Twitter's owners seem to believe that their platform is an oligarchy of opinion leaders (celebrities, etc.), who influence the malleable minds of their aptly-named followers. And they're probably right that this is the overwhelming use case!
I spend a few months in a corner of Twitter with lots of open-minded and free discussion of politics between non-celebrity nobodies. Many accounts in said corner were brigaded, and then shadowbanned or banned outright, etc.
I'm still sore about the platform's intolerance, but it was a powerful lesson about the intolerance in modern society. Birdwatch seems to be yet another mechanism which enables and furthers the shutdown of free expression.
I'm very happy that HN is still capable of having thoughts that stray outside the Overton window, and that zealots are usually ignored =)
yup, I have had the same experience, so much so that I stopped commenting and posting entirely. Waste of time. There are so many people on there that just seem to be outright trolling, posting outright non-sense, and doing other stuff that is just an outright nuisance. It significantly reduces the user experience.
Since HN mainly has startup-minded people on here, I think this actually opens up opportunities for new startups to enter the social media space. There is definitely a large audience who is looking for a more "professional" version of twitter so to speak. Start by blocking anonymous accounts/aliases since this is what every troll hides behind.
LinkedIn is slowly being destroyed by "personal branding consultants" who train people to be "person branding consultants". Once you get a couple of those in your connections the platform becomes unusable.
I mostly agree with you, but I think HN is definitely a special case. It's not huge, sure, but it's certainly not small - I think there's a very active moderation effort and community spirit that keeps discussion much more productive than your average internet forum.
Wow. I was under the impression that Twitter had a fairly high bar for banning accounts. Do you have any examples of the tweets that got members of your community banned?
The Unity 2020 group was basically an idea to put a center-left and center-right person on the ticket for POTUS and they had some stuff like they'd split areas of concern and trade Pres & Vice pres for their 2nd term. Super basic, non-threatening stuff. Nuked from orbit as soon as they got any traction.
If @articlesofunity was banned based on its content (to suppress a point of view), why hasn’t Weinstein, who talks about the same stuff, not been banned? Why is @aounityhistory still up?
Are we supposed to believe that Twitter hates bipartisanship or unity or something? It doesn’t pass the laugh test. Biden’s entire inauguration content package leaned into those themes and we can all note that their accounts are still online.
All the signs point to @articlesofunity account being banned for technical violations of Twitter’s terms of service, specifically the use of automation to falsely pump up its follower count. Thats why the banned account had 25.5k followers but the history account, which purports to carry its flame, has about 100 followers.
That doesn’t pass the sniff test either. Articles of Unity was silenced during the entire period where it had any relevance and momentum. That the election has come and gone, and Weinstein has long stopped pumping it, explains 100 followers of a downstream account that I haven’t even heard of by the way as an avid Weinstein listener (both of them).
Weinstein says that Twitter never gave them a reason for the ban, and even after getting a line to Dorsey, the most Twitter would do is allow people to link to Articles of Unity on the app. It’s still banned. And when you link it PM, it still gives you a “suspicious content” warning[1]. That doesn’t just seem like a follower inflation punishment to me. It’s also not the precedent.
That defeats your theory on my eyes. As for a reasonable reason that AoU was banned, the most likely one to me is that someone at Twitter didn’t like that AoU was getting hashtags to trend that put people against both Trump and Biden during a critical moment in the race. Their movement would likely hurt Biden the most as it would splinter the “anyone but Trump” voter. Btw asking if Twitter banned AoU because Twitter hates unity is a very weak attempt at brainstorming the truth, is that really where your analysis ended?
Twitter has super selective inexplicable inconsistent bans all the time. Like “men aren’t women” getting you suspended while “kill all men” does not. Twitter has obvious heavy handed biases, so don’t overthink it.
Twitter recently clamped down on Qanon accounts, suspending some 70K accounts. Conversely, they also suspended several accounts that supported Antifa which had thousands of followers. I'm not sure the better approach. Suspending the user or an account that has thousands of users attached to it.
I honestly couldn't tell you what got them banned; but I'm sure having politically charged tweets probably didn't help either group. It would seem anything political right now is on the radar of Twitter. Aside from that subject matter, I'm not sure what warrants a suspension these days.
HN works pretty well for the types of discussion it hosts but I'm not sure if it would be as good if it were a general-purpose politics forum. I suspect techno-politics tend to be less emotional compared to other areas of politics.
Although many people in HN have gripes over political discussion in here, I still think this place is (relatively) the best forum to talk about politics. Subreddits are usually in their own bubbles (which has its benefits, but may be boring in the long run), and Twitter doesn’t allow for any long-form discussion. HN is for the most part centrist, but the standard deviation is big enough that everyone would have some people to agree and some people to argue with.
