6 ms·

> user "the account was “artificially” amplifying information". That is newspeak pure and simple.

teekert 5y ago
Amplifying information over 2.3 fold is clearly immoral and should be illegal. It's double plus bad. Straight to jail/re-education. Credit score to 0.
pixelgeek 5y ago
Not at all. It means that the account was using fake accounts and/or bots to help spread information that was viewed to be false.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  Near everything about marketing is artificially amplifying information. Most of the time we just call it "click bait" and "SEO". If what the user did was use fake accounts and bots, the reasoning should be "using fake accounts and bots".
- MrPatan 5y ago
  > user "the account was “artificially” amplifying information". Where does it say the information was false in that sentence? The newspeak worked. and to go from "artificially" to bots and fake accounts... OK, maybe. But how do you know? Not because they told you in that sentence, that's for sure.
  - mbesto 5y ago
    > newspeak You guys keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means. Twitter is a private company. Newspeak was a language developed by the government in Orwell's 1984. VERY different contexts here. For the record - what Twitter communicated is not clear and potentially deceptive, but this response wasn't written by some Twitter PR person. Some support person pressed a button and a canned twitter response was logged to the user: https://patriotone.substack.com/p/twitter-suspension https://patriotone.substack.com/p/twitter-suspension It can mean 100's of different things. So let's maybe ease down on the Orwellian pitchforks.
    - the_gipsy 5y ago
      “Newspeak” is quite commonly used to describe corporate-speak. It gets the point across fairly well.
      - pixelgeek 5y ago
        No I think that 'corporate-speak' is the term for that. And it clearly doesn't get the point across since there are any number of people posting that this in an incorrect use of the word. I think what is happening is that some people want to imply malice by misusing a word.
        the_gipsy 5y ago
        So you agree that there is a different nuance when using “newspeak”.
        pixelgeek 5y ago
        No. I think people are deliberately misusing a word to imply totalitarian control.
        mindslight 5y ago
        Companies use twisted non-straightforward language because they have the power to not suffer significant repercussions from doing so, just like a bona fide government. Some customers may see through the bullshit and leave, but on the whole most won't. Impotent totalitarianism is still totalitarianism. Furthermore, newspeak in 1984 wasn't simply the language the government used to make pronouncements, but rather the language that people were expected to use to communicate (moreso for politically connected people IIRC). I'd say corporate speech with its baked in responsibility-dodging passive-aggression definitively qualifies, as the people making these statements seemingly believe they're communicating in earnest. It's only when they're taken out of the corporate context that their vacuousness becomes apparent.
    - MrPatan 5y ago
  - kube-system 5y ago
    "artificial amplification" is Twitter's description of a category of behavior that Twitter defines in detail here: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-manipulation https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-mani... There is nothing ambiguous or euphemistic about the phrase. It is very meaningful.
    - alex_c 5y ago
      The meaning is clear, and kudos to Twitter for defining it well. But if you think through the usual meanings of the word "artificial" and apply it to this situation, you end up with some amusing conclusions. Definition of artificial 1 : humanly contrived (see contrive sense 1b) often on a natural model : man-made // an artificial limb // artificial diamonds 2a : having existence in legal, economic, or political theory b : caused or produced by a human and especially social or political agency // an artificial price advantage // Within these companies, qualified women run into artificial barriers that prevent them from advancing to top positions in management.— James J. Kilpatrick 3a : lacking in natural or spontaneous quality // an artificial smile // an artificial excitement b : imitation, sham // artificial flavor 4 : based on differential morphological characters not necessarily indicative of natural relationships // an artificial key for plant identification 5 obsolete : artful, cunning Definition 1 doesn't apply: Twitter is an artificial construct to start with. Definition 2 doesn't apply, or if it does it's a bit of a stretch. Definition 3 clearly applies. So, "lacking in natural or spontaneous quality". So, what "amplification" activities on Twitter have a natural or spontaneous quality? Intentional clickbait or flamebait? Using tools to schedule posts in advance to maximize engagement? Jumping on trending hashtags? Paying a person to manage a Twitter account for you? Setting up a bot to automatically post articles from a website? All of these are allowed and can be used to amplify information, but none sound "natural" or "spontaneous" to me. The meaning is clear and Twitter's rules are (IMO) very reasonable, but there is definitely something euphemistic about the phrase. The literal phrase would be "disallowed amplification", because the only real criteria for what is considered "artificial" are Twitter's own rules for what is allowed and what is not.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- ortusdux 5y ago
