Twitter Will Start Hiding Tweets That 'Detract From the Conversation' (slate.com) 186
Yesterday, Twitter announced several new changes to quiet trolls and remove spam. According to Slate, the company "will begin hiding tweets from certain accounts in conversations and search results." In order to see them, you'll now have to scroll to the bottom of the conversation and click "Show more replies," or go into your search settings and choose "See everything." From the report: When Twitter's software decides that a certain user is "detract[ing] from the conversation," all of that user's tweets will be hidden from search results and public conversations until their reputation improves. And they won't know that they're being muted in this way; Twitter says it's still working on ways to notify people and help them get back into its good graces. In the meantime, their tweets will still be visible to their followers as usual and will still be able to be retweeted by others. They just won't show up in conversational threads or search results by default. The change will affect a very small fraction of users, explained Twitter's vice president of trust and safety, Del Harvey -- much less than 1 percent. Still, the company believes it could make a significant difference in the average user's experience. In early testing of the new feature, Twitter said it has seen a 4 percent drop in abuse reports in its search tool and an 8 percent drop in abuse reports in conversation threads.
Cool (Score:3, Insightful)
A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble (Score:4, Insightful)
Twitters new group think reinforcement feature!
Seriously. Silcon valley liberals think silencing non-politicallycorrect non-leftist posts will help their side? They will just reinforce their leftist bubble of estrangement from the rest of the country and this will possibly lead to even greater election defeats.
Prior to the 2016 election I had some arguments with friends in that bubble. Trying to explain to them that the "blue wall" of the industrial states was nonsense. That many blue collar "democrats" are moderate non-ideologues who are not necessary loyal to the party, they have a certain independence. All things being equal a democratic candidate may have an advantage but if a republican candidate can deliver a "better" message to them they will consider voting for the republican candidate. Ex: the "Reagan Democrats". But no, to the silicon valley types the blue wall was impenetrable, no one could ever vote for a republican, no one could ever let economic fears and concerns be their deciding factor. And on election day they learned how wrong they were.
This twitter feature will just silence those outside the bubble, and those inside the bubble will hear fewer "warnings" from outside and have an even deeper sense of false security in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitters new group think reinforcement feature!
Seriously. Silcon valley liberals think silencing non-politicallycorrect non-leftist posts will help their side? They will just reinforce their leftist bubble of estrangement from the rest of the country and this will possibly lead to even greater election defeats. Prior to the 2016 election I had some arguments with friends in that bubble. Trying to explain to them that the "blue wall" of the industrial states was nonsense. That many blue collar "democrats" are moderate non-ideologues who are not necessary loyal to the party, they have a certain independence. All things being equal a democratic candidate may have an advantage but if a republican candidate can deliver a "better" message to them they will consider voting for the republican candidate. Ex: the "Reagan Democrats". But no, to the silicon valley types the blue wall was impenetrable, no one could ever vote for a republican, no one could ever let economic fears and concerns be their deciding factor. And on election day they learned how wrong they were. This twitter feature will just silence those outside the bubble, and those inside the bubble will hear fewer "warnings" from outside and have an even deeper sense of false security in the future.
I never found twitter useful personally, but for those that do there are several alternatives. Maybe one will come up as the popular replacement. https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/twitter-alternative-social-networks [makeuseof.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, I'm including in that list Gab, as ideologically inclusive as it tries to be.
Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble (Score:5, Insightful)
> Seriously. Silcon valley liberals think silencing non-politicallycorrect non-leftist posts will help their side? They will just reinforce their leftist bubble of estrangement from the rest of the country and this will possibly lead to even greater election defeats.
Not in their bubble of self-reinforcing, self-approval. Silencing criticism, making it seem as if it is entirely from outside detractors, is commonplace among the most self-righteous groups of both the left and the right wing. I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam War protests and the original hippies, They had many excellent points and reasons for social protest, much as modern social justice warriors do. The very best of them welcome speech from their political opponents, speech to expose reality and real policies and the real issues that underlie people's concerns. But there are those in their political movements who seek to silence their opponents, who treat dissent as a sin.
I was recently pointed to this example of where it went extremely wrong, where "liberal" professor M.A. Click called for violence against a reporter for covering a political event in a public space.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
She was eventually fired, I think justly, for her behavior. This is what I would hope for when a student or faculty calls for violence to stop free speech and, in this case, the freedom of the press to cover news events in a public space.
