4 ms·

Given what has been open sourced so far, it makes sense that content that is likely to be controversial, or content that generates neutral to negative engagemen

Given what has been open sourced so far, it makes sense that content that is likely to be controversial, or content that generates neutral to negative engagement would have a smaller probability of being displayed. I suspected this and told my far-right/left wing acquaintances, that no, Twitter (and Facebook too) isn't suppressing you, your content is just a net-negative from the platform's perspective. The platform is in the business of keeping the bulk of its users and advertisers happy.

akira2501 4y ago
When people talk about suppression do they mean that their own tweets are suppressed, or the tweets of people they follow are? Or tweets from news organizations are, depending on their content?
whimsicalism 4y ago
The evidence is abundant for active suppression of certain political views beyond just predicted engagement. No clue about Twitter's algo, but Facebook certainly does this.
- dekhn 4y ago
  Can you, uh, share that abundant evidence?
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Clear-cut example #1, which you might consider "flipping switches" more than part of the algo is the suppression of posting about Hunter Biden/laptop on Twitter. Instagram also downweights posts about Biden passing 1994 crime bill. [0] [0]: https://twitter.com/perma___ben/status/1339293381625864195 https://twitter.com/perma___ben/status/1339293381625864195
    - dekhn 4y ago
      Do you have something substantive? IE, evidence that there is a systemic, large-scale policy being applied? Anyway, it looks like they outsource their fact checking and applied a fact check. The fact check is extensively documented here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/03/fact-check-1994-crime-bill-didnt-bring-mass-incarceration-black-people/3250210001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/03/fac... I'm a bit tired of the "aggrieved people claiming censorship" over small potatoes that often turns out to be "the company applied their policy uniformly"
    - crummy 4y ago
      The posts with the biggest reach are consistently from right-wing sources on Facebook (or were when they released this data). Is the suppression just highly targeted?

akira2501 4y ago

When people talk about suppression do they mean that their own tweets are suppressed, or the tweets of people they follow are? Or tweets from news organizations are, depending on their content?

whimsicalism 4y ago

The evidence is abundant for active suppression of certain political views beyond just predicted engagement. No clue about Twitter's algo, but Facebook certainly does this.

dekhn 4y ago
Can you, uh, share that abundant evidence?
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Clear-cut example #1, which you might consider "flipping switches" more than part of the algo is the suppression of posting about Hunter Biden/laptop on Twitter. Instagram also downweights posts about Biden passing 1994 crime bill. [0] [0]: https://twitter.com/perma___ben/status/1339293381625864195 https://twitter.com/perma___ben/status/1339293381625864195
  - dekhn 4y ago
    Do you have something substantive? IE, evidence that there is a systemic, large-scale policy being applied? Anyway, it looks like they outsource their fact checking and applied a fact check. The fact check is extensively documented here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/03/fact-check-1994-crime-bill-didnt-bring-mass-incarceration-black-people/3250210001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/03/fac... I'm a bit tired of the "aggrieved people claiming censorship" over small potatoes that often turns out to be "the company applied their policy uniformly"
  - crummy 4y ago
    The posts with the biggest reach are consistently from right-wing sources on Facebook (or were when they released this data). Is the suppression just highly targeted?