3 ms·

Does the slipperly slope argument work here? The goal of these services is to make money by remaining popular, not to ban as many people as possible. I also no

Does the slipperly slope argument work here? The goal of these services is to make money by remaining popular, not to ban as many people as possible. I also note that hackernews has stricter rules than those services. Edit: maybe the popularity of hn is because you can't attack someone and must be civil

StanislavPetrov 5y ago
>The goal of these services is to make money by remaining popular, not to ban as many people as possible. Many would argue that this isn't the case, and the "goal" of these services is actually to manage the public narrative at the behest (both directly and indirectly) of the wealthy and the powerful. Did Jeff Bezos really buy the Washington Post because he thought that it would offer the best return on his investment, or because he wanted to hold the bullhorn of one of the largest and most influential newspapers in the USA? Does Twitter choose which people to ban and what information gets promoted/demoted based on what's most popular, or based on the narrative they want to create and/or reinforce? Did the Twitter board really reject Musk's offer because it was too low or because they didn't want to give up control of the narrative to Musk?
- themitigating 5y ago
  Twitter makes money based on ads and advertisers put pressure on services if they feel pressure from the public. For example Tucker Carlson is a very popular show but 24% of the ads are for Fox news or related [1] and many advertisers have have stopped because of controversial speech [2]. Elon musk has stated that free speech is important to him. Let's assume if he purchases Twitter he'll decrease the amount of censorship. I'll make the claim that the less censorship a service has the less money it can make from advertisers. Some have suggested that, maybe Musk did himself?, that he'll start charging users for the service however a survey stated that 74% of people would prefer an ad based service, if they were forced to choose the numbers are closer depending on the age bracket [3]. I'll claim that people wouldn't pay in sufficient numbers and would flee the service. What other popular social media service requires a subscription? Therefore Twitter's action is in the best interest of the shareholders. [1] https://www.tvrev.com/news/whos-still-advertising-with-tucker-carlson-at-the-end-of-q2-2021 https://www.tvrev.com/news/whos-still-advertising-with-tucke... [2] https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/tucker-carlson-fox-news-mob-tv-advertising-1203160994/ https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/tucker-carlson-fox-news-mob... [3] https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/would-people-pay-to-use-social-media-platforms-to-avoid-data-sharing-info/575956/ https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/would-people-pay-to-us...
kmeisthax 5y ago
HackerNews also has competent and transparent moderation. The problem with large social media companies is that: 1. Due to their size and scope, publishers often have to have a presence on there (giving them market power) 2. Due to their size and scope, the platforms often fail to properly adjudicate their rules correctly, and as a policy are often opaque or outright hostile towards their users regarding moderation (you're banned, we can't tell you why, now shut up and stop doing the thing you know you did) The underlying problem is that these platforms do not properly fund their own moderation staff because it would cost too much. It's specifically the "make money by remaining popular" thing that causes this.
- briandear 5y ago
  HN doesn’t promote comments based on a secret, politically motivated algorithm. Users also don’t get banned if they express a contrarian opinion. If I post something skeptical on Covid origins or the vaccines, I won’t get banned from HN. People can downvote, reply, or ignore as they choose. Even comments that are “dead” can still be read if one chooses. There is some common sense moderation, for example calling someone a nazi or some kind of slur can get you in trouble, but ideas themselves aren’t censored. HN doesn’t “fact check.” Ideas on HN compete on their merits generally. When Twitter and friends use “fact checks” as a weapon to suppress other viewpoints, that’s the problem. The suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story right before an election is a shining example of the problem with Twitter. All sorts of “fact checkers” claimed it was a false story. Some even claimed it was a Russian plot (none of those who claimed such things had their Twitter accounts suspended by the way.) Two years later WaPo and The NY Times verified what the NY Post said all along. Hillary Clinton maintains the 2016 election was stolen. Yet she’s still on all of the socials. There are still Democrats that claim 2004 was stolen and videos of their theories are still on YouTube. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=77i_pC3lp04 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=77i_pC3lp04 The problem isn’t one of moderation. It’s a problem of so-called fact checking. Twitter, by “fact checking” has become a publisher. Moderation isn’t the same thing as fact checking. HN users do the fact checking (as opposed to HN itself,) but it’s left to the reader to decide for themselves. Secret algorithms promoting content and opaque fact checking is the real problem with Twitter.