  My question with this kind of infraction is how do they connect the user to the fake accounts and bots? Can I take down accounts I don't like buy paying a few bucks to a blatant bot farm?
  - danlugo92 5y ago
    Yes you can.
  - jowsie 5y ago
    This used to be very common on twitch a few years back. People would viewbot people they didn't like and they'd get 24-72 hour temp bans while it was investigated.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  It is newspeak and additioanlly not verifiable at all for that matter.
tyingq 5y ago
Here's the full wording from Twitter: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-manipulation https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-mani...
alex_c 5y ago
As opposed to using Twitter to "naturally" amplify information, just like our forefathers did out in the wild back when we were still in touch with nature and Twitter didn't contain any pesticides or plastic :)
mc32 5y ago
Twitter ought to suspend its artificially amplifying algos. The only things they’re not happy about is news they don’t agree with is getting engagement. I.e. “you’re holding it wrong.”[1] [1] https://www.wired.com/2010/06/iphone-4-holding-it-wrong/amp https://www.wired.com/2010/06/iphone-4-holding-it-wrong/amp
orwin 5y ago
(diclaimer: i actually agree on your position but.) Newspeak is about destroying words to reduce the thought quality. The theory being somthing like: less precise words mean less precise thoughts. This is the opposite of newspeak, this is creating new words association for new concepts (artificially amplifying information here meaning buying bot comments, retweets and likes). You can agree or disagree, you can find that this formulation lead to misinterpretation (i do), but this is not newspeak. It's like Jordan Petterson reading of 1984. This really, really angers me. Even with people i kind of agree with. Maybe people should buy a text explanation of Orwell, as this is far from the easiest anticipation book to understand (the US government pushing of this book proves that really well) or read his experiences and how they translate in his books. And maybe tehy should re-read the books too. Winston's job was to remove words from the dictionary, not add new one. I'm sorry, this is not personnal, but this is the 4rth time THIS WEEK that i hear someone talk to me about newspeak and being dead wrong about it. One of them critizing adding (ADDING ffs!) a new word in a dictionary. This had to come out. Agree with your sentiment I guess. Don't use the term newspeak though, this is imho disqualifying.
- mokus 5y ago
  > This really, really angers me. Even with people i kind of agree with. When lazy or dishonest or weak arguments are used, I get more upset if it’s in support of things I agree with than things I don’t. It undermines the position and makes it that much harder to discuss it in the future because I now have to disentangle from that on top of actually making a proper argument in favor of the position.
pixelgeek 5y ago
I don't think you really understand what newspeak[0] is supposed to be. From wikipedia (or a reading of the book) "Newspeak is a controlled language of simplified grammar and restricted vocabulary designed to limit the individual's ability to think and articulate "subversive" concepts such as personal identity, self-expression and free will." What you are reacting to is a technical term that Twitter uses to describe a type of activity that they have found on their network. Specifically, using bots and fake accounts to create the impression that a message is popular or being retweeted by actual people. As noted elsewhere in this topic, Twitter has an actual definition[1] of what this means. There isn't really any reason to be confused by the wording of the reaon for the account being deactivated. [0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak [1]:https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-manipulation https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-mani...
- krageon 5y ago
  Newspeak was not confusing either. To an outsider the term reads more as an attempt to obfuscate and misdirect away from what is actually happening, ostensibly precisely what newspeak is meant to do.
- janeroe 5y ago
  > From wikipedia Your wikipedia links references merriam-webster which says: > propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/newspeak https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/newspeak Exactly the definition of "artificially amplifying information".
agentdrtran 5y ago
No it isn't, this means you can't use bots to boost your account, as this account very clearly did.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dang 5y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29484989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29484989.