Thinking further: David Brin described an idea in his book "Earth", a policy that required people on the Internet to see opinions other than their own to re retain their right to vote. A brilliant heroine in the book tuned the necessary filter to receive the most _outrageious_ of the disagreeing postings, to keep her mind and her atttitudes fresh. I admit that I found the policy to be very tempting. Exposure to opposing opinions or opposing data is vital to science and to engineering. It is very easy for a subtle skew in the data being gathered or presented to reinforce an unjustified belief. It's why I appreciate acquaintances of distinct religions, nationalities, or political beliefs. They provide perspective that people just like myself could not provide.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter are a public relations marketing scam. Their focus is to sell advertising, the drive is to create a communications channel that sell shit, full a pathetic lying scum sucking influencers. Who gives a fuck what they do, it is an utterly pointless and worthless communications channel. It is not about promoting quality discussion, it is all about selling shit, about false advertising as long as it is paid for those false ads, whether political manipulations, social manipulations or simple shit product p
Re: (Score:2)
But then, different people use it different ways, I suppose.
Re: (Score:3)
First, please do us a favor and learn Slashdot's formatting features so we know what are actually quotes and what are not.
Thinking further: David Brin described an idea in his book "Earth", a policy that required people on the Internet to see opinions other than their own to re retain their right to vote. A brilliant heroine in the book tuned the necessary filter to receive the most _outrageious_ of the disagreeing postings, to keep her mind and her atttitudes fresh. I admit that I found the policy to be very tempting. Exposure to opposing opinions or opposing data is vital to science and to engineering. It is very easy for a subtle skew in the data being gathered or presented to reinforce an unjustified belief. It's why I appreciate acquaintances of distinct religions, nationalities, or political beliefs. They provide perspective that people just like myself could not provide.
Don't get me wrong; I loved "Earth" as a novel. However, there are several things wrong with this idea.
The first is the assumption that listening to what we, as a civilized society, know to be ideological garbage. Like strong Socialism (or one my say "Communist wannabes").
That is an experiment that failed so often, so consistently, and so horribly, throug
Re: (Score:2)
Are my quoting practices really so bothersome? I admit that they're a very old style.
> Trying to listen to the most extreme alternate views will not refresh your mind; it will destroy your faith in humanity.
The point David Brin made was that it was necessary to at least hear other opinions. There was no requirement that one agree with them, or even discuss them. The requirement was merely to _see_ other opinions, opinions outside of the politically isolated echo chambers that many social media groups bec
Re: (Score:3)
Thinking further: David Brin described an idea in his book "Earth", a policy that required people on the Internet to see opinions other than their own to re retain their right to vote. A brilliant heroine in the book tuned the necessary filter to receive the most _outrageious_ of the disagreeing postings, to keep her mind and her atttitudes fresh. I admit that I found the policy to be very tempting.
The thing is that idea fails for exactly the same reason communism, libertarianism and unregulated capitalism
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you realise you are doing pretty much exactly what you are criticising?
"Silicon valley liberals" do this, think that etc. Exactly what you criticised your friends for doing with people in the industrial states.
Can we please, everyone, stop doing this? Stop with the 'they did it first, so it justifies me doing it'?
You're right to describe the habits and assumptions of groups of people, it's useful. And you're correct in pointing out that the Democrats lost the last election in part because of failing to r
Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you realise you are doing pretty much exactly what you are criticising? "Silicon valley liberals" do this, think that etc. Exactly what you criticised your friends for doing with people in the industrial states.
You'd have a point if I were as mistaken about the nature of the consensus in silicon valley as they are about the nature of the consensus in the industrial states. Certainly there are individuals of various opinions but regional leanings are identifiable. Here is an unfordable truth for you to ponder, the partisan determination of offending posts by facebook, youtube, etc in recent history.
Can we please, everyone, stop doing this? Stop with the 'they did it first, so it justifies me doing it'?
No such argument was made. The simple argument is that twitter likely can not be trusted to make the determination on offending posts, no more than facebook or youtube, and local culture has a lot to do with this failing.
Re: (Score:3)
You'd have a point if I were as mistaken about the nature of the consensus in silicon valley as they are about the nature of the consensus in the industrial states
I see. It's OK when you do it because you're correct in your sweeping generalisations and attribution of characteristics of a group to an individual. Thank you for illustrating my point.
Your point is false. Other than my friends that I referred to, people whose politics I know quite well, I referred to the consensus of a large group, not an individual. A group that through their content removal at facebook and youtube well establishes their political leaning in the domain we are speaking of.
Re: (Score:2)
You really want to raise the 'Day of Freedom' and Sargon as examples?
Twitter told Sargon that "âoeYour account was suspended because it was found to be violating the Twitter Rules, specifically our rules around participating in targeted abuse."
Ok, has Twitter also banned the accounts of the people participating in targeted abuse against a Labour voter that was also at the 'Day of Freedom'?
