7 ms·

Look what I just found on Twitter https://twitter.com/BakedIdiots/status/1348812952313348097 https://twitter.com/BakedIdiots/status/1348812952313348097 "AYO IT

• ttt0 6y ago
  To be entirely honest, the first one is clearly a bot with zero followers. The second one looks more legit I guess.
• UncleMeat 6y ago
  This community has been talking about the problems with social media for years. Breaking up Facebook or Twitter has been a call for ages. What is going on now? Maybe Twitter should be changed in some dramatic way if they can’t keep these calls for violence off the platform.
  • ttt0 6y ago
    As a disclaimer, I know that this is controversial, but I'm against censorship. I think that it's up to the law enforcement to deal with legitimate threats, and S230 exists for this precise reason. That being said, I can't think of any good solution if you'd like to keep that kind of stuff of your platform. I think it's basically impossible. The only solution that could deal with that amount of posts would be AI. But the problem with AI is that: 1. It's imperfect and generates false positives. There were stories about people being locked out of their Google accounts for no reason, without any possibility to appeal, because their support is also ran by AI. 2. It can get too perfect and thus extremely dangerous in wrong hands. (I think it's already in the wrong hands, but you get the point) What's also not fine in my opinion is pulling down other services for their inability to deal with such content, when Twitter and Facebook themselves can't keep this stuff out.
  • IOT_Apprentice 6y ago
    Break up Twitter into what exactly? It is a message posting service. What are you planning to remove from it exactly? The advertisements?
    • UncleMeat 6y ago
      I don't know. All I know is that it seems weird that a community that has beaten these drums for years has down an about-face. Every event where businesses have chosen not to work with facebook has been met with cheers, for example.
      • amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        HN is a lot of people with a lot of different views. Unless you can point to specific individuals, I don’t think you can say “the community” supports anything.
      • mrguyorama 6y ago
        Thinking that Facebook and Twitter should be broken up, and approving that they ban people who plan insurrection are not contrary ideas.
• noelsusman 6y ago
  And we have responded to these near constant threats by providing the president with the best security protection money can buy. Seems reasonable? I don't understand what your point is.
  • refulgentis 6y ago
    There's a galaxy-brain idea that the Constitution says you can't be banned from Twitter from accidentally inciting an accidental sacking of the Capitol People will repeatedly attempt to complain this is unfair by attempting to find 'double standards' - here, the idea is if anyone tweets 'kill trump' and we can find the tweet an hour later, clearly Twitter has a bias towards Duh Dems Thinking people will find these concerns obviated by the platforms consistently kicking off groups when things turn violent. It's just that the only examples of this until now were international and off most people's radar.
    • ed25519FUUU 6y ago
      Sacking?
  • xwdv 6y ago
    You misunderstand, they didn’t call for killing the President, they called for killing the private citizen, potentially after he’s been stripped of all protections through impeachment.
    • apocalyptic0n3 6y ago
      Impeachment wouldn't strip him of anything (despite the many tweets and stories about it, there is nothing special about a second impeachment). If he is impeached and the Senate votes to convict, then he will lose benefits. At the moment, however, it is believed that the Secret Service detail will remain in place regardless.
      • wavefunction 6y ago
        Presumably Congress could strip a former President of those benefits as they have in general in the past, which was then reversed during the Obama administration. I assume they could even strip a specific individual of those benefits while leaving them intact for others.
• coopierez 6y ago
  Isn't that second tweet advocating for _not_ killing Trump?
  • rightbyte 6y ago
    Ye my understanding too. There are alot more thought and there seem to be no moderation: @xxx someone just fuckin kill trump already 6:11 PM · Jan 7, 2021 I removed the username to not expose her. The problem is that you can close down any site with user generated content and point to your ToS while looking through the fingers concerning sites you like, like Twitter. Imagine having some full time employee generaring illegal content to get your competitors closed down where Twitter are immune. It is way too easy.
• graeme 6y ago
  If people report those, will Twitter take them down? Parler was cited for not wanting to moderate at scale.
  • mimikatz 6y ago
    I reported both the ones I found.
