4 ms·

> An optimistic would think that Elon had enough self-awareness to realize it would be an overall distraction for Twitter with little benefit. Assuming Musk di

by smt88 5y ago

> An optimistic would think that Elon had enough self-awareness to realize it would be an overall distraction for Twitter with little benefit. Assuming Musk did take over Twitter, he wouldn't need to be much of a distraction. He could dictate a few rules (don't moderate Twitter, don't ban anyone, etc.) and then leave the company to function as it did before. I think what he doesn't realize is that reducing moderation on Twitter would lead to a death spiral. Humans would find it less useful, and bots would find it more useful. No one wants to be on a platform that is 99% bots posting inflammatory political content.

fastball 5y ago
I don't think Musk's ideas about free speech extend to allowing unfettered botting.
- noduerme 5y ago
  I wonder whether he's really thought about the technical ramifications, though. Even an edit button would have pretty major consequences and things could get into the weeds pretty fast if you had to start diffing edits to see who retweeted what at which point. This might be the kind of thing that would be a major distraction for Musk if he started to put his engineering mind to it, rather than just making a few snarky quips and letting people make of them what they will.
- DoctorOW 5y ago
  Comment isn't referring to spam bots, but the bot networks used for astroturfing.
  - mlindner 5y ago
    The "bot networks used for astroturfing" are a much used fiction of pro-Musk and anti-Musk people alike. They basically don't exist. Upvote bot networks exist certainly however.
    - bloqs 5y ago
      There is plenty of evidence they do, can you prove the contrary?
      - mlindner 5y ago
        Proving a the lack of existence of something is impossible.
        KoftaBob 5y ago
        In other words, you're making a claim that's impossible to verify?
    - DoctorOW 5y ago
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6246561/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6246561/ > Here we analyze 14 million messages spreading 400 thousand articles on Twitter during ten months in 2016 and 2017. We find evidence that social bots played a disproportionate role in spreading articles from low-credibility sources. Bots amplify such content in the early spreading moments, before an article goes viral. I would also be interested in finding more studies that relate to what percentage of scientific research Americans thoughtlessly write off as "fiction" and the corresponding media diets.
      - mlindner 5y ago
        Different cases. Those things are funded by politicians and foreign governments to influence the general populace. The scale is completely different.
        DoctorOW 5y ago
        What does that even mean? The study refers to the type of bots I was talking about, the same as I suspect that comment's GP is talking about. If there's an extra special variety of astroturfing bots that don't exist, that's great. It seems obvious to me that this discussion was about bots that do exist.
- smt88 5y ago
  How can anyone tell the difference between a fascist disinformation network and a sincere idiot?
  - ehnto 5y ago
    Well, one has a social security number. Just look at all the information Facebook takes from people, requiring a government issued credential to verify your account isn't even farfetched anymore. Many governments have been rolling out SSO for their suite of digital service applications, I can totally imagine an "internet passport" type situation in the future, where a government issued SSO authorization can be used by social media companies. For the record, I'm wholeheartedly against that kind of thing, but it's hardly beyond the pale for the companies in question I think.
    - sangnoir 5y ago
      Why wouldn't government-sponsored influence networks mint "legitimate" passports for their bots/legends?
    - smt88 5y ago
      > requiring a government issued credential to verify your account isn't even farfetched anymore Facebook already does this with driver's licenses in the US in some cases.
    - 454544545 5y ago
      France does this with age-verification for porn sites. Visit pornhub via French vpn to see.
- smt88 5y ago
  He said he's a "free speech absolutist," which is an obvious lie. But if we take him at face value, then free speech must include people paid by foreign governments to post pre-written messages. That definition of free speech isn't even alien to the US. Corporations' freedom of speech in this country is protected even when it includes paying other people to speak.
  - cad1 5y ago
    An absolutist wouldn't have an issue with a teenager posting public flight data about his jet. Given his maturity level, it wouldn't surprise me if the entire stock purchase started as an attempt to shut down @elonmuskjet.
- antattack 5y ago
  On 4/9 Musk twitted that he would be in favor of $2/month fee for verified account, paid annually to deter bots.
Consultant32452 5y ago
I think most people forget or are unaware that Twitter was dying before Trump came in and made it an essential platform for every politician and media outlet. My bet is that engagement is down with all the moderation. This is not an endorsement of Trump, just an acknowledgement of what made Twitter huge/powerful in the first place.
onion2k 5y ago
Assuming Musk did take over Twitter, he wouldn't need to be much of a distraction. He could dictate a few rules (don't moderate Twitter, don't ban anyone, etc.) and then leave the company to function as it did before. Not really. One of the hard things about changing the course of a company is that you actually need people to do the things you want them to do. That means actually being hands on and checking things are getting done. Otherwise people will nod and agree in meetings and then just carry on as they were before. This is especially hard if people are resistant to the changes you want to make. Taking over and issuing commands doesn't work unless people have nowhere else to go. If Elon tried that at Twitter there would probably be an exodus of engineering and ops people.
- PixyMisa 5y ago
  Small loss.
  - nebula8804 5y ago
    Bigger than you think. Every right wing "free speech" platform has collapsed in flames partially because it seems like the majority of their people do not have the experience to build and run such a platform. I am reminded of the elementary mistakes made in the design of Parler.
- smt88 5y ago
  > One of the hard things about changing the course of a company is that you actually need people to do the things you want them to do. Dorsey chose not to ban Trump, and then he did. That was a huge change for Twitter, and it didn't seem to rock the boat at the company at all. Twitter also didn't ban politicians at all for a long time. That was another major policy change that Musk could simply revert back.
  - onion2k 5y ago
    Dorsey chose not to ban Trump, and then he did. That was a huge change for Twitter, and it didn't seem to rock the boat at the company at all. This is (probably) a good example of why it's hard. Dorsey understood that banning Trump would have been problematic, so he didn't. He, and probably others, worked to change the company internally to be somewhere where they could do that. Rather than do it and then deal with the fallout he worked to steer the company to be more open to being to be somewhere without Trump. Then he could ban Trump without the fallout. That's how you change a company. Buying a big chunk of it and then issuing decrees about how it works now is much less likely to work. No doubt Elon understands that completely, and has no intention of doing it. He'll work to move Twitter in the direction he wants, maybe with the help of others, until he can then claim to have changed it overnight or something. He's not silly.
alex_sf 5y ago
As opposed to now where it's 98% bots posting inflammatory political content?
polski-g 5y ago
So he wants to return it to 2014 Twitter? Oh the humanity!
- smsm42 5y ago
  TBH I'd be also fine with returning to 2004 Twitter.
  - fredoliveira 5y ago
    You mean no twitter at all? Because if that's the point, you can always do what I do with most other social networks — I just don't use them.
    - oska 5y ago
      Media has an impact in the world we live in even without our participation
    - smsm42 5y ago
      Right. But sometimes people who have interesting information choose, for reasons incomprehensible to me, to publish it on twitter. I use nitter.net to get to it, but if they have chosen a less horrible platform it'd be even better.
PixyMisa 5y ago
The amount of moderation is a completely separate question from whether that moderation is even-handed and the moderators truthful. Nobody wants bots, but those are not the question in moderation discussions.
454544545 5y ago
I don't think people are outraged about "bots" being moderated. It's more about huge accounts with non-liberal views like Trump.