Amplifying information over 2.3 fold is clearly immoral and should be illegal. It's double plus bad. Straight to jail/re-education. Credit score to 0.

pixelgeek 5y ago

Not at all. It means that the account was using fake accounts and/or bots to help spread information that was viewed to be false.

xboxnolifes 5y ago
Near everything about marketing is artificially amplifying information. Most of the time we just call it "click bait" and "SEO". If what the user did was use fake accounts and bots, the reasoning should be "using fake accounts and bots".
MrPatan 5y ago
> user "the account was “artificially” amplifying information". Where does it say the information was false in that sentence? The newspeak worked. and to go from "artificially" to bots and fake accounts... OK, maybe. But how do you know? Not because they told you in that sentence, that's for sure.
- mbesto 5y ago
  > newspeak You guys keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means. Twitter is a private company. Newspeak was a language developed by the government in Orwell's 1984. VERY different contexts here. For the record - what Twitter communicated is not clear and potentially deceptive, but this response wasn't written by some Twitter PR person. Some support person pressed a button and a canned twitter response was logged to the user: https://patriotone.substack.com/p/twitter-suspension https://patriotone.substack.com/p/twitter-suspension It can mean 100's of different things. So let's maybe ease down on the Orwellian pitchforks.
  - the_gipsy 5y ago
    “Newspeak” is quite commonly used to describe corporate-speak. It gets the point across fairly well.
    - pixelgeek 5y ago
      No I think that 'corporate-speak' is the term for that. And it clearly doesn't get the point across since there are any number of people posting that this in an incorrect use of the word. I think what is happening is that some people want to imply malice by misusing a word.
      - the_gipsy 5y ago
        So you agree that there is a different nuance when using “newspeak”.
        pixelgeek 5y ago
        No. I think people are deliberately misusing a word to imply totalitarian control.
        mindslight 5y ago
        Companies use twisted non-straightforward language because they have the power to not suffer significant repercussions from doing so, just like a bona fide government. Some customers may see through the bullshit and leave, but on the whole most won't. Impotent totalitarianism is still totalitarianism. Furthermore, newspeak in 1984 wasn't simply the language the government used to make pronouncements, but rather the language that people were expected to use to communicate (moreso for politically connected people IIRC). I'd say corporate speech with its baked in responsibility-dodging passive-aggression definitively qualifies, as the people making these statements seemingly believe they're communicating in earnest. It's only when they're taken out of the corporate context that their vacuousness becomes apparent.
  - MrPatan 5y ago
- kube-system 5y ago
  "artificial amplification" is Twitter's description of a category of behavior that Twitter defines in detail here: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-manipulation https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-mani... There is nothing ambiguous or euphemistic about the phrase. It is very meaningful.
  - alex_c 5y ago
    The meaning is clear, and kudos to Twitter for defining it well. But if you think through the usual meanings of the word "artificial" and apply it to this situation, you end up with some amusing conclusions. Definition of artificial 1 : humanly contrived (see contrive sense 1b) often on a natural model : man-made // an artificial limb // artificial diamonds 2a : having existence in legal, economic, or political theory b : caused or produced by a human and especially social or political agency // an artificial price advantage // Within these companies, qualified women run into artificial barriers that prevent them from advancing to top positions in management.— James J. Kilpatrick 3a : lacking in natural or spontaneous quality // an artificial smile // an artificial excitement b : imitation, sham // artificial flavor 4 : based on differential morphological characters not necessarily indicative of natural relationships // an artificial key for plant identification 5 obsolete : artful, cunning Definition 1 doesn't apply: Twitter is an artificial construct to start with. Definition 2 doesn't apply, or if it does it's a bit of a stretch. Definition 3 clearly applies. So, "lacking in natural or spontaneous quality". So, what "amplification" activities on Twitter have a natural or spontaneous quality? Intentional clickbait or flamebait? Using tools to schedule posts in advance to maximize engagement? Jumping on trending hashtags? Paying a person to manage a Twitter account for you? Setting up a bot to automatically post articles from a website? All of these are allowed and can be used to amplify information, but none sound "natural" or "spontaneous" to me. The meaning is clear and Twitter's rules are (IMO) very reasonable, but there is definitely something euphemistic about the phrase. The literal phrase would be "disallowed amplification", because the only real criteria for what is considered "artificial" are Twitter's own rules for what is allowed and what is not.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
ortusdux 5y ago
My question with this kind of infraction is how do they connect the user to the fake accounts and bots? Can I take down accounts I don't like buy paying a few bucks to a blatant bot farm?
- danlugo92 5y ago
  Yes you can.
- jowsie 5y ago
  This used to be very common on twitch a few years back. People would viewbot people they didn't like and they'd get 24-72 hour temp bans while it was investigated.
raxxorrax 5y ago
It is newspeak and additioanlly not verifiable at all for that matter.

