7 ms·

That doesn't really make sense to me. Isn't it better to be a hypocrite and be evil only some of the time, rather than be consistently evil all of the time? I

That doesn't really make sense to me. Isn't it better to be a hypocrite and be evil only some of the time, rather than be consistently evil all of the time? I don't believe that Twitter has worked out how to act accordingly to the bad side of their platform. There's still a ton of misinformation, it's still incredibly polarizing, and IMO it has a worse overall impact than Google.

NotEvil 5y ago
It's better than the alternatives. Loke koo, parler, e.t.c.. at least they try to point out when a politician is spreading misinfo.
raxxorrax 5y ago
I think one of the main factors of it being polarizing is that big tech tried to kill misinformation on the internet. 10 years ago people would have laughed at the mere suggestion that everything on the net is true. There will always be misinformation, but this dogma that this is somehow even an issue is completely festered by now but still ridiculous in my opinion. Of course these rules against misinformation are not enforced equally, so people get angry at the unfairness and dig in. Not really surprising. Solution: Sit back an relax and let there be misinformation. Even 5 year olds can handle this easily...
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  That solution seems less practical in an era where the misinformation coupled with rapid spread via digital media can result in attempted coups.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Let them vent their frustrations on Twitter instead of taking it to government institutions then. Are you referring to the Viking?
  - pydry 5y ago
    Playing censorship whack a mole on social media was one of the things that drove recruits into ISIS's arms. It didnt potential recruits from seeing the propaganda but it did quell incipient doubts in their minds that they might be the bad guys. Censorship is good at that. Censorship can work but only if you lock EVERYTHING down, north korea/china style. The more failed censorship governments engage in the more attractive this route becomes.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      I hadn't heard this censorship / ISIS connection before. Do you have a source with more information?
- rsgrn 5y ago
  Rules should definitely be applied equally, yet even still it's somewhat obvious that in the western world certain sides engage in misinformation more than others and that very same side is more susceptible to it. "Five year olds can handle this": That is the exact problem, they can't. They are sometimes less capable than that.
- Brybry 5y ago
  I would agree if we were just talking about accidental, spontaneous misinformation. But on twitter you've got bad actors pushing propaganda that can be very hard to differentiate from honest opinion. And I think you underestimate how gullible a lot of people really are. Many people will believe the self-professed 43 year old mom of 4 from Idaho is really just that -- even though the profile picture is copied from an Australian cooking blog and there's cyrillic replies early in the account's history.
  - pydry 5y ago
    There's no way for the platforms to really deal with gullibility and propaganda without making the problem worse and they have no real incentive to either. The cure (censorship, most likely) will be worse than the disease. The platforms will make a valiant effort to solve the problem in the way which is most politically expeditious for them. Not in a way that solves the problem. The effects of this frankly terrifies me. Way more than Russian psyops campaigns running mommyblogger tweets. "First, do no harm" doesnt just apply to doctors.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > no way for the platforms to really deal with gullibility and propaganda without making the problem worse These are uncharted waters. I’d be wary of mistaking such hypotheses for absolute truths. When mass journalism arrived we had yellow journalism. Journalistic standards arose, people chose their papers, and while it wasn’t a monotonic rise to goodness, what followed was better than what was. I don’t know what the Internet will look like in a few years. But I’m fairly confident it won’t be laissez faire.
