22 ms·

Twitter may slow down users’ ability to ‘like’ tweets containing misinformation

74 points by Cantbekhan 6y ago

aww_dang 6y ago
Objective truth as revealed to us by the anointed technocrats and fact checkers has been accepted by partisans where it suits their biases. Questioning these official truths amounts to blasphemy in the social media space. The premise of democracy rests upon the concept of free and open debate. If we cannot trust the public to consume information without hand holding, why should we trust them to vote on issues which impact our lives and property? Ironically, censorship is enacted in the name of protecting democracy.
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  I agree and disagree with this simultaneously. I don't think they should add restrictions like this however I will paste a tweet I tweeted today of what I'd love to see from Twitter: >I'd love a filter where Twitter only shows real people who have verified their ID with a passport. No companies, no bots.
- Isinlor 6y ago
  True censorship is when government does it. If you go to jail for promoting some information, that's censorship. Twitter and Facebook are part of "the public". You are even using right now a website very heavy on "censorship", or how I call it "moderation". If you don't follow HN guidelines you will be silenced. The efforts by members of public to reduce spread of misinformation and polarization is part of why we should trust in public to handle information. But if you do not like HN, Twitter, Facebook you can look for another website. Apparently Parler is getting recently popular as an alternative to Twitter and Facebook moderation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler
  - input_sh 6y ago
    Try posting anything remotely leftist on Parler and you'll be banned in less than a week. My profile lasted about 36 hours. Completely the opposite experience of what quite literally is the first sentence on their homepage: > Speak freely and express yourself openly, without fear of being “deplatformed” for your views.
    - betwixthewires 6y ago
      Parler is a joke, but I believe that this censorship problem is a structural one, that is, any "network" that is just a website is inevitably going to become an echo chamber where opinions differing from the target demographic are censored.
  - betwixthewires 6y ago
    Censorship is the hiding of information and prevention of publishing. that's it. That's the definition. HNs guidelines appear to be "put some effort into what you say and don't fight." They're not censoring any particular set of ideas.
- kanox 6y ago
  It's not censorship if the post is still accessible. It's Twitter inc. expressing their opinion.
OneGuy123 6y ago
Who defines "misinformation"? The mainstream media? "If the news are fake imagine history". People need to understand that NO ONE can define what is "misinformation" because all sides have incentives to lie. This is purely thought policing.
- iso1631 6y ago
  I look out my window and see it's chucking it down I post "It's currently sunny where I live" That's misinformation.
  - OneGuy123 6y ago
    To compare "its sunny but I said it's raining" and the media reporting complex is beyond stupid. How can you even compare? It's silly that there exist people in the modern age who still believe the news. And it's these lying news (who are private owned) who define "misinformation".
    - rorykoehler 6y ago
      I've seen enough people fall into this trap where they correctly identify the out of control corruption and destruction of our current economic system and therefore conclude that QAnon must be the objective truth. How they go from A to conclude B on this one? I have no idea. There-in lies the issue with all these disinformation campaigns. We live in hypernormal times and few are equipped to make sense of it.
      - OneGuy123 6y ago
        Strawman, I never mentioned QAnon. > We live in hypernormal times and few are equipped to make sense of it EDIT: no, there are not "few" equipped. Because no one knows who is lying NO ONE is equipped.
        rorykoehler 6y ago
        Knowing that means you are equipped. I wasn't aiming the QAnon thing at you. I agree in general with your comments but know they must be qualified with the fact that you are discrediting all sources of information until you learn more. A healthy scepticism is essential to navigate this world.
prohobo 6y ago
Regardless of your view on "misinformation", this sounds like a stupid idea that's meant to cover Twitter's butts in the short-term. The goal of any social platform should be healthy engagement. Where is the research that this change will foster that? Twitter isn't really the place to be testing half-baked ideas. Also, misinformation is coming from mainstream media as well as conspiracy theorists. At least conspiracy theorists are trying to find the truth. Twitter doesn't seem to acknowledge that, so what we're doing is creating digital totalitarianism? That's their great idea?
- blackflame7000 6y ago
  The election results are almost identically opposite this time around in swing states but suddenly no signs of russian interference anywhere. Imagine that.
- drchopchop 6y ago
  This is not "totalitarianism", it's the reduction of free newsfeed distribution. Twitter, and society, doesn't have a long-term interest in a newsfeed flooded with false/defamatory information (widespread voter fraud, for example) >conspiracy theorists are trying to find the truth Some of the biggest conspiracy theories that flourish on the web are the result of viral, provably false, information. These people are not truth-seekers, there is no proper research or scientific method - it's instead the equivalent of the supermarket tabloid taken to the extreme: QAnon, flat earthers, 5G cancer, etc.
  - prohobo 6y ago
