3 ms·

I believe that Twitter is 2 top-down edicts away from drastically improving their efficiency with fewer employees. 1) Dramatically reducing the size and scope

I believe that Twitter is 2 top-down edicts away from drastically improving their efficiency with fewer employees. 1) Dramatically reducing the size and scope of the speech rules they implement to something akin to "If the speech is legal in a country, then it's legal on Twitter" would reduce technical and operating complexity. Between developing the technical infrastructure to automate restrictions and bans, to having staff trying to judge all sorts of petty bickering between groups trying to take advantage of the rules to report and ban their rivals, I feel like Twitter is wasting a large amount of resources on stuff that they shouldn't even be trying to do. A smaller team could focus on the essentials: removing illegal content and responding quickly to actual issues of safety (stuff like death threats that might pose an imminent harm). Hell, I feel like Twitter is so involved in trying to get involved in Internet drama and disputes that they currently do a mediocre job on actually dealing with genuine safety issues. 2) I realize that the infrastructure to run a site as large as Twitter isn't trivial to maintain, but for a site that has so few real user-facing features, it's kind of surprising that their technical team is so large. If somebody just laser-focused them on a clearly defined set of important features and policies for the business to execute on, it seems like Twitter should be able to move much faster on the handful of things that are core to their business.

greendude29 4y ago
> I feel like There's your problem. You're feeling more than realizing. Twitter's most complex problems aren't infrastruture; it's adhering to various national laws on language while trying to keep hate speech off as well (they are doing a terrible job at this of course). But saying that they should just allow "free speech" is an extreme oversimplification and lacks an understanding of jurisdictions outside the US.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  I'm not sure why your word-salad was a necessary response given that I explicitly said that they should remove illegal content where required.
  - greendude29 4y ago
    > Dramatically reducing the size and scope of the speech rules they implement to something akin to "If the speech is legal in a country, then it's legal on Twitter" would reduce technical and operating complexity. Between developing the technical infrastructure to automate restrictions and bans, to having staff trying to judge all sorts of petty bickering between groups trying to take advantage of the rules to report and ban their rivals, I feel like Twitter is wasting a large amount of resources on stuff that they shouldn't even be trying to do. A smaller team could focus on the essentials: removing illegal content and responding quickly to actual issues of safety (stuff like death threats that might pose an imminent harm). Hell, I feel like Twitter is so involved in trying to get involved in Internet drama and disputes that they currently do a mediocre job on actually dealing with genuine safety issues. You say that Twitter can reduce its operational load by doing what exactly what it is already doing. What "Internet drama" is Twitter trying to get involved in?
    - logicalmonster 4y ago
      > What "Internet drama" is Twitter trying to get involved in? Twitter's rules are weaponized by people that hate each other. Whether it's lone individuals or people using Discord and other social media to organize raids, petty people love reporting their rivals on Twitter for anything and everything purely to harm their account. They can do this because they know that Twitter is trying to regulate speech beyond what is legally required so there's a chance that this tactic can work. Trying to regulate speech beyond legal requirements is an open invitation for this type of behavior.
      - andsoitis 4y ago
        But don’t they also have to balance commercial concerns, i.e. advertiser willingness to pay?
        logicalmonster 4y ago
        This is the one semi-reasonable retort presented here. Let's say that Twitter does go to something like "all legal speech is allowed on Twitter" policy. What happens to their business? Well, nobody can predict the future. Maybe their business prospects instantly crash and burn. But I think that Twitter is the unofficial brain of the planet and there's no alternative for all of the grifters out there. Celebrities, journalists, and corporations might talk a big game, but would they walk the walk? They would have to be willing to go without the network of attention they've built up. The question might become, "Can Musk mentally withstand a few days/weeks of intense derision until something else hits the news cycle"?
pmontra 4y ago
Aren't these two things contradictory? 1. "If the speech is legal in a country , then it's legal on Twitter" 2. "the essentials: removing illegal content" Maybe also "and responding quickly to actual issues of safety".
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > Aren't these two things contradictory? No. Twitter's terms of use and acceptable conduct policy goes far beyond what they're legally required to remove.

greendude29 4y ago

> I feel like There's your problem. You're feeling more than realizing. Twitter's most complex problems aren't infrastruture; it's adhering to various national laws on language while trying to keep hate speech off as well (they are doing a terrible job at this of course). But saying that they should just allow "free speech" is an extreme oversimplification and lacks an understanding of jurisdictions outside the US.

logicalmonster 4y ago
I'm not sure why your word-salad was a necessary response given that I explicitly said that they should remove illegal content where required.
- greendude29 4y ago
  > Dramatically reducing the size and scope of the speech rules they implement to something akin to "If the speech is legal in a country, then it's legal on Twitter" would reduce technical and operating complexity. Between developing the technical infrastructure to automate restrictions and bans, to having staff trying to judge all sorts of petty bickering between groups trying to take advantage of the rules to report and ban their rivals, I feel like Twitter is wasting a large amount of resources on stuff that they shouldn't even be trying to do. A smaller team could focus on the essentials: removing illegal content and responding quickly to actual issues of safety (stuff like death threats that might pose an imminent harm). Hell, I feel like Twitter is so involved in trying to get involved in Internet drama and disputes that they currently do a mediocre job on actually dealing with genuine safety issues. You say that Twitter can reduce its operational load by doing what exactly what it is already doing. What "Internet drama" is Twitter trying to get involved in?
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    > What "Internet drama" is Twitter trying to get involved in? Twitter's rules are weaponized by people that hate each other. Whether it's lone individuals or people using Discord and other social media to organize raids, petty people love reporting their rivals on Twitter for anything and everything purely to harm their account. They can do this because they know that Twitter is trying to regulate speech beyond what is legally required so there's a chance that this tactic can work. Trying to regulate speech beyond legal requirements is an open invitation for this type of behavior.
    - andsoitis 4y ago
      But don’t they also have to balance commercial concerns, i.e. advertiser willingness to pay?
      - logicalmonster 4y ago
        This is the one semi-reasonable retort presented here. Let's say that Twitter does go to something like "all legal speech is allowed on Twitter" policy. What happens to their business? Well, nobody can predict the future. Maybe their business prospects instantly crash and burn. But I think that Twitter is the unofficial brain of the planet and there's no alternative for all of the grifters out there. Celebrities, journalists, and corporations might talk a big game, but would they walk the walk? They would have to be willing to go without the network of attention they've built up. The question might become, "Can Musk mentally withstand a few days/weeks of intense derision until something else hits the news cycle"?

pmontra 4y ago

Aren't these two things contradictory? 1. "If the speech is legal in a country , then it's legal on Twitter" 2. "the essentials: removing illegal content" Maybe also "and responding quickly to actual issues of safety".

logicalmonster 4y ago
> Aren't these two things contradictory? No. Twitter's terms of use and acceptable conduct policy goes far beyond what they're legally required to remove.