5 ms·

There are so many things that make it an unpleasant ordeal. Having to hit 'see more replies' over and over. Having to click on individual tweets to see their

by pram 5y ago

There are so many things that make it an unpleasant ordeal. Having to hit 'see more replies' over and over. Having to click on individual tweets to see their replies. Pressing back and having your window reset to the top of the replies page, and now you have to click 'see more replies' all over again. Having your history completely broken somehow so pressing back doesn't even take you to the right place. etc etc

twofornone 5y ago
>Having to hit 'see more replies' over and over. I don't know if I'm just suffering from confirmation bias but it seems like this feature is used as a form of soft censorship, to discourage users from reading certain threads, as it appears to disproportionately pop up on "controversial" topics where right of center opinions are likely to be expressed.
- StanislavPetrov 5y ago
  That's exactly the case, and its not at all limited to "right of center" positions. Accounts that are deemed undesirable by Twitter for whatever reason (usually involving posts that go counter to mainstream narratives) have all of their replies to every post listed after "see more replies" to reduce their visibility. And beneath "see more replies" you will often see another "show posts that may be offensive" that you have to click on to see even more replies from users Twitter finds less desirable still. Very frequently none of these posts will be offensive in any way. Those who have their posts under these extended tabs also don't give notifications to those they are replying to. It's censorship and information manipulation from top to bottom on Twitter.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    “See more board members” “Show board members that may be offensive”
- wwweston 5y ago
  > soft censorship If it's soft, it's not censorship. (On top of "if it's private, it's not censorship.")
  - account42 5y ago
    > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies. It IS censorship.
    - wwweston 5y ago
      LOL there's a fun one. What's next, writing a new arbitrary definition so that pinching people for not wearing green on St Patricks day is also censorship? There are reasons the formal definition of censorship focuses on the actions of the state. One of them is that decisions about which speech to carry or amplify (and which to not) in the context of private means are themselves rights of speech. If you disagree, I look forward to you sending me your address and letting me put signs of my choice up on your lawn. After all as a principled defender of speech, you wouldn't want to "suppress" what I have to say by not giving me the privilege of putting whatever words I choose there. The funny thing, though, is that even by your altered definition, what the ancestor comments are talking about here still isn't censorship -- even assuming that there's some basis on which to assume systematic click-to-read-more-ificitaion of "right of center" ideas other than "some dude on the internet feels like it might be true", it's not even that Twitter is taking the words down and making the ideas unavailable, it's that they're somewhat less convenient to actually read and you have to put extra clicks in. This has all the "suppression" of a downvote, a mechanism I'd wager you've recently used. But hey. If you value discourse so little as to equate both "have to make extra clicks to read someone's hot take on some sites/apps (freedom to choose other sites/apps still quite intact)" and "face imprisonment for expression of certain ideas" under the umbrella of censorship, the good news is that free speech rights let you do that.
      - 5y ago
notreallyserio 5y ago
> Having to click on individual tweets to see their replies I'm not sure that even works -- when I go to a tweet in a "thread" I see there are replies but I can't figure out how to view them. All I see are the rest of the tweets in the "thread". I've completely given up on seeing replies to tweets mid-thread. I'm too dumb to grok Twitter's UI.
- kingcharles 5y ago
  Clicking the text of the specific tweet in the thread should show the replies. I always click the little speech bubble in the bottom-left, which is the icon to show replies in all other interfaces, but that just pops up the Reply feature and I get aggravated every time.
lokedhs 5y ago
Does that work? On the occasions when I read a post on Twitter (by following a link, since I don't use it) and I press "see replies" I always get to see the same replies again.

by pram 5y ago

twofornone 5y ago

>Having to hit 'see more replies' over and over. I don't know if I'm just suffering from confirmation bias but it seems like this feature is used as a form of soft censorship, to discourage users from reading certain threads, as it appears to disproportionately pop up on "controversial" topics where right of center opinions are likely to be expressed.

StanislavPetrov 5y ago
That's exactly the case, and its not at all limited to "right of center" positions. Accounts that are deemed undesirable by Twitter for whatever reason (usually involving posts that go counter to mainstream narratives) have all of their replies to every post listed after "see more replies" to reduce their visibility. And beneath "see more replies" you will often see another "show posts that may be offensive" that you have to click on to see even more replies from users Twitter finds less desirable still. Very frequently none of these posts will be offensive in any way. Those who have their posts under these extended tabs also don't give notifications to those they are replying to. It's censorship and information manipulation from top to bottom on Twitter.
- bombcar 5y ago
  “See more board members” “Show board members that may be offensive”
wwweston 5y ago
> soft censorship If it's soft, it's not censorship. (On top of "if it's private, it's not censorship.")
- account42 5y ago
  > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies. It IS censorship.
  - wwweston 5y ago
    LOL there's a fun one. What's next, writing a new arbitrary definition so that pinching people for not wearing green on St Patricks day is also censorship? There are reasons the formal definition of censorship focuses on the actions of the state. One of them is that decisions about which speech to carry or amplify (and which to not) in the context of private means are themselves rights of speech. If you disagree, I look forward to you sending me your address and letting me put signs of my choice up on your lawn. After all as a principled defender of speech, you wouldn't want to "suppress" what I have to say by not giving me the privilege of putting whatever words I choose there. The funny thing, though, is that even by your altered definition, what the ancestor comments are talking about here still isn't censorship -- even assuming that there's some basis on which to assume systematic click-to-read-more-ificitaion of "right of center" ideas other than "some dude on the internet feels like it might be true", it's not even that Twitter is taking the words down and making the ideas unavailable, it's that they're somewhat less convenient to actually read and you have to put extra clicks in. This has all the "suppression" of a downvote, a mechanism I'd wager you've recently used. But hey. If you value discourse so little as to equate both "have to make extra clicks to read someone's hot take on some sites/apps (freedom to choose other sites/apps still quite intact)" and "face imprisonment for expression of certain ideas" under the umbrella of censorship, the good news is that free speech rights let you do that.
    - 5y ago

notreallyserio 5y ago

> Having to click on individual tweets to see their replies I'm not sure that even works -- when I go to a tweet in a "thread" I see there are replies but I can't figure out how to view them. All I see are the rest of the tweets in the "thread". I've completely given up on seeing replies to tweets mid-thread. I'm too dumb to grok Twitter's UI.

kingcharles 5y ago
Clicking the text of the specific tweet in the thread should show the replies. I always click the little speech bubble in the bottom-left, which is the icon to show replies in all other interfaces, but that just pops up the Reply feature and I get aggravated every time.

lokedhs 5y ago

Does that work? On the occasions when I read a post on Twitter (by following a link, since I don't use it) and I press "see replies" I always get to see the same replies again.