4 ms·
There's still a question of how "negative/hate" is defined and whether this will be transparent. I'm skeptical, but the general principle of discouraging and no
by memish 4y ago
There's still a question of how "negative/hate" is defined and whether this will be transparent. I'm skeptical, but the general principle of discouraging and not profiting from negativity is, uh, positive.
- kweingar 4y agoNegativity is an extremely broad concept. There is no chance that “negative” tweets will be uniformly deboosted. Will Elon deboost tweets from Ukrainians condemning Russian war crimes? Will he deboost his own negative tweets toward US politicians? Will he deboost US politicians’ tweets criticizing the other party? Will he deboost tweets critical of his management of Twitter? Discouraging “negativity” necessarily means “discouraging negativity based on some ideological priors”
- ibejoeb 4y agoWant to make some money? Users can pay to boost their own tweets. But I think that's just advertising...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sn0w_crash 4y agoWe have laws that define this. What changed was that a small group of technocrats took it upon themselves that any questioning of their ideology was “hate speech.”
- pessimizer 4y agoWe have bad laws that badly define this. The US has done no better than Musk at defining "hate."
- brookst 4y agoDisagree. We don't have laws banning hate speech. We have laws that allow "hate" to be an aggravating factors in crimes. And we have juries to determine whether the application of hate crime statutes is appropriate for a particular crime. US laws are wildly imperfect, but the laws are at least applied by people rather than algorithms.
- coffeebeqn 4y agoAh yes the 69th amendment - no negative speech
- FollowingTheDao 4y ago"negative/hate" will be defined by the advertisers.
- pixl97 4y agoThey who pay the bills set the rules.