9 ms·

Why is anyone surprised that the major/globally operating social media companies have extensive internal systems for controlling the content that appears via th

by rswail 4y ago

Why is anyone surprised that the major/globally operating social media companies have extensive internal systems for controlling the content that appears via their platforms? Irrespective of whether or not you agree with individual decisions, the fact that such systems exist should not be a surprise. These companies operate within legal frameworks across multiple jurisdictions that have endless variations of restrictions on speech and content. What surprises me is that there are people that whine about this without proposing or creating an alternative.

threeseed 4y ago
> without proposing or creating an alternative They have an alternative in mind. It's called unfettered free speech. Problem for Twitter is that advertisers aren't interested in a fancier 4chan.
- vasili111 4y ago
  If Twitter content will become similar to 4chan content, the advertisers will behave with Twitter as with 4chan.
hcurtiss 4y ago
I think it’s because they said repeatedly they were doing no such thing.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  You really think someone would do that? Just form a corporation and tell lies?
TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
It’s not the fact that these systems exist, it’s that Twitter denied that they did for years, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
- threeseed 4y ago
  > it’s that Twitter denied that they did for years When ? I haven't seen any evidence of this.
  - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
    First hit on google: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-t...
    - afavour 4y ago
      Unless I’ve missed something there’s still no evidence of Twitter shadow banning users. Weiss incorrectly calls a bunch of things “shadow banning” but not anything the matches the actual accepted definition.
    - threeseed 4y ago
      Limiting reach is not the same as shadow banning which has a specific meaning.
      - MallocVoidstar 4y ago
        "Limiting reach" is what Twitter users think shadowbanning is. I've seen major accounts declare that, because less people are retweeting them than they think is normal, they must be shadowbanned. Obviously, if they were actually shadowbanned, nobody would be retweeting them.
        godelski 4y ago
        That's not a good definition. If I have 0 followers I have very limited reach. You need a consistent definition. No one thinks downweighting content is shadowbanning either (unless that weight is 0, but then we're back to the normal definition).
    - 4y ago
godelski 4y ago
> Why is anyone surprised that the major/globally operating social media companies have extensive internal systems for controlling the content that appears via their platforms? No one is. These Twitter Files are just building on a right wing prior of them being shadow banned. But they have yet to demonstrate that right wingers are specifically targeted. They don't show why these accounts got flagged (the crux of the issue and none of this means anything without demonstrating this knowledge) but just show prominent right wingers that did get flagged. We just get left with more questions. Do prominent left wingers also get flagged? Do prominent left wingers act in ways that would similarly be flagged? Is flagging biased? (I'm sure it is, but lets' measure it) It is a common statistical manipulation through leading someone to causal conclusions via selection bias (sometimes called "malinformation"). While not directly said these tweets (and the previous ones) are targeted to make the reader believe that Twitter silences right wing voices. This may very well be true, but they have yet to provide strong evidence of this. Just samples. Problem is, we don't know anything about the distribution of samples so we have no means of determining if they are cherry-picked or not.
- seventytwo 4y ago
  This is exactly right.
- bavell 4y ago
  If this[0] is accurate, then 99.7% of political contributions made by Twitter employees went to Democrats in 2022. Is it unreasonable to suspect people on the right are targeted more often than the people on the left? Wouldn't that be the default assumption and the opposite position would need evidence to prove otherwise? [0] https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598829996264390656?s=20&t=E0WKDEiQwgQGDm_Rlx6kpw https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598829996264390656?s=20&...
  - belltaco 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - bavell 4y ago
user3939382 4y ago
They surreptitiously colluded with congressmen and FBI spooks to suppress political speech before an election. I think you’re missing the bigger story here.
- awacs 4y ago
  Ok, let's say they did, it's a private company, 1st Amendment doesn't apply in the manner you seem to think. In fact it's the opposite, they as an entity / company have 1st Amendment rights to do as they please with content on their platform. That being said, yes they suppressed propaganda and disinformation that could lead to bodily harm (as on J6). People like Fox News hosts pushing disinformation that could lead to people dying over COVID is easily crossover into legal territory. Why would they want that shit on their platform? Is it their fault all the disinformation comes from right wing kooks? This argument is ridiculous. It's like Nazis complaining their propaganda was being removed from the radio and their voice was being silenced.
  - user3939382 4y ago
    What the congressmen did was illegal on their part. What Twitter did was at best unethical, but ironically, severely tampering with our election which the fake left seemed to be so upset about. The tweets weren’t propaganda, some of them were about Joe Biden being involved in illegal deals with eg China. The source information for this, his sons laptop, has been verified as authentic by for example the Washington Post. There is no way to bend far enough to excuse what happened here.
    - quadrifoliate 4y ago
      > What Twitter did was at best unethical, but ironically, severely tampering with our election… Huh? Twitter does not administer US elections last I checked. I am sure people could read this hugely consequential information you're claiming on Reddit, 4chan, OANN, AM radio, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, or various other outlets that right-leaning voters typically seem to use. In fact, I seem to recall all of those running several stories about it at the time. Or are you claiming that Twitter is the sole source of media that the entire United States consumes?

