4 ms·

How is having a direct line to Twitter the most disconcerting thing for you? Of course they have a direct line. I expect that all major political parties, the w

How is having a direct line to Twitter the most disconcerting thing for you? Of course they have a direct line. I expect that all major political parties, the white house, various legislative committees, etc... would all have a direct line to communicate with Twitter. It's explicitly said that both major parties had these lines of communication, so it's hard to see a problem with the existence of back-channel methods of contact. The only things that I'd be concerned about are (a) why is it informal? and (b) what did Twitter do about the requests? Re (a): This should not be an informal process based upon personal contacts. This should have been a well documented procedure, if for not other reason than to remove the appearance of bias. Sure, Twitter could have assigned a "case-manager" type of contact for each group. But the process for requesting such access should have been formalized (and reviewable). Re (b): Having a direct line to flag to request review/removal of posts is fine. You can request all you want. It's only an issue if Twitter felt like they couldn't reject the request. Again, because it was an informal process, it's not possible to have any sort of comprehensive statistics on who requested what, how often, and how many requests were approved. And again, the biggest benefit would have been to avoid the appearance of any bias.

beebmam 4y ago
Why shouldn't privately owned companies have the right to determine which speech they want to publish?
- mbreese 4y ago
  Who said anything about restricting speech? Many people (at least on Twitter currently) are conflating a "request" with a "demand". Just because some tweets were flagged doesn't mean they were removed. If they were removed, they might have been against the Twitter ToS and this back channel operated as a batch "report tweet" button. I "request" Twitter to remove Tweets all the time. Normally it's a spam message... sometimes they agree, sometimes they don't. My point is that as an informal mechanism, there is no way to know what was happening. We have no idea how many requests were made, and of those, how many were approved/denied/etc... That is an issue, but the request itself isn't... (Now, if any of these parties had unrestricted, automatic "veto" power over tweets they didn't like, then that would be a major issue. But thus far, I haven't seen that... but I'm still reading)
dmix 4y ago
How about neither have a direct line? Trying to say censorship is fine as long as the current party in power also gets it like the last guy isn’t a persuasive argument. You can’t abuse power you don’t have. We stopped letting monarchs control things via backroom dealings with their elite friends back in the 1700s for a good reason. Creating a system with zero transparency that’s at the whims of whoever currently has power and influence is not a healthy way to build a system of governance. Having a limited set of publicly defined powers + transparency is the only way to prevent abuse and biases. Neither an anarchist free-for-all nor a system directly controlled by elites and influence groups. Bias and power will always exist, all you can do is create systems that reduce those inherent risks in the most optimal way possible.
- mbreese 4y ago
  Backchannels can be used for good. Both parties had back channels (simultaneously), so it's not like the availability for a back channel was restricted to the party in power. And so long as we are talking "requests" and not "demands", there is no issue. The lack of transparency is an issue though, which was kinda my point... informal systems don't have transparency. But backchannels can certainly be helpful. Twitter is the backchannel for customer service for many companies. But let's take HN as another case. How many times has HN been used as an informal mechanism to get Google to fix something? There are few formal methods to contact Google customer support, so having an informal method (HN) has been quite helpful. Is this an optimal method? Certainly not, but the existence of an informal communication method to request a review of a tweet is not an issue.
  - dmix 4y ago
    Sure…backchannels can be good? But channels to do what? Google fixing broken things in the products? Sure I guess that’s good absent alternatives. A whale type customer getting a backchanel to the CEO is also good for business. Twitter using backchannels to censor what the influential parties want? I don’t see who that is valuable to. It doesn’t help Twitters business and I doubt it’s how the public expects their speech to be censored. So only really their friends at Twitter benefit? Or anoint themselves gatekeeper and public benefactor. Idk why you keep bringing up “both sides do it” as some excuse. Of course both sides have power/influence over big tech employees. Even unelected ones. It is entirely natural for established institutions and powerful individuals to have influence. That’s why you should build in protections and processes to prevent that from happening. And if you do end up doing it then be transparent… have a public list of times you censored tweets at the request of public servants and powerful individuals. It’s for the public’s good right? It’s not just about their own personal gain…right?
jasonhansel 4y ago
I would add: (c) The lack of transparency around this process.

beebmam 4y ago

Why shouldn't privately owned companies have the right to determine which speech they want to publish?

mbreese 4y ago
Who said anything about restricting speech? Many people (at least on Twitter currently) are conflating a "request" with a "demand". Just because some tweets were flagged doesn't mean they were removed. If they were removed, they might have been against the Twitter ToS and this back channel operated as a batch "report tweet" button. I "request" Twitter to remove Tweets all the time. Normally it's a spam message... sometimes they agree, sometimes they don't. My point is that as an informal mechanism, there is no way to know what was happening. We have no idea how many requests were made, and of those, how many were approved/denied/etc... That is an issue, but the request itself isn't... (Now, if any of these parties had unrestricted, automatic "veto" power over tweets they didn't like, then that would be a major issue. But thus far, I haven't seen that... but I'm still reading)

dmix 4y ago

How about neither have a direct line? Trying to say censorship is fine as long as the current party in power also gets it like the last guy isn’t a persuasive argument. You can’t abuse power you don’t have. We stopped letting monarchs control things via backroom dealings with their elite friends back in the 1700s for a good reason. Creating a system with zero transparency that’s at the whims of whoever currently has power and influence is not a healthy way to build a system of governance. Having a limited set of publicly defined powers + transparency is the only way to prevent abuse and biases. Neither an anarchist free-for-all nor a system directly controlled by elites and influence groups. Bias and power will always exist, all you can do is create systems that reduce those inherent risks in the most optimal way possible.

mbreese 4y ago
Backchannels can be used for good. Both parties had back channels (simultaneously), so it's not like the availability for a back channel was restricted to the party in power. And so long as we are talking "requests" and not "demands", there is no issue. The lack of transparency is an issue though, which was kinda my point... informal systems don't have transparency. But backchannels can certainly be helpful. Twitter is the backchannel for customer service for many companies. But let's take HN as another case. How many times has HN been used as an informal mechanism to get Google to fix something? There are few formal methods to contact Google customer support, so having an informal method (HN) has been quite helpful. Is this an optimal method? Certainly not, but the existence of an informal communication method to request a review of a tweet is not an issue.
- dmix 4y ago
  Sure…backchannels can be good? But channels to do what? Google fixing broken things in the products? Sure I guess that’s good absent alternatives. A whale type customer getting a backchanel to the CEO is also good for business. Twitter using backchannels to censor what the influential parties want? I don’t see who that is valuable to. It doesn’t help Twitters business and I doubt it’s how the public expects their speech to be censored. So only really their friends at Twitter benefit? Or anoint themselves gatekeeper and public benefactor. Idk why you keep bringing up “both sides do it” as some excuse. Of course both sides have power/influence over big tech employees. Even unelected ones. It is entirely natural for established institutions and powerful individuals to have influence. That’s why you should build in protections and processes to prevent that from happening. And if you do end up doing it then be transparent… have a public list of times you censored tweets at the request of public servants and powerful individuals. It’s for the public’s good right? It’s not just about their own personal gain…right?

jasonhansel 4y ago

I would add: (c) The lack of transparency around this process.