5 ms·

Some of the power users Musk reportedly had boosted are specifically right wing political posters, like catturd2. But then he's also boosted some high profile l

Some of the power users Musk reportedly had boosted are specifically right wing political posters, like catturd2. But then he's also boosted some high profile left leaning politicians, so it's not exclusive. It does mean you're more likely to see right wing American political content either way, which has to be annoying for people outside of the US. https://gizmodo.com/twitter-algorithm-aoc-ben-shapiro-catturd2-1850272655 https://gizmodo.com/twitter-algorithm-aoc-ben-shapiro-cattur...

realjhol 4y ago
Why do you believe it would be annoying to us?
fyloraspit 4y ago
Would it not be just as annoying to see a slant the other direction, or in any extreme direction?
- IncRnd 4y ago
  The parent poster doesn't realize the inherent bias in what they wrote and that you have pointed out.
  - kevingadd 4y ago
    Boosting both right and left wing content increases your chance to see either type of content, because you boosted them over everything else.
    - IncRnd 4y ago
      I'm not sure why you wrote that to me. It was already in your prior comment.
- oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
  I believe their point is that, because the US is generally regarded as 'to the right of' many countries in Europe, for example, a slight rightwing bias looks to us (I'm in the UK) like an extreme rightwing bias. Heck, even a completely neutral stance, as far as the US is concerned, will look like it veers to the right for us. Note that I'm not saying anything about how I believe the twitter algorithm should work, this is just my interpretation of what that commenter meant.
  - AlchemistCamp 4y ago
    Europe is only a tiny fraction of the world, though. Compared to India, Japan, Singapore and (depending on the metric) China, the US looks clearly left of center. Compared to most of the Middle East, the US looks extremely left-wing.
agentgumshoe 4y ago
[flagged]
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  some of those opinions are that others of certain sexual orientations are indeed subhuman and/or should be treated as much, and due to Popper's paradox of tolerance, we don't need to, and shouldn't, tolerate such intolerance
  - agentgumshoe 4y ago
    That's one interpretation, which I see used as justification to attack and be generally horrible to anyone who disagrees. I see a lot of commenters making comments that Republicans are some kind of lower intelligence being too (same the other way too). Are these people allowed to be offended? Unfortunately the plight of LGB (and Womens' rights to an extent) has been utterly brushed aside by the continual addition of each letter to the cause and the arguments too hot and aggressive to separate out the underlying causes for fair debate on their own.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      you say "attack and be generally horrible to anyone who disagrees", but recall that the thing said "attackers" are disagreeing with is equal or greater animosity towards people on the basis of their sexuality versus their opinions in other words, it's a reaction to intolerance, specifically a decision not to tolerate intolerance - as we covered before, we don't need to, since doing so will end tolerance entirely (see Popper's paradox of tolerance for this)
      - agentgumshoe 4y ago
        I think Popper's paradox does nothing really but talk around an issue by changing the argument. Intolerance is not black and white, it is contextual. You can be intolerant of those who break the law, because they break the laws that hold society together (at a basic level). Paradoxes often aren't so problematic if you take them out of their own frame of reference (e.g. Zeno's paradox & Achilles). I think the context we are referring to here is really free speech. Should we tolerate speech (opinions) that we despise or disagree with? Absolutely. And here we have the attackers responding to feeling insulted (framed as 'intolerance') by not being accepted/agreed with. Then they respond in kind and no progress is made. You show me those people responding to equal/higher hostility and I guarantee I can show just as many examples of the opposite. And what I mean there is not "you're side is worse," I mean there are aggressive and horrible actors on both sides, who should not be the frame of reference for debate. But too often they are, and too often examples of hostility as used as an excuse for escalation or to avoid real debate.

realjhol 4y ago

Why do you believe it would be annoying to us?

fyloraspit 4y ago

Would it not be just as annoying to see a slant the other direction, or in any extreme direction?

IncRnd 4y ago
The parent poster doesn't realize the inherent bias in what they wrote and that you have pointed out.
- kevingadd 4y ago
  Boosting both right and left wing content increases your chance to see either type of content, because you boosted them over everything else.
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    I'm not sure why you wrote that to me. It was already in your prior comment.
oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
I believe their point is that, because the US is generally regarded as 'to the right of' many countries in Europe, for example, a slight rightwing bias looks to us (I'm in the UK) like an extreme rightwing bias. Heck, even a completely neutral stance, as far as the US is concerned, will look like it veers to the right for us. Note that I'm not saying anything about how I believe the twitter algorithm should work, this is just my interpretation of what that commenter meant.
- AlchemistCamp 4y ago
  Europe is only a tiny fraction of the world, though. Compared to India, Japan, Singapore and (depending on the metric) China, the US looks clearly left of center. Compared to most of the Middle East, the US looks extremely left-wing.

agentgumshoe 4y ago

[flagged]

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
some of those opinions are that others of certain sexual orientations are indeed subhuman and/or should be treated as much, and due to Popper's paradox of tolerance, we don't need to, and shouldn't, tolerate such intolerance
- agentgumshoe 4y ago
  That's one interpretation, which I see used as justification to attack and be generally horrible to anyone who disagrees. I see a lot of commenters making comments that Republicans are some kind of lower intelligence being too (same the other way too). Are these people allowed to be offended? Unfortunately the plight of LGB (and Womens' rights to an extent) has been utterly brushed aside by the continual addition of each letter to the cause and the arguments too hot and aggressive to separate out the underlying causes for fair debate on their own.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    you say "attack and be generally horrible to anyone who disagrees", but recall that the thing said "attackers" are disagreeing with is equal or greater animosity towards people on the basis of their sexuality versus their opinions in other words, it's a reaction to intolerance, specifically a decision not to tolerate intolerance - as we covered before, we don't need to, since doing so will end tolerance entirely (see Popper's paradox of tolerance for this)
    - agentgumshoe 4y ago
      I think Popper's paradox does nothing really but talk around an issue by changing the argument. Intolerance is not black and white, it is contextual. You can be intolerant of those who break the law, because they break the laws that hold society together (at a basic level). Paradoxes often aren't so problematic if you take them out of their own frame of reference (e.g. Zeno's paradox & Achilles). I think the context we are referring to here is really free speech. Should we tolerate speech (opinions) that we despise or disagree with? Absolutely. And here we have the attackers responding to feeling insulted (framed as 'intolerance') by not being accepted/agreed with. Then they respond in kind and no progress is made. You show me those people responding to equal/higher hostility and I guarantee I can show just as many examples of the opposite. And what I mean there is not "you're side is worse," I mean there are aggressive and horrible actors on both sides, who should not be the frame of reference for debate. But too often they are, and too often examples of hostility as used as an excuse for escalation or to avoid real debate.