3 ms·

Disclaimer: I don't really use Twitter, so my understanding of its mechanics might be wrong. Isn't "trending on Twitter" a popularity contest? As in something'

Disclaimer: I don't really use Twitter, so my understanding of its mechanics might be wrong. Isn't "trending on Twitter" a popularity contest? As in something's "trending" because more people (users, as opposed to Twitter the company or their moderators) have chosen to interact with that tweet instead of some other? I think that "to defend your right to say it", in this context, does mean "to defend your right to be trending on Twitter". What I understand by that is that anyone has a right to not be artificially prevented from trending, such as hiding the tweet from other users (censorship) or "not counting the votes" correctly which won't have a tweet "trend" even though it's the most retweeted / replied to. As I've said on another comment on this thread, my tweet is my speech, it's not Twitter's. And if the "trending" is the effect of the users' actions, having a tweet become trending is the collective speech of the users, not twitter's. It's pretty much the same thing with CNN. Having someone on "cnn tonight" is CNN's speech. They choose to have person A instead of person B. Twitter removing a tweet or otherwise preventing it from trending is like some external entity – e.g. the cable company – preventing CNN from having person C on the show because they don't agree with person C's speech. In my opinion, in this scenario, CNN is like the Twitter user, not like Twitter the company. Just because they have some third party on the show doesn't make CNN any less of a publisher of speech. Just as if a Twitter user chooses to quote someone instead of someone else (as opposed to twitting an "original thought" or "own opinion").

tshaddox 6y ago
I think you’re making a common mistake, which is to assume there’s some “natural” algorithm that determines which tweets trend, and that human intervention is “unnatural” and unfair. But on the contrary, Twitter’s trending feature (and indeed all distribution on all public social media networks I’m aware of) is active promotion of speech. Humans at Twitter are deciding which tweets trend, regardless of whether they’re doing so manually or using algorithms (which they designed) to automate the process. Even a very simple change to a very simple ranking algorithm, like changing the relative value of likes/comments/etc. or the time decay of whatever values are being counted, can significantly change which content gets promoted. These are choices that humans make at Twitter.
- vladvasiliu 6y ago
  > I think you’re making a common mistake, which is to assume there’s some “natural” algorithm that determines which tweets trend, and that human intervention is “unnatural” and unfair. That's partly true. I think it's "unfair", or rather disingenuous, only when the company claims there's no manual intervention. I wouldn't really have an issue with a company saying "we're looking to promote this or that speech". I think no one really takes issue that Democrat or Republican conventions don't have speakers from the opposing parties. They are clearly labeled "Democrat", so people expect this going in. I think the crux of the matter is these platforms pretend being an unbiased space for people to communicate, when they clearly aren't. Or rather, they aren't as open anymore. Once people flocked to them, and they became a common place of exchange, the rules drastically changed.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    Why did the rules change? Twitter, and any other private company, has never been under any legal obligation in it's business to provide a public space and it's not clear how you'd even define them as providing one (seeing as how the servers are in Twitter's datacenters, using Twitter's network, paid for by Twitter's revenue). Literally everything on Twitter is Twitter's property other then where governed by intellectual property law agreements and even then it's still someone's private property they have a right to control! A country club being very popular doesn't suddenly make it a public space.
    - vladvasiliu 6y ago
      > Why did the rules change? I'm not a Twitter user so don't know exactly, but from what I see being discussed, it seems to me that there used to be more tolerance towards certain groups (apparently right wing, but probably others, too). But maybe that's just it, the rules themselves haven't changed, they're just more strictly enforced now (I actually don't know). I'd say that what they're doing is obviously not illegal, or else we probably wouldn't be having this conversation because it would be much more clear-cut. However, it's more of a "moral" issue, for lack of a better term. They advertised the platform as a medium for everybody to exchange. Now that a lot of people have gone there because of this advertisement, it has become more or less a public utility. Now, again, I'm not saying what they're doing is illegal, they are not legally a utility, there are other avenues for people to communicate, etc. > A country club being very popular doesn't suddenly make it a public space. While I think you're right in the general case, I can't help but think there's a question of measure involved. The country club will advertise exclusivity. Even if it's just for pose, and it's actually easy to gain membership, it will actively not pretend it's open to any and everybody. Also, it will require people be somewhat close geographically and will have a fairly limited reach. If the club said "we're open to everybody, we want to encourage public conversation" [0], then I'd consider it the same way I do Twitter. Contrast this with Twitter, which explicitly advertises its openness.[0] And when you can subscribe to Twitter just by having a random browser and an internet connection, wherever you are in the world, and when pretty much anyone and their grandmother are using it to communicate, and when there's an assumption (be it misguided!) that Twitter is a public space, I think it's at least worth it to consider the question. The answer may well be a firm "no", but it may also be "woops, this is actually something new, which we hadn't considered in our (quite old) laws. Maybe we should do something about it". To sum it all up, I think Twitter, FB, etc are all a fairly new kind of "thing". They are private entities in that they are funded, operated, etc by a private company and with that private company's goal in mind. But their operations are clearly designed to attract the most people who then communicate on their platform. Just as we regulated what can and can't be done by a telephone company or an electrical company (all private entities!) when those came about, I wouldn't be shocked for there to be some kind of specific regulation for those platforms, more than "just don't break any laws". It seems pretty obvious to me that trying to apply pre-existing models to them doesn't work all that well. --- [0] From about.twitter.com, emphasis mine: > We serve the * public* conversation. That’s why it matters to us that people have a free and safe space to talk. > We believe real change starts with conversation. Here, your voice matters. Come as you are and together we’ll do what’s right (not what’s easy) to serve the public conversation.
NaturalPhallacy 6y ago
>Isn't "trending on Twitter" a popularity contest? Right up until it runs into their 'trending blacklist'. An admin tool that the existence of was leaked a while back.