    This tacit acceptance of a "newsfeed flooded with false/defamatory information" when it happens to support one obvious partisan side is, frankly, something embarrassing to have to see. I have no interest in defending the Trump administration except to point out that what you are supporting is, in fact, a hypocrisy. I can think of four examples which I know are hypocrisies that make it through the supposed "fake news" filter. 1) Russiagate, an unsubstantiated hoax promoted in the media for 3 years leading to countless defamatory attacks on Trump, and millions of dollars spent on investigations. 2) Cambridge Analytica, a tactic used by Obama's campaign which was praised in 2011 as being a new progressive way to reach voters, and then miraculously became an act of corruption when Trump did the same thing in 2016. 3) "Mostly peaceful protests", an ongoing gross misrepresentation of what normal people would call riots. 4) "Trump supporters are racist white men", an ongoing smear of the Trump administration and emotional abuse towards the Trump base (or anyone who doesn't buy into the narrative), which has been proven absolutely false by the latest election. So which is it? You do or you don't want a newsfeed flooded with false/defamatory information? Just allow the stuff you don't personally see as false/defamatory? This is an extremely dangerous problem, and people need to start waking up to it instead of thinking they got it all figured out, as if Alex Jones yelling at frogs is the reason everything is falling apart. The fragmentation of reality which we're seeing (Trumpers, leftists, QAnon, flat earth, 5G, etc.) will NOT be solved by slowing down how fast people can "like" something. The entire internet is broken, and the social media platforms need massive rewiring. We need to properly research the ways the current platforms poison discourse, and find remedies that work to dissolve fragmentation and help people communicate better. Currently, things are rapidly spinning out of control, and the social media platforms have decided to opt for totalitarianism. As they ban and hamstring everyone who doesn't buy in, good or bad, those people will find each other on the decentralized internet. This is creating a powder-keg for narrative chaos and conflict.
giuliomagnifico 6y ago
Sounds good to me. Twitter is not really slowing down the like action, but it will say to you only “hey, this may be a fake news, are you sure you want like it?”. People are stupid, in a perfect world this is useless but we live here...
- OneGuy123 6y ago
  Ironicaly you missed the most important point: who decides what is fake news? You still don't get it that _NO ONE_ can claim they know what is/is not fake news because everyone has their own incentives.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    You still don't get it that _NO ONE_ can claim they know what is/is not fake news because everyone has their own incentives. This is precisely why it's important that Twitter calls out when things are stated as fact without evidence. Twitter never actually say things are fake; they say things are baseless and without evidence. If you want to post things that are influential you simply need to back that claim up with something that people can verify from a trustworthy source - 'fake news' will still be posted because sometimes even a trusted source gets it wrong, but it'll happen far less often. That's the goal. Suggesting that we should all adopt Nietzsche's perspectivist approach where "there are no facts, only interpretations" is entirely unhelpful. You can't run a functioning society if you have to accept literally every batshit mental theory as "well it might be right, we can't ever know for sure". If there is no evidence, you can say something is fake. You just have to accept that maybe 0.1% of the time you'll be wrong.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      This is the argument for trust in general. Trust is a massive optimization. You just have to accept that maybe 0.1% of the time you'll be wrong, and provide recourse.
    - k32 6y ago
      > This is precisely why it's important that Twitter calls out when things are stated as fact without evidence. Twitter is a platform for stating things as fact without evidence. 120 (or whatever it is now) character limit is not suitable for having cogent conversations.
berryworm 6y ago
What would it take to replace Twitter and Facebook?
- tmarice 6y ago
  Twitter already has a replacement https://gab.com/ https://gab.com/
  - lordfoom 6y ago
    In gab's case, the cure is worse than the disease
    - fooey 6y ago
      Of course it's worse It's a refuge for the people too deplorable to survive on an actual reputable site.
  - input_sh 6y ago
    First paragraph on Wikipedia, in case anyone seriously considers it: > Gab is an English-language alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right userbase.[7] The site has been widely described as a safe haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right, and has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social networks.[8][9][19] Gab states that it promotes free speech and individual liberty, although these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its alt-right ecosystem.[20][17][21] Antisemitism is a prominent part of the site's content, and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter.[23][24][25] Researchers have written that Gab has been "repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events".[26] It's almost like there's a pattern of "free speech" alternatives turning into a cesspool.
    - berryworm 6y ago
      Well they are the first being censored, so they are the first to migrate to other networks.
0xy 6y ago
Among 30 news organisations in the United States, none of them were trusted by more than 50% of Americans according to Pew Research. [1] This indicates the dramatic damage done to news organisations when they have been caught in egregious lies and falsehoods, again and again. Remember, when Twitter cites "official sources", it doesn't mean it's correct, or even that it's not totally fabricated. It means it's probably partisan-slanted "news" written by discredited media organisations. Even news organisations that are generally trusted on HN have enormous bias and propensity for lies. Such as the Washington Post falsely claiming Russia hacked critical US energy infrastructure, then retracting the fabricated claim altogether. [2] Or NPR claiming the victim driver of a vehicle during a protest who was attacked violently by gun-wielding assailants was a "right-wing extremist", which was nuked without retraction (they did not apologise for the slanderous claim). [3] [4] The Associated Press, a self-claimed non-partisan news organisation, falsely claimed the Trump campaign detained 100,000 migrant children, while the actual truth was that it was orchestrated during the Obama administration. Reuters, AFP and NPR also participated in this fabrication. [5] [6] [7] [1] https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020-election-a-nation-divided/ https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization... [2] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/12/31/1533245/washington-post-retracts-story-about-russian-hackers-penetrating-us-electricity-grid https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/12/31/1533245/washington-p... [3] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbEIlsUUcAACYht?