4 ms·

Marketing tip: Always ask the public for input and consult with "experts" before doing what you intended to all along.

spacephysics 6y ago
Agreed. This is so if they’re questioned by Congress at some point they can say “we regret our transgressions, and have reformed by asking the community what we should do better” Almost like act first, ask permission later.
debacle 6y ago
Twitch did this with some sort of committee late last year and it blew up in their faces.
- DC1350 6y ago
  The deer incident?
  - debacle 6y ago
    I think the streamer you're referring to was just the focal point and scapegoat for a lot of the outrage over the very unequal and sometimes disturbing way Twitch moderates content.
    - thatguy0900 6y ago
      I agree people were already mad but you would have to go pretty far out of your way to find someone with worse optics, she definetely brought a lot of heat to it herself.
      - debacle 6y ago
        I think that was Twitch's intent. Why promote a basically no name streamer to a group made up mostly of very prominent people on the platform?
        thatguy0900 6y ago
        You think twitch purposefully nuked their own program? Wouldn't that just make both sides of the isle mad at them?
patcon 6y ago
We can only know this for certain looking back. Knowing this looking forward is often cynicism, and it's a trap imho EDIT: The above are mostly something I try to keep in mind with government public consultations. I acknowledge that cynicism is a little more understandable for private industry, as they are not even in theory rooted in anything but shareholder value-maximization, but gov is at least ostensibly aspiring for public good.
joshgel 6y ago
Also, if you phrase the question “should everyone follow the same rules?” in the right way, everyone is going to say “of course!”
- Tossitto 6y ago
  That's where it gets interesting, though. Assuming you have a democratically elected official with progressive views in any direction, and they're telling people to act for their self-interest, but the current zeitgeist overall is the given idea is immoral or otherwise objectionable, then what process do you use to make the judgement other than an arbitrary one that supplants the "rule of law"? Consider if Biden dropped a tweet saying "don't observe DST." That could be dangerous, right? You've got two distinct groups of people that for some reason or another fail to coalesce, all "hell" breaks loose because some people are showing up to work at different times, logistical break down... Do you squelch him? And how does that compare to a non-violent break-in at the capitol to show congress that their representation of the general public is failing a given demographic? Personally I think that the channel should be wide open to anything but the most unbearable aspects of communication, like child exploitation. You've got no chance of convincing a white supremacist that his worldview is askew without engaging in a conversation and logically defeating his assertions, not to mention the fact that publicly shaming the ideology (while jointly defeating it) in a widely available forum is certainly the best prophylactic. Instead the "acceptable" rhetoric is one-sided which alienates anybody that has the audacity to even ask the questions proposed, while destroying their ability to come about a rational conclusion through empirical observation. That channel should be equivalently wide for politicians which the people have elected to represent them up to the extent of tangible action to break the law up to the barrier of reason, e.g. meaningfully inciting violent actions against individuals or groups. And this is all precipitated by the fact that Twitter and the like are commodifying speech, which is a genuine hazard as it creates a serious hurdle at the intersection of liberty and commercial interest. Commercial interests want inoffensive discussion which appeals to the widest possible band of individuals, meaning that the content and discussions are only allowed to span a narrow width, generally. It is not in any meaningful way acting in the public interest at that point, and only seeks to, through largely automatic processes, extend and crystallize the status quo which is genuinely harmful as we're doing little more than discussing how to spin in place at that point. This is driven even further through deplatforming (active or passive) extremist viewpoints, and exposing them disproportionately with algorithmic processes.
switch007 6y ago
HR too. Makes your staff feel "valued" and listened to.
ike77 6y ago
That's a point of view, and a pretty cynical one. I would like to point out that regarding moderation, tech companies have been asking for guidelines and new laws for a decade now. Ageing lawmakers have been unable to provide them and we start to see shy initiatives from the EU regarding privacy laws but roughly most of the water in which tech companies operate are still no mans lands. All that make me think that even tough you're right that the end result will not be democratic, I wouldn't throw them the stone and accuse them of acting in bad faith.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  I like the comparison to unclaimed land. While other industries are heavily regulated, requiring legal compliance and investment, Internet publishing is still largely open. In my view this is one of the reasons why the online service economy is booming in the US, where others are in decline.
  - mtc010170 6y ago
    I'm curious because I didn't realize this was a trend. Can anyone share some more info/sources on the decline outside the US?
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      Please read it as the decline of other heavily regulated/unionized industries relative to the booming online service sector within the US.
      - mtc010170 6y ago
        Oh I follow now.. thanks for clarifying!
- statstutor 6y ago
  > That's a point of view, and a pretty cynical one. Twitter can and do ask for user feedback all the time, without making a press release about it. I don't find it cynical to ask why they are doing this in public - it seems likely that the parent has hit upon a good part of the reason.
nodesocket 6y ago
Seriously this is such a BS cover their rear-end from congress move. Now they want to poll the public, get feedback, and move in a democratic fashion? It’s now after the fact they selectively decided which US presidents can be on Twitter and which cannot with zero debate or thoughtfulness of consequences of free speech.

