I still don't understand why the rampant neo-nazism (and associated alt-right malarkey) hasn't outright hurt Twitter's business enough to force them to change.
I still don't understand why the rampant neo-nazism (and associated alt-right malarkey) hasn't outright hurt Twitter's business enough to force them to change.
Twitter's business model is based mostly on volume (data for mining/users for advertising). I doubt the objectionable content is anywhere close to level it would need to be to devalue either of those products.
I still don't understand why the rampant neo-nazism (and associated alt-right malarkey) hasn't outright hurt Twitter's business enough to force them to change.
Twitter's business model is based mostly on volume (data for mining/users for advertising). I doubt the objectionable content is anywhere close to level it would need to be to devalue either of those products.
To paraphrase Michael Jordan: white supremacists buy sneakers too.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I still don't understand why the rampant neo-nazism (and associated alt-right malarkey) hasn't outright hurt Twitter's business enough to force them to change.
Twitter's business model is based mostly on volume (data for mining/users for advertising). I doubt the objectionable content is anywhere close to level it would need to be to devalue either of those products.
To paraphrase Michael Jordan: white supremacists buy sneakers too.
Jordan lost a lot of respect in the black community when he made that statement. And the reality is that Twitter is not profitable at the moment.
1) The number of people being horrible on twitter is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of their overall users.
2) You only see what you want to see on twitter. When you go on your twitter feed, you will only ever see the tweets of those people who you choose to follow unless you choose to go beyond that. Even if horrible people make replies to your favorite actor's tweet, you won't see it unless you click the tweet to open the replies. So most people never see that stuff.
3) You can block anybody you want at any time, so even if you do see someone being horrible, you block them and move on.
1) The number of people being horrible on twitter is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of their overall users.
2) You only see what you want to see on twitter. When you go on your twitter feed, you will only ever see the tweets of those people who you choose to follow unless you choose to go beyond that. Even if horrible people make replies to your favorite actor's tweet, you won't see it unless you click the tweet to open the replies. So most people never see that stuff.
3) You can block anybody you want at any time, so even if you do see someone being horrible, you block them and move on.
Unless there's an organized group harassing you a la Leslie Jones, Gamergate, every non-white male political journalist this cycle, etc.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
No, it wasn't organized. Milo encouraged his followers to harass her. It's not like they were holding meetings. He just told a large group of racists to go make bad remarks against her, and twitter smartly banned him because they were getting backlash for it.
I hate assholes like everybody, I just don't agree we should be trying to force twitter to moderate every tweet that's sent when their system already lets you choose what you want to see.
No, it wasn't organized. Milo encouraged his followers to harass her. It's not like they were holding meetings. He just told a large group of racists to go make bad remarks against her, and twitter smartly banned him because they were getting backlash for it.
If you can't handle people being assholes and blocking them, you can have somebody screen your social media for you first. I'm not making a south park joke or anything there either, some high profile people do that because they don't do well when they see the negativity.
That would be how it was organized. It had a leader who directed a large following of random users (in the thousands) to attack a target of the week. It wasn't a bunch of spontaneous random assholes attacking in a vacuum.
Moderating content is a gradient topic. If they moderate too much no one will use their material and it will collapse. If they don't it causes the system to be abused as with grumblegaps. There is plenty of room to discuss a midground without crying foul.
Yeah, and twitter has rules against targeted abuse and harassment, which Milo broke, and for which he was banned for twitter. And for cases where it's a smaller number of people just being assholes, you can just block them. To me, that sounds like their system is working.
Yeah, and twitter has rules against targeted abuse and harassment, which Milo broke, and for which he was banned for twitter. And for cases where it's a smaller number of people just being assholes, you can just block them. To me, that sounds like their system is working.
It sounds like it's working to you because you're not the target of coordinated abuse, and you have a reasonable assumption that you won't be. For the people who those assumptions do not hold true, the system isn't working.
Yeah, and twitter has rules against targeted abuse and harassment, which Milo broke, and for which he was banned for twitter. And for cases where it's a smaller number of people just being assholes, you can just block them. To me, that sounds like their system is working.
And to others, it is a good start.
