3 ms·

The important thing is that humans review algorithmic bans, not review every tweet.

• lapcat 4y ago
  That's still a huge number. Twitter doesn't make enough revenue to hire enough people to do that intelligently.
  • mschuster91 4y ago
    Then they have to raise money? You can't operate a chemical factory without paying for adequate measures to prevent spewing toxic waste into common resources like air and water, so why should you be allowed to run a facility that spews toxic hate into societies without establishing adequate protection?! If there is one thing that made the internet so toxic, it was services labeled as "free" that in reality were nothing more than avenues for advertisers to shove ads down our throats, with the cost being our societies breaking apart as a result of all the lone village nutcases suddenly unifying themselves and no one paying for the virtual equivalent of the police to make sure the nutcases don't create chaos.
    • lapcat 4y ago
      > Then they have to raise money? I think they're trying. ;-) To be clear, I'm not defending Twitter. If I was in charge, I would actually shut down Twitter for the benefit of the world. My point is just the basic financial fact that Twitter doesn't have enough money to do this, and thus they won't, indeed can't.