StanislavPetrov 5y ago

>The goal of these services is to make money by remaining popular, not to ban as many people as possible. Many would argue that this isn't the case, and the "goal" of these services is actually to manage the public narrative at the behest (both directly and indirectly) of the wealthy and the powerful. Did Jeff Bezos really buy the Washington Post because he thought that it would offer the best return on his investment, or because he wanted to hold the bullhorn of one of the largest and most influential newspapers in the USA? Does Twitter choose which people to ban and what information gets promoted/demoted based on what's most popular, or based on the narrative they want to create and/or reinforce? Did the Twitter board really reject Musk's offer because it was too low or because they didn't want to give up control of the narrative to Musk?

themitigating 5y ago
Twitter makes money based on ads and advertisers put pressure on services if they feel pressure from the public. For example Tucker Carlson is a very popular show but 24% of the ads are for Fox news or related [1] and many advertisers have have stopped because of controversial speech [2]. Elon musk has stated that free speech is important to him. Let's assume if he purchases Twitter he'll decrease the amount of censorship. I'll make the claim that the less censorship a service has the less money it can make from advertisers. Some have suggested that, maybe Musk did himself?, that he'll start charging users for the service however a survey stated that 74% of people would prefer an ad based service, if they were forced to choose the numbers are closer depending on the age bracket [3]. I'll claim that people wouldn't pay in sufficient numbers and would flee the service. What other popular social media service requires a subscription? Therefore Twitter's action is in the best interest of the shareholders. [1] https://www.tvrev.com/news/whos-still-advertising-with-tucker-carlson-at-the-end-of-q2-2021 https://www.tvrev.com/news/whos-still-advertising-with-tucke... [2] https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/tucker-carlson-fox-news-mob-tv-advertising-1203160994/ https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/tucker-carlson-fox-news-mob... [3] https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/would-people-pay-to-use-social-media-platforms-to-avoid-data-sharing-info/575956/ https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/would-people-pay-to-us...

kmeisthax 5y ago

HackerNews also has competent and transparent moderation. The problem with large social media companies is that: 1. Due to their size and scope, publishers often have to have a presence on there (giving them market power) 2. Due to their size and scope, the platforms often fail to properly adjudicate their rules correctly, and as a policy are often opaque or outright hostile towards their users regarding moderation (you're banned, we can't tell you why, now shut up and stop doing the thing you know you did) The underlying problem is that these platforms do not properly fund their own moderation staff because it would cost too much. It's specifically the "make money by remaining popular" thing that causes this.

briandear 5y ago
HN doesn’t promote comments based on a secret, politically motivated algorithm. Users also don’t get banned if they express a contrarian opinion. If I post something skeptical on Covid origins or the vaccines, I won’t get banned from HN. People can downvote, reply, or ignore as they choose. Even comments that are “dead” can still be read if one chooses. There is some common sense moderation, for example calling someone a nazi or some kind of slur can get you in trouble, but ideas themselves aren’t censored. HN doesn’t “fact check.” Ideas on HN compete on their merits generally. When Twitter and friends use “fact checks” as a weapon to suppress other viewpoints, that’s the problem. The suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story right before an election is a shining example of the problem with Twitter. All sorts of “fact checkers” claimed it was a false story. Some even claimed it was a Russian plot (none of those who claimed such things had their Twitter accounts suspended by the way.) Two years later WaPo and The NY Times verified what the NY Post said all along. Hillary Clinton maintains the 2016 election was stolen. Yet she’s still on all of the socials. There are still Democrats that claim 2004 was stolen and videos of their theories are still on YouTube. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=77i_pC3lp04 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=77i_pC3lp04 The problem isn’t one of moderation. It’s a problem of so-called fact checking. Twitter, by “fact checking” has become a publisher. Moderation isn’t the same thing as fact checking. HN users do the fact checking (as opposed to HN itself,) but it’s left to the reader to decide for themselves. Secret algorithms promoting content and opaque fact checking is the real problem with Twitter.