by smt88 5y ago

fastball 5y ago

I don't think Musk's ideas about free speech extend to allowing unfettered botting.

noduerme 5y ago
I wonder whether he's really thought about the technical ramifications, though. Even an edit button would have pretty major consequences and things could get into the weeds pretty fast if you had to start diffing edits to see who retweeted what at which point. This might be the kind of thing that would be a major distraction for Musk if he started to put his engineering mind to it, rather than just making a few snarky quips and letting people make of them what they will.
DoctorOW 5y ago
Comment isn't referring to spam bots, but the bot networks used for astroturfing.
- mlindner 5y ago
  The "bot networks used for astroturfing" are a much used fiction of pro-Musk and anti-Musk people alike. They basically don't exist. Upvote bot networks exist certainly however.
  - bloqs 5y ago
    There is plenty of evidence they do, can you prove the contrary?
    - mlindner 5y ago
      Proving a the lack of existence of something is impossible.
      - KoftaBob 5y ago
        In other words, you're making a claim that's impossible to verify?
  - DoctorOW 5y ago
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6246561/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6246561/ > Here we analyze 14 million messages spreading 400 thousand articles on Twitter during ten months in 2016 and 2017. We find evidence that social bots played a disproportionate role in spreading articles from low-credibility sources. Bots amplify such content in the early spreading moments, before an article goes viral. I would also be interested in finding more studies that relate to what percentage of scientific research Americans thoughtlessly write off as "fiction" and the corresponding media diets.
    - mlindner 5y ago
      Different cases. Those things are funded by politicians and foreign governments to influence the general populace. The scale is completely different.
      - DoctorOW 5y ago
        What does that even mean? The study refers to the type of bots I was talking about, the same as I suspect that comment's GP is talking about. If there's an extra special variety of astroturfing bots that don't exist, that's great. It seems obvious to me that this discussion was about bots that do exist.
smt88 5y ago
How can anyone tell the difference between a fascist disinformation network and a sincere idiot?
- ehnto 5y ago
  Well, one has a social security number. Just look at all the information Facebook takes from people, requiring a government issued credential to verify your account isn't even farfetched anymore. Many governments have been rolling out SSO for their suite of digital service applications, I can totally imagine an "internet passport" type situation in the future, where a government issued SSO authorization can be used by social media companies. For the record, I'm wholeheartedly against that kind of thing, but it's hardly beyond the pale for the companies in question I think.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    Why wouldn't government-sponsored influence networks mint "legitimate" passports for their bots/legends?
  - smt88 5y ago
    > requiring a government issued credential to verify your account isn't even farfetched anymore Facebook already does this with driver's licenses in the US in some cases.
  - 454544545 5y ago
    France does this with age-verification for porn sites. Visit pornhub via French vpn to see.
smt88 5y ago
He said he's a "free speech absolutist," which is an obvious lie. But if we take him at face value, then free speech must include people paid by foreign governments to post pre-written messages. That definition of free speech isn't even alien to the US. Corporations' freedom of speech in this country is protected even when it includes paying other people to speak.
- cad1 5y ago
  An absolutist wouldn't have an issue with a teenager posting public flight data about his jet. Given his maturity level, it wouldn't surprise me if the entire stock purchase started as an attempt to shut down @elonmuskjet.
antattack 5y ago
On 4/9 Musk twitted that he would be in favor of $2/month fee for verified account, paid annually to deter bots.