As previously mentioned, it is still possible to be attacked on twitter quite effectively without any real repercussions for the attackers themselves. For many who make their livings through social media it is more than just "click block" when you could have thousands of hate filled attacks coming your way from hundreds of new users a day just cycling through new accounts. Saying "just block them" also doesn't accomplish the damage to both personal and corporate brand these people can have as until they are blocked or banned their posts are linked to yours, and frequently afterwards their posts can still be picked up and distributed, linking new accounts to yours.
This seems like an odd hill to die on for something like this.
Yeah, and twitter has rules against targeted abuse and harassment, which Milo broke, and for which he was banned for twitter. And for cases where it's a smaller number of people just being assholes, you can just block them. To me, that sounds like their system is working.
Why would blocking work when someone can create a new account in approximately 45 seconds?
edit
Also the idea that Twitter is some kind of free speech public forum and PA isn't is weird. You can be dickish up to a certain point on PA and then you start getting slapped and eventually banned. Twitter has the same thing but with a higher threshold. People think once you're sending shit like
Yeah, and twitter has rules against targeted abuse and harassment, which Milo broke, and for which he was banned for twitter. And for cases where it's a smaller number of people just being assholes, you can just block them. To me, that sounds like their system is working.
It sounds like it's working to you because you're not the target of coordinated abuse, and you have a reasonable assumption that you won't be. For the people who those assumptions do not hold true, the system isn't working.
I am empathetic toward the people who are being harassed by assholes in huge numbers, but I'm still not clear on what your proposed solution is?
You want to force twitter to moderate heavily? If so, how do you make them do that?
Also the idea that Twitter is some kind of free speech public forum and PA isn't is weird. You can be dickish up to a certain point on PA and then you start getting slapped and eventually banned. Twitter has the same thing but with a higher threshold. People think once you're sending shit like
you should be well above threshold
Twitter advertises as being a free speech site, it's part of their business model. PA makes it clear in the rules thread that this is not a free speech forum; explicitly certain speech is restricted.
Can we please take the discussion of Twitters moderation policies to a thread more suited for that, and leave this thread for discussing the [American Political Media]?
Also the idea that Twitter is some kind of free speech public forum and PA isn't is weird. You can be dickish up to a certain point on PA and then you start getting slapped and eventually banned. Twitter has the same thing but with a higher threshold. People think once you're sending shit like
you should be well above threshold
Twitter advertises as being a free speech site, it's part of their business model. PA makes it clear in the rules thread that this is not a free speech forum; explicitly certain speech is restricted.
And? Society is not obliged to turn a blind eye to the repercussions of their business model. And frankly, I don't see a medium that looks away from the silencing of the marginalized through abuse to be all that terribly committed to free speech.
Can we please take the discussion of Twitters moderation policies to a thread more suited for that, and leave this thread for discussing the [American Political Media]?
This is a right wing Fox News type lauding the success of the Berlin Wall in Communist East Germany. They haven't so much lost the plot as thrown it in the trunk and set the car on fire.
Quick, ask them who demanded that Gorbachev tear it down.
This is a right wing Fox News type lauding the success of the Berlin Wall in Communist East Germany. They haven't so much lost the plot as thrown it in the trunk and set the car on fire.
Quick, ask them who demanded that Gorbachev tear it down.
Probably that sly Jimmy Carter. All those bleeding hearts and their anti-wallism.
This is a right wing Fox News type lauding the success of the Berlin Wall in Communist East Germany. They haven't so much lost the plot as thrown it in the trunk and set the car on fire.
Quick, ask them who demanded that Gorbachev tear it down.
This is one of the few times I want speech to be criminalized. Drudge and Limbaugh are saying the NOAA is conspiring to make Matthew sound worse than it is and that it's really not that dangerous.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
This is one of the few times I want speech to be criminalized. Drudge and Limbaugh are saying the NOAA is conspiring to make Matthew sound worse than it is and that it's really not that dangerous.
Well Shep Smith by comparison is telling people staying will kill them, so at least one person is trying.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
This is one of the few times I want speech to be criminalized. Drudge and Limbaugh are saying the NOAA is conspiring to make Matthew sound worse than it is and that it's really not that dangerous.