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/201... [pinknews.co.uk]
I mean, is she really being oppressed when people are merely trying to destroy her
Re: (Score:2)
I think so too but I have to add two things
- what the bubble is is more than 'silicon vallue liberals'.It will be a consensus bubble where multiple parties have a say . All the parties with significant clout.
- It is not a passive bubble. When you learn that whatever you post can affect your visibility and the visibi
Re: (Score:2)
Also a lot of the work is getting the whole system in place. You can always start with tolerant settings but that does not make the system less powerful. You can change them at any moment and for instance enforce selective blackouts.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitters new group think reinforcement feature!
Seriously. Silcon valley liberals think silencing non-politicallycorrect non-leftist posts will help their side? They will just reinforce their leftist bubble of estrangement from the rest of the country
If that was true, Twitter would simply start to die.
I've seen perfectly good forums get taken over by right-wing extremists. I checked on that forum a few months back, it's down to 3 members and a load of news bots. Its only a matter of time before the owner stops paying the hosting.
I think your real fear is that they wont die and that your extremist philosophy will be ignored out of existence.
When I think of people that are estranged from reality and are set for even worse electoral defeats, I t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's censorship, and I fucking hate it.
I don't even use the word, except when discussing its use, but it's a perfectly legitimate word, it has meaning, it has both historical and modern context and it's a hell of a lot more oppressive to ban its use than it is to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
The irony of this post getting "censored" is palpable.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, they will silence the non-PC posts and think they've silenced the trolls, all the trolls, and nobody but the trolls.
Re: (Score:1)
obviously the only speech that will be silenced is trolls! there's no chance that once unleashed, the censorship machine will silence dissent. Only trolls.
Obviously.
Re: (Score:1)
Still searching for that legendary creature more rare than Bigfoot: the Tolerant Liberal Who Is Actually Tolerant.
Haven't found one yet. Plenty of rage-filled name-calling discriminatory cunts though
Re: (Score:1)
How would you know? Why would a tolerant liberal identify themselves as such or find themselves in conflict with you so that you'd notice?
Same with non-evangelical religious folk, atheists who think belief is personal and don't bring it up otherwise or vegans who aren't out to convert.
What's your methodology? You say you are searching - are you, or is this just rhetoric to allow you to perpetuate the us-vs-them and more-victimised-than-thou?
Re: (Score:1)
The people of compassion and tolerance, give it up for AC.
Re: (Score:2)
A triggered snowflake AC on Slashdot has been trolling anything that has a whiff of "wrong think" to it and calling other posters snowflakes.
It's been going on for a couple of months (that I've noticed).
I don't know if they're trying to be funny (by being a whiny snowflake who calls other snowflakes), or if they're actually just that retarded.
Re: (Score:1)
A triggered snowflake [sic] AC on Slashdot ...
How have you been able to identify a single AC? The use of 'snowflake,' which is now an insult hurled by both sides across the fence, seems as poor a criterion as 'retarded.'
Re:Cool (Score:4, Interesting)
How is having a different opinion make one a snowflake?
There is a pretty clear distinction between censoring contrary opinions and removing blatant troll posts. Of course it's up to the users to make sure that's actually happening.
It starts with not swearing incoherently, threatening violence, insulting people and insisting on opinions that have no factual support. If you can do those things and you get censored, probably you're on a platform that needs to be abandoned.
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez, you're no fun at all.
Re: (Score:2)
how different slashdot would be if they could have a minimum requirement to post of “must not live with parents,” or “must be able to prove you have lived on your own, as an adult, holding down a full time job x 1 year at least”. I suspect there’d be marked improvement.
There are a bunch of things in life that should have those requirements. I feel it would make life much better.
Re:Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the most effective ways to enforce group think is to introduce user moderation, and slashdot was basically the place that invented it. Just sayin.
I disagree.
The way user moderation is implemented at Slashdot seems to allow contrary opinions to exist. Nothing is modded below -1, so dogpiling is mitigated and even -1 comments are sometimes replied to. Nothing is modded over +5, so positive comments all top out to the same amount - there's no fighting for 'most votes'.
You'll still see strongly differing opinions with positive moderation in threads - something that doesn't seem to happen to the same degree on other sites.
I've yet to see evidence of collusion or deliberate suppression of ideas. I've seen mods that looked like '-1 disagree' but more often I see negative moderation for posts that are flamebait, offensive, trollish or offtopic. If you have an unpopular opinion, stating it in a way likely to attract criticism is a great way to play the victim. Rather than taking care to express yourself clearly and risking being unsuccessful in convincing people to change their minds, it's easier to be deliberately confrontational and then claim any negative response is part of 'group think'.
