4 ms·

>Twitter is high profile, but there are a million businesses most have never heard of that have a similar lack of information security. Why should a $30B cap t

by scythe 4y ago

>Twitter is high profile, but there are a million businesses most have never heard of that have a similar lack of information security. Why should a $30B cap tech company with the power to influence elections be held to the same standards as "never heard of" businesses?

Maursault 4y ago
> with the power to influence elections 23% of Americans claim to use Twitter. 61% of Americans voted in the last Presidential election. So Twitter's influence, if it exists, could only be over 14% of weak-minded Americans. That's at best, if every one of those 14% was really a Twitter user and was actually bamboozled into changing their vote. The reality is that most Twitter users are not obsessed with the platform, and most Americans are not on the fence with their votes. The premise that Twitter has the power to influence elections is false.
- endtime 4y ago
  Among other flaws in this comment, like the assumption that Twitter has no indirect effects on people who aren't active Twitter users, or ignoring the fact that one of the candidates in the last election was a huge Twitter user, is the surprising assumption that the 61% and 23% are totally uncorrelated.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    - endtime 4y ago
      I don't think you read my comment very carefully, because I didn't say "huge effect" anywhere and I don't think I made any claims that could be construed as hyperbole. The only thing I said which expressed any magnitude at all was that Donald Trump was a huge user of the platform, which I think is pretty defensible.
      - Maursault 4y ago
        It is hyperbole to claim Twitter is influential in this manner, which is to implicitly suggest that the 23% of Americans that claim to be Twitter users will swing an election because it would require significant amounts of those 23% of Twitter-using Americans to be bamboozled into changing their vote and then vote together en masse, which IMO is absurd, because they're not all of one party. It is hyperbole to suggest that Twitter is influencing non-Twitter users into changing their votes. It is even further hyperbole to suggest that Trump's Twitter use had any effect on the election other than to cause him to lose the popular vote by nearly 5%, more than twice the margin of his performance in the 2016 election. Voters can be fooled, but the trick is not permanent, and they will not be doomed to believe foolish and false facts terminally. Maybe even some voters were fooled into voting based on false reports leading to lingering false beliefs. But to suggest there is some army of idiots swinging elections is ludicrous and frankly paranoid. Liberals vote Democrat. Conservatives vote Republican. Even if any of them are fooled into believing false information, they do not change their votes. Anyone that crossed party lines did not do so on a whim. And moderates are skeptical and less likely to take false information seriously. For what it's worth, I apologize for misrepresenting your statement, which I promise you was not due to malice and only due to my poor comprehension.
- nl 4y ago
  Ignoring the vast research showing that fake news spread on Twitter correlates with voting intentions for the moment there are more direct ways of showing immediate election influence: the number of candidates who have withdrawn from elections after something happened on Twitter. [1] is a recent example. To quote: > Leading Florida Democrats are walking back their endorsement of Naomi Blemur after past Facebook posts showed the Agriculture Commissioner candidate calling abortion a sin and promoting or defending anti-gay comments. > Screenshots shared on Twitter showed a history of social media comments that some Democrats are calling “anti-choice” and “homophobic.” Prominent Democrats began retracting their endorsements or denouncing Blemur after her post history came to light. To say that Twitter has no power to influence elections is demonstrably false when information shared on Twitter led directly to endorsements being withdrawn. [1] https://floridapolitics.com/archives/544897-democrats-rescind-naomi-blemur-endorsements-after-anti-choice-homophobic-posts-emerge/ https://floridapolitics.com/archives/544897-democrats-rescin...
  - Maursault 4y ago
    You are confusing the information with Twitter's allegedly having vast influence. It is incidental what actual facts were broadcast on Twitter, as they could just as easily have been broadcast on classic media. It isn't Twitter that is influential, it is the information.
    - nl 4y ago
      Oh, so it's the "no true Scotsman" argument? It's not influence if it's actual facts? Even if they hadn't been exposed via other methods?
      - Maursault 4y ago
        > Oh, so it's the "no true Scotsman" argument? It's not influence if it's actual facts? Even if they hadn't been exposed via other methods? No, and your explanation does not describe a no true Scotsman fallacy. Your previous comment, beyond confusing the effect news can have with Twitter's alleged influence, also employs a post hoc fallacy. Your most recent comment is a both the non sequitur and straw man fallacies.
- staticassertion 4y ago
  At best 23% of Americans, ie: all Twitter users, voted.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    But only 60% voted in the last election, more than ever before. If 100% voted, we could assume all 23% would vote. Usually only about 50% ever vote in any US election, so I was giving the benefit of the doubt that voting numbers would remain high. 60% of 23% is 14%.
    - scythe 4y ago
      Statistics do not work that way. You can't simply assume being on Twitter and voting are uncorrelated.
      - Maursault 4y ago
        I can draw Venn diagrams to make the same point.
- brigandish 4y ago
  What percentage of journalists use Twitter? If it’s 100%, as I suspect, then it doesn’t matter if only some small proportion of users are experiencing viral information on the platform because journalists are essentially superspreaders, who in my estimation are just as, if not more so, susceptible to misinformation than the average person.