Well Shep Smith by comparison is telling people staying will kill them, so at least one person is trying.
Even Gov. Luthor is doing that.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
This is one of the few times I want speech to be criminalized. Drudge and Limbaugh are saying the NOAA is conspiring to make Matthew sound worse than it is and that it's really not that dangerous.
Well Shep Smith by comparison is telling people staying will kill them, so at least one person is trying.
Even Gov. Luthor is doing that.
Some people think its callous to threaten people like that, but I honestly would rather people be too afraid and have it be nothing, then think its nothing and end up dead.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
This is one of the few times I want speech to be criminalized. Drudge and Limbaugh are saying the NOAA is conspiring to make Matthew sound worse than it is and that it's really not that dangerous.
What happens when it is that bad and people die? Are they crisis actors?
This is one of the few times I want speech to be criminalized. Drudge and Limbaugh are saying the NOAA is conspiring to make Matthew sound worse than it is and that it's really not that dangerous.
What happens when it is that bad and people die? Are they crisis actors?
People end up dead, the instigators don't care and continue to make good money and sleep well at night.
Nobody is going to go after Drudge or Limbaugh for something like that, because they'd just start screaming political persecution.
This is one of the few times I want speech to be criminalized. Drudge and Limbaugh are saying the NOAA is conspiring to make Matthew sound worse than it is and that it's really not that dangerous.
What happens when it is that bad and people die? Are they crisis actors?
People end up dead, the instigators don't care and continue to make good money and sleep well at night.
Nobody is going to go after Drudge or Limbaugh for something like that, because they'd just start screaming political persecution.
This is one of the few times I want speech to be criminalized. Drudge and Limbaugh are saying the NOAA is conspiring to make Matthew sound worse than it is and that it's really not that dangerous.
What happens when it is that bad and people die? Are they crisis actors?
People end up dead, the instigators don't care and continue to make good money and sleep well at night.
Nobody is going to go after Drudge or Limbaugh for something like that, because they'd just start screaming political persecution.
No no, I know that. I was more thinking about the conspiracy nutbars that think things like "Sandy Hook was a false flag."
This is one of the few times I want speech to be criminalized. Drudge and Limbaugh are saying the NOAA is conspiring to make Matthew sound worse than it is and that it's really not that dangerous.
I was all ready to scowl at you after that first sentence (though I understand I'm kinda extreme on speech rights) but when I got to the second it was a big case of "Nevermind", that absolutely should carry legal consequences.
This is one of the few times I want speech to be criminalized. Drudge and Limbaugh are saying the NOAA is conspiring to make Matthew sound worse than it is and that it's really not that dangerous.
I was all ready to scowl at you after that first sentence (though I understand I'm kinda extreme on speech rights) but when I got to the second it was a big case of "Nevermind", that absolutely should carry legal consequences.
It's absolutely a fine line to walk... but encouraging self-destructive behavior on a grand scale may be something we can make a sufficiently-narrow law on.
This is one of the few times I want speech to be criminalized. Drudge and Limbaugh are saying the NOAA is conspiring to make Matthew sound worse than it is and that it's really not that dangerous.
I was all ready to scowl at you after that first sentence (though I understand I'm kinda extreme on speech rights) but when I got to the second it was a big case of "Nevermind", that absolutely should carry legal consequences.
It's absolutely a fine line to walk... but encouraging self-destructive behavior on a grand scale may be something we can make a sufficiently-narrow law on.
Pretty sure it's already called reckless endangerment.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Josh Marshall should win the Pulitzer for opinion writing, and Sopan Deb, Katy Tur, and the rest of the Trump traveling press corps get special commendations for remaining sane.
But yeah, Fahrenholdt has the reporting ones.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
Twitter's business model is based mostly on volume (data for mining/users for advertising). I doubt the objectionable content is anywhere close to level it would need to be to devalue either of those products.
To paraphrase Michael Jordan: white supremacists buy sneakers too.
Jordan lost a lot of respect in the black community when he made that statement. And the reality is that Twitter is not profitable at the moment.