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbEIlsUUcAACYht?format=jpg&name=... [4] https://www.wave3.com/2020/06/18/protesters-arrested-following-altercation-with-driver-downtown-louisville/ https://www.wave3.com/2020/06/18/protesters-arrested-followi... [5] https://abcstlouis.com/news/nation-world/retractions-issued-after-media-cites-un-expert-who-accredited-migrant-numbers-to-trump https://abcstlouis.com/news/nation-world/retractions-issued-... [6] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/multiple-outlets-retract-stories-trump-134149451.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/multiple-outlets-retract-stor... [7] https://www.imediaethics.org/ap-afp-reuters-npr-retract-child-migrant-detention-stories/ https://www.imediaethics.org/ap-afp-reuters-npr-retract-chil...
- mhh__ 6y ago
  > enormous bias and propensity for lies So based on your citations, "enormous" is roughly a handful between the thirty of them over the last decade? Get some perspective, do you actually think the WaPo literally made up a story or do you think they (let's be uncharitable) ran with a story they should've done more due diligence on?
hyperdunc 6y ago
There's misinformation, the bane of truth seekers. And there's "misinformation", the bane of agenda setters. This will be selectively applied.
lhnz 6y ago
There will be tweets with tens of thousands of likes/retweets saying "Are others able to like this?" and so the information will be streissand effected to many more people. Additionally, if the media makes the wrong call due to insufficient evidence at the time or bias, then they could take a hit to their reputation. It will almost become tactical for the original posters to hold back evidence and wait for their "misinformation" categorisation and then to "disprove" this to make the censors look like liars.
- entropea 6y ago
  >Additionally, if the media makes the wrong call due to insufficient evidence at the time or bias, then they could take a hit to their reputation. Does that ever happen? It seems they're exempt from repercussions.
jmull 6y ago
I’ll just point out: if you’re a free speech purist, you are perfectly OK with this. Twitter isn’t removing these tweets, just adding their own messages. That is, they are responding to free speech with their own free speech. If they use this feature on high-profile figures it’s even better: free speech to authority.
- illuminati1911 6y ago
  Logical fallacy. Twitter is not free speech system to begin with so ”free speech” purists are not obligated to be ok with this unless the whole platform is based on free speech. In that kind of system any user would be able to prompt any popup for any user when they are about to like any tweet. Now only twitter has that power.
- betwixthewires 6y ago
  That's some gymnastics if I've ever seen it.
  - jmull 6y ago
    Please explain.
    - lhnz 6y ago
      Why would a free-speech "purist" be okay with authorities having special abilities to append emphasized messages below other messages? People that care deeply about free-speech tend to want a level playing ground for every person in a discussion, and to not have platforms that have a centralised bias for or against different messages or identities. It's disingenuous to tell a bunch of people with principles towards discussions happening on a relatively level-playing ground ("fairness") that what they really wanted all along was a central authority fact-checking certain perspectives. Free-speech is mainly about avoiding situations in which there is an authoritarian bias towards the speech of one group over another. It doesn't matter whether that bias is due to deletion, banning, shadow-banning, algorithmic/statistical manipulation, editorial notes, etc. All of these things are forms of bias that the powerful can use in an attempt to control the speech of others. The thing is, most of us aren't purists at all. Many agree that there should be some limits to free speech, and that certain things like calls to violence, dehumanisation of people, disinformation that doesn't get corrected until too late, and so on, are big issues for democratic society. However, it would be better if we could discuss this, rather than having our position straw-manned into something contrary to its inner morality/logic, and then getting treated as if we are all strict adherents to this as opposed to practical people that try to balance it with other things.
shaicoleman 6y ago
The culture of any community is shaped by the worst behaviour that is tolerated. Related: Why unmoderated online forums always degenerate into fascism https://www.salon.com/2019/08/05/why-unmoderated-online-forums-always-degenerate-into-fascism/ https://www.salon.com/2019/08/05/why-unmoderated-online-foru...
- betwixthewires 6y ago
  But this is historically inaccurate. The issue of forums becoming hateful echo chambers is a new phenomenon, not a time tested one. Digg wasn't a terrible hateful echo chamber, reddit was not, most topic oriented forums are not, lots of alternative sites springing up nowadays are not, Facebook, MySpace, the list goes on. No, the phenomenon that lasted really only a few years was due to the fact that the first Diasporas kicked off of those sites (or that left due to crack downs on their expression) were existing hateful communities. There's a name for the effect that I can't quite remember, but basically new communities are unsavory at first because they're made up of the unsavory characters that are unwelcome at the other communities, and this prevents their growth. Thankfully we are currently seeing that effect wind down as well. With the increase in moderation beyond plainly hateful content, now to anything a site deems unlikeable, you're seeing those Diasporas become less and less unsavory and more mainstream sets of ideas are being discussed on the newer forums. I regard articles like the one you linked as yellow journalism, designed to discredit people's desire to collect and discuss ideas online, freely, and argue in favor of places where ideas cannot be discussed freely. If there is any one thing that causes sites to become hateful, it is the need for the site to promote "engaging" content for as profit, something you are less likely to see on newer sites with less commercial pressure.