Re:Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two major issues with /. modding. Or three. The first is that sockpuppeting still happens, although the random mod point distribution does help with that. The second is that it doesn't seem like many people metamoderate, and that system is broken and showing me unmoderated posts 3/4 of the time when I go anyway.
The last problem is that it seems that a lot of bad mods get done by the twitchy tweeters and redditors who dive into an article shortly after it's posted, and then hack and slash, close the tab, and move on. Over the next few hours, days and even weeks those mods get reversed into what seem more sensible mods, but it takes the thoughtful slow old folks some time to get to it.
During all that time, the modding is slowly going from frothing angst towards reasoned discussion, but the earlier people hit an article, the worse the moderation tends to be. I think if the metamodding was fixed and people actually took the time to do it, that would go away somewhat faster.
Re: (Score:3)
sockpuppeting still happens
It does, but I'm not sure that it's widespread enough to have anything more than the occasional, minor impact. The effort to stamp it out, completely, is likely to do more to distort discussion than the sockpuppets themselves. I'd go so far as to say that there are posters whose posts make more of a difference than the moderation of even a fairly dedicated sockpuppet.
it doesn't seem like many people metamoderate, and that system is broken and showing me unmoderated posts 3/4 of the time when I go anyway.
There have been times, years ago when there were more posts and metamoderation was new, when I'd be shown posts from weeks back and everything
Re: (Score:2)
I almost agree, except that the pageviews fall off exponentially some amount of time after an article is posted. That means that the early modding and commenting has a disproportionate amount of eyeballs on it.
And the early modding and commenting tends to be a lot of the flailing wailing types, and less of the slow and thoughtful types. I occasionally go back to older articles on the weekend that I just looked at for a few minutes when they were posted, and there's often a noticeable shift in tone and conve
Re: (Score:2)
Mod points are handed out semi randomly, but there are flaws. New accounts are far more likely to get them. This makes it easy to game the system with sock puppets.
Re: (Score:3)
/. moderation is still community moderation. It has its own flaws but it's very different from extra moderation from above. The moderation from above means other players can put their finger on the balance, in a manner which is not transparent and the lack of visibility can be tuned at will till it's full censorship.
As long as there is a setting for it there will be a feedback mechanism where if too many people switch off the setting then it is relaxed. But the feedback mechanism can be obfuscated so that p
Re: (Score:2)
If you have an unpopular opinion, stating it in a way likely to attract criticism is a great way to play the victim
Just stating your unpopular opinion bluntly gets you labeled as a "troll" and causes offense. Slashdot moderation is broken. They should just take away the downvote system, or at least mitigate it so that it costs more points to downvote than to upvote..
Re:Cool (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they're quite different. On reddit, there's no upvote ceiling, and the highest scoring comments rise to the top. On Slashdot, the earliest comment is always shown at the top.
Slashdot's approach has the advantage that downvotes don't bury dissenting posts as much, but it can mean that a low-quality post steers the whole conversation.
Incidentally, on boths sites there are idiots who downvote stuff they disagree with, but I'd say it happens more on reddit. I suspect Slashdot's 'mod points' feature deserves some credit here. On reddit, any account can vote, and there's no protection against people using sockpuppet accounts to vote multiple times.
Re: Embrace, extend, and extinguish (Score:2)
Yeah, except the word didn't refer to being triggered, it referred to people wanting to be a "special snowflake" with all the various identities they adopted for themselves through the magic of intersectionality. The far left using it in the other direction is an amazing example of how they cannot imagine what reasonable criticism of their own position is all about.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt shadow banning has ever been used on a large/automated scale but I could be wrong.
Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
Twitter will be censoring certain users and accounts from appearing prominently in any feeds, unless explicitly searched for.
Which is fine, I'm all for stepping on the trolls, but then I remembered, censorship is bad, even in this situation. Who decides what gets published and what gets buried? That's what bothers me.
If it's an algorithm, then I gotta ask, who wrote the algorithm? Explain it to us, in all the gritty details, because otherwise, it's just censorship based on some unknown criteria. Censorship is bad enough, but censorship without an obvious target? Scary.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
SJW.
Brands, sjw, cults, faith groups, nations, celebrities will be ensuring any mention of topics they don't approve of will be set as distracting.
Only conversations they approve of will be allowed.
Write a negative comment about a movie? No more social media after that negative review.
Mention a nations human rights.. Social media will correct that comment thanks to tourism ads.
No negative reviews of brands that buy ads.
Faith groups will report any blasphemy about their teachings. No history about religion on social media.
Support one side of politics and every comment is approved.
Support another side of politics and that conversation will be removed.
Discover who funds a politically active NGO? That news is not going to be part of the conversation.
