7 ms·

The fallacy of false equivalence systematized in code. Now one side can spew as much disinfo and incitement to violence as it likes, and any algorithm change t

The fallacy of false equivalence systematized in code. Now one side can spew as much disinfo and incitement to violence as it likes, and any algorithm change that prevents this shit from getting amplified will be rejected as bias. BSaaS = Both Sides as a Service

eldritch_4ier 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- willdr 4y ago
  What are you talking about? Do you remember January 6?
  - panarky 4y ago
    Everybody remembers January 6 except those who want to pretend it didn't happen. How many remember the floods of Twitter incitement to hit the gas in their F-150 trucks to run over protesters, and then how many people actually perpetrated vehicle attacks?
  - JackAndJack 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - eldritch_4ier 4y ago
    [flagged]
- zeven7 4y ago
  I clicked downvote before reading the whole comment. At first I thought you were talking about the red team when you started with "mass riots and violence..." Then I read the rest of your comment and still felt just as good about my downvote. This isn't a constructive comment no matter what "side" you're on.
  - luxuryballs 4y ago
    “Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.” JFK
- regularjack 4y ago
  "approved terminology".
KarlKemp 4y ago
Well, technically they are looking for relative changes, not equal total exposures.
electrondood 4y ago
Not sure why you got downvoted, you're absolutely correct.
slg 4y ago
This shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone. It was reported years ago that Twitter was unable to cut down on hate speech because the automated systems they developed triggered too many [debatably false] positives on Republican politicians and that was bad for the company's reputation. If Twitter wanted to prevent future code changes from impacting that approach, there needed to be something like this in the code or tests.
- lenkite 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - slg 4y ago
    I don't know what specific documents you think did that, but "comprehensively" is absolutely an awful way to describe the Twitter Files. They were anything but "comprehensive". In actuality, they were an excellent example of how easy it is to lie using partial truths. For example, highlighting all the times Twitter took moderation recommendations from a Democratic campaign looks a lot worse if you hide any time they took moderation from Republican campaigns. A simple look at the specific journalists that were given access to Twitter documents and the strings attached to that access reveals that the Twitter Files were not about transparency. They were an ideological play and nothing more. If Musk wanted true transparency, he would have given wider access to more documents or just released them all like Jack Dorsey requested.
    - lenkite 4y ago
      Could you please point out the list of moderation recommendations from Republican campaigns that were actually accepted and carried out? The only ones that were revealed so far were of the following types: 1. requests to un-ban or un-suspend right-wing personas 2. removal of explicit death threats. 3. Anything against the vaccine - even actual, scientific data. From the twitter files, the Twitter team that was wholly left-leaning spent significant time and debate looking for the mildest of excuses to ban right-wing politicians, building black lists for them and even gloating happily as they managed to kick them off. Not much doubt about that - actually no one has even denied that. There were several hearings also in the house judiciary where they even confirmed the same. (Interestingly, there was pressure applied on Matt Taibbi to either "shut up" or relinquish all his sources to law enforcement. Also, as a form of indirect pressure to rattle him, US tax agents visited his house the VERY DAY he would testify before US Congress stating that his tax returns had been rejected due to identity theft concerns - despite him having the electronic receipt which showed it being accepted.)
lenkite 4y ago
[flagged]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dudeinjapan 4y ago
Yeah but despite all that they should still give leftists a platform to tweet.
concordDance 4y ago
I don't see an unbiased way to tell which "side" releases more disinformation and incitement to violence. Even deciding what counts as disinformation is hard (e.g. does it have to be literally false or just cause false beliefs in the reader?).
- ModernMech 4y ago
  One way to tell would be to look at which side is incited to violence more often. It turns out, according to the FBI (which is a conservative organization historically and exclusively run by conservatives), right wing extremism and violence is in fact the biggest domestic terror threat in the US, and it's currently growing [1]. FBI Director Wray gave this testimony after a right wing domestic terror attack was carried out that aimed to topple the US government. Not much has changed since then [2]. Since the former President's indictment the other day, the right-wing violent rhetoric has also ratcheted up a notch, so we can expect right-wing violence to follow. Notably, we can confidently say this doesn't happen on the left, as when Hillary lost they did not launch an assault against the Capitol as the right did. Instead, they knit pink hats and had a march. (PS before anyone whattabouts the George Floyd protests, the FBI doesn't see them the same way [3]) https://apnews.com/article/fbi-chris-wray-testify-capitol-riot-9a5539af34b15338bb5c4923907eeb67 https://apnews.com/article/fbi-chris-wray-testify-capitol-ri... https://news.yahoo.com/right-wing-extremists-responsible-for-majority-of-deadly-terrorist-attacks-181352019.html https://news.yahoo.com/right-wing-extremists-responsible-for... https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrorism-strategic-report-2022.pdf/view https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrori...
  - yeahsure22 4y ago
    [dead]