  - croon 6y ago
    I've been around since BBS:es, and I can tell you that the success in avoiding hateful cesspools was very much linked to heavy moderation. The internet isn't very old in the grand scheme of things, but what you call "historically inaccurate" has been accurate for as long as there's been people on the internet.
  - 6y ago
aww_dang 6y ago
Just to put it in a different perspective, can you imagine using an IRC channel where a bot automatically applied fact checks to your statements? Doubt that would've gone over well.
- asdff 6y ago
  That would have prevented a lot of flame wars
richardARPANET 6y ago
The Ministry of Truth
- rvz 6y ago
  Don't forget the 'Department of Independent and Selective Fact Checkers.' Who checks the fact checkers?
  - asdff 6y ago
    You. I don't get this argument. I was taught how to vet sources in high school. Did everyone play hooky that day? Based on the national soap opera, I guess so.
perryizgr8 6y ago
I'm voting with my attention, I won't click on Twitter links as far as possible, won't tweet or retweet. I won't post anything on Facebook, won't reply to any messages on Messenger. If they can censor, I can choose to ignore their "platform". I'd suggest anybody else who cares about free speech do the same.
- mewse 6y ago
  Things get flagged and removed on HN with some degree of regularity, for what it’s worth.
  - perryizgr8 6y ago
    The day HN's moderation becomes as blatantly biased as Twitter is, I'll leave HN too.
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      I don't always agree, but on the balance HN's moderation is pretty good.
      - nwienert 6y ago
        HN moderators are far more active in terms of bending outcomes by percent of total. They regularly remove political discussion even if somewhat relevant, and honestly the flag feature is broken and needs a higher threshold and better counter flag measures. You just don’t notice it because it happens quickly and then the article disappears. They should have the ability to see flagged content, especially content that got a good number of votes before flagging, you’d be surprised.
        aww_dang 6y ago
        I see dead posts. I also habitually look to the bottom of the page, where the controversial opinions are. New submissions are usually more diverse than the home page. There's very little sport in defending an establishment or consensus position. As they say, if everyone is thinking the same thing, then someone isn't thinking. There's almost nothing to discuss if we all agree. There's a fair amount of downvoted and flagged content I agree with. It doesn't stop me from reading it. Like Twitter's "fact checks", it draws my attention. There are some topics where even if I agree I can see how those who disagree are incapable of discussing it without devolving into an all out flame war. The real horror show are HN's shadowbanned accounts. 99% of those are awful.
olladecarne 6y ago
"Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome." This whole ad driven attention economy is probably as dangerous of an invention as nuclear weapons. We're caught in a state of psychosis and individually none of us can do anything to fight the billions of dollars spent on advertising that tries to make us feel inadequate. Targeted ads and recommendation engines need to be banned. I know some people say they like them, and some people also say they like tobacco but we generally agree it's bad for us. Companies will find other ways to innovate. Content curation, organization, and quality will become more valuable and eventually the experience will be better. I say this because half-hearted measures like the one in the article are not going to make any difference when the entire business model of the internet is clickbait.
- xlm1717 6y ago
  Individually we can do something to fight it. If you can't block the ads, learn to ignore them.
  - asdff 6y ago
    Considering advertisement works on a subconcious level, ignoring them will take some serious serious mental discipline. Maybe after spending a few years in a monastery on a mountain will you be able to resist their invasion into your subconscious headspace.
  - musicale 6y ago
    Like ad-blocking, ad-ignoring is unfortunately something of an arms race. The better people get at ignoring ads (e.g. "banner blindness") the harder advertisers work to make them hard to ignore, either by making them more "attention grabbing" (e.g. modal windows, auto-playing video, etc.) or baking them into the content (e.g. sponsored posts, advertorials, product placement, etc..)
- LackOfImg38 6y ago
  Lack of imagination is the problem. I use a screen for coding work, HN breaks, shopping, civic life like bills, and the occasional stream binge. Outside work, maybe 5-10 hours week. Otherwise I write creatively on paper, learned guitar, share digitally via point-to-point, and leave my house often for no reason most of the time. Personally I have a hard time buying into anything you say being some sort of obligation, and more of a repeated hand me down habit.
outside1234 6y ago
Just take them off the stream for god's sake. Why is this so complicated?
karmakaze 6y ago
This seems very analogous to the wearing of masks to slow coronavirus. I'm glad they're doing this. The only things we should be discussing is how are 'serious viruses' identified and what mechanisms strike the best balance of freedom and safety.
zug_zug 6y ago
I think recent events have really made the answer pretty objective. Though I abstractly love the fantasy of a community self-regulating and finding the truth through all the noise. That said, when the losing candidate declares victory on a platform, then alleges fraud, citing nothing, it's not even really the time for abstract philosophy.
K33P4D 6y ago
BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT'S MISINFORMATION?
Emanation 6y ago
Dissidents are not tolerated in Marxist-twitter internet.
batt4good 6y ago
This is incredibly concerning as only twitter or inherently biased "fact checking" services will likely control the definition of what is or is not "misinformation". This is the big-tech equivalent of saying "we might be joking or being cheeky when we ban someone" just to add more legal ambiguity and grey areas when it comes to explaining why they banned / flagged something or let something be allowed.
rurban 6y ago
Welcome to China. We know the truth, and we followup on it. Great new world

