6 ms·

MIT Technology Review interviewed the new CEO recently: > Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public convers

MIT Technology Review interviewed the new CEO recently: > Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation. The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed. One of the changes today that we see is speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard. The scarce commodity today is attention. There's a lot of content out there. A lot of tweets out there, not all of it gets attention, some subset of it gets attention. And so increasingly our role is moving towards how we recommend content and that sort of, is, is, a struggle that we're working through in terms of how we make sure these recommendation systems that we're building, how we direct people's attention is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/11/18/1012066/emtech-stage-twitters-cto-on-misinformation/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/11/18/1012066/emtech-s... Sounds like he advocates an emphasis on how to algorithmically "guide" the conversation and shape public opinion....

afavour 5y ago
I read it differently than "shaping public opinion". The reality is that social media (and Twitter especially) is toxic. That underlying toxicity comes from humans of course, but recommendation algorithms accelerate and highlight it because it leads to high "engagement", and thus more money. These sites already "guide" conversation, just using metrics that can end up being harmful. A social media CEO that's interested in breaking the cycle there and trying to recommend content that's more constructive than inflammatory sounds like a great thing to me. Yes, there are a dozen pitfalls awaiting anyone that tries, but it's still worth attempting.
- syshum 5y ago
  The problem here is that "toxic" is subjective, what I find toxic and disagreeable may not be the same thing you find toxic and disagreeable. Take for example hot button issue of Gun ownership, I believe it an essential right and extension of self defense, others view any talk about guns as toxic that should be banned. Who's worldview should win? Mine, your's, Twitters? IMO platforms like twitter should not be making the choice as to what is or is not toxic, they should be giving users the ability to curate their feed's.
  - kevingadd 5y ago
    Who's banning discussion of guns? I can't think of a single service that does
    - syshum 5y ago
      Youtube for one has banned a lot of discussions around guns, and gun channels. There is a very limited number of things they allow and gun channels are walking on egg shells. The Rittenhouse trial cause alot of banns, strikes, and etc as well. Including one of the most popular law channel's getting taken down for a time. That is one example, I can instead highlight any number of other topics like abortion, pronouns, gender, sexuality, any of the other "culture war" topics.
      - kevingadd 5y ago
        I subscribe to multiple high-sub-count YouTube channels that post videos about guns on a regular basis. Are you referring to their rules about violent/explicit content? That is absolutely not a subject matter ban like 'you can't discuss guns' and the facts don't support a claim that they ban guns. YouTube's rules enforcement for videos is notoriously bad and has been forever, but that doesn't change their actual policies.
        andymockli 5y ago
        Enforcement is more pertinent than policy. If their policy allows for such videos, but in practice removes them, it doesn't really matter what their policy is.
  - afavour 5y ago
    > others view any talk about guns as toxic that should be banned. Do they? Are you sure? I’ve certainly seen many calls for the glorification of violence to be limited, stuff like that. But banning actual discussion of guns? I’d be interested to see examples of people advocating for that. In any case, Twitter can simply ignore people asking for that because it isn’t a reasonable request. You can have sensible, level headed discussions about guns and gun control. You can also have inflammatory, toxic discussions about them. It’s interesting to think how you’d develop a system that prioritises the former without bringing along the latter. > Who's worldview should win? Mine, your's, Twitters? What does "win" mean, here? If you're the CEO of Twitter then Twitter's worldview should always win. Of course, as CEO you also get to choose what Twitter's worldview is.
leodriesch 5y ago
That’s unfortunate. This is exactly how I want Twitter not to be. I just want a feed filled with Tweets by the people I follow, ordered by the time posted. But as seen on Instagram, YouTube and TikTok, this is not most effective way to make money.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. He's only acknowledging that they're already algorithmically guiding the conversation and shaping public opinion. The algorithms are just bad: there are tons of feedback loops, too much emphasis on amplifying the already-popular and virtually no effort to de-emphasize the trash, and so you end up with a dumpster-fire / cacophony that Twitter is today. Hacker News discussions are great because they're so well-moderated. It's not hard to imagine Twitter doing a better job of algorithmically demoting some of the obvious rage-bait, fake news, straight-up hate speech, etc.

afavour 5y ago

I read it differently than "shaping public opinion". The reality is that social media (and Twitter especially) is toxic. That underlying toxicity comes from humans of course, but recommendation algorithms accelerate and highlight it because it leads to high "engagement", and thus more money. These sites already "guide" conversation, just using metrics that can end up being harmful. A social media CEO that's interested in breaking the cycle there and trying to recommend content that's more constructive than inflammatory sounds like a great thing to me. Yes, there are a dozen pitfalls awaiting anyone that tries, but it's still worth attempting.

syshum 5y ago
The problem here is that "toxic" is subjective, what I find toxic and disagreeable may not be the same thing you find toxic and disagreeable. Take for example hot button issue of Gun ownership, I believe it an essential right and extension of self defense, others view any talk about guns as toxic that should be banned. Who's worldview should win? Mine, your's, Twitters? IMO platforms like twitter should not be making the choice as to what is or is not toxic, they should be giving users the ability to curate their feed's.
- kevingadd 5y ago
  Who's banning discussion of guns? I can't think of a single service that does
  - syshum 5y ago
    Youtube for one has banned a lot of discussions around guns, and gun channels. There is a very limited number of things they allow and gun channels are walking on egg shells. The Rittenhouse trial cause alot of banns, strikes, and etc as well. Including one of the most popular law channel's getting taken down for a time. That is one example, I can instead highlight any number of other topics like abortion, pronouns, gender, sexuality, any of the other "culture war" topics.
    - kevingadd 5y ago
      I subscribe to multiple high-sub-count YouTube channels that post videos about guns on a regular basis. Are you referring to their rules about violent/explicit content? That is absolutely not a subject matter ban like 'you can't discuss guns' and the facts don't support a claim that they ban guns. YouTube's rules enforcement for videos is notoriously bad and has been forever, but that doesn't change their actual policies.
      - andymockli 5y ago
        Enforcement is more pertinent than policy. If their policy allows for such videos, but in practice removes them, it doesn't really matter what their policy is.
- afavour 5y ago
  > others view any talk about guns as toxic that should be banned. Do they? Are you sure? I’ve certainly seen many calls for the glorification of violence to be limited, stuff like that. But banning actual discussion of guns? I’d be interested to see examples of people advocating for that. In any case, Twitter can simply ignore people asking for that because it isn’t a reasonable request. You can have sensible, level headed discussions about guns and gun control. You can also have inflammatory, toxic discussions about them. It’s interesting to think how you’d develop a system that prioritises the former without bringing along the latter. > Who's worldview should win? Mine, your's, Twitters? What does "win" mean, here? If you're the CEO of Twitter then Twitter's worldview should always win. Of course, as CEO you also get to choose what Twitter's worldview is.

leodriesch 5y ago

That’s unfortunate. This is exactly how I want Twitter not to be. I just want a feed filled with Tweets by the people I follow, ordered by the time posted. But as seen on Instagram, YouTube and TikTok, this is not most effective way to make money.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. He's only acknowledging that they're already algorithmically guiding the conversation and shaping public opinion. The algorithms are just bad: there are tons of feedback loops, too much emphasis on amplifying the already-popular and virtually no effort to de-emphasize the trash, and so you end up with a dumpster-fire / cacophony that Twitter is today. Hacker News discussions are great because they're so well-moderated. It's not hard to imagine Twitter doing a better job of algorithmically demoting some of the obvious rage-bait, fake news, straight-up hate speech, etc.