2) You only see what you want to see on twitter. When you go on your twitter feed, you will only ever see the tweets of those people who you choose to follow unless you choose to go beyond that. Even if horrible people make replies to your favorite actor's tweet, you won't see it unless you click the tweet to open the replies. So most people never see that stuff.
3) You can block anybody you want at any time, so even if you do see someone being horrible, you block them and move on.
Unless there's an organized group harassing you a la Leslie Jones, Gamergate, every non-white male political journalist this cycle, etc.
Um, quite organized, actually - which is why the man who did the organizing got banned from Twitter.
Where else can you find some if not Twitter?
I hate assholes like everybody, I just don't agree we should be trying to force twitter to moderate every tweet that's sent when their system already lets you choose what you want to see.
How else do you propose that they create jobs?
That would be how it was organized. It had a leader who directed a large following of random users (in the thousands) to attack a target of the week. It wasn't a bunch of spontaneous random assholes attacking in a vacuum.
Moderating content is a gradient topic. If they moderate too much no one will use their material and it will collapse. If they don't it causes the system to be abused as with grumblegaps. There is plenty of room to discuss a midground without crying foul.
It sounds like it's working to you because you're not the target of coordinated abuse, and you have a reasonable assumption that you won't be. For the people who those assumptions do not hold true, the system isn't working.
And to others, it is a good start.
As previously mentioned, it is still possible to be attacked on twitter quite effectively without any real repercussions for the attackers themselves. For many who make their livings through social media it is more than just "click block" when you could have thousands of hate filled attacks coming your way from hundreds of new users a day just cycling through new accounts. Saying "just block them" also doesn't accomplish the damage to both personal and corporate brand these people can have as until they are blocked or banned their posts are linked to yours, and frequently afterwards their posts can still be picked up and distributed, linking new accounts to yours.
This seems like an odd hill to die on for something like this.
Why would blocking work when someone can create a new account in approximately 45 seconds?
edit
Also the idea that Twitter is some kind of free speech public forum and PA isn't is weird. You can be dickish up to a certain point on PA and then you start getting slapped and eventually banned. Twitter has the same thing but with a higher threshold. People think once you're sending shit like
you should be well above threshold
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I am empathetic toward the people who are being harassed by assholes in huge numbers, but I'm still not clear on what your proposed solution is?
You want to force twitter to moderate heavily? If so, how do you make them do that?
Twitter advertises as being a free speech site, it's part of their business model. PA makes it clear in the rules thread that this is not a free speech forum; explicitly certain speech is restricted.
MWO: Adamski
And? Society is not obliged to turn a blind eye to the repercussions of their business model. And frankly, I don't see a medium that looks away from the silencing of the marginalized through abuse to be all that terribly committed to free speech.
Here you go.
Quick, ask them who demanded that Gorbachev tear it down.
Probably that sly Jimmy Carter. All those bleeding hearts and their anti-wallism.
It was a doughnut, right?
Well Shep Smith by comparison is telling people staying will kill them, so at least one person is trying.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Even Gov. Luthor is doing that.
Some people think its callous to threaten people like that, but I honestly would rather people be too afraid and have it be nothing, then think its nothing and end up dead.
pleasepaypreacher.net
What happens when it is that bad and people die? Are they crisis actors?
People end up dead, the instigators don't care and continue to make good money and sleep well at night.
Nobody is going to go after Drudge or Limbaugh for something like that, because they'd just start screaming political persecution.
Also, think about the likely victims anyway.
No no, I know that. I was more thinking about the conspiracy nutbars that think things like "Sandy Hook was a false flag."
I was all ready to scowl at you after that first sentence (though I understand I'm kinda extreme on speech rights) but when I got to the second it was a big case of "Nevermind", that absolutely should carry legal consequences.
It's absolutely a fine line to walk... but encouraging self-destructive behavior on a grand scale may be something we can make a sufficiently-narrow law on.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Pretty sure it's already called reckless endangerment.
O'Donnell is pissed.
And from the other side
edit
Excellent follow up from the Senior Editor at the New Republic
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
But yeah, Fahrenholdt has the reporting ones.