5 ms·

> I want to applaud this, because it's clearly a good move. It’s not that clear to me that this is a net good move. Exposure to out-network content, depending

> I want to applaud this, because it's clearly a good move. It’s not that clear to me that this is a net good move. Exposure to out-network content, depending on what is exposed, could be good for preventing echo chambers and confirmation bias too. Twitter likely went the other direction and promoted out-network tweets that only increased engagement, and blaming the feature itself for this is naive at best. Second issue everyone seems to be missing is the potential partisan-ness of these feature changes. Do the usage of any individual feature distribute equally among all demographics? If not, feature-shaping a near election could be construed as an underhanded way to hamper the discourse of certain demographics. Of course this is very easy to dismiss as conspiratorial thinking, but I think ideally any intellectually honest discourse engine would have gone the extra mile to demonstrate the neutrality of their election specific changes.

throwaway316943 6y ago
I find it suspect that they are giving as one of their criteria for calling the election as two authoritative news sources independently calling it. If this were non partisan they would have at least said a majority of authoritative sources or some other consensus.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  Then you run into the problem of "What is authoritative?" By limiting it to just two, Twitter can say, "We like these guys. They're reputable." Instead of having to line up and vet thousands of other sources, and task people with monitoring all those thousands of authoritative sources around the world.
  - iso947 6y ago
    I’ve never understood the dewy beats Truman calling system. In the UK each constituency announces results after being counted (and recounted). Those results arrive during the night, polls close at 10, first results at 11, a good idea of who will win in most elections by 5, andthe last few results might stretch into 9 or 10 am if ferries are having issues. But aside from a national exit poll at 10pm, there are no real guesses. It seems that different US elections predict who will win a given state far earlier in the process - before the votes are counted even the first time. Is that right? My own global broadcaster takes its “calls” from ABC. I think that abc, nbc, cbs, Fox, cnn, New York Times and Washington post are probably good enough for “calling it”. I was working election night 2012 in our Washington office and was shocked how early the “Obama wins” straps went up -I have a photo at just 23:19 eastern from fox saying Obama was re-elected. That’s something like 4 hours before polls close in Alaska and Hawaii! If 4 of those networks and papers have called it then it’s likely good. Sure there’s buzzfeed and whatever that may have enough professional staff on to really judge it, but it’s unlikely that 3 networks and a major paper are all going to call Dewy rather than Truman.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      > It seems that different US elections predict who will win a given state far earlier in the process - before the votes are counted even the first time. Is that right? Yes. At least in Dewey / Truman, they counted the votes and Truman won. Under the current system, Truman would be expected to concede gracefully after somebody predicted he would lose, removing the need to count the votes entirely.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
Of turning it off is partisan than leaving it on is equally partisan, and where does that leave us?. Each of us must judge what is *good".
- acituan 6y ago
  That is just false equivalency. Timing and intent changes everything. If a feature was not purpose built but happened to be used more by a certain demographic, that is not a partisan move at all, but removing it right before a political event intentionally would definitely be. To be clear, I am not saying this is necessarily the case, but not being in the know is problematic as far as health of democratic processes is concerned, especially when public discourse more and more depends on private enterprises. I don't want any fingers on the scale, because even if it might be favoring my side today a) that is not honorable b) there is no guarantee shoe won't be on the other foot tomorrow.

throwaway316943 6y ago

I find it suspect that they are giving as one of their criteria for calling the election as two authoritative news sources independently calling it. If this were non partisan they would have at least said a majority of authoritative sources or some other consensus.

reaperducer 6y ago
Then you run into the problem of "What is authoritative?" By limiting it to just two, Twitter can say, "We like these guys. They're reputable." Instead of having to line up and vet thousands of other sources, and task people with monitoring all those thousands of authoritative sources around the world.
- iso947 6y ago
  I’ve never understood the dewy beats Truman calling system. In the UK each constituency announces results after being counted (and recounted). Those results arrive during the night, polls close at 10, first results at 11, a good idea of who will win in most elections by 5, andthe last few results might stretch into 9 or 10 am if ferries are having issues. But aside from a national exit poll at 10pm, there are no real guesses. It seems that different US elections predict who will win a given state far earlier in the process - before the votes are counted even the first time. Is that right? My own global broadcaster takes its “calls” from ABC. I think that abc, nbc, cbs, Fox, cnn, New York Times and Washington post are probably good enough for “calling it”. I was working election night 2012 in our Washington office and was shocked how early the “Obama wins” straps went up -I have a photo at just 23:19 eastern from fox saying Obama was re-elected. That’s something like 4 hours before polls close in Alaska and Hawaii! If 4 of those networks and papers have called it then it’s likely good. Sure there’s buzzfeed and whatever that may have enough professional staff on to really judge it, but it’s unlikely that 3 networks and a major paper are all going to call Dewy rather than Truman.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > It seems that different US elections predict who will win a given state far earlier in the process - before the votes are counted even the first time. Is that right? Yes. At least in Dewey / Truman, they counted the votes and Truman won. Under the current system, Truman would be expected to concede gracefully after somebody predicted he would lose, removing the need to count the votes entirely.

srtjstjsj 6y ago

Of turning it off is partisan than leaving it on is equally partisan, and where does that leave us?. Each of us must judge what is *good".

acituan 6y ago
That is just false equivalency. Timing and intent changes everything. If a feature was not purpose built but happened to be used more by a certain demographic, that is not a partisan move at all, but removing it right before a political event intentionally would definitely be. To be clear, I am not saying this is necessarily the case, but not being in the know is problematic as far as health of democratic processes is concerned, especially when public discourse more and more depends on private enterprises. I don't want any fingers on the scale, because even if it might be favoring my side today a) that is not honorable b) there is no guarantee shoe won't be on the other foot tomorrow.