5 ms·

Agree. The big one you missed is identity. Most hate is anonymous. Being able to filter by tags like “known racist” or whatever, and seeing someone’s history o

by dd36 4y ago

Agree. The big one you missed is identity. Most hate is anonymous. Being able to filter by tags like “known racist” or whatever, and seeing someone’s history of sharing misinformation is useful but most people would self-censor if their identity was known or other users would filter out those that won’t identify. What I wonder is what Musk will do if he finds out the scales are artificially weighted towards conservative content. Like if conservative content is artificially boosted by bots and algorithms. Facebook was much more liberal before thumbs were put on the scale. I don’t remember when but I think it was Mother Jones that saw huge traffic movement changes after algo changes like a decade ago? https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/17/21520634/facebook-reportedly-choked-traffic-mother-jones-zuckerberg https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/17/21520634/facebook-report... Like what if the natural state of humanity is much more liberal than the American media and social media allow for? Will Musk allow that or will he see anything that doesn’t align with his views as error or manipulation? What if a truly free and transparent self-moderating platform naturally promotes leftism more than a moderated but manipulated feed does?

madeofpalk 4y ago
A study showed that people are more aggressive online when using their real name > Results show that in the context of online firestorms, non-anonymous individuals are more aggressive compared to anonymous individuals. This effect is reinforced if selective incentives are present and if aggressors are intrinsically motivated. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155923 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- dd36 4y ago
  Weird but I still think Elon’s idea of needing confirmed identity for a checkmark is solid. If anonymous users then are nicer than checkmarked users, I guess the filter will work in reverse? The elimination of bots will be nice if they can do it.
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    Requiring validated identity is anti free speech. There's been so many words spilled online about how terrible of an idea it is to require confirmed identities for online. Recently, see https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/1576274615231401984 https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/1576274615231401984 or more casually https://www.garbageday.email/p/oh-cool-were-talking-about-anonymity https://www.garbageday.email/p/oh-cool-were-talking-about-an... > Generally, if your solution is virtually indistinguishable from one of the systems the Chines government is using to keep people in line, your solution is bad.
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      How do you know that requiring identity is anti free speech? Not everyone online is Iranian political dissident. Sure, some people claim that you can't have free speech when your identity is known but I don't see any solid reasoning behind it. Mike Masnick in his tweets repeats some talking points but there's no cohesive argument.
      - dd36 4y ago
        And AFAIK an anonymous political dissident wouldn’t want a blue checkmark? Furthermore, there can be layers of anonymity. There can be anonymous publicly but not to Twitter. That’s dangerous given that Twitter cannot protect your identity from a state actor accessing its internal systems. Thus, again, why would you want a checkmark as a dissident.
        mrtksn 4y ago
        Again, not every speech revolves around political dissent.
        stale2002 4y ago
        Some does though. So the fact that this applies to some people means that it is an issue for those people.
mrtksn 4y ago
Wouldn't self censor solve the problems just as well as deleting content? See, because we don't say everything that comes to our mind, we are able to interact in a civil manner with people that can have any kind of opinions. In real life, I'm sometimes shocked that someone is a total bigot. However, when civility is established we can discuss these ideas too and instead of having these people being toxic these ideas can be expressed in a civil manner and discussed. Maybe they have a point sometimes? If they do, it can be dully noted and if they don't they will be exposed to the counter arguments. Also, when ideas are expressed in civil manners, people don't label other people straight as "bigot", "racists" and accept the nuances. In fact, some prominent right-wing people are doing that, people like Jordan Peterson. Because the guy is civil, he is effective and it's up to the rest to contradict his claims in civil manners. So yes, it is alright to have some self restraint and think before you speak. It's definitely much better than oppressing it. edit: the comment I responded was a bit different, I guess the OP added more thoughts.

by dd36 4y ago

madeofpalk 4y ago

A study showed that people are more aggressive online when using their real name > Results show that in the context of online firestorms, non-anonymous individuals are more aggressive compared to anonymous individuals. This effect is reinforced if selective incentives are present and if aggressors are intrinsically motivated. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155923 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

dd36 4y ago
Weird but I still think Elon’s idea of needing confirmed identity for a checkmark is solid. If anonymous users then are nicer than checkmarked users, I guess the filter will work in reverse? The elimination of bots will be nice if they can do it.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  Requiring validated identity is anti free speech. There's been so many words spilled online about how terrible of an idea it is to require confirmed identities for online. Recently, see https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/1576274615231401984 https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/1576274615231401984 or more casually https://www.garbageday.email/p/oh-cool-were-talking-about-anonymity https://www.garbageday.email/p/oh-cool-were-talking-about-an... > Generally, if your solution is virtually indistinguishable from one of the systems the Chines government is using to keep people in line, your solution is bad.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    How do you know that requiring identity is anti free speech? Not everyone online is Iranian political dissident. Sure, some people claim that you can't have free speech when your identity is known but I don't see any solid reasoning behind it. Mike Masnick in his tweets repeats some talking points but there's no cohesive argument.
    - dd36 4y ago
      And AFAIK an anonymous political dissident wouldn’t want a blue checkmark? Furthermore, there can be layers of anonymity. There can be anonymous publicly but not to Twitter. That’s dangerous given that Twitter cannot protect your identity from a state actor accessing its internal systems. Thus, again, why would you want a checkmark as a dissident.
      - mrtksn 4y ago
        Again, not every speech revolves around political dissent.
        stale2002 4y ago
        Some does though. So the fact that this applies to some people means that it is an issue for those people.

mrtksn 4y ago

Wouldn't self censor solve the problems just as well as deleting content? See, because we don't say everything that comes to our mind, we are able to interact in a civil manner with people that can have any kind of opinions. In real life, I'm sometimes shocked that someone is a total bigot. However, when civility is established we can discuss these ideas too and instead of having these people being toxic these ideas can be expressed in a civil manner and discussed. Maybe they have a point sometimes? If they do, it can be dully noted and if they don't they will be exposed to the counter arguments. Also, when ideas are expressed in civil manners, people don't label other people straight as "bigot", "racists" and accept the nuances. In fact, some prominent right-wing people are doing that, people like Jordan Peterson. Because the guy is civil, he is effective and it's up to the rest to contradict his claims in civil manners. So yes, it is alright to have some self restraint and think before you speak. It's definitely much better than oppressing it. edit: the comment I responded was a bit different, I guess the OP added more thoughts.