Under new social media censorship rules everything will always be approved and correct.
Re: (Score:2)
The ideal of an impartial press that publishes with as even a coverage as they can has proven to be less profitable than the press that panders to the masses desire for scandal and self-reinforcing ideas.
Were someone to strike out and establish a system where anyone could say anything without fear or favour, it would be frequented by a few idealists, some fringe groups that aren't welcome most places and a lot of trolls. Most people have little use for the ideal of free speech if it comes at the cost of hav
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
your use of the term "sjw" is a dog-whistle/code word for abusive and bullying behavior. You want to be able to demean people online based on gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity and/or political affiliation. You are conflating "free speech" with personal attacks, lies and mud slinging. Your intent is to deny online access to anyone you disagree with. You don't want free speech, you want hate speech.
I don't know what the fuck you mean by 'dog whistle' and 'code word' is just incorrectly used.
But in reply to someone using a lazy label to collectively identify a group of people you appear to have responded with personal attacks, lies and mud slinging.
Sorry, I've lost track, who was it that wanted hated speech and who is just fucking giving it out?
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter will be censoring certain users and accounts from appearing prominently in any feeds, unless explicitly searched for.
Which is fine, I'm all for stepping on the trolls, but then I remembered, censorship is bad, even in this situation. Who decides what gets published and what gets buried? That's what bothers me.
If it's an algorithm, then I gotta ask, who wrote the algorithm? Explain it to us, in all the gritty details, because otherwise, it's just censorship based on some unknown criteria. Censorship is bad enough, but censorship without an obvious target? Scary.
Twitter's been censoring the site for quite some time. Probably since its inception. It's notorious for censoring accounts that share opinions the management disagrees with. When it comes up in the news, they label the censored account some nasty thing and smile.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter. It’s their site and their rules. You’re perfectly free not to go there if you disagree. You may have a Consitutional right to free speech in the US, but no one is obligated to listen to you.
This was disingenuous before it was stale, get a new talking point if you want to remain interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter. It’s their site and their rules. You’re perfectly free not to go there if you disagree. You may have a Consitutional right to free speech in the US, but no one is obligated to listen to you.
This was disingenuous before it was stale, get a new talking point if you want to remain interesting.
Damn, that's usually my stance! Stop trolling me! Also, it's true. Free speech never extends to private entities. And hopefully never will. But then, I don't use Twitter, so at the end of the day, I am not invested in this discussion and I don't actually care. I just like to present my perspective, then let y'all fight it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't care about interesting, I care about being RIGHT.
You don't get that option with that stance, the most you can obtain is to be interesting while being wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship might be bad but moderation is good.
Agree with this 100000%. I don't understand why more sites on the internet don't use a moderation system like the one here on Slashdot. It's super effective, we self-moderate ourselves here. Get your comment downmodded to -1? Got no one to blame but your peers who think you're an idiot. And it's not censorship, your comment is still right there, for anyone to see, assuming they want to see stuff that's been modded down to -1.
More of the internet needs Slashdot's moderation system.
Under the guise of helping we can only harm (Score:5, Insightful)
O yea, this won't be abused at all. Everything starts off as some wacky form of good intentions. Soon after, someone with no so decent intentions gets their mitts on the controls and then people start wondering how it all happened.
Oh well, score 1 for the echo chamber at least!
Re: (Score:1)
The Noisy 1% (Score:2, Troll)
So I was thinking.. where have I seen this before? What does this remind me of? OH YEAH, the Ultima Online forums about 15 years ago.
I remember taking note that there's a lot of people bitching about the game's problems. Then I dunno where I came across this, but something to the effect of "The people posting here are the disgruntled ones, a very small percentage of our users, maybe 1%, they're the ones making all the stink, everyone else either doesn't care, doesn't know the forum exists, or has nothing
Re:The Noisy 1% (Score:5, Interesting)
One time on one forum that I kick myself forever for having forgotten, they did group shadowbanning for trolls. Big PSA not to feed the trolls, and then shadowbanned a whole lot of them.
What happened? The trolls essentially got their own forum, trolling each other, and it appeared to them that the PSA was amazingly effective. Normal users didn't reply to them, but other trolls did, and they did all sorts of trolling of each other. Because they still got replies, and didn't know who was shadowbanned and who wasn't, it took awhile for some of them to figure out what was going on. So underneath this quiet, sedate forum, a frothing troll fest was lurking, and if you were too much of a troll on the surface forums, you'd suddenly find yourself sucked into the cesspool.
The problem was that the cesspool was vastly more entertaining than the surface forums, which rather defeated the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I am unable to make a serious distinction between what I think is trolling or just disagreeing, why would anybody else be able to do that for me?
