12 ms·
Let each user block what they don’t want to see. With filters, ai, etc. Don’t have a centralized “overlord” decide what an individual is allowed to see. That sh
by coffeeblack 4y ago
Let each user block what they don’t want to see. With filters, ai, etc. Don’t have a centralized “overlord” decide what an individual is allowed to see. That should be obvious and not controversial.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- programmarchy 4y agoYeah this makes the most sense. There’s probably enough local compute power to run these filters on the client. But that’s a huge power shift and the change is likely more political than technological.
- lanstin 4y agoDoubtful. With the rise of natural language spam, you have to analyze it in terms of networks or social graphs of bots reinforcing each other. E.g. a lot of bots will comment positively on other bots spam posts, in a manner very similar to my agreeing with some human. It is data bounded, not compute bounded. Will Twitter be forced to open their full internal conversation graph, including using real IPs probably for accurate targeting, to companies writing spam modules? It seems weirdly implausible.
- hedora 4y agoYelp's not recommended reviews are a great example of why this is data bounded (assuming Yelp's filter is halfway decent).
- CJefferson 4y agoHaving run a mail server, I don't think it's reasonable to expect most people to contain the deluge of spam and phishing attacks they would get if just told them to "sort it out" themselves.
- adventured 4y agoThere's a very simple solution that works very well with social media for that. You don't receive the OP's messages unless you are friends him them, or change your default settings to allow strangers to message you.
- hedora 4y agoOr, like linkedin: Charge a small amount to send messages to non-friends.
- ajvs 4y agoOr following the mail example, adopt a spam control mechanism that doesn't require coding it yourself.
- coffeeblack 4y agoYou misunderstood. Don’t require users to build their bubbles, but have providers offer bubbles for a user to choose from. You could even have external bubble providers that offer different technologies and qualities of filters. Just don’t have one centralised overlord.
- tcgv 4y agoThis is a great answer, and I think it would be relatively straightforward to create filters for potential bot/spammer accounts that used this strategy (ex: high comment frequency, using similar text patterns and engaging mostly in an unidirectional way) and make it available for users to enable it.
- ineptech 4y ago"Hey Twitter, please block this crap" is users trying to block what they don't want to see. Blocking unpopular content doesn't become a political act just because one side produces more of it than the other.
- catiopatio 4y ago> "Hey Twitter, please block this crap" is users trying to block what they don't want to see. No, it's users trying to censor what they don't want other people to be permitted to say or see. Twitter users have a "block" button; they're free to use it, and thus limit what they themselves will see.
- ineptech 4y agoBeing kicked off Twitter isn't the same as being silenced.
- catiopatio 4y agoWhat would you call it?
- the_jesus_villa 4y agoWell, here in Guatemala journalists are being silenced, and it doesn't mean they're being kicked off Twitter. I really hate big tech censorship, but you're naivete about the impact of "being silenced" reminds me of this part from Days and Nights of Love and of War >Perdí varias cosas en Buenos Aires... No me quejo. Con tantas personas perdidas, llorar por las cosas sería como faltarle el respeto al dolor. Translates roughly as: >I lost various things in Buenos Aires... I don't complain. With so many people lost, to cry over things seemed to lack respect for suffering. In a kind of similar vein, you're complaint about Twitter users being silenced lacks some respect for people who are actually being silenced. Although I agree with your underlying sentiment.
- 4y ago
- rocqua 4y agoI have argued similarly, based on comparisons with editorial decisions of newspapers in the days of yore. You could pick which opinions were amplified or shunned by picking your newspaper. On Twitter, you are stuck with the decisions made by Twitter. Saying 'just start Twitter competitors' would lose us the universal platform of Twitter and create more walled gardens. Instead, let people pick their moderators / editorialization.
- fluidcruft 4y agoI thought the sites need to not have editorial control so that they are not responsible for user's content.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ekianjo 4y agoThis kind of thing wouls never be a problem in the first place if social network stopped shoving in your face content from people you dont follow. The are de facto acting as publishers because of that.
- hedora 4y agoIf only we had centuries of established case law regarding publishers and liability...
- uni_rule 4y agoSo client side moderation like Usenet?
- mindcandy 4y agoDon’t think about this in the abstract. You have to make it concrete. Go make a service. Like a photo-sharing service. A service like that should obviously feature user comments, right? And, then users start posting millions of blatant racist, misogynistic, pedophilic and false shock propaganda comments. But, if you decide you don’t want to personally spend your own money propagating this repulsive material using your own servers, large men with guns and dogs will drag you into a cage. That’s what these laws mean. Don’t sugar-coat them.
- coffeeblack 4y agoNo they don’t.
- BlueTemplar 4y agoIt "should", yet somehow "use protocols not platforms, platforms are evil" is not a particularly popular point of view...