5 ms·
> First, none of our policies have changed. Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speec
by Macha 4y ago
> First, none of our policies have changed. Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
"Nothing has changed, except..."
> Our Trust & Safety team continues its diligent work to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct, abusive behavior, and any violation of Twitter's rules. The team remains strong and well-resourced, and automated detection plays an increasingly important role in eliminating abuse.
It's undeniably less well-resourced than it was a few weeks ago, and people's experience indicate it's clearly less effective as a result.
What a non-statement. I doubt advertisers will react the way Elon hopes they will.
- sosodev 4y agoYeah... Also, the unbanning of users previously considered hateful also directly conflicts with "to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct"
- bluescrn 4y agoRemember way back before the era of social media mob justice, when there was this concept of 'forgiveness'? At least some of the banned deserve a second chance. Those who were total monsters will probably be quickly re-banned. Others have found their own echo chambers elsewhere and won't even bother coming back.
- dagmx 4y agoBanning is usually only for repeat offenders. Usually you get multiple suspensions before the ban. Which is basically what you described and therefore is already how it works.
- cyberphobe 4y agoElon is pretty clearly unbanning violent right-wing extremists while banning rule-following accounts on the left, sometimes transparently at the direction of the right wingers. Why do you insist on pretending anything else?
- memish 4y agoSpeaking of "pretending", that is false on both counts.
- cyberphobe 4y agoexcellent argument, you sure changed my mind
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hatefulmoron 4y agoCan't you see the irony in this when you didn't offer any evidence?
- d23 4y agoHe unbanned a right wing extremist who attempted to use Twitter to overthrow the government.
- jeffbee 4y agoTwitter 2.0 is banning accounts as soon as Andy Ngo, the galaxy's biggest liar, demands they be banned. https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-ngo-antifascist/ https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...
- memish 4y agoI don't see how you reached that conclusion. If you look at the referenced thread, he was reporting accounts that were inciting violence.
- jeffbee 4y agoThe article describes Ngo's claims as "misleading, factually incorrect". Which would be in keeping with literally everything Ngo has ever written.
- ABeeSea 4y agoForgiveness usually requires some level of admitting fault and contrition. I have not seen that from the hateful accounts Elon unbanned.
- jonfw 4y agoAnybody would agree with you given the following two assumptions- That these previously banned users were banned for conduct that they would consider hateful That banning users is the only way to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct If twitter disagrees with either of these statements, you can see why they would disagree with your point
- bilbo0s 4y agoProblem in the long run is that it doesn't matter whether or not Twitter believes they are hateful. Heck, it doesn't even matter if the person you're responding to thinks they are hateful. For Musk to not lose gobs and gobs of money, it only matters whether advertisers, in their sole estimation, consider those people hateful. The guys with the nine figure ad budgets will almost certainly fall on the "cautious" side of that line. The only thing that will help here is finding small, less PR minded brands or businesses to replace the players in the nine figure club. This won't be easy, but I think it is the only reasonable way forward to create the kind of Twitter that Musk seems to want to create. Having worked at "DDB Need'em" long ago, I'd set his chances of pulling that off relatively low, but I don't think it's impossible.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> For Musk to not lose gobs and gobs of money, it only matters whether advertisers, in their sole estimation, consider those people hateful. Or, more accurately, “content they don’t want their advertising seen near”.
- threeseed 4y ago> The only thing that will help here is finding small, less PR minded brands or businesses to replace the players in the nine figure club. My partner runs a small business that spends a few million on ads each year. Why would she take the risk (and it is a huge risk) of advertising on Twitter when Facebook, Google etc. give her the confidence and results her business depends on. Smaller businesses are far less likely to take risks.
- 4y ago
- lijogdfljk 4y agoYea.. how does he expect this to be interpreted? Their stance hasn't changed.. cool, except before Twitter said some people posted hateful content, and banned them. Now they unbanned them, so what is the non-change? Does twitter agree that the comments were hateful, did that not change? If didn't change, then twitter agrees they were hateful comments and twitter is now happy to have them on the platform. Musk can't keep his foot out of his mouth here it seems.. it's very confusing.
- dismantlethesun 4y agoMaybe their stance is that people shouldn't be banned forever? I personally, don't believe in eternal bans. I always hate the horror stories where someone has made a mistake and thus Google bans them from all non-related activities for life, then bans the account of anyone who gave that person privileges too. With respect to Twitter, I'd say sure Trump is an insurrectionist and a shameful individual, but it's been 2 years... while we can't all rightly forgive him, we can at least him speak his thoughts in 280 characters or less.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Maybe their stance is that people shouldn't be banned forever? They are entitled to that stance, and advertisers uncomfortable with either the actual or anticipated results of that stance are entitled to not advertise on Twitter.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- gfodor 4y agoNo, because the thing that has changed explicitly is Twitter is no longer going to ban users based on hateful conduct, but deboost their tweets.
- dragonwriter 4y agoExcept they actually keep suspending accounts for violations of the hateful content policy, specifically for Tweets with fairly mild criticism of Musk and nothing that even superficially relates to what is prohibited by the hateful content policy.
- andirk 4y agoThe idea that the suspensions are restricted to only hateful content is simply false. It's a popular lie by political propagandists who know the truth and want to push the myth of systematic distortion, and I guess your argument is a natural way for someone who has internalized that propaganda, doesn’t know the methodology, but has seen the definition to try to rationalize what they have internalized, but its just not true.
- NaturalPhallacy 4y agoSimple, just define their beliefs as hateful/hate speech, then you can ban them for hate. reddit is also great at this.
- lmm 4y agoOnly if you trust the judgement of the previous team.
- yellow_lead 4y agoFrom the same first quote - none of our policies have changed, just policy enforcement has changed. Isn't policy enforcement a part of a separate policy? The policy for policy enforcement? They really wanted to be able to say "the policy hasn't changed." This is a bigger stretch than a taffy pull.
- phpisthebest 4y agopolicy vs Procedure. you have a procedure for the policy, thus procedures can change but the policy is the same. policy's are goals, procedures are how those goals are met, and given the wide and subjective nature of all Big Tech policies, changing in procedures are more import and impactful than changes in policy, and the procedures are never open to public review
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Our Trust & Safety team continues its diligent work IIRC, between direct firings and resignations they got rid of the entire team shortly after the takeover, including at least the first head installed after the takeover and firing of the former head, so the impression of continuity this seeks to invoke is at best misleading.
- jsmith45 4y agoYeah, I'm betting that a lot of advertisers will have concerns being on a platform that does not try to delete things like hate speech, but merely "demonetize it, and negatively boost it. If I were an advertiser Twitter would be on my "never advertise here again" list, and I might re-evaluate in a decade or so. Besides look at the slimy ads have been common on twitter in the last 2 weeks. I would not want my ads showing up alongside those.