tshaddox 6y ago

I think you’re making a common mistake, which is to assume there’s some “natural” algorithm that determines which tweets trend, and that human intervention is “unnatural” and unfair. But on the contrary, Twitter’s trending feature (and indeed all distribution on all public social media networks I’m aware of) is active promotion of speech. Humans at Twitter are deciding which tweets trend, regardless of whether they’re doing so manually or using algorithms (which they designed) to automate the process. Even a very simple change to a very simple ranking algorithm, like changing the relative value of likes/comments/etc. or the time decay of whatever values are being counted, can significantly change which content gets promoted. These are choices that humans make at Twitter.

vladvasiliu 6y ago
> I think you’re making a common mistake, which is to assume there’s some “natural” algorithm that determines which tweets trend, and that human intervention is “unnatural” and unfair. That's partly true. I think it's "unfair", or rather disingenuous, only when the company claims there's no manual intervention. I wouldn't really have an issue with a company saying "we're looking to promote this or that speech". I think no one really takes issue that Democrat or Republican conventions don't have speakers from the opposing parties. They are clearly labeled "Democrat", so people expect this going in. I think the crux of the matter is these platforms pretend being an unbiased space for people to communicate, when they clearly aren't. Or rather, they aren't as open anymore. Once people flocked to them, and they became a common place of exchange, the rules drastically changed.
- XorNot 6y ago
  Why did the rules change? Twitter, and any other private company, has never been under any legal obligation in it's business to provide a public space and it's not clear how you'd even define them as providing one (seeing as how the servers are in Twitter's datacenters, using Twitter's network, paid for by Twitter's revenue). Literally everything on Twitter is Twitter's property other then where governed by intellectual property law agreements and even then it's still someone's private property they have a right to control! A country club being very popular doesn't suddenly make it a public space.
  - vladvasiliu 6y ago
    > Why did the rules change? I'm not a Twitter user so don't know exactly, but from what I see being discussed, it seems to me that there used to be more tolerance towards certain groups (apparently right wing, but probably others, too). But maybe that's just it, the rules themselves haven't changed, they're just more strictly enforced now (I actually don't know). I'd say that what they're doing is obviously not illegal, or else we probably wouldn't be having this conversation because it would be much more clear-cut. However, it's more of a "moral" issue, for lack of a better term. They advertised the platform as a medium for everybody to exchange. Now that a lot of people have gone there because of this advertisement, it has become more or less a public utility. Now, again, I'm not saying what they're doing is illegal, they are not legally a utility, there are other avenues for people to communicate, etc. > A country club being very popular doesn't suddenly make it a public space. While I think you're right in the general case, I can't help but think there's a question of measure involved. The country club will advertise exclusivity. Even if it's just for pose, and it's actually easy to gain membership, it will actively not pretend it's open to any and everybody. Also, it will require people be somewhat close geographically and will have a fairly limited reach. If the club said "we're open to everybody, we want to encourage public conversation" [0], then I'd consider it the same way I do Twitter. Contrast this with Twitter, which explicitly advertises its openness.[0] And when you can subscribe to Twitter just by having a random browser and an internet connection, wherever you are in the world, and when pretty much anyone and their grandmother are using it to communicate, and when there's an assumption (be it misguided!) that Twitter is a public space, I think it's at least worth it to consider the question. The answer may well be a firm "no", but it may also be "woops, this is actually something new, which we hadn't considered in our (quite old) laws. Maybe we should do something about it". To sum it all up, I think Twitter, FB, etc are all a fairly new kind of "thing". They are private entities in that they are funded, operated, etc by a private company and with that private company's goal in mind. But their operations are clearly designed to attract the most people who then communicate on their platform. Just as we regulated what can and can't be done by a telephone company or an electrical company (all private entities!) when those came about, I wouldn't be shocked for there to be some kind of specific regulation for those platforms, more than "just don't break any laws". It seems pretty obvious to me that trying to apply pre-existing models to them doesn't work all that well. --- [0] From about.twitter.com, emphasis mine: > We serve the * public* conversation. That’s why it matters to us that people have a free and safe space to talk. > We believe real change starts with conversation. Here, your voice matters. Come as you are and together we’ll do what’s right (not what’s easy) to serve the public conversation.

NaturalPhallacy 6y ago

>Isn't "trending on Twitter" a popularity contest? Right up until it runs into their 'trending blacklist'. An admin tool that the existence of was leaked a while back.