74 points by Cantbekhan 6y ago

Objective truth as revealed to us by the anointed technocrats and fact checkers has been accepted by partisans where it suits their biases. Questioning these official truths amounts to blasphemy in the social media space. The premise of democracy rests upon the concept of free and open debate. If we cannot trust the public to consume information without hand holding, why should we trust them to vote on issues which impact our lives and property? Ironically, censorship is enacted in the name of protecting democracy.

rorykoehler 6y ago
I agree and disagree with this simultaneously. I don't think they should add restrictions like this however I will paste a tweet I tweeted today of what I'd love to see from Twitter: >I'd love a filter where Twitter only shows real people who have verified their ID with a passport. No companies, no bots.
Isinlor 6y ago
True censorship is when government does it. If you go to jail for promoting some information, that's censorship. Twitter and Facebook are part of "the public". You are even using right now a website very heavy on "censorship", or how I call it "moderation". If you don't follow HN guidelines you will be silenced. The efforts by members of public to reduce spread of misinformation and polarization is part of why we should trust in public to handle information. But if you do not like HN, Twitter, Facebook you can look for another website. Apparently Parler is getting recently popular as an alternative to Twitter and Facebook moderation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler
- input_sh 6y ago
  Try posting anything remotely leftist on Parler and you'll be banned in less than a week. My profile lasted about 36 hours. Completely the opposite experience of what quite literally is the first sentence on their homepage: > Speak freely and express yourself openly, without fear of being “deplatformed” for your views.
  - betwixthewires 6y ago
    Parler is a joke, but I believe that this censorship problem is a structural one, that is, any "network" that is just a website is inevitably going to become an echo chamber where opinions differing from the target demographic are censored.
- betwixthewires 6y ago
  Censorship is the hiding of information and prevention of publishing. that's it. That's the definition. HNs guidelines appear to be "put some effort into what you say and don't fight." They're not censoring any particular set of ideas.
kanox 6y ago
It's not censorship if the post is still accessible. It's Twitter inc. expressing their opinion.

OneGuy123 6y ago

Who defines "misinformation"? The mainstream media? "If the news are fake imagine history". People need to understand that NO ONE can define what is "misinformation" because all sides have incentives to lie. This is purely thought policing.

iso1631 6y ago
I look out my window and see it's chucking it down I post "It's currently sunny where I live" That's misinformation.
- OneGuy123 6y ago
  To compare "its sunny but I said it's raining" and the media reporting complex is beyond stupid. How can you even compare? It's silly that there exist people in the modern age who still believe the news. And it's these lying news (who are private owned) who define "misinformation".
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    I've seen enough people fall into this trap where they correctly identify the out of control corruption and destruction of our current economic system and therefore conclude that QAnon must be the objective truth. How they go from A to conclude B on this one? I have no idea. There-in lies the issue with all these disinformation campaigns. We live in hypernormal times and few are equipped to make sense of it.
    - OneGuy123 6y ago
      Strawman, I never mentioned QAnon. > We live in hypernormal times and few are equipped to make sense of it EDIT: no, there are not "few" equipped. Because no one knows who is lying NO ONE is equipped.
      - rorykoehler 6y ago
        Knowing that means you are equipped. I wasn't aiming the QAnon thing at you. I agree in general with your comments but know they must be qualified with the fact that you are discrediting all sources of information until you learn more. A healthy scepticism is essential to navigate this world.

prohobo 6y ago

Regardless of your view on "misinformation", this sounds like a stupid idea that's meant to cover Twitter's butts in the short-term. The goal of any social platform should be healthy engagement. Where is the research that this change will foster that? Twitter isn't really the place to be testing half-baked ideas. Also, misinformation is coming from mainstream media as well as conspiracy theorists. At least conspiracy theorists are trying to find the truth. Twitter doesn't seem to acknowledge that, so what we're doing is creating digital totalitarianism? That's their great idea?

