3 ms·

The people who make these decisions, who are the ones signing off on this sort of thing? Somehow I doubt this went to the board of directors level to ask if th

The people who make these decisions, who are the ones signing off on this sort of thing? Somehow I doubt this went to the board of directors level to ask if they have sign-off on low-key blocking a head of state in a market publicly-traded Twitter Inc. is active in.

akomtu 4y ago
It's a VP level thing. Some lowly offshore "content watcher" flags suspicious posts, the important flags bubble up in a email chain to a VP, who makes the decision. That's for high visibility dissenters. This email chain is discoverable if anyone bothers to sue and convince the judge.
- Arnt 4y ago
  Or ML. If a user/keyword/whatever gets negative karma because previously-blocked nazis fawn over it, newly posted Giorgia Meloni videos will carry a heavy burden, even if that particular video isn't anything to complain about. The ML will guess that the nazis are going to like it, and load the new videos with negative karma.
  - akomtu 4y ago
    Oh, please. I've seen this in action. If ML is used, it's only to flag suspicious posts: bans are handed by corp managers.
    - undoware 4y ago
      Yes, but it's a shadow ban. Thinking aloud, I suppose there are three kinds of bans: 1 - Actual, explicit bans (formal) 2 - Intentional shadowbans (decided by humans) 3 - De-facto shadowbans (unintentional artifacts of ML vertex weighting) Note that the possibility of 3 occurs even if human intervention is needed to act upon the posts flagged by the ML --- the ML is, in effect, driving the 'attentional map' of the content moderator. So this specific incident would probably be a case of #3, but it makes people angrier if you suggest it's #2, so that's what people are doing.
- epivosism 4y ago
  In the leaked Elon texts, there were mentions of a suspected cabal that would keep these kind of decisions from the board. So I'm not so sure that leaders trust their own censorship orgs to do the right thing.

akomtu 4y ago

It's a VP level thing. Some lowly offshore "content watcher" flags suspicious posts, the important flags bubble up in a email chain to a VP, who makes the decision. That's for high visibility dissenters. This email chain is discoverable if anyone bothers to sue and convince the judge.

Arnt 4y ago
Or ML. If a user/keyword/whatever gets negative karma because previously-blocked nazis fawn over it, newly posted Giorgia Meloni videos will carry a heavy burden, even if that particular video isn't anything to complain about. The ML will guess that the nazis are going to like it, and load the new videos with negative karma.
- akomtu 4y ago
  Oh, please. I've seen this in action. If ML is used, it's only to flag suspicious posts: bans are handed by corp managers.
  - undoware 4y ago
    Yes, but it's a shadow ban. Thinking aloud, I suppose there are three kinds of bans: 1 - Actual, explicit bans (formal) 2 - Intentional shadowbans (decided by humans) 3 - De-facto shadowbans (unintentional artifacts of ML vertex weighting) Note that the possibility of 3 occurs even if human intervention is needed to act upon the posts flagged by the ML --- the ML is, in effect, driving the 'attentional map' of the content moderator. So this specific incident would probably be a case of #3, but it makes people angrier if you suggest it's #2, so that's what people are doing.
epivosism 4y ago
In the leaked Elon texts, there were mentions of a suspected cabal that would keep these kind of decisions from the board. So I'm not so sure that leaders trust their own censorship orgs to do the right thing.