rhaksw

14 ms·

121.
by rhaksw 4y ago
It's a shock to most people [1]: > ...what is the supposed rationale for making you think a removed post is still live and visible? > ...So the mods delete comments, but have them still visible to the writer. How sinister. > .
122.
by rhaksw 4y ago
IMO that's fine, but if you want me to trust such a system, the author should see on their tweet some indication that it's been demoted.
123.
by rhaksw 4y ago
... and I've worked on Reveddit for four years. Less than 1% of Redditors know that all removed comments are secretly removed. It's hard to make people care about this stuff. Most of us only start to see the harm of something when
124.
by rhaksw 4y ago
It's not trustworthy when a system actions a user's content without telling them. Free speech principles are also a thing. The question is not what is getting demoted, it's how . In this case, it's being done secretly
125.
by rhaksw 4y ago
You're right it's not. I gather if you want to get two sides to talk who aren't talking, i.e. those who support that message vs. those who don't, you need to appeal to both.
126.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Twitter calls it "visibility filtering" [1] Facebook gives mods a "Hide comment" button [2] TikTok calls it "visible to self" [3] [4] Truth Social does it [5] [6] [7] Reddit shows all removed comments to auth
127.
by rhaksw 4y ago
I think any indication that there were comms between a presidential candidate's team or a political party and Twitter are interesting for reasons already stated. It's not reasonable to repeatedly ask me to convince you to change y
128.
by rhaksw 4y ago
I said the comms were interesting. Without seeing them, yet knowing they happened, people might imagine more improper things than actually transpired. Transparency is a good thing in this case. This is the end of the conversation for me.
129.
by rhaksw 4y ago
That is a concerning statement yeah. However, even if I were only interested in one thing or the other, the general public can certainly address more than one thing at once. So I don't see the point in trying to shut down conversation
130.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> Notice that you didn’t show any message from Biden asking them to do that. From my comment above, > the "DNC" [3] and "Biden team" [4] were apparently asking Twitter to clean up certain content in relation to tha
131.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Everyone knows the Hunter Biden story [1] was censored. Ro Khanna (D-CA 17th) thought Twitter should've allowed it [2]. Here is a US representative, a Democrat no less, arguing that the story should be allowed to remain on the basis th
132.
by rhaksw 4y ago
The notion that campaign messaging can indicate what the candidate might do while in office should not be surprising. Calls for censorship coming from individuals or groups who later assume positions within government are worth reviewing be
133.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> actions of private entities don't implicate the first amendment. It's worth reviewing calls for censorship coming from private citizens who later assume positions of influence within government: calls that come after taking
134.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Saying WTF is fine. My point was if there's still incredulity about where I was coming from after two clarifying comments in an already long chain then I have nothing more to say. Same goes for you.
135.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Glad to have clarified some things. Regarding the first amendment stuff, I suppose the turning point for you was this line, > Biden was influential, and that makes these conversations interesting, particularly in light of what Josh Hawle
136.
by rhaksw 4y ago
First of all, what I think is a subjective measure. It's my opinion, and you don't need to agree with it. So if you're saying "WTF are you saying" as if you cannot imagine someone would believe Biden's influenc
137.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Is Trump still influential on government policy etc.? If you don't think so, that's fine, but that's the point I'm making.
138.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> Khanna's message is clearly not a government official demanding that Twitter censor something (indeed, he's suggesting the opposite). I never claimed it was, and yes I think he nailed what should have been said at that moment
139.
by rhaksw 4y ago
I found the Ro Khanna one interesting, https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598838041371516929 "Exposed" is your word, not mine. Also, Biden's been a lifelong politician. I guess we disagree that his
140.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Resisting temptation to insert bias is rare /hard when you can acquire 1,000 more clicks/followers for tweaking the story or headline just a bit. People have bills to pay and not every story sells. Journalism isn't just abou
141.
by rhaksw 4y ago
IANAL but neither is Elon. His "free speech is not free reach" comment is nonsensical, for example, because limiting reach doesn't align with free speech principles. This could be another uninformed or poorly worded claim. &g
142.
by rhaksw 4y ago
IANAL but I believe the law says if the journalist didn't aid in whatever made obtaining it illegal, like hacking the data out, then they are clear to publish it. And that's what one Dem called for Twitter to write in its policy,
143.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> This seems like nothing more than a big redirection to get people to move on from the last story. I find government comms with social media to be interesting. Do you not? I'm not sure if there's a bombshell there or not. I be
144.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Government "reports" about speech on social media are dubious when they choose who heads the FTC. It's a fine line that might be worth a court case or two depending on details. Public shock about government involvement in spe
145.
by rhaksw 4y ago
Josh Hawley has been reporting or investigating Facebook's communications with government. I wonder if that would make him or that developing story more or less credible for you.
146.
by rhaksw 4y ago
NY Post is an established source that still needs to refresh its audience. So it's a little of both: dumb and concerning. Lesser-known domains will indeed suffer from draconian moderation policies of today's largest social media
147.
by rhaksw 4y ago
I like all of these comments because they each contain a grain of truth. Biden wasn't in office at the time of communications, yet was clearly a figure of influence in government. "Handle" is an okay word to describe the scen
148.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> I'm asking for you to justify yours with something better than the ACLU president having said "trust me". This article is from FIRE, not the ACLU. The ACLU now interprets civil liberties and rights to be potentially in c
149.
by rhaksw 4y ago
> Is that really the catch? Yes, users don't know about this. That is clear from the above quotes. > Reddit didn't get to where they are today by saying "we totally allow free speech". I don't know whether sha
150.
by rhaksw 4y ago
It's fine for people to have opinions about science and to express them. People learn through interaction. Dismissing people by saying things like "imagine joe six pack sharing his opinion on microbiology" is part of what m

More ›