by rswail 4y ago

threeseed 4y ago

> without proposing or creating an alternative They have an alternative in mind. It's called unfettered free speech. Problem for Twitter is that advertisers aren't interested in a fancier 4chan.

vasili111 4y ago
If Twitter content will become similar to 4chan content, the advertisers will behave with Twitter as with 4chan.

hcurtiss 4y ago

I think it’s because they said repeatedly they were doing no such thing.

anigbrowl 4y ago
You really think someone would do that? Just form a corporation and tell lies?

TheRealDunkirk 4y ago

It’s not the fact that these systems exist, it’s that Twitter denied that they did for years, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

threeseed 4y ago
> it’s that Twitter denied that they did for years When ? I haven't seen any evidence of this.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
  First hit on google: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-t...
  - afavour 4y ago
    Unless I’ve missed something there’s still no evidence of Twitter shadow banning users. Weiss incorrectly calls a bunch of things “shadow banning” but not anything the matches the actual accepted definition.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    Limiting reach is not the same as shadow banning which has a specific meaning.
    - MallocVoidstar 4y ago
      "Limiting reach" is what Twitter users think shadowbanning is. I've seen major accounts declare that, because less people are retweeting them than they think is normal, they must be shadowbanned. Obviously, if they were actually shadowbanned, nobody would be retweeting them.
      - godelski 4y ago
        That's not a good definition. If I have 0 followers I have very limited reach. You need a consistent definition. No one thinks downweighting content is shadowbanning either (unless that weight is 0, but then we're back to the normal definition).
  - 4y ago

godelski 4y ago

> Why is anyone surprised that the major/globally operating social media companies have extensive internal systems for controlling the content that appears via their platforms? No one is. These Twitter Files are just building on a right wing prior of them being shadow banned. But they have yet to demonstrate that right wingers are specifically targeted. They don't show why these accounts got flagged (the crux of the issue and none of this means anything without demonstrating this knowledge) but just show prominent right wingers that did get flagged. We just get left with more questions. Do prominent left wingers also get flagged? Do prominent left wingers act in ways that would similarly be flagged? Is flagging biased? (I'm sure it is, but lets' measure it) It is a common statistical manipulation through leading someone to causal conclusions via selection bias (sometimes called "malinformation"). While not directly said these tweets (and the previous ones) are targeted to make the reader believe that Twitter silences right wing voices. This may very well be true, but they have yet to provide strong evidence of this. Just samples. Problem is, we don't know anything about the distribution of samples so we have no means of determining if they are cherry-picked or not.

seventytwo 4y ago
This is exactly right.
bavell 4y ago
If this[0] is accurate, then 99.7% of political contributions made by Twitter employees went to Democrats in 2022. Is it unreasonable to suspect people on the right are targeted more often than the people on the left? Wouldn't that be the default assumption and the opposite position would need evidence to prove otherwise? [0] https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598829996264390656?s=20&t=E0WKDEiQwgQGDm_Rlx6kpw https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598829996264390656?s=20&...
- belltaco 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - bavell 4y ago

user3939382 4y ago

They surreptitiously colluded with congressmen and FBI spooks to suppress political speech before an election. I think you’re missing the bigger story here.

awacs 4y ago
Ok, let's say they did, it's a private company, 1st Amendment doesn't apply in the manner you seem to think. In fact it's the opposite, they as an entity / company have 1st Amendment rights to do as they please with content on their platform. That being said, yes they suppressed propaganda and disinformation that could lead to bodily harm (as on J6). People like Fox News hosts pushing disinformation that could lead to people dying over COVID is easily crossover into legal territory. Why would they want that shit on their platform? Is it their fault all the disinformation comes from right wing kooks? This argument is ridiculous. It's like Nazis complaining their propaganda was being removed from the radio and their voice was being silenced.
- user3939382 4y ago
  What the congressmen did was illegal on their part. What Twitter did was at best unethical, but ironically, severely tampering with our election which the fake left seemed to be so upset about. The tweets weren’t propaganda, some of them were about Joe Biden being involved in illegal deals with eg China. The source information for this, his sons laptop, has been verified as authentic by for example the Washington Post. There is no way to bend far enough to excuse what happened here.
  - quadrifoliate 4y ago
    > What Twitter did was at best unethical, but ironically, severely tampering with our election… Huh? Twitter does not administer US elections last I checked. I am sure people could read this hugely consequential information you're claiming on Reddit, 4chan, OANN, AM radio, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, or various other outlets that right-leaning voters typically seem to use. In fact, I seem to recall all of those running several stories about it at the time. Or are you claiming that Twitter is the sole source of media that the entire United States consumes?