5 ms·

Right. Don’t you think it’s a bit of a stretch to make strong evaluations of a platform if you use it very rarely, in a non-usual manner? Do you care to qualify

Right. Don’t you think it’s a bit of a stretch to make strong evaluations of a platform if you use it very rarely, in a non-usual manner? Do you care to qualify your statements like: > …Twitter is such a horrible place Or > [hateful content] is the *typical* content you get on Twitter I agree there’s abominable things on Twitter - that’s what you get with a platform (now) focused on free speech. But you have to sort of go out looking for it. I think Twitter has done a good job championing freedom of speech while making it not so “hateful” for the average user. > I think it's crazy, given how Russia is at least an indirect adversary to the US and EU in this war. Why is this crazy? In general, would you like Twitter to ban sources that advocate for US adversaries in war? > This doesn't work for people who aren't interested in information bubbles, yet nevertheless think free speech should reasonably restricted by law and by moderation. I think you are conflating your unusual access pattern with the experience of people who don’t follow anyone (which is also rare). In addition, characterizing the act of following people as engaging in information bubble is very, very reductionist. Any decent intellectual would know to filter their sources and create a good information “bubble”; I want to hear from X because they are trustworthy, I want to read from Y because they are smart, etc. Without that information “bubble” every piece of information is of equal priority (and thus much waste in time). Just because people throw the word around doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. That withstanding, one can truly fall into a lull where you don’t get any opinions of the opposing side. But the solution is not to reject information filters altogether - that’s just random chance, intellectual laziness. But above all, what I have issue with mostly is one’s (strong) evaluation of something without a serious attempt to understand it. Perhaps a bit intellectually dishonest, no? Do you use other social media platforms? Do you see value in social media at all?