blackflame7000 6y ago
The election results are almost identically opposite this time around in swing states but suddenly no signs of russian interference anywhere. Imagine that.
drchopchop 6y ago
This is not "totalitarianism", it's the reduction of free newsfeed distribution. Twitter, and society, doesn't have a long-term interest in a newsfeed flooded with false/defamatory information (widespread voter fraud, for example) >conspiracy theorists are trying to find the truth Some of the biggest conspiracy theories that flourish on the web are the result of viral, provably false, information. These people are not truth-seekers, there is no proper research or scientific method - it's instead the equivalent of the supermarket tabloid taken to the extreme: QAnon, flat earthers, 5G cancer, etc.
- prohobo 6y ago
  This tacit acceptance of a "newsfeed flooded with false/defamatory information" when it happens to support one obvious partisan side is, frankly, something embarrassing to have to see. I have no interest in defending the Trump administration except to point out that what you are supporting is, in fact, a hypocrisy. I can think of four examples which I know are hypocrisies that make it through the supposed "fake news" filter. 1) Russiagate, an unsubstantiated hoax promoted in the media for 3 years leading to countless defamatory attacks on Trump, and millions of dollars spent on investigations. 2) Cambridge Analytica, a tactic used by Obama's campaign which was praised in 2011 as being a new progressive way to reach voters, and then miraculously became an act of corruption when Trump did the same thing in 2016. 3) "Mostly peaceful protests", an ongoing gross misrepresentation of what normal people would call riots. 4) "Trump supporters are racist white men", an ongoing smear of the Trump administration and emotional abuse towards the Trump base (or anyone who doesn't buy into the narrative), which has been proven absolutely false by the latest election. So which is it? You do or you don't want a newsfeed flooded with false/defamatory information? Just allow the stuff you don't personally see as false/defamatory? This is an extremely dangerous problem, and people need to start waking up to it instead of thinking they got it all figured out, as if Alex Jones yelling at frogs is the reason everything is falling apart. The fragmentation of reality which we're seeing (Trumpers, leftists, QAnon, flat earth, 5G, etc.) will NOT be solved by slowing down how fast people can "like" something. The entire internet is broken, and the social media platforms need massive rewiring. We need to properly research the ways the current platforms poison discourse, and find remedies that work to dissolve fragmentation and help people communicate better. Currently, things are rapidly spinning out of control, and the social media platforms have decided to opt for totalitarianism. As they ban and hamstring everyone who doesn't buy in, good or bad, those people will find each other on the decentralized internet. This is creating a powder-keg for narrative chaos and conflict.

giuliomagnifico 6y ago

Sounds good to me. Twitter is not really slowing down the like action, but it will say to you only “hey, this may be a fake news, are you sure you want like it?”. People are stupid, in a perfect world this is useless but we live here...

OneGuy123 6y ago
Ironicaly you missed the most important point: who decides what is fake news? You still don't get it that _NO ONE_ can claim they know what is/is not fake news because everyone has their own incentives.
- onion2k 6y ago
  You still don't get it that _NO ONE_ can claim they know what is/is not fake news because everyone has their own incentives. This is precisely why it's important that Twitter calls out when things are stated as fact without evidence. Twitter never actually say things are fake; they say things are baseless and without evidence. If you want to post things that are influential you simply need to back that claim up with something that people can verify from a trustworthy source - 'fake news' will still be posted because sometimes even a trusted source gets it wrong, but it'll happen far less often. That's the goal. Suggesting that we should all adopt Nietzsche's perspectivist approach where "there are no facts, only interpretations" is entirely unhelpful. You can't run a functioning society if you have to accept literally every batshit mental theory as "well it might be right, we can't ever know for sure". If there is no evidence, you can say something is fake. You just have to accept that maybe 0.1% of the time you'll be wrong.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    This is the argument for trust in general. Trust is a massive optimization. You just have to accept that maybe 0.1% of the time you'll be wrong, and provide recourse.
  - k32 6y ago
    > This is precisely why it's important that Twitter calls out when things are stated as fact without evidence. Twitter is a platform for stating things as fact without evidence. 120 (or whatever it is now) character limit is not suitable for having cogent conversations.

berryworm 6y ago

What would it take to replace Twitter and Facebook?

tmarice 6y ago
Twitter already has a replacement https://gab.com/ https://gab.com/
- lordfoom 6y ago
  In gab's case, the cure is worse than the disease
  - fooey 6y ago
    Of course it's worse It's a refuge for the people too deplorable to survive on an actual reputable site.
- input_sh 6y ago
  First paragraph on Wikipedia, in case anyone seriously considers it: > Gab is an English-language alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right userbase.[7] The site has been widely described as a safe haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right, and has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social networks.[8][9][19] Gab states that it promotes free speech and individual liberty, although these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its alt-right ecosystem.[20][17][21] Antisemitism is a prominent part of the site's content, and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter.[23][24][25] Researchers have written that Gab has been "repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events".[26] It's almost like there's a pattern of "free speech" alternatives turning into a cesspool.
  - berryworm 6y ago
    Well they are the first being censored, so they are the first to migrate to other networks.

0xy 6y ago

Among 30 news organisations in the United States, none of them were trusted by more than 50% of Americans according to Pew Research. [1] This indicates the dramatic damage done to news organisations when they have been caught in egregious lies and falsehoods, again and again. Remember, when Twitter cites "official sources", it doesn't mean it's correct, or even that it's not totally fabricated. It means it's probably partisan-slanted "news" written by discredited media organisations. Even news organisations that are generally trusted on HN have enormous bias and propensity for lies. Such as the Washington Post falsely claiming Russia hacked critical US energy infrastructure, then retracting the fabricated claim altogether. [2] Or NPR claiming the victim driver of a vehicle during a protest who was attacked violently by gun-wielding assailants was a "right-wing extremist", which was nuked without retraction (they did not apologise for the slanderous claim). [3] [4] The Associated Press, a self-claimed non-partisan news organisation, falsely claimed the Trump campaign detained 100,000 migrant children, while the actual truth was that it was orchestrated during the Obama administration. Reuters, AFP and NPR also participated in this fabrication. [5] [6] [7] [1] https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020-election-a-nation-divided/ https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization... [2] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/12/31/1533245/washington-post-retracts-story-about-russian-hackers-penetrating-us-electricity-grid https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/12/31/1533245/washington-p... [3] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbEIlsUUcAACYht?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbEIlsUUcAACYht?format=jpg&name=... [4] https://www.wave3.com/2020/06/18/protesters-arrested-following-altercation-with-driver-downtown-louisville/ https://www.wave3.com/2020/06/18/protesters-arrested-followi... [5] https://abcstlouis.com/news/nation-world/retractions-issued-after-media-cites-un-expert-who-accredited-migrant-numbers-to-trump https://abcstlouis.com/news/nation-world/retractions-issued-... [6] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/multiple-outlets-retract-stories-trump-134149451.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/multiple-outlets-retract-stor... [7] https://www.imediaethics.org/ap-afp-reuters-npr-retract-child-migrant-detention-stories/ https://www.imediaethics.org/ap-afp-reuters-npr-retract-chil...