      - pydry 5y ago
        They're not that uncharted. It's why the first amendment exists. I'm fairly confident it won't be laissez faire in the future either. That's coz there's a consolidation of media platforms and a wave of populist authoritarianism sweeping the world, not coz censorship ever fixed anything.
- reachtarunhere 5y ago
  Completely agree.This is just governments as well as big tech on a power trip trying to censor things by whatever morals are in vogue now. It is quite insulting treating grown adults like "don't see this. we are telling you it is bad for you."
thenberlin 5y ago
While I don't disagree that Twitter has plenty of work to do, I think if you stack YouTube up against Twitter, it's pretty clear that the former has done more to drag people down the rabbit hole. Does Twitter help keep them there once they've gone down? Sure, yeah it does. Should Twitter have dealt with this all better in 2015-2017? Of course, yes. But still, it seems to me that YouTube (and, while we're at it, Facebook) has done far more damage to the information zeitgeist.
- laputan_machine 5y ago
  I can't disagree more with this sentiment, YouTube has been invaluable for me looking up tutorials of anything that I want to know. My experience of Twitter is that it's a hate-filled cesspit, where the loudest get heard the most, and there is no room for debate (given the character limit). I've used YouTube to learn how to build a bike from scratch, how to fit tiles, plumbing repairs, how to make 3d games engines, as well as the plethora of maths and science / general interest channels (Veritasium, Tom Scott, etc).
  - thenberlin 5y ago
    I never said YouTube is all or even mostly bad — I use it every day and find it hugely valuable. That said, is the question “which platform’s features go against my desire for rich, informative, interest-driven content?” or “which platform provides a more potent means of spreading disinformation through a mixture of algorithmic enticement and rich, engaging, interest-driven content?” I ask because it seems like you think we’re talking about question #1 and I’m talking about question #2.
- Mentoio 5y ago
  I'm not sure if i follow you when you mention YouTube. I thought just yesterday how YouTube changed the world again on making knowledge much more accessable than ever before. I have seen very well done YouTube videos debunking things, explaining things, visual showing things. I asked my mother about cooking and in here time, you needed to go to a cooking class. I have already more diverse cooking experience thanks to getting inspired and learning certain aspects of cooking through youtube. Facebook? just burn that shit.
ArnoVW 5y ago
YouTube proposed me an essay on that yesterday, with a sub-title of : An analysis of the dissonance between morality and heroism in stories, and the reality and moral complexities of our modern society. It raises some points regarding the questions you pose, you may find interesting. I'd love to do the TL;DR but it's slightly more nuanced than that so I'll post the link https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tooiNm9WmkM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tooiNm9WmkM
- mistermann 5y ago
  That whole YouTube channel is excellent!
bostonsre 5y ago
I don't think he means twitter worked out the problems they have, just that it's possible they could be honestly trying to address their issues. It's a tough problem to solve well. Whether we like it or not, public companies are held hostage to shareholder value and that ties one hand behind their back while they try to solve the problem. I think we need government regulation to force their hand. We don't allow companies to fuck up the environment for the rest of society, it seems logical to not allow companies to fuck up our government. Dorsey seems less bad than zuckerberg, but it could be fake.
jimbilly22 5y ago
Twitter hasnt even attempted. It's the opposite. They amplify the polarizing content through their trending feed. They love it.