jonathanstrange 3y ago
> Right. Don’t you think it’s a bit of a stretch to make strong evaluations of a platform if you use it very rarely, in a non-usual manner? No, I don't think so. (But you're also asking in a rhetorically clumsy way that makes it almost impossible to give the answer you'd prefer to hear.) I'm evaluating Twitter based on my experience and based on the studies mentioned in the article we're discussing, according to which hateful content has drastically increased on Twitter recently. Do you honestly believe I should instead just take your word for it and ignore both personal evidence and studies? That would make no sense. > I agree there’s abominable things on Twitter - that’s what you get with a platform (now) focused on free speech. But you have to sort of go out looking for it. I just laid out that you do not have to go out looking for it. I gave a fairly decent number of examples that really popped up when I entered one hashtag. Moreover, take into account the context of our discussion. My assessment appears to be backed up by recent studies. > I think Twitter has done a good job championing freedom of speech while making it not so “hateful” for the average user. I don't think so, based on my experience and what I've read about Twitter's problems. That's why I think the EU should take action against the company to at least limit the plain illegal content more than they do right now. > I think you are conflating your unusual access pattern with the experience of people who don’t follow anyone (which is also rare). My personal access patterns are not the problem, though. The problem is the content Twitter allows, some of which violates applicable laws in EU countries that I fully appreciate and endorse. Other content is just appalling and toxic and should be moderated. About your information bubbles I sort of agree. I just wanted to make you aware that one's "customization experience" can be another one's information bubble, and that bubble can be positive or negative. If more toxic content and disinformation is available, more negative consequences will occur. > Why is this crazy? In general, would you like Twitter to ban sources that advocate for US adversaries in war? To some extent Yes. At least disinformation campaigns directed by state actors need to be stopped. Despite a lot of US affinity with the Nazis during WW2 before Pearl Harbor, I don't think it would have been acceptable for a US company to widely provide free propaganda outlets for German Nazis in all US media and all across the US. But perhaps I'm wrong. Be that as it may, providing adversaries with a direct opportunity to conduct influencing campaigns in your country is in my opinion fairly crazy. AFAIK, both NATO and the US intelligence community mostly agree with me on that one. That's common sense. However, from a more moral perspective, I want first and foremost any advocates of genocide and illegal wars of aggression to be banned. That could also include people from the US in certain instances (e.g. think about the Iraq War). > But above all, what I have issue with mostly is one’s (strong) evaluation of something without a serious attempt to understand it. Perhaps a bit intellectually dishonest, no? No, because your premise is false. You're intellectually dishonest for presuming I made no serious attempt to understand it. As I've said, I know plenty of people who actually do research hate speech on social media, and have heard a few talks about it here or there. I have reasons to believe to have a solid understanding of the subject matter and what's wrong with Twitter. That being said, it's not in any way a primary interest for me personally. > Do you use other social media platforms? Do you see value in social media at all? Yes, of course. We're on one of them. HN is my favorite because of the strong moderation. Reddit is my second favorite, as long as you avoid certain topics. Twitter and Facebook are in my opinion garbage, but Facebook has somewhat improved recently and Twitter seems to have declined in quality.
- avindroth 3y ago
  > Do you honestly believe I should instead just take your word for it and ignore both personal evidence and studies? That would make no sense. No. Also, maybe this is unclear, but I am questioning your decision when you posted your original comment (when my anecdote was unavailable). If I were you, I would hesitate from making broad generalizations like “[hateful content] is typical content on Twitter”. A very strong statement, but sensible given your unusual access patterns. I would not make the general claim about Twitter that way (other than what studies mention), but seems like you are generalizing your cherry-picked experience. I actually concede the points about the objective increase in hateful tweets on the site. It would be odd for them to not increase, given that all the banned accounts were reinstated; this is obvious. Similarly, we would reasonably expect less hate speech in countries that penalize them. Free speech was espoused in spite of these increases (for deeper, second/third-order consequence reasons). To make it clear: I never said Twitter adopting free speech would lead to less hate speech on the platform. I am merely responding to your incendiary generalizations of the platform without having seriously used it. There’s a sense in which we vary in our sensitivity towards strong moderation and limiting freedom of speech. I think freedom of speech is a hard-won right of history, something preserved for us by our ancestors so that we may enjoy it. It is also fragile, and the default human state is to diminish freedom of speech for exploitation. To me, it’s precious and serves as a backbone of a truly democratic society, but perhaps you may differ. This leads to an interesting difference between HN and Twitter; I enjoy HN and its strongly moderated nature (there are several other strongly moderated platforms I enjoy). But Twitter seems different. It acts as both a personal and commercial outlet for news. Personal identities are far stronger; silencing an account is silencing an identity. The consequences of limiting free speech differ. EDIT: I also took a more careful look at your original comment with the Twitter accounts. I honestly cannot find any problematic accounts after having looked through maybe 30 posts on Top. Did you take most of them from Latest? That would make sense, but you are basically giving Twitter a very short window to respond to things. Besides, it’s not the *existence* that matters, it’s whether they are promoted or not. Because for the average user, they will see tweets with much engagement. I would be happy to see any studies on the average Twitter user’s feed, and see the amount of hateful content. If you can demonstrate that (by some sensible definitions) the average Twitter user sees a lot of hateful content, I would gladly change my mind.