by scythe 4y ago

Maursault 4y ago

> with the power to influence elections 23% of Americans claim to use Twitter. 61% of Americans voted in the last Presidential election. So Twitter's influence, if it exists, could only be over 14% of weak-minded Americans. That's at best, if every one of those 14% was really a Twitter user and was actually bamboozled into changing their vote. The reality is that most Twitter users are not obsessed with the platform, and most Americans are not on the fence with their votes. The premise that Twitter has the power to influence elections is false.

endtime 4y ago
Among other flaws in this comment, like the assumption that Twitter has no indirect effects on people who aren't active Twitter users, or ignoring the fact that one of the candidates in the last election was a huge Twitter user, is the surprising assumption that the 61% and 23% are totally uncorrelated.
- Maursault 4y ago
  - endtime 4y ago
    I don't think you read my comment very carefully, because I didn't say "huge effect" anywhere and I don't think I made any claims that could be construed as hyperbole. The only thing I said which expressed any magnitude at all was that Donald Trump was a huge user of the platform, which I think is pretty defensible.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      It is hyperbole to claim Twitter is influential in this manner, which is to implicitly suggest that the 23% of Americans that claim to be Twitter users will swing an election because it would require significant amounts of those 23% of Twitter-using Americans to be bamboozled into changing their vote and then vote together en masse, which IMO is absurd, because they're not all of one party. It is hyperbole to suggest that Twitter is influencing non-Twitter users into changing their votes. It is even further hyperbole to suggest that Trump's Twitter use had any effect on the election other than to cause him to lose the popular vote by nearly 5%, more than twice the margin of his performance in the 2016 election. Voters can be fooled, but the trick is not permanent, and they will not be doomed to believe foolish and false facts terminally. Maybe even some voters were fooled into voting based on false reports leading to lingering false beliefs. But to suggest there is some army of idiots swinging elections is ludicrous and frankly paranoid. Liberals vote Democrat. Conservatives vote Republican. Even if any of them are fooled into believing false information, they do not change their votes. Anyone that crossed party lines did not do so on a whim. And moderates are skeptical and less likely to take false information seriously. For what it's worth, I apologize for misrepresenting your statement, which I promise you was not due to malice and only due to my poor comprehension.
nl 4y ago
Ignoring the vast research showing that fake news spread on Twitter correlates with voting intentions for the moment there are more direct ways of showing immediate election influence: the number of candidates who have withdrawn from elections after something happened on Twitter. [1] is a recent example. To quote: > Leading Florida Democrats are walking back their endorsement of Naomi Blemur after past Facebook posts showed the Agriculture Commissioner candidate calling abortion a sin and promoting or defending anti-gay comments. > Screenshots shared on Twitter showed a history of social media comments that some Democrats are calling “anti-choice” and “homophobic.” Prominent Democrats began retracting their endorsements or denouncing Blemur after her post history came to light. To say that Twitter has no power to influence elections is demonstrably false when information shared on Twitter led directly to endorsements being withdrawn. [1] https://floridapolitics.com/archives/544897-democrats-rescind-naomi-blemur-endorsements-after-anti-choice-homophobic-posts-emerge/ https://floridapolitics.com/archives/544897-democrats-rescin...
- Maursault 4y ago
  You are confusing the information with Twitter's allegedly having vast influence. It is incidental what actual facts were broadcast on Twitter, as they could just as easily have been broadcast on classic media. It isn't Twitter that is influential, it is the information.
  - nl 4y ago
    Oh, so it's the "no true Scotsman" argument? It's not influence if it's actual facts? Even if they hadn't been exposed via other methods?
    - Maursault 4y ago
      > Oh, so it's the "no true Scotsman" argument? It's not influence if it's actual facts? Even if they hadn't been exposed via other methods? No, and your explanation does not describe a no true Scotsman fallacy. Your previous comment, beyond confusing the effect news can have with Twitter's alleged influence, also employs a post hoc fallacy. Your most recent comment is a both the non sequitur and straw man fallacies.
staticassertion 4y ago
At best 23% of Americans, ie: all Twitter users, voted.
- Maursault 4y ago
  But only 60% voted in the last election, more than ever before. If 100% voted, we could assume all 23% would vote. Usually only about 50% ever vote in any US election, so I was giving the benefit of the doubt that voting numbers would remain high. 60% of 23% is 14%.
  - scythe 4y ago
    Statistics do not work that way. You can't simply assume being on Twitter and voting are uncorrelated.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      I can draw Venn diagrams to make the same point.
brigandish 4y ago
What percentage of journalists use Twitter? If it’s 100%, as I suspect, then it doesn’t matter if only some small proportion of users are experiencing viral information on the platform because journalists are essentially superspreaders, who in my estimation are just as, if not more so, susceptible to misinformation than the average person.