If it's not serial, it shouldn't be banned. That's my viewpoint. I think a system which can parse posts into "definitely tr0lling", "maybe tr0lling" and "probably not tr0lling" could be of use, if users were able to set their tr0lling threshold.
If someone tr0lls 50% of the time and is insightful the other 50%, for some that's far too much tr0lling, and for others it's fine. For some people 5% of the time trolling is too much. And even if this system wasn't perfect, being able to personally adjust the ratio
Re: (Score:2)
First Post!
Re: (Score:2)
Some where really trolls, but most, I have to admit, where people that did I just did not agree with and perhaps kill filed them because I was angry at one specific post at one time for whatever reason.
I always took it as a badge of honor when somebody publicly "plonked" me after losing a debate. Good of you to mature and realize that "troll" is usually synonymous with "I disagree".
Race to maximum fragility (Score:5, Insightful)
By operating at a lower threshold for offense-taking than your opponents, and reporting them at a greater rate than they do you, you can leverage the apparent functional criteria of Twitter's "anti-troll" algorithm to your own ends. The race to maximum fragility has begun. Shed your tears freely and rest not those report buttons, as they are ammunition in the war for visibility.
Re:Race to maximum fragility (Score:4, Funny)
How Internet Fighting Works (Score:2, Insightful)
How Internet Fighting Works [smbc-comics.com] courtesy of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
I still remember... (Score:4, Insightful)
When Instapundit was suspended for tweeting that if your car is surrounded by "protesters" on a highway you need to get out of there even if it means running some of them down. Meanwhile, on the "black" side of Twitter, you can post all sorts of threatening things because you're part of the "oppressed class" and according to progressive lore, racism is only possible if you have power (which only whites and honorary whites like certain types of Asians have).
So by "detracting from the conversation" I think he means things like posting hatefacts back at whiny activists and celebrities who think it's 1930s and they're the courageous anti-Fascist opposition when the only organized and regimented organizations using violence to stifle politics are on their side.
Re: (Score:1)
they're both crazy. We have protests all the time without people getting torn out of their cars and murdered. Telling people to pre-emptively run down protestors with their cars is pretty irresponsible.
Please Ignore This Post (Score:2, Interesting)
eab7 5d15 f483 0969
002d f62d 376c 6018
9dbc d0af d98e 00dd
a5fb da7d b08a 536f
86ee e35d 36c1 b35c
cfb0 9479 7764 053f
fb29 6785 036b 6bfe
5559 c69f 84a0 41b2
Re: Please Ignore This Post (Score:1)
Ok, np
Re: (Score:1)
I tried to ignore the post, but it's full of spelling and grammatical errors. I mean, "b08a"? Really? Everyone knows it's b08c!
Bots (Score:2)
how to know if your spouse is cheating (Score:1)
twitter is like faebook (Score:1)
Twitter isn't fun anymore (Score:2)
I first signed up for twitter back around 2008, mostly to follow a few local bands and get the nightly specials at my favorite local restaurant, The Weary Traveler.
Around the time of the presidential election I gave up on posting anything of substance on twitter, and I've slowly stopped using it entirely over the past six months or so. Seemed like all the "top tweets" were always on one side of the political spectrum, and everybody on both sides has been getting more thin-skinned, blocking anybody who
Re: (Score:2)
But the biggest reason I've dropped out is that my primary account is connected to my real name, and during a big "social media" push by my employer (encouraging everybody to follow the company from their personal account) my direct manager decided to "follow" me about a year ago; He uses his twitter account to post all about his personal political beliefs, and now I'm reluctant to even "like" anything the least bit divergent from the left-wing party line.
Delete your twitter account. If your boss asks, just make up some vague reason to do with personal taste in social media. No employer can force an employee to join and/or participate in some third-party social media site if that was not part of the original job description and requirements for hiring.
If he/they try to force you anyways, that's your cue that "it's time for you to leave" like Cain leaving the monastery after snatching the pebble from the master's hand.
Hopefully you won't be forced to move a h
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is Dead (Score:3)
Welcome to China... (Score:2)
https://qanonposts.com/ [qanonposts.com]
http://www.endthefedreserve.co... [endthefedreserve.com]
https://www.patriotssoapbox.co... [patriotssoapbox.com]
Get in the fight or get enslaved. There is no middle ground under totalitarian control.
