4 ms·
>Navy Seal Copypasta, broken into eight twitter sized parts. Eventually they banned me for this Fucking killjoys. If twitter is moderating for people who can'
by dogleash 5y ago
>Navy Seal Copypasta, broken into eight twitter sized parts. Eventually they banned me for this
Fucking killjoys.
If twitter is moderating for people who can't even figure out not to take that copypasta seriously[1], then they're showing their hand. There's no end state. No goal. There is no cultural equilibrium point that even perfect moderation could ever achieve.
Therefore, visible attrition is the end state. Twitter has to satisfy the normies who want to be on the internet but don't understand the internet. The moderation is a con because it can't be anything else. Lying "we're working on it, see?" to the monied/powerful normies who's continued use keep Twitter's stock price out of the dumpster.
[1]: It's not that people should recognize copypasta, it's that people should recognize the words of an idiot. This meme became a meme because how well everyone recognized the earnest original author of that post couldn't be taken seriously.
- manmal 5y agoIMO it’s not unreasonable to ban users who are outliers in terms of complaints from other users.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- roenxi 5y agoIt isn't workable. If you ban the 2% most complained about users there will still be a 2% most complained about users. There should be something as close as possible to an objective standard of what is and isn't allowed.
- esperent 5y agoDo you have any evidence they are doing this? I rather think they are using a threshold like > 10 complaints in a certain time period.
- Mordisquitos 5y agoSupposing they do use a threshold based on an absolute value, by what measure would they have chosen this value in the first place? How, when, and why would they review this value? In the end, if their decision process is based purely on a number, it will eventually become a popularity contest or an excluder of outliers. It's turtles all the way down.
- Dylan16807 5y agoIf you don't delete historic data when calculating outliers, you can avoid that problem. Or using a dozen other methods. You're describing an extreme strawman of an algorithm.
- polynomial 5y agoeverything is to be taken seriously (ie at face value) bc anything more than that would require agreement between those who disagree. (considered to be somewhat of a hard problem.)
- dogleash 5y ago>everything is to be taken seriously (ie at face value) bc anything more than that would require agreement between those who disagree. That's backwards. Everything should be seen as profoundly not-serious, for precisely the same reason.