Hn is a pretty poor place for unusual opinions, with downvoting comments actually making them physically harder to read and all. It's pretty obnoxious when you have to start manually highlighting text to follow a discussion
You can click on the timestamp to go to the comment's page, where the text will be readable. It's an annoying extra step, but not as annoying as downgrading the immune system would be, assuming you find fatal illness annoying. Most (<-- notice I said "most") downvoted comments have been downvoted for good reason. Letting the median downvoted comment have the run of this place would kill it.
I don't disagree, and I'm here because I enjoy the culture and comments. But if you are specifically looking for unusual opinions I don't think this is the place with that system in place.
"Unusual opinions" can mean a lot of things. It's not hard to express unusual opinions without breaking the site guidelines, but often people can't resist ranting, lashing out at the mainstream and so on, at the same time. That approach is guaranteed to get downvoted, and typically the commenter does not think "perhaps I could have expressed myself more thoughtfully". Instead they think, "I am being downvoted for my unpopular opinions". It always feels like the fault lies with others. (Edit: of course that applies to what I'm saying here, too...fair's fair.)
> I spend a few months in a corner of Twitter with lots of open-minded and free discussion of politics between non-celebrity nobodies. Many accounts in said corner were brigaded, and then shadowbanned or banned outright, etc.
> I'm still sore about the platform's intolerance, but it was a powerful lesson about the intolerance in modern society. Birdwatch seems to be yet another mechanism which enables and furthers the shutdown of free expression.
I posted a proposal (basically, government mandated, non-partisan, constant auditing of software and processes of all major public communication platforms) in another thread on this story - do you think this might be a plausible approach to addressing this censorship issue, at least in part?
While they're not using this data to moderate by consensus at this point that's clearly the direction they're heading. Consensus certainly has its place, particularly in democratic institutions. But IMHO it's an anti-feature for a forum. It's exactly the counter-consensus opinions that I find most valuable. To the extent that they are suppressed the forum simply loses my interest. Yes, it's useful to see where the consensus is heading. But mostly it's a snooze, and the compelling content is the stuff that challenges it.
A better use of this data would be to highlight the counter-consensus speakers so that I can have a listen.
Don’t they suggest that they don’t want to simply take the majority vote? I’m not really sure whether by consensus you mean the majority opinion or a smaller more shared opinion so maybe I’m misunderstanding.
Correct me if I’m wrong but hasn’t Stack Overflow used consensus to moderate with great success? What is the reason that consensus driven moderation works well on Stack Overflow but not other forums like Twitter?
I would say that with SO, amortized consensus is fine due to there being a "right" answer to a technical problem or question (more or less). Twitter deals mainly in the market of human opinion, which is necessarily far more nuanced with n sides to a story. This makes Twitter the arbiter of truth for their platform. Perfectly legal, as it's their platform, but I wouldn't expect a free exchange of ideas on such a platform.
On StackOverflow there is a simple, objective measure for judging answers and posts by. Namely “Does this answer actually solve my specific problem?” If there are syntax errors or if the answer plain just doesn’t solve the problem it won’t get upvoted or selected as the correct answer.
On Twitter what objective measure are you going to use to evaluate “The election was stolen by widespread voter fraud”? The news? Half of the country believes that “liberal” news is full of lies and the other half thinks the same of “conservative” news.
I have to disagree, there are to many down votes on legit questions but they did not rephrase it properly or didn't show the proper code. It should be more help full, specially when you down vote, give a reason and solution or advice.
It's been a very long time since I've seen anyone use SO as an example of good community moderation. Everyone I know and the general sentiment I get online agree that their moderation is far too heavy handed and leads to an unpleasant experience for most participants.
People keep mixing up “absence of evidence” and “evidence of absence” with this tweet.
There is no reason to believe the WHO was in possession of secret evidence of human-to-human transmission on that date, and they noted that it was entirely possible said evidence would emerge soon. It did shortly afterwards.
It isn't. They slap a warning label on clear falsehoods. (Not very effectively, I might add. If you think the subject can't be discussed on Twitter, you don't use Twitter much.)
Despite the common saying, absence of evidence is evidence of absence a lot of the time.
To put it in boring mathematical terms. If you have a bag filled with a million playing cards, and you inspect 1000 of them and they're all red, that's pretty good evidence that there aren't any black cards in the bag! But blind followers of the "absence of evidence" dogma would say "No it isn't! Just because you haven't found a black card yet doesn't say anything about whether there are any black cards at all." which is clearly nonsense.
The differentiating factor is have you looked?