tyingq 5y ago

Here's the full wording from Twitter: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-manipulation https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-mani...

alex_c 5y ago

As opposed to using Twitter to "naturally" amplify information, just like our forefathers did out in the wild back when we were still in touch with nature and Twitter didn't contain any pesticides or plastic :)

mc32 5y ago

Twitter ought to suspend its artificially amplifying algos. The only things they’re not happy about is news they don’t agree with is getting engagement. I.e. “you’re holding it wrong.”[1] [1] https://www.wired.com/2010/06/iphone-4-holding-it-wrong/amp https://www.wired.com/2010/06/iphone-4-holding-it-wrong/amp

orwin 5y ago

(diclaimer: i actually agree on your position but.) Newspeak is about destroying words to reduce the thought quality. The theory being somthing like: less precise words mean less precise thoughts. This is the opposite of newspeak, this is creating new words association for new concepts (artificially amplifying information here meaning buying bot comments, retweets and likes). You can agree or disagree, you can find that this formulation lead to misinterpretation (i do), but this is not newspeak. It's like Jordan Petterson reading of 1984. This really, really angers me. Even with people i kind of agree with. Maybe people should buy a text explanation of Orwell, as this is far from the easiest anticipation book to understand (the US government pushing of this book proves that really well) or read his experiences and how they translate in his books. And maybe tehy should re-read the books too. Winston's job was to remove words from the dictionary, not add new one. I'm sorry, this is not personnal, but this is the 4rth time THIS WEEK that i hear someone talk to me about newspeak and being dead wrong about it. One of them critizing adding (ADDING ffs!) a new word in a dictionary. This had to come out. Agree with your sentiment I guess. Don't use the term newspeak though, this is imho disqualifying.

mokus 5y ago
> This really, really angers me. Even with people i kind of agree with. When lazy or dishonest or weak arguments are used, I get more upset if it’s in support of things I agree with than things I don’t. It undermines the position and makes it that much harder to discuss it in the future because I now have to disentangle from that on top of actually making a proper argument in favor of the position.

pixelgeek 5y ago

I don't think you really understand what newspeak[0] is supposed to be. From wikipedia (or a reading of the book) "Newspeak is a controlled language of simplified grammar and restricted vocabulary designed to limit the individual's ability to think and articulate "subversive" concepts such as personal identity, self-expression and free will." What you are reacting to is a technical term that Twitter uses to describe a type of activity that they have found on their network. Specifically, using bots and fake accounts to create the impression that a message is popular or being retweeted by actual people. As noted elsewhere in this topic, Twitter has an actual definition[1] of what this means. There isn't really any reason to be confused by the wording of the reaon for the account being deactivated. [0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak [1]:https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-manipulation https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-mani...

krageon 5y ago
Newspeak was not confusing either. To an outsider the term reads more as an attempt to obfuscate and misdirect away from what is actually happening, ostensibly precisely what newspeak is meant to do.
janeroe 5y ago
> From wikipedia Your wikipedia links references merriam-webster which says: > propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/newspeak https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/newspeak Exactly the definition of "artificially amplifying information".

agentdrtran 5y ago

No it isn't, this means you can't use bots to boost your account, as this account very clearly did.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dang 5y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29484989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29484989.