eldritch_4ier 4y ago

[flagged]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
willdr 4y ago
What are you talking about? Do you remember January 6?
- panarky 4y ago
  Everybody remembers January 6 except those who want to pretend it didn't happen. How many remember the floods of Twitter incitement to hit the gas in their F-150 trucks to run over protesters, and then how many people actually perpetrated vehicle attacks?
- JackAndJack 4y ago
  [flagged]
- eldritch_4ier 4y ago
  [flagged]
zeven7 4y ago
I clicked downvote before reading the whole comment. At first I thought you were talking about the red team when you started with "mass riots and violence..." Then I read the rest of your comment and still felt just as good about my downvote. This isn't a constructive comment no matter what "side" you're on.
- luxuryballs 4y ago
  “Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.” JFK
regularjack 4y ago
"approved terminology".

KarlKemp 4y ago

Well, technically they are looking for relative changes, not equal total exposures.

electrondood 4y ago

Not sure why you got downvoted, you're absolutely correct.

slg 4y ago

This shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone. It was reported years ago that Twitter was unable to cut down on hate speech because the automated systems they developed triggered too many [debatably false] positives on Republican politicians and that was bad for the company's reputation. If Twitter wanted to prevent future code changes from impacting that approach, there needed to be something like this in the code or tests.

lenkite 4y ago
[flagged]
- slg 4y ago
  I don't know what specific documents you think did that, but "comprehensively" is absolutely an awful way to describe the Twitter Files. They were anything but "comprehensive". In actuality, they were an excellent example of how easy it is to lie using partial truths. For example, highlighting all the times Twitter took moderation recommendations from a Democratic campaign looks a lot worse if you hide any time they took moderation from Republican campaigns. A simple look at the specific journalists that were given access to Twitter documents and the strings attached to that access reveals that the Twitter Files were not about transparency. They were an ideological play and nothing more. If Musk wanted true transparency, he would have given wider access to more documents or just released them all like Jack Dorsey requested.
  - lenkite 4y ago
    Could you please point out the list of moderation recommendations from Republican campaigns that were actually accepted and carried out? The only ones that were revealed so far were of the following types: 1. requests to un-ban or un-suspend right-wing personas 2. removal of explicit death threats. 3. Anything against the vaccine - even actual, scientific data. From the twitter files, the Twitter team that was wholly left-leaning spent significant time and debate looking for the mildest of excuses to ban right-wing politicians, building black lists for them and even gloating happily as they managed to kick them off. Not much doubt about that - actually no one has even denied that. There were several hearings also in the house judiciary where they even confirmed the same. (Interestingly, there was pressure applied on Matt Taibbi to either "shut up" or relinquish all his sources to law enforcement. Also, as a form of indirect pressure to rattle him, US tax agents visited his house the VERY DAY he would testify before US Congress stating that his tax returns had been rejected due to identity theft concerns - despite him having the electronic receipt which showed it being accepted.)

lenkite 4y ago

[flagged]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dudeinjapan 4y ago

Yeah but despite all that they should still give leftists a platform to tweet.

concordDance 4y ago

I don't see an unbiased way to tell which "side" releases more disinformation and incitement to violence. Even deciding what counts as disinformation is hard (e.g. does it have to be literally false or just cause false beliefs in the reader?).

ModernMech 4y ago
One way to tell would be to look at which side is incited to violence more often. It turns out, according to the FBI (which is a conservative organization historically and exclusively run by conservatives), right wing extremism and violence is in fact the biggest domestic terror threat in the US, and it's currently growing [1]. FBI Director Wray gave this testimony after a right wing domestic terror attack was carried out that aimed to topple the US government. Not much has changed since then [2]. Since the former President's indictment the other day, the right-wing violent rhetoric has also ratcheted up a notch, so we can expect right-wing violence to follow. Notably, we can confidently say this doesn't happen on the left, as when Hillary lost they did not launch an assault against the Capitol as the right did. Instead, they knit pink hats and had a march. (PS before anyone whattabouts the George Floyd protests, the FBI doesn't see them the same way [3]) https://apnews.com/article/fbi-chris-wray-testify-capitol-riot-9a5539af34b15338bb5c4923907eeb67 https://apnews.com/article/fbi-chris-wray-testify-capitol-ri... https://news.yahoo.com/right-wing-extremists-responsible-for-majority-of-deadly-terrorist-attacks-181352019.html https://news.yahoo.com/right-wing-extremists-responsible-for... https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrorism-strategic-report-2022.pdf/view https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrori...
- yeahsure22 4y ago
  [dead]