Technical solution to a social problem. (Score:2)
This is going to do a lot more harm than good, because those who wish to cause trouble will always discover how to stay just inside the boundaries. Meanwhile, they will troll people into stepping outside those boundaries so they are the ones getting banned. One thing autists and 4channers are really good at is following rules literally while completely violating the spirit. It's like every forum is infested with thousands of wannabe Sean Averys [wikipedia.org] of the Internet. Sometimes they get busted, but then word gets
The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling (Score:1, Insightful)
What is trolling, and not. Everyone's perspectives can differ, so... Will anyone really notice less trolling after it's implementation? We'll see.
Confronting a leftist with an "uncomfortable" truth is trolling. Seen it many times, the accusation is a defensive reaction to dismiss the "uncomfortable" thoughts, to avoid having to respond on the merits.
Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling (Score:4, Insightful)
Confronting a leftist with an "uncomfortable" truth is trolling. Seen it many times, the accusation is a defensive reaction to dismiss the "uncomfortable" thoughts, to avoid having to respond on the merits.
Left, right, sideways... there's more than one axis and more than Democrats and Republicans. I'll admit that when I was younger I thought a lot of people were trolling, you can't seriously mean that. But the older I get the more I realize that people do see things very differently, if you're kind we have different opinions and viewpoints if you're mean there's many with a very warped view of reality. Particularly the people who think if something is not working, you need to do more of it or you're not doing it right. It's like ideology precedes the facts, because it's not working you can't be doing it right because if you did it'd work. Prime examples are capitalism and socialism.
Re: (Score:2)
Confronting a leftist with an "uncomfortable" truth is trolling. Seen it many times, the accusation is a defensive reaction to dismiss the "uncomfortable" thoughts, to avoid having to respond on the merits.
Left, right, sideways... there's more than one axis and more than Democrats and Republicans. I'll admit that when I was younger I thought a lot of people were trolling, you can't seriously mean that. But the older I get the more I realize that people do see things very differently, if you're kind we have different opinions and viewpoints if you're mean there's many with a very warped view of reality.
I'm not sure we are in disagreement. I'm not saying that people with a different opinion are trolling. I'm pointing out a tendency to dismiss the different opinion as a troll or fake, to make the opinion unworthy of response, to sidestep the necessity of offering an intellectual counterargument. I just used the language of one side because that particular side will most likely be making the determination of what is an offending post and we've seen how that goes with facebook, youtube, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite true. One major class of uncomfortable truths:
any fact that that falsifies their religious belief in equality, or their resulting dogma that differences in groups' success are due to privilege and discrimination.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your use of 'leftist' drew the flamebait flag. It has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with form.
To your content;
Your statement is an example of what you accuse 'leftists' of doing. You claim they call anything 'uncomfortable' trolling. You're dismissing accusations of trolling as being a defensive reaction to being presented with an uncomfortable idea. The example 'leftist' is dismissing an idea because it is uncomfortable. You are dismissing a criticism because you attribute a motivati
Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling (Score:4, Insightful)
Your use of 'leftist' drew the flamebait flag. It has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with form.
No, it has to do with the uncomfortable truth. If we were discussing an organization with strong rightward leaning and I used the term "fake news" would you have a problem? Are you denying that twitter is likely to have a very left leaning employee base? Are you denying we have seen similar leanings and bias when facebook and youtube recently attempted the removal of offending posts?
Again, my point is demonstrated. An uncomfortable truth is offensive to some. The uncomfortable truth is the leaning of various silicon valley companies.
But then, perhaps I'm a 'leftist' and my reaction is just a justification for not being able to deal with your uncomfortable idea.
A crack in the bubble. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it has to do with the uncomfortable truth
I could make the same accusation of you and with more evidence in this exchange than you've shown.
If we were discussing an organization with strong rightward leaning and I used the term "fake news" would you have a problem?
If you were using it as a pejorative, absolutely. If you were using it as an ad-hominem, the same.
I'm not objecting to your content. To be plain, I think there are people who identify as 'left' who use victimhood as a way of life; who use rhetorical tricks, logical fallacies and populist tactics to stifle debate and silence dissent. I can speculate as to their motives, but it's unnecessary. Their behaviour can
Re: (Score:2)
If we were discussing an organization with strong rightward leaning and I used the term "fake news" would you have a problem?
If you were using it as a pejorative, absolutely.
Leftist is a pejorative? And I thought it was a simple noun used in context to describe the general political leanings of a group.
""leftist
noun
1. a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views.
adjective
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or advocated by the political Left."
http://www.dictionary.com/brow... [dictionary.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Please, don't be disingenuous.
"Using a word as a pejorative" =/= "the word is a pejorative".
I answered your challenge to me and you're attacking that based on legalism and dictionary definitions while continuing to avoid the substance of my criticism.
I've made my point as clearly as I can and don't believe that it's useful to continue.
Thank you for your time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Meaning is contextual.