I think it's reasonable for people to assume the WHO had actually investigated how people contracted covid (otherwise why bother tweeting?), in which case them saying "[we looked but] we couldn't find any evidence of human to human transmission" is clearly misleading.
> Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities
Right it doesn't matter who looks, just that someone does. The Chinese looked! And they didn't find any evidence of human-to-human transmission. That is evidence that there isn't any. Not very compelling evidence but still evidence.
Again, this is a bit you're adding out of nowhere. The WHO did not make that claim in the tweet, and is quoted on the same day as that tweet saying evidence of human-to-transmission is likely to emerge.
As late as early February 2020 being concerned about the coronavirus meant you risked being labeled as a right-wing, Trump-lover, conspiracy theorist.
One of the first Twitter accounts that was getting the straight facts out of Wuhan starting with late January was this lady [1], and because she had written for Epoch Times (among other things) of course meant that everything she was saying was potentially a big, fat lie meant to denigrate the Chinese. I was told as such by at least one user on this very website back then.
This is 100% correct, and for those that doubt this I present the following link of a popular Reddit thread on masks from this time period, where the hundreds of commenters appear to unanimously agree that "masks work" is not only pseudoscience, but an outright conspiracy theory with zero backing, concluding that having your kid wear one to school makes you an asshole that follows misinformation (I wish I was exaggerating, but I am only quoting the comments of the link): https://old.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/fe2oqg/aita_...
It's notable that when it comes to content moderation, most people are positive that the execs at Twitter are morons for not addressing issues sufficiently, but few people can articulate a clear solution to the problem.
I too have concerns about how this will play out, but we should be open minded about different solutions to an important challenge.
Hmm. Brigading is a big concern that's already been mentioned.
A concern I haven't seen mentioned yet is that disputes might end up being won through attrition, which is one of the pitfalls of Wikipedia. I used to contribute to Wikipedia, but I just couldn't keep up with folks who had seemingly infinite time to debate or nitpick.
Eventually some moderators will get tired and decide to do something less emotionally taxing with their time; what will that self-selection mean for the kinds of people who will stay?
Yes, just like HN wants you to write content in the form of comments for free. I get your point, but this is an overly simplistic economic reduction of the incentives and value propositions.
Yes, Twitter wants you fact check for free. They also want you to write Tweets for free. In return, the hypothetical value proposition is that the tweets you and others read are more likely to be factual. If this is successful at scale, it means that the voters in the hopefully democratic place you live will be more informed and more likely to vote for reality based policies.
So, sure, they don't give you a nickel when you fact check. But that doesn't mean it doesn't (possibly) provide sufficient value to you to be worth doing.
This seems like it would be very vulnerable to people supporting a viewpoint (whether true or not) brigading the heck out of posts about the other viewpoint.
It's also the case that there are a lot more people living in undemocratic countries than in democratic ones. I understand the need to have multiple solutions to this problem, but this can never become an alternative for platforms taking more responsibility for content themselves. And, for democratic countries to create a grand coalition to set norms in this space.
The first phase of this pilot will be limited to a small test group in the US
The pilot will start small and grow over time. Our goal is to admit applicants on a rolling, periodic basis. We will admit all participants who meet the required criteria, but if we have more applicants than pilot slots, we will randomly admit accounts, prioritizing accounts that are likely to participate due to having been recently active on Twitter, and those that tend to follow and engage with different tweets than existing participants do — so as to reduce the likelihood that participants would be predominantly from one ideology, background, or interest space.
Aah, the devil in the details.
we will randomly admit accounts, prioritizing accounts
I don’t understand why that’s a catch 22 as it seems to me that the outcomes are different depending on the choice they make.
I agree that the way big American tech companies mostly care about the US and suffer from ethnocentrism when stepping outside the US is a problem but I’m not sure what a solution would even look like.
Unfortunately this won’t lead to the outcome you desire unless there’s a real tangible reason you want your statements to be put in the category with higher standards. Because otherwise such a system will lead to everything being labeled as an opinion. The reach and impact will end up being the same and even people reporting facts will want to avoid the scrutiny and red tape.
I would expect higher attention to facts - and a system that could point this (and other facts) towards other opinions - just allowing readers to make their own informed opinions as well...
I spend a few months in a corner of Twitter with lots of open-minded and free discussion of politics between non-celebrity nobodies. Many accounts in said corner were brigaded, and then shadowbanned or banned outright, etc.
I'm still sore about the platform's intolerance, but it was a powerful lesson about the intolerance in modern society. Birdwatch seems to be yet another mechanism which enables and furthers the shutdown of free expression.
I'm very happy that HN is still capable of having thoughts that stray outside the Overton window, and that zealots are usually ignored =)