some US rights. Twitter is only 15 years old so it’s likely that this private company (and others) will be regulated just like the private telephone companies were regulated. I had hoped that technology had advanced enough so respecting human rights would be embedded into the design. But now I think it will take laws and regulations which will inevitably, and sadly I think, also squelch innovation. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/274564/monthly-active-twitter-users-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/274564/monthly-active-tw... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/201

lancesells 7y ago
I have no idea what the real MAU numbers of actual people are but I would think it's maybe a quarter (5%) of the population. There are so many bots on twitter along with company accounts, meme accounts, IFTT automation, etc. that I can't imagine it's 20% of the US using twitter each month.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  If you count the number of people indirectly reading twitter through other media the number is much higher than 20%. And it's not just media directly quoting and crediting twitter; I imagine journalists get a very high percentage of their leads and sources through twitter.
hacknat 7y ago
I don't buy those numbers for a second, and I certainly don't buy that everyone on Twitter is following political discourse. I have a Twitter account, but I only follow a very narrow slice of systems programming news.
skinnymuch 7y ago
Twitter does a loose definition of MAU, as most do. If it’s just logged in users in the past month, that’s going to include a boat load of duplicate/2nd/3rd accounts and bots. Twitter themselves say monetizable active users are around 40% of worldwide monthly active users. Your statista link links to that. That takes your percentage of US down to 8%. Account for Twitter exaggerating or missing out on anything and the number of users who don’t follow political discourse and you’re likely below 5%.

berbec 7y ago

The president of the United States.

moate 7y ago

But muh followers need muh rageposts! "Everyone gets a platform" is not a right. It's never been a right. If anything, I hope it's a societal anomaly that we fix in the next 10 years. Again, the first amendment gives you exactly fuckall protection on twitter, and that's how it should be. The New York Times isn't required to host your "Obama was the REAL racist" diatribes and Fox News doesn't need to have you come on every weekend to point out "Trump is probably a rapist" because you're not entitled to this. Same as Twitter. That said: ToS enforcement is always difficult, always subjective, and always "unfair". There is no good way to fix this. Whatever cool idea someone has for how to fix this doesn't actually fix this. And they don't need to. Twitter gonna ban what Twitter gonna ban.

SuoDuanDao 7y ago
Is Mastercard required to do business with the Bernie Sanders campaign, even though his stated policy goals might harm their business?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Why would Mastercard be required to do business with the Sanders campaign?
  - SuoDuanDao 7y ago
    Large corporations hamstringing reformist politicians rubs some people the wrong way. The major nonhuman players have always participated in politics, but when they prevent others from participating in politics it's seen as another line being crossed.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      You're describing a PR issue, not a legal one. Twitter has those, too, like having to carve out an exemption in the rules for Trump's account, or accusations of bias that lead to Congressional hearings.

Mirioron 7y ago

Even though Twitter and the like might be new technology, they are still replacing the old. People only have so much time in the day and all the other ways that people engage in politics compete with Twitter and the like. And it seems that Twitter and the like have won that competition. This means that a large chunk of political discourse now happens on services like Twitter.

hacknat 7y ago
Yes, but why isn't Twitter allowed to curate political content? They have a 1st amendment right to do so. Just like every newspaper before them got the right to curate who got published in their editorial section.
- mrrrgn 7y ago
  There is a difference between a platform and a publisher. Publishers can curate, platforms aren't supposed to. As I understand it, whether social media companies are platforms or publishers forms the actual core and substance of this debate about "free speech." edit Apparently there is no legal distinction between a platform and a publisher? It looks like this article may explain the confusion that I myself had. => https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190613/03172142391/once-more-with-feeling-there-is-no-legal-distinction-between-platform-publisher.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190613/03172142391/once-...
  - hacknat 7y ago
    They are clearly both, just as newspapers were before them (heck they had classifieds and personals while I was alive, that's a platform). The editorial section of a newspaper is a platform, but a highly curated one, because of resource constraints that a platform like Twitter doesn't have.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > As I understand it, whether social media companies are platforms or publishers forms the actual core and substance of this debate about "free speech." This is wrong. There is no such distinction between platforms and publishers and the opposite is actually true. The law explicitly states that website owners are not responsible for content provided by other parties and are also explicitly permitted to curate their platforms for what they deem to be objectionable content.

notyourwork 7y ago

I agree with you except for the last part about dismissing the power of social platforms to influence people through consumption of “news” and current events.

coldtea 7y ago

>I’m confused. What technology did twitter replace? Oh it didn’t? This is completely new, the ability to communicate to this many people at once? Okay so what ancient rights are being trampled exactly? What bizarro ideas people have. Rights exist outside of technologies, technologies, media, etc are just different spaces to apply them. Twitter, for example, can't treat people of color differently, just because it's a "new technology" and "thus" they should not have any expectation of equality there. They have the right to be treated as equals, regardless of whether it's a new technology that does the treatment or an old one. (Note also that what century/decade old laws based on a 3 centuries old constitution that's held as some holy scripture say, are not the be all, end all, and are not necessarily the same thing as what should be right in 2019. I say this cause Americans have the tendency to view everything under this lens, as if they can't possibly conceive of any improvements there, or as if that's even relevant to a global discussion). >Also, it always riles me up when someone refers to social media as a “main communication” provider. What fraction of the population gets its political discourse off of Twitter? A large enough for it to be actively targeted by political figures, political campaign advertising, and polling companies (heck, even foreign agents), and a large enough for it to have a big share in shaping public opinion. So there's that.