Consultant32452 5y ago

I think most people forget or are unaware that Twitter was dying before Trump came in and made it an essential platform for every politician and media outlet. My bet is that engagement is down with all the moderation. This is not an endorsement of Trump, just an acknowledgement of what made Twitter huge/powerful in the first place.

onion2k 5y ago

Assuming Musk did take over Twitter, he wouldn't need to be much of a distraction. He could dictate a few rules (don't moderate Twitter, don't ban anyone, etc.) and then leave the company to function as it did before. Not really. One of the hard things about changing the course of a company is that you actually need people to do the things you want them to do. That means actually being hands on and checking things are getting done. Otherwise people will nod and agree in meetings and then just carry on as they were before. This is especially hard if people are resistant to the changes you want to make. Taking over and issuing commands doesn't work unless people have nowhere else to go. If Elon tried that at Twitter there would probably be an exodus of engineering and ops people.

PixyMisa 5y ago
Small loss.
- nebula8804 5y ago
  Bigger than you think. Every right wing "free speech" platform has collapsed in flames partially because it seems like the majority of their people do not have the experience to build and run such a platform. I am reminded of the elementary mistakes made in the design of Parler.
smt88 5y ago
> One of the hard things about changing the course of a company is that you actually need people to do the things you want them to do. Dorsey chose not to ban Trump, and then he did. That was a huge change for Twitter, and it didn't seem to rock the boat at the company at all. Twitter also didn't ban politicians at all for a long time. That was another major policy change that Musk could simply revert back.
- onion2k 5y ago
  Dorsey chose not to ban Trump, and then he did. That was a huge change for Twitter, and it didn't seem to rock the boat at the company at all. This is (probably) a good example of why it's hard. Dorsey understood that banning Trump would have been problematic, so he didn't. He, and probably others, worked to change the company internally to be somewhere where they could do that. Rather than do it and then deal with the fallout he worked to steer the company to be more open to being to be somewhere without Trump. Then he could ban Trump without the fallout. That's how you change a company. Buying a big chunk of it and then issuing decrees about how it works now is much less likely to work. No doubt Elon understands that completely, and has no intention of doing it. He'll work to move Twitter in the direction he wants, maybe with the help of others, until he can then claim to have changed it overnight or something. He's not silly.

alex_sf 5y ago

As opposed to now where it's 98% bots posting inflammatory political content?

polski-g 5y ago

So he wants to return it to 2014 Twitter? Oh the humanity!

smsm42 5y ago
TBH I'd be also fine with returning to 2004 Twitter.
- fredoliveira 5y ago
  You mean no twitter at all? Because if that's the point, you can always do what I do with most other social networks — I just don't use them.
  - oska 5y ago
    Media has an impact in the world we live in even without our participation
  - smsm42 5y ago
    Right. But sometimes people who have interesting information choose, for reasons incomprehensible to me, to publish it on twitter. I use nitter.net to get to it, but if they have chosen a less horrible platform it'd be even better.

PixyMisa 5y ago

The amount of moderation is a completely separate question from whether that moderation is even-handed and the moderators truthful. Nobody wants bots, but those are not the question in moderation discussions.

454544545 5y ago

I don't think people are outraged about "bots" being moderated. It's more about huge accounts with non-liberal views like Trump.