Do you have a point?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
No dude, they do not prove your point. Quite the opposite.
The "leftist" epithet is a very lame bit of virtue signaling on your part to try to both demean a strawman you've created to allow you to hate a large portion of the population and signal to "your tribe" that you're one of them.
It's flamebait through and through.
As much as you wish there were "leftists" out there to hate, the uncomfortable truth is that nobody is a "leftist". That's not a thing, nobody identifies as that, there isn't a "leftist" poli
Re: (Score:2)
No dude, they do not prove your point. Quite the opposite. The "leftist" epithet is a very lame bit of virtue signaling on your part to try to both demean a strawman ...
Except its not a straw man, its a factual observation, an uncomfortable truth. See facebook's and youtube's recent examples of partisan determination of what is or is not an acceptable post. The failures overwhelmingly lean in one political direction, hence the accurate epithet.
... signal to "your tribe" that you're one of them ...
Nope, its a simple observation of behavior at similar companies. And my tribe, the "independent" tribe, a tribe that votes for individual candidates based on individual merit, not political parties, isn't impressed by the type of si
Re: (Score:2)
Except its not a straw man, its a factual observation, an uncomfortable truth.
What's factual about making up a label with no definition that nobody really adheres to and then slandering that label? I might as well tell you how shitty the unicornists are, and how they want to shut down any discussion of how horses are superior.
And more hilariously, there's no censorship on /.. Your flamebait being marked for what is proves nothing other than that one person thinks it's flamebait. (Well at least two, counting me.)
You've made a giant boogyman up of "leftists" and see their impacts every
Re: (Score:2)
What's factual about making up a label ...
There is no making up of a label, facebook and youtube erred primarily in one political direction in their removal of content "not contributing to the conversation". Twitter is similar in its makeup.
Your flamebait being marked for what is proves nothing other than that one person thinks it's flamebait.
And yet all I did was provide objective observations of similar companies that engaged in behaviors similar to that proposed for twitter. Thank you also for demonstrating that such uncomfortable truths (silicon valley errs primarily in one political direction) are flamebait/trolling/etc to those who feel their p
Re: (Score:2)
"Leftists" is the label that is made up. If it's not made up, please direct me to the nearest leftist headquarters so I can ask them what they stand for.
You provided no objective observations, just like I can't provide objective observations of the unicornists. They don't exist. Like leftists.
I'm somewhat confused how you don't understand this.
Thank you regarding uncomfortable truths (Score:2)
"Leftists" is the label that is made up.
"leftist
noun
a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views."
http://www.dictionary.com/brow... [dictionary.com]
Thank you once again for the assist in demonstrating the bubble's ability to reject uncomfortable truths.
You provided no objective observations
Other than facebook and google erring overwhelming to the left of the political spectrum in similar efforts, and of twitter having similar composition to those companies?
Re: (Score:2)
Wonderful. Then as I requested, please provide me with the location of the "leftists" headquarters so I can go and talk to them. I have a lot of questions.
Just because you can find a definition of something [merriam-webster.com] doesn't make it a real thing. Are you five?
And on top of that, "the political left" isn't a homogeneous thing either. "Left" doesn't even fully overlap with "Democrat" at this point in time! Your flamebait was well earned. I hope the leftists don't turn you into a gay SJW tonight. Sleep tight!
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you can find a definition of something doesn't make it a real thing.
Actually it can, and it certainly debunks your claim that the word is "made up". Unlike the definition of "unicorn" that you cite, the definition of "leftist" that I cited did not use the word "mythical".
"the political left" isn't a homogeneous thing either. "Left" doesn't even fully overlap with "Democrat" at this point in time!
"homogeneous", "fully overlap", both straw man of yours. I don't recall referring to democrats. Simply people who lean left, as demonstrated by previously mentioned actions at facebook and youtube.
Your flamebait was well earned. I hope the leftists don't turn you into a gay SJW tonight. Sleep tight!
Thank you for the further hysteria over the use of the word "leftist". Did you read the definition: "a member
Re: (Score:2)
Will US social media go full Hundred Flowers Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and ban its own politically trusted users?
From what starts as conversations getting banned will then become having to support healthy criticism of all approved accounts?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that more people want homogeneous and boring than want lively debate, confronting ideas or uncomfortable news.
Look at how many media organisations have moved away from trying to be impartial reporters and found a niche to pander to with scandal and feel-good.
I agree with everything you've said, I just don't see it changing until people realise that echo chambers are dangerous and comfort is best had in moderation. Until then, we'll see the same cycle again and again. As something grows in pop
Re: (Score:2)
https://qanonposts.com/ [qanonposts.com] "He who laughs last laughs the longest."