6 ms·

I believe the vast majority of the content you see on Twitter and pretty much everything you see on Facebook is from people you follow (ads excluded). Twitter/F

I believe the vast majority of the content you see on Twitter and pretty much everything you see on Facebook is from people you follow (ads excluded). Twitter/FB though use an algorithmic feed mechanism to reorder the posts which makes sense. I think they should be transparent about how they generate the feed, but I don't think you can hold them accountable for the content of a post someone made just because it got reordered to the top by an algorithm.

saluk 6y ago
There are multiple levels. While I like the idea of separating seeing only what my followers post and seeing other posts, it gets really blurry when the people I follow are clicking the "like" and "retweet" buttons. I would guestimate around 30% or more of my twitter feed are posts people I follow have liked or retweeted rather than posted on their own. And the network can make that happen on its own, without an algorithm reordering content - if someone I follow is retweeting something that someone they follow retweeted.
ethanwillis 6y ago
Well that's not the full story is it? They actively blocked, with human knowledge a post. They definitely editorialized that. No algorithm involved.
- wslack 6y ago
  The block is only needed because of the amplification. If tweets and posts showed up chronologically vs from ML-driven engines to identifying the most grabbing content, we wouldn't be systemically hyper-charging emotionally hooking misinformation. You don't need to unplug the bullhorn if there is no bullhorn.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Twitter also blocked the article in DMs, which do show up chronologically rather than through ML.
  - camelite 6y ago
    Nobody's systematically hyper charging emotionally hooking anything. This is or rather, without the artificial suppression, would be completely 100% organically viral. It shouldn't be up to absolutely obviously partisan corporations to decide which October surprise info dump is misinformation deserving of censorship, and which is the aok rough and tumble of presidential electioneering. Finally, on the facts, the Steele dossier was far more obviously fraudulent than pictures of hunter smoking a crack pipe in the bathtub...
  - bdamm 6y ago
    People would find that unreadable, and someone would come along to replace twitter or facebook with a better experience.
    - krferriter 6y ago
      Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter all used to use chronological feeds instead of ones sorted by personalized algorithms. They switched to the latter because they found they could make the platforms more addictive and increase screen time and therefore ad revenue. Doing so also involved them making the algorithms purposefully seek out inflammatory content in many cases to show to users because that keeps the user on the platform longer.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  But it's okay, because they own the platform. the people on twitter complaining about it are free to start their own twitter-like platform. It's a great country that allows this.
  - phkahler 6y ago
    If they want to take that stance, they should also be held liable for anything posted to "their" platform, from porn to slander, fake news, and any personal insults. They are trying to claim control only when it suits them and not when there may be liability. Can't have it both ways.
    - mehwoot 6y ago
      If they want to take that stance, they should also be held liable for Why? I pick up a piece of rubbish from the ground, so I'm responsible for everything that anyone litters? It doesn't make any sense. Twitter isn't claiming they prevent every type of bad on their platform, they're just trying to prevent one type of bad for now
      - ethanwillis 6y ago
        Bad analogy, corporations aren't citizens.
        mehwoot 6y ago
        Could you explain why corporations are responsible for everything on their platform if they police it to any extent?
        nostrebored 6y ago
        Because policing content based on political opinion is editorializing.
        debaserab2 6y ago

saluk 6y ago

There are multiple levels. While I like the idea of separating seeing only what my followers post and seeing other posts, it gets really blurry when the people I follow are clicking the "like" and "retweet" buttons. I would guestimate around 30% or more of my twitter feed are posts people I follow have liked or retweeted rather than posted on their own. And the network can make that happen on its own, without an algorithm reordering content - if someone I follow is retweeting something that someone they follow retweeted.

ethanwillis 6y ago

Well that's not the full story is it? They actively blocked, with human knowledge a post. They definitely editorialized that. No algorithm involved.

wslack 6y ago
The block is only needed because of the amplification. If tweets and posts showed up chronologically vs from ML-driven engines to identifying the most grabbing content, we wouldn't be systemically hyper-charging emotionally hooking misinformation. You don't need to unplug the bullhorn if there is no bullhorn.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Twitter also blocked the article in DMs, which do show up chronologically rather than through ML.
- camelite 6y ago
  Nobody's systematically hyper charging emotionally hooking anything. This is or rather, without the artificial suppression, would be completely 100% organically viral. It shouldn't be up to absolutely obviously partisan corporations to decide which October surprise info dump is misinformation deserving of censorship, and which is the aok rough and tumble of presidential electioneering. Finally, on the facts, the Steele dossier was far more obviously fraudulent than pictures of hunter smoking a crack pipe in the bathtub...
- bdamm 6y ago
  People would find that unreadable, and someone would come along to replace twitter or facebook with a better experience.
  - krferriter 6y ago
    Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter all used to use chronological feeds instead of ones sorted by personalized algorithms. They switched to the latter because they found they could make the platforms more addictive and increase screen time and therefore ad revenue. Doing so also involved them making the algorithms purposefully seek out inflammatory content in many cases to show to users because that keeps the user on the platform longer.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
But it's okay, because they own the platform. the people on twitter complaining about it are free to start their own twitter-like platform. It's a great country that allows this.
- phkahler 6y ago
  If they want to take that stance, they should also be held liable for anything posted to "their" platform, from porn to slander, fake news, and any personal insults. They are trying to claim control only when it suits them and not when there may be liability. Can't have it both ways.
  - mehwoot 6y ago
    If they want to take that stance, they should also be held liable for Why? I pick up a piece of rubbish from the ground, so I'm responsible for everything that anyone litters? It doesn't make any sense. Twitter isn't claiming they prevent every type of bad on their platform, they're just trying to prevent one type of bad for now
    - ethanwillis 6y ago
      Bad analogy, corporations aren't citizens.
      - mehwoot 6y ago
        Could you explain why corporations are responsible for everything on their platform if they police it to any extent?
        nostrebored 6y ago
        Because policing content based on political opinion is editorializing.
      - debaserab2 6y ago