3 ms·

> If users can still see original tweet content (...) It was already well established that they can't. For example, when Elon Musk's Twitter was already caught

by rewmie 3y ago

> If users can still see original tweet content (...) It was already well established that they can't. For example, when Elon Musk's Twitter was already caught shadow-banning people posting pro-Ukraine content, and when Elon Musk open-sourced some of the original Twitter's code, people found out that it hardcoded settings to ban discussions on Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Past HN discussion on Musk's censorship of the invasion of Ukraine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35519224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35519224

slt2021 3y ago
it did not ban discussions, the algorithm was for ranking tweets in timeline. because you cannot fit all trillions of tweets into everyone's timeline - by definition some tweets will have to be chosen over the overs. if a user posted something about Ukraine, his tweet would still show up in his follower's timeline for "Following", just not Featured (For You) and not always. Mind you I follow this topic and my feed (For You) is like 50% of tweets covering Ukr-Rus war updates. So I never feel any censorship for the war from titter. it is not censorship, because if you follow a user you would still see tweets in its original content without any altering
- rewmie 3y ago
  > it did not ban discussions, the algorithm was for ranking tweets in timeline. Not really. Twitter was hardcoded to downrank discussions on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and is now shadow-banning pro-Ukraine users but strangely not pro-Russia. Nevertheless, the whole point is that Elon Musk's Twitter needs to specify how it's censoring tweets, as they cannot claim they don't editorialize while actively suppressing and censoring discussions that contrasts with their personal preferences. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a mere example on the broad editorial reach of Elon Musk's Twitter, and one where Elon Musk himself was already caught red-handed supporting the invaders.
  - slt2021 3y ago
    Do the same standards apply to zuck and fb feed? to instagram feed? to linkedin feed?

by rewmie 3y ago

slt2021 3y ago

it did not ban discussions, the algorithm was for ranking tweets in timeline. because you cannot fit all trillions of tweets into everyone's timeline - by definition some tweets will have to be chosen over the overs. if a user posted something about Ukraine, his tweet would still show up in his follower's timeline for "Following", just not Featured (For You) and not always. Mind you I follow this topic and my feed (For You) is like 50% of tweets covering Ukr-Rus war updates. So I never feel any censorship for the war from titter. it is not censorship, because if you follow a user you would still see tweets in its original content without any altering

rewmie 3y ago
> it did not ban discussions, the algorithm was for ranking tweets in timeline. Not really. Twitter was hardcoded to downrank discussions on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and is now shadow-banning pro-Ukraine users but strangely not pro-Russia. Nevertheless, the whole point is that Elon Musk's Twitter needs to specify how it's censoring tweets, as they cannot claim they don't editorialize while actively suppressing and censoring discussions that contrasts with their personal preferences. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a mere example on the broad editorial reach of Elon Musk's Twitter, and one where Elon Musk himself was already caught red-handed supporting the invaders.
- slt2021 3y ago
  Do the same standards apply to zuck and fb feed? to instagram feed? to linkedin feed?