4 ms·
I agree that people take for granted just how much spam there could be if the flood gates were opened. Is there a reason you can't turn all of the bans (of leg
by orblivion 5y ago
I agree that people take for granted just how much spam there could be if the flood gates were opened.
Is there a reason you can't turn all of the bans (of legal stuff) into filters? Then users could turn on and off nazis, Q, sex, porn, etc? People could turn them all off and get the same experience as today.
- vlunkr 5y ago> Is there a reason you can't turn all of the bans (of legal stuff) into filters? Among other reasons, because Twitter is a brand with an image to maintain. They don't want to be known as a safe hangout for Nazis and other unsavory content.
- edgyquant 5y agoAt this time, however Elon is a populist and his “base” of fanboys do lean in that direction.
- jordiburgos 5y agoOr do the opposite. Change the options to show only flagged content.
- cxgjnli 5y agoThis is a reality today in the Mastodon world where some self appointed hall monitors created Fediblock to create a list of bad instances which created a shadow network of instances on the list that subscribe to each other and discover new instances to federate with using the Fediblock list
- oauea 5y agoNow you need to flag each post individually instead of just banning troublesome users.
- orblivion 5y agoOr flag the users. Of course they'll complain about being painted with a label but it's better than being banned.
- rtkwe 5y agoThat's essentially a hard AI problem of making something not human that can categorize any post in a rapidly changing cultural environment. For probably the most mutagenic category look at some of the Q nonsense that will rapidly swing from topic to topic and coopt existing conversations like "Save the Children" for their own insane ends.
- orblivion 5y agoYou can filter accounts instead of posts and recreate the current scenario. Those accounts will complain about it, but it at least brings them back on board without hurting the experience of people who don't want to see them. That said, they are already auto-flagging posts to some extent.
- rtkwe 5y agoMaintaining that list is extremely tedious work and pushing that down to the individual user just drives people away. Users don't want to constantly filter and block an ever growing list of spam, bot, and troll accounts. Parlor/Gab/et al essentially tried this "let the users block" method and it failed practically immediately and they've all instituted some sort of content moderation or just disappeared.
- orblivion 5y agoI'm saying let Twitter do the work of blocking those users. Instead of hitting the "ban" button as they do now, they hit the "Nazi" button. Now they're Nazis and everyone who says "I don't want to see Nazis" won't see them. It's not any more work on the user's part. And I haven't seen a reason that this is any more tedious work on Twitter's part than the work they do blocking it. Maybe one argument is that Nazis are more likely to post illegal stuff, so banning them early preempts the work of looking for reasons to ban them later.
- rtkwe 5y agoPeople already abuse flagging systems to try to push people off Twitter and Youtube so Twitter will need something to deal with people false flagging posts or the "no XXXX" filter will be useless.