4 ms·
Allowed to tweet things that are objectively against the rules if they politically lean a certain way. Outsized attention given to harmless shitposting at Holl
by Karunamon 4y ago
Allowed to tweet things that are objectively against the rules if they politically lean a certain way.
Outsized attention given to harmless shitposting at Hollywood actors while Iranian terrorists are allowed to post propaganda unchecked despite reports.
Selective application of rules against things like "hacked content" used against certain politicians and organizations with certain political leanings but not others (in one case leading to the censorship of a .gov domain even over direct messages).
Verification badges issued to nobody journalists and sometimes for monetary compensation in contravention of their stated policy.
The existence of shadow banning which was lied about in Congress before leaked screenshots of the backend tools showed that multiple kinds of shadow bans exist.
Manual manipulation of the ostensibly algorithmic trending list.
It is hard for me to even imagine a way in which Twitter's moderation could possibly be any less fair or transparent.
- themitigating 4y agoDo you have proof of this?
- Karunamon 4y agoI sure do. One day I might write up a full article on it, but this is the summary you asked for. In the meantime I would ask you to remember that HN is not a journal, a debate stage, or an encyclopedia article, instead it is an informal discussion on the internet. As such, participants are allowed to recount things from memory.
- metadat 4y agoI'm also interested in any concrete examples you can link us to.
- themitigating 4y agoIn an informal discussion citing sources for disputed information is normal. I also don't need a longer version of your claims, I want credible sources to back up them up. How do I know you're not lying? I think you've been lied to so many times about this that you think it's true. A common tactic with right wing media. See hunter biden crimes in china, election fraud, etc
- Karunamon 4y ago>How do I know you're not lying? Assumption of good faith and an understanding of the obvious fact that not everything that happened on the Internet gets written about by a "credible source" (which often is a synonym for "the media", and given your unwarranted partisan swipe there, likely a synonym for "the media that agrees with me"). At least one of the things I mentioned above, namely fruitless reporting of terrorist content (where I specifically was the person clicking on the report button) while the CEO got involved with a Hollywood star's gripes, is something I was involved in. What source would even possibly exist? You can either take my word for it as someone that's been here for over 10 years and isn't in the habit of making shit up, or you can not.
- metadat 4y agoHaving no sources makes it difficult or impossible to move the conversation forward in a meaningful way. What is the point of sharing stories with no credible backing or linkage back to reality? "Ah, I hear what you're saying. That's interesting." It's not that I doubt your honesty, it's an issue of not enough information or context to figure out anything substantial at all.
- moistly 4y agoThe root question is “How was the moderation unfair?” Examples were provided. If you do not doubt their honesty, then you agree that unfair moderation took place.
- metadat 4y agoYes that sounds unfair. I'd like to be able to review the cases to see it with my own eyes, so we have the proof to say unequivocally "they are lying to us".
- themitigating 4y agoThey could think they are telling the truth but are being manipulayed.