NotEvil 5y ago

It's better than the alternatives. Loke koo, parler, e.t.c.. at least they try to point out when a politician is spreading misinfo.

raxxorrax 5y ago

I think one of the main factors of it being polarizing is that big tech tried to kill misinformation on the internet. 10 years ago people would have laughed at the mere suggestion that everything on the net is true. There will always be misinformation, but this dogma that this is somehow even an issue is completely festered by now but still ridiculous in my opinion. Of course these rules against misinformation are not enforced equally, so people get angry at the unfairness and dig in. Not really surprising. Solution: Sit back an relax and let there be misinformation. Even 5 year olds can handle this easily...

shadowgovt 5y ago
That solution seems less practical in an era where the misinformation coupled with rapid spread via digital media can result in attempted coups.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Let them vent their frustrations on Twitter instead of taking it to government institutions then. Are you referring to the Viking?
- pydry 5y ago
  Playing censorship whack a mole on social media was one of the things that drove recruits into ISIS's arms. It didnt potential recruits from seeing the propaganda but it did quell incipient doubts in their minds that they might be the bad guys. Censorship is good at that. Censorship can work but only if you lock EVERYTHING down, north korea/china style. The more failed censorship governments engage in the more attractive this route becomes.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    I hadn't heard this censorship / ISIS connection before. Do you have a source with more information?
rsgrn 5y ago
Rules should definitely be applied equally, yet even still it's somewhat obvious that in the western world certain sides engage in misinformation more than others and that very same side is more susceptible to it. "Five year olds can handle this": That is the exact problem, they can't. They are sometimes less capable than that.
Brybry 5y ago
I would agree if we were just talking about accidental, spontaneous misinformation. But on twitter you've got bad actors pushing propaganda that can be very hard to differentiate from honest opinion. And I think you underestimate how gullible a lot of people really are. Many people will believe the self-professed 43 year old mom of 4 from Idaho is really just that -- even though the profile picture is copied from an Australian cooking blog and there's cyrillic replies early in the account's history.
- pydry 5y ago
  There's no way for the platforms to really deal with gullibility and propaganda without making the problem worse and they have no real incentive to either. The cure (censorship, most likely) will be worse than the disease. The platforms will make a valiant effort to solve the problem in the way which is most politically expeditious for them. Not in a way that solves the problem. The effects of this frankly terrifies me. Way more than Russian psyops campaigns running mommyblogger tweets. "First, do no harm" doesnt just apply to doctors.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > no way for the platforms to really deal with gullibility and propaganda without making the problem worse These are uncharted waters. I’d be wary of mistaking such hypotheses for absolute truths. When mass journalism arrived we had yellow journalism. Journalistic standards arose, people chose their papers, and while it wasn’t a monotonic rise to goodness, what followed was better than what was. I don’t know what the Internet will look like in a few years. But I’m fairly confident it won’t be laissez faire.
    - pydry 5y ago
      They're not that uncharted. It's why the first amendment exists. I'm fairly confident it won't be laissez faire in the future either. That's coz there's a consolidation of media platforms and a wave of populist authoritarianism sweeping the world, not coz censorship ever fixed anything.
reachtarunhere 5y ago
Completely agree.This is just governments as well as big tech on a power trip trying to censor things by whatever morals are in vogue now. It is quite insulting treating grown adults like "don't see this. we are telling you it is bad for you."

thenberlin 5y ago

While I don't disagree that Twitter has plenty of work to do, I think if you stack YouTube up against Twitter, it's pretty clear that the former has done more to drag people down the rabbit hole. Does Twitter help keep them there once they've gone down? Sure, yeah it does. Should Twitter have dealt with this all better in 2015-2017? Of course, yes. But still, it seems to me that YouTube (and, while we're at it, Facebook) has done far more damage to the information zeitgeist.

laputan_machine 5y ago
I can't disagree more with this sentiment, YouTube has been invaluable for me looking up tutorials of anything that I want to know. My experience of Twitter is that it's a hate-filled cesspit, where the loudest get heard the most, and there is no room for debate (given the character limit). I've used YouTube to learn how to build a bike from scratch, how to fit tiles, plumbing repairs, how to make 3d games engines, as well as the plethora of maths and science / general interest channels (Veritasium, Tom Scott, etc).
- thenberlin 5y ago
  I never said YouTube is all or even mostly bad — I use it every day and find it hugely valuable. That said, is the question “which platform’s features go against my desire for rich, informative, interest-driven content?” or “which platform provides a more potent means of spreading disinformation through a mixture of algorithmic enticement and rich, engaging, interest-driven content?” I ask because it seems like you think we’re talking about question #1 and I’m talking about question #2.
Mentoio 5y ago
I'm not sure if i follow you when you mention YouTube. I thought just yesterday how YouTube changed the world again on making knowledge much more accessable than ever before. I have seen very well done YouTube videos debunking things, explaining things, visual showing things. I asked my mother about cooking and in here time, you needed to go to a cooking class. I have already more diverse cooking experience thanks to getting inspired and learning certain aspects of cooking through youtube. Facebook? just burn that shit.

ArnoVW 5y ago

YouTube proposed me an essay on that yesterday, with a sub-title of : An analysis of the dissonance between morality and heroism in stories, and the reality and moral complexities of our modern society. It raises some points regarding the questions you pose, you may find interesting. I'd love to do the TL;DR but it's slightly more nuanced than that so I'll post the link https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tooiNm9WmkM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tooiNm9WmkM

mistermann 5y ago
That whole YouTube channel is excellent!

bostonsre 5y ago

I don't think he means twitter worked out the problems they have, just that it's possible they could be honestly trying to address their issues. It's a tough problem to solve well. Whether we like it or not, public companies are held hostage to shareholder value and that ties one hand behind their back while they try to solve the problem. I think we need government regulation to force their hand. We don't allow companies to fuck up the environment for the rest of society, it seems logical to not allow companies to fuck up our government. Dorsey seems less bad than zuckerberg, but it could be fake.

jimbilly22 5y ago

Twitter hasnt even attempted. It's the opposite. They amplify the polarizing content through their trending feed. They love it.