    • LadyCailin 6y ago
      If, after a reasonable amount of time has passed, and they still haven’t been taken down, you’ll have a point then. Otherwise, if it is taken down in a reasonable amount of time, then your point is moot.
      • mimikatz 6y ago
        What is that period of time, a tweet is only really good for what 4 hours. After that what is the point no one is going to scroll that far. It has been roughly 6 hours now and no action on either of the reported tweets.
        • LadyCailin 6y ago
          So, it’s been a while, and it still hasn’t been taken down, and I fully acknowledge that. However, I would also say that the account has two posts and one follower, so the reach of this post isn’t very wide. Nonetheless, you have a point, and despite both of us reporting it, it’s still up, and shouldn’t be. In any case, that doesn’t change my point about parler, however, AWS or whoever would be well within their rights to cite this as a mark against Twitter too.
• lynndotpy 6y ago
  The post you linked joined this month (January 2021), a tweet which is very recent, with no likes or retweets, from an account with zero followers. I don't see a good way for Twitter to handle this automatically. It also isn't a credible threat of violence: It has no specific plans, locations, or times, it does not have the support of thousands of people and high-ranking politicians to gather and enact those plans, etc. If this manifested in a large movement that resulted in serious damage and harm (e.g. like the attacks on the Capitol) then this comparison would be a lot better supported.
• bdcravens 6y ago
  This isn't problematic for a platform that is unmoderated. It's only problematic when the platform is unwilling to respond to user content that represents a clear and present danger.
• mumblemumble 6y ago
  I'm getting a little tired of seeing this specious meme floating around. It's barely more sensical than the one that Parler is a free speech zone. The reason for the Amazon ban is not the simple fact that Parler had people making threats. Per Amazon's email to Parler, it's that they had seen an on-going escalation of credible (much more so than the two tweets you linked) incitements to violence, Parler had a history of dragging its feet about responding to specific complaints about infringing content, Parler failed to furnish a tenable plan for how to implement an effective content moderation policy, and public communication by executives indicated that they had no good-faith intent to do so. Furthermore, while I agree that Twitter doesn't do as great a job at stuff like this as one would like, either, this is just a really ill-chosen place for Parler's supporters to try and make their stand. The cast iron pot does not help its case by calling the steel kettle black.
  • ttt0 6y ago
    > Parler had a history of dragging its feet about responding to specific complaints about infringing content, Parler failed to furnish a tenable plan for how to implement an effective content moderation policy, and public communication by executives indicated that they had no good-faith intent to do so. Is it any different from Twitter though?
    • mumblemumble 6y ago
      So, I don't think I could have explained the key thing that's different about Twitter any better than it was done in this evening's court filing from Amazon: Parler’s Complaint is replete with insinuations that AWS had equal grounds to suspend Twitter’s account and thus discriminated against Parler. . . But AWS does not host Twitter’s feed, so of course it could not have suspended access to Twitter’s content.
      • ttt0 6y ago
        That's ok, I'm just asking the question in general. It's not that Amazon just decided to do it out of nowhere, people demanded it. So shouldn't Twitter be shut down by their cloud service provider, DDOS protection provider, domain registrar, payment processor or whatever service they do business with? Because I don't see anyone arguing for that. Just as an aside, did they really tried to argue in court that AWS should suspend Twitter too despite not having anything to do with them? Jesus Christ, the incompetence in some of these people.
• whoknew1122 6y ago
  If only there were a well-known, long-standing government agency that would protect the president and investigate threats against government officials. Some sort of service... Y'know, we could give them a cool name like 'Secret Service'. We should've thought about this after multiple early presidents were assassinated. /s The Secret Service investigates these types of things. What relevance is this to bomb threats at the data center of a company? I get whataboutitism is retort de jure for anything that touches on politics these days. But at least try harder.
• linuxftw 6y ago
  Well, I fully expect Apple and Google to both ban Twitter from their app stores without any review or recourse. They are fair and unbiased.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• watwut 6y ago
  You can and should report them. It typically takes some time and multiple reports till small accounts are locked, but reporting makes it possible at least. Report button is behind three dots on that tweet.