jonathanstrange 3y ago

> Right. Don’t you think it’s a bit of a stretch to make strong evaluations of a platform if you use it very rarely, in a non-usual manner? No, I don't think so. (But you're also asking in a rhetorically clumsy way that makes it almost impossible to give the answer you'd prefer to hear.) I'm evaluating Twitter based on my experience and based on the studies mentioned in the article we're discussing, according to which hateful content has drastically increased on Twitter recently. Do you honestly believe I should instead just take your word for it and ignore both personal evidence and studies? That would make no sense. > I agree there’s abominable things on Twitter - that’s what you get with a platform (now) focused on free speech. But you have to sort of go out looking for it. I just laid out that you do not have to go out looking for it. I gave a fairly decent number of examples that really popped up when I entered one hashtag. Moreover, take into account the context of our discussion. My assessment appears to be backed up by recent studies. > I think Twitter has done a good job championing freedom of speech while making it not so “hateful” for the average user. I don't think so, based on my experience and what I've read about Twitter's problems. That's why I think the EU should take action against the company to at least limit the plain illegal content more than they do right now. > I think you are conflating your unusual access pattern with the experience of people who don’t follow anyone (which is also rare). My personal access patterns are not the problem, though. The problem is the content Twitter allows, some of which violates applicable laws in EU countries that I fully appreciate and endorse. Other content is just appalling and toxic and should be moderated. About your information bubbles I sort of agree. I just wanted to make you aware that one's "customization experience" can be another one's information bubble, and that bubble can be positive or negative. If more toxic content and disinformation is available, more negative consequences will occur. > Why is this crazy? In general, would you like Twitter to ban sources that advocate for US adversaries in war? To some extent Yes. At least disinformation campaigns directed by state actors need to be stopped. Despite a lot of US affinity with the Nazis during WW2 before Pearl Harbor, I don't think it would have been acceptable for a US company to widely provide free propaganda outlets for German Nazis in all US media and all across the US. But perhaps I'm wrong. Be that as it may, providing adversaries with a direct opportunity to conduct influencing campaigns in your country is in my opinion fairly crazy. AFAIK, both NATO and the US intelligence community mostly agree with me on that one. That's common sense. However, from a more moral perspective, I want first and foremost any advocates of genocide and illegal wars of aggression to be banned. That could also include people from the US in certain instances (e.g. think about the Iraq War). > But above all, what I have issue with mostly is one’s (strong) evaluation of something without a serious attempt to understand it. Perhaps a bit intellectually dishonest, no? No, because your premise is false. You're intellectually dishonest for presuming I made no serious attempt to understand it. As I've said, I know plenty of people who actually do research hate speech on social media, and have heard a few talks about it here or there. I have reasons to believe to have a solid understanding of the subject matter and what's wrong with Twitter. That being said, it's not in any way a primary interest for me personally. > Do you use other social media platforms? Do you see value in social media at all? Yes, of course. We're on one of them. HN is my favorite because of the strong moderation. Reddit is my second favorite, as long as you avoid certain topics. Twitter and Facebook are in my opinion garbage, but Facebook has somewhat improved recently and Twitter seems to have declined in quality.

avindroth 3y ago
> Do you honestly believe I should instead just take your word for it and ignore both personal evidence and studies? That would make no sense. No. Also, maybe this is unclear, but I am questioning your decision when you posted your original comment (when my anecdote was unavailable). If I were you, I would hesitate from making broad generalizations like “[hateful content] is typical content on Twitter”. A very strong statement, but sensible given your unusual access patterns. I would not make the general claim about Twitter that way (other than what studies mention), but seems like you are generalizing your cherry-picked experience. I actually concede the points about the objective increase in hateful tweets on the site. It would be odd for them to not increase, given that all the banned accounts were reinstated; this is obvious. Similarly, we would reasonably expect less hate speech in countries that penalize them. Free speech was espoused in spite of these increases (for deeper, second/third-order consequence reasons). To make it clear: I never said Twitter adopting free speech would lead to less hate speech on the platform. I am merely responding to your incendiary generalizations of the platform without having seriously used it. There’s a sense in which we vary in our sensitivity towards strong moderation and limiting freedom of speech. I think freedom of speech is a hard-won right of history, something preserved for us by our ancestors so that we may enjoy it. It is also fragile, and the default human state is to diminish freedom of speech for exploitation. To me, it’s precious and serves as a backbone of a truly democratic society, but perhaps you may differ. This leads to an interesting difference between HN and Twitter; I enjoy HN and its strongly moderated nature (there are several other strongly moderated platforms I enjoy). But Twitter seems different. It acts as both a personal and commercial outlet for news. Personal identities are far stronger; silencing an account is silencing an identity. The consequences of limiting free speech differ. EDIT: I also took a more careful look at your original comment with the Twitter accounts. I honestly cannot find any problematic accounts after having looked through maybe 30 posts on Top. Did you take most of them from Latest? That would make sense, but you are basically giving Twitter a very short window to respond to things. Besides, it’s not the *existence* that matters, it’s whether they are promoted or not. Because for the average user, they will see tweets with much engagement. I would be happy to see any studies on the average Twitter user’s feed, and see the amount of hateful content. If you can demonstrate that (by some sensible definitions) the average Twitter user sees a lot of hateful content, I would gladly change my mind.