mhh__ 6y ago
> enormous bias and propensity for lies So based on your citations, "enormous" is roughly a handful between the thirty of them over the last decade? Get some perspective, do you actually think the WaPo literally made up a story or do you think they (let's be uncharitable) ran with a story they should've done more due diligence on?

hyperdunc 6y ago

There's misinformation, the bane of truth seekers. And there's "misinformation", the bane of agenda setters. This will be selectively applied.

lhnz 6y ago

There will be tweets with tens of thousands of likes/retweets saying "Are others able to like this?" and so the information will be streissand effected to many more people. Additionally, if the media makes the wrong call due to insufficient evidence at the time or bias, then they could take a hit to their reputation. It will almost become tactical for the original posters to hold back evidence and wait for their "misinformation" categorisation and then to "disprove" this to make the censors look like liars.

entropea 6y ago
>Additionally, if the media makes the wrong call due to insufficient evidence at the time or bias, then they could take a hit to their reputation. Does that ever happen? It seems they're exempt from repercussions.

jmull 6y ago

I’ll just point out: if you’re a free speech purist, you are perfectly OK with this. Twitter isn’t removing these tweets, just adding their own messages. That is, they are responding to free speech with their own free speech. If they use this feature on high-profile figures it’s even better: free speech to authority.

illuminati1911 6y ago
Logical fallacy. Twitter is not free speech system to begin with so ”free speech” purists are not obligated to be ok with this unless the whole platform is based on free speech. In that kind of system any user would be able to prompt any popup for any user when they are about to like any tweet. Now only twitter has that power.
betwixthewires 6y ago
That's some gymnastics if I've ever seen it.
- jmull 6y ago
  Please explain.
  - lhnz 6y ago
    Why would a free-speech "purist" be okay with authorities having special abilities to append emphasized messages below other messages? People that care deeply about free-speech tend to want a level playing ground for every person in a discussion, and to not have platforms that have a centralised bias for or against different messages or identities. It's disingenuous to tell a bunch of people with principles towards discussions happening on a relatively level-playing ground ("fairness") that what they really wanted all along was a central authority fact-checking certain perspectives. Free-speech is mainly about avoiding situations in which there is an authoritarian bias towards the speech of one group over another. It doesn't matter whether that bias is due to deletion, banning, shadow-banning, algorithmic/statistical manipulation, editorial notes, etc. All of these things are forms of bias that the powerful can use in an attempt to control the speech of others. The thing is, most of us aren't purists at all. Many agree that there should be some limits to free speech, and that certain things like calls to violence, dehumanisation of people, disinformation that doesn't get corrected until too late, and so on, are big issues for democratic society. However, it would be better if we could discuss this, rather than having our position straw-manned into something contrary to its inner morality/logic, and then getting treated as if we are all strict adherents to this as opposed to practical people that try to balance it with other things.

shaicoleman 6y ago

The culture of any community is shaped by the worst behaviour that is tolerated. Related: Why unmoderated online forums always degenerate into fascism https://www.salon.com/2019/08/05/why-unmoderated-online-forums-always-degenerate-into-fascism/ https://www.salon.com/2019/08/05/why-unmoderated-online-foru...

betwixthewires 6y ago
But this is historically inaccurate. The issue of forums becoming hateful echo chambers is a new phenomenon, not a time tested one. Digg wasn't a terrible hateful echo chamber, reddit was not, most topic oriented forums are not, lots of alternative sites springing up nowadays are not, Facebook, MySpace, the list goes on. No, the phenomenon that lasted really only a few years was due to the fact that the first Diasporas kicked off of those sites (or that left due to crack downs on their expression) were existing hateful communities. There's a name for the effect that I can't quite remember, but basically new communities are unsavory at first because they're made up of the unsavory characters that are unwelcome at the other communities, and this prevents their growth. Thankfully we are currently seeing that effect wind down as well. With the increase in moderation beyond plainly hateful content, now to anything a site deems unlikeable, you're seeing those Diasporas become less and less unsavory and more mainstream sets of ideas are being discussed on the newer forums. I regard articles like the one you linked as yellow journalism, designed to discredit people's desire to collect and discuss ideas online, freely, and argue in favor of places where ideas cannot be discussed freely. If there is any one thing that causes sites to become hateful, it is the need for the site to promote "engaging" content for as profit, something you are less likely to see on newer sites with less commercial pressure.
- croon 6y ago
  I've been around since BBS:es, and I can tell you that the success in avoiding hateful cesspools was very much linked to heavy moderation. The internet isn't very old in the grand scheme of things, but what you call "historically inaccurate" has been accurate for as long as there's been people on the internet.
- 6y ago

aww_dang 6y ago

Just to put it in a different perspective, can you imagine using an IRC channel where a bot automatically applied fact checks to your statements? Doubt that would've gone over well.