Agreed. This is so if they’re questioned by Congress at some point they can say “we regret our transgressions, and have reformed by asking the community what we should do better” Almost like act first, ask permission later.

debacle 6y ago

Twitch did this with some sort of committee late last year and it blew up in their faces.

DC1350 6y ago
The deer incident?
- debacle 6y ago
  I think the streamer you're referring to was just the focal point and scapegoat for a lot of the outrage over the very unequal and sometimes disturbing way Twitch moderates content.
  - thatguy0900 6y ago
    I agree people were already mad but you would have to go pretty far out of your way to find someone with worse optics, she definetely brought a lot of heat to it herself.
    - debacle 6y ago
      I think that was Twitch's intent. Why promote a basically no name streamer to a group made up mostly of very prominent people on the platform?
      - thatguy0900 6y ago
        You think twitch purposefully nuked their own program? Wouldn't that just make both sides of the isle mad at them?

patcon 6y ago

We can only know this for certain looking back. Knowing this looking forward is often cynicism, and it's a trap imho EDIT: The above are mostly something I try to keep in mind with government public consultations. I acknowledge that cynicism is a little more understandable for private industry, as they are not even in theory rooted in anything but shareholder value-maximization, but gov is at least ostensibly aspiring for public good.

joshgel 6y ago

Also, if you phrase the question “should everyone follow the same rules?” in the right way, everyone is going to say “of course!”

Tossitto 6y ago
That's where it gets interesting, though. Assuming you have a democratically elected official with progressive views in any direction, and they're telling people to act for their self-interest, but the current zeitgeist overall is the given idea is immoral or otherwise objectionable, then what process do you use to make the judgement other than an arbitrary one that supplants the "rule of law"? Consider if Biden dropped a tweet saying "don't observe DST." That could be dangerous, right? You've got two distinct groups of people that for some reason or another fail to coalesce, all "hell" breaks loose because some people are showing up to work at different times, logistical break down... Do you squelch him? And how does that compare to a non-violent break-in at the capitol to show congress that their representation of the general public is failing a given demographic? Personally I think that the channel should be wide open to anything but the most unbearable aspects of communication, like child exploitation. You've got no chance of convincing a white supremacist that his worldview is askew without engaging in a conversation and logically defeating his assertions, not to mention the fact that publicly shaming the ideology (while jointly defeating it) in a widely available forum is certainly the best prophylactic. Instead the "acceptable" rhetoric is one-sided which alienates anybody that has the audacity to even ask the questions proposed, while destroying their ability to come about a rational conclusion through empirical observation. That channel should be equivalently wide for politicians which the people have elected to represent them up to the extent of tangible action to break the law up to the barrier of reason, e.g. meaningfully inciting violent actions against individuals or groups. And this is all precipitated by the fact that Twitter and the like are commodifying speech, which is a genuine hazard as it creates a serious hurdle at the intersection of liberty and commercial interest. Commercial interests want inoffensive discussion which appeals to the widest possible band of individuals, meaning that the content and discussions are only allowed to span a narrow width, generally. It is not in any meaningful way acting in the public interest at that point, and only seeks to, through largely automatic processes, extend and crystallize the status quo which is genuinely harmful as we're doing little more than discussing how to spin in place at that point. This is driven even further through deplatforming (active or passive) extremist viewpoints, and exposing them disproportionately with algorithmic processes.

switch007 6y ago

HR too. Makes your staff feel "valued" and listened to.

ike77 6y ago

That's a point of view, and a pretty cynical one. I would like to point out that regarding moderation, tech companies have been asking for guidelines and new laws for a decade now. Ageing lawmakers have been unable to provide them and we start to see shy initiatives from the EU regarding privacy laws but roughly most of the water in which tech companies operate are still no mans lands. All that make me think that even tough you're right that the end result will not be democratic, I wouldn't throw them the stone and accuse them of acting in bad faith.

aww_dang 6y ago
I like the comparison to unclaimed land. While other industries are heavily regulated, requiring legal compliance and investment, Internet publishing is still largely open. In my view this is one of the reasons why the online service economy is booming in the US, where others are in decline.
- mtc010170 6y ago
  I'm curious because I didn't realize this was a trend. Can anyone share some more info/sources on the decline outside the US?
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    Please read it as the decline of other heavily regulated/unionized industries relative to the booming online service sector within the US.
    - mtc010170 6y ago
      Oh I follow now.. thanks for clarifying!
statstutor 6y ago
> That's a point of view, and a pretty cynical one. Twitter can and do ask for user feedback all the time, without making a press release about it. I don't find it cynical to ask why they are doing this in public - it seems likely that the parent has hit upon a good part of the reason.

nodesocket 6y ago

Seriously this is such a BS cover their rear-end from congress move. Now they want to poll the public, get feedback, and move in a democratic fashion? It’s now after the fact they selectively decided which US presidents can be on Twitter and which cannot with zero debate or thoughtfulness of consequences of free speech.