asdff 6y ago
That would have prevented a lot of flame wars

richardARPANET 6y ago

The Ministry of Truth

rvz 6y ago
Don't forget the 'Department of Independent and Selective Fact Checkers.' Who checks the fact checkers?
- asdff 6y ago
  You. I don't get this argument. I was taught how to vet sources in high school. Did everyone play hooky that day? Based on the national soap opera, I guess so.

perryizgr8 6y ago

I'm voting with my attention, I won't click on Twitter links as far as possible, won't tweet or retweet. I won't post anything on Facebook, won't reply to any messages on Messenger. If they can censor, I can choose to ignore their "platform". I'd suggest anybody else who cares about free speech do the same.

mewse 6y ago
Things get flagged and removed on HN with some degree of regularity, for what it’s worth.
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  The day HN's moderation becomes as blatantly biased as Twitter is, I'll leave HN too.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    I don't always agree, but on the balance HN's moderation is pretty good.
    - nwienert 6y ago
      HN moderators are far more active in terms of bending outcomes by percent of total. They regularly remove political discussion even if somewhat relevant, and honestly the flag feature is broken and needs a higher threshold and better counter flag measures. You just don’t notice it because it happens quickly and then the article disappears. They should have the ability to see flagged content, especially content that got a good number of votes before flagging, you’d be surprised.
      - aww_dang 6y ago
        I see dead posts. I also habitually look to the bottom of the page, where the controversial opinions are. New submissions are usually more diverse than the home page. There's very little sport in defending an establishment or consensus position. As they say, if everyone is thinking the same thing, then someone isn't thinking. There's almost nothing to discuss if we all agree. There's a fair amount of downvoted and flagged content I agree with. It doesn't stop me from reading it. Like Twitter's "fact checks", it draws my attention. There are some topics where even if I agree I can see how those who disagree are incapable of discussing it without devolving into an all out flame war. The real horror show are HN's shadowbanned accounts. 99% of those are awful.

olladecarne 6y ago

"Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome." This whole ad driven attention economy is probably as dangerous of an invention as nuclear weapons. We're caught in a state of psychosis and individually none of us can do anything to fight the billions of dollars spent on advertising that tries to make us feel inadequate. Targeted ads and recommendation engines need to be banned. I know some people say they like them, and some people also say they like tobacco but we generally agree it's bad for us. Companies will find other ways to innovate. Content curation, organization, and quality will become more valuable and eventually the experience will be better. I say this because half-hearted measures like the one in the article are not going to make any difference when the entire business model of the internet is clickbait.

xlm1717 6y ago
Individually we can do something to fight it. If you can't block the ads, learn to ignore them.
- asdff 6y ago
  Considering advertisement works on a subconcious level, ignoring them will take some serious serious mental discipline. Maybe after spending a few years in a monastery on a mountain will you be able to resist their invasion into your subconscious headspace.
- musicale 6y ago
  Like ad-blocking, ad-ignoring is unfortunately something of an arms race. The better people get at ignoring ads (e.g. "banner blindness") the harder advertisers work to make them hard to ignore, either by making them more "attention grabbing" (e.g. modal windows, auto-playing video, etc.) or baking them into the content (e.g. sponsored posts, advertorials, product placement, etc..)
LackOfImg38 6y ago
Lack of imagination is the problem. I use a screen for coding work, HN breaks, shopping, civic life like bills, and the occasional stream binge. Outside work, maybe 5-10 hours week. Otherwise I write creatively on paper, learned guitar, share digitally via point-to-point, and leave my house often for no reason most of the time. Personally I have a hard time buying into anything you say being some sort of obligation, and more of a repeated hand me down habit.

outside1234 6y ago

Just take them off the stream for god's sake. Why is this so complicated?

karmakaze 6y ago

This seems very analogous to the wearing of masks to slow coronavirus. I'm glad they're doing this. The only things we should be discussing is how are 'serious viruses' identified and what mechanisms strike the best balance of freedom and safety.

zug_zug 6y ago

I think recent events have really made the answer pretty objective. Though I abstractly love the fantasy of a community self-regulating and finding the truth through all the noise. That said, when the losing candidate declares victory on a platform, then alleges fraud, citing nothing, it's not even really the time for abstract philosophy.

K33P4D 6y ago

BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT'S MISINFORMATION?

Emanation 6y ago

Dissidents are not tolerated in Marxist-twitter internet.

batt4good 6y ago

This is incredibly concerning as only twitter or inherently biased "fact checking" services will likely control the definition of what is or is not "misinformation". This is the big-tech equivalent of saying "we might be joking or being cheeky when we ban someone" just to add more legal ambiguity and grey areas when it comes to explaining why they banned / flagged something or let something be allowed.

rurban 6y ago

Welcome to China. We know the truth, and we followup on it. Great new world