Did trolls cost Twitter $3.5bn and its sale? | Hacker News Reader

Did trolls cost Twitter $3.5bn and its sale?

theguardian.com

It's interesting that these stories never consider the reverse. Perhaps Twitter is destroying itself with it's various drives to censor one side of the political debate.

Feel free to argue the point.

No one is talking about politics.

Twitter is a cesspool of trolls, bots and trolling bots. All their signup and MAU stats are BS because of this.

Who wants to be responsible for that?

The only way forward is a real name policy ala Facebook.

We live in an era when a cartoon frog can bring down companies and disrupt elections.

What a time to be alive.

God kek is not amused.

Because He is amuse.

If twitter had more diverse early employees they would not have built a harassment platform - I read this in a HN comment once and it stuck with me. Nice to see this cost in terms the market understands.

Twitter is a complete mess internally. There's no one to blame but Twitter's Board for Twitter's problems.

Which problems are your concern? Are you a user, a shareholder, or a fanboy of a different service?

Twitter's management is simply out of touch with reality. Jack is more interested in being a SJW than turning Twitter around. After Twitter's layoffs, their attrition rate has only gotten worse as good people continue to jump ship. Who's left? Rent seekers. Things will only get worse from here for Twitter. I'm a casual Twitter user, not a shareholder, and not a fan of any other social media service.

Article just sounds like an attempt to prepare public for more censorship. Twitter has no problems with trolls or terrorists or inciters of violence (blm), but they are however effective on removing political opinions that don't align with their agenda. They don't have "problem" with trolls - they are their facilitators and enablers.

You present an interesting perspective re: trying to force (social media) to censor trolls.

Someone could say "I think Donald Trump is spreading hate speech", and then what? Well, it contains the word "hate", so

Twitter's problem, as evidenced by the 3.2/5 it received on Glassdoor, is its management. Management being subpar/cookie-cutter means it's very likely not possible to get (relevant) things done, and that they'll steadily go straight into the ground.

Twitter lost it's value the second they silenced their users.

Twitter hasn't made much of an effort to get rid of the trolls. They're part of the package.

Well, it appears they are active in getting rid of people they don't like. If they agree with the person's agenda then they don't seem so anxious to get rid of them.

Specifically who are you speaking of, and how was their discourse within the Terms of Service?

I hate to be the "do your own research" guy but I'm fairly certain it is quite easy to search for Twitter's apparent "bad for A, fine for B" policy.

Some simple features could be implemented which would allow to reduce noise, because that's the main issue with Twitter, the noise. If I follow someone because he twitted about #microservice or #elixir , I don't want to hear updates about his baby daughter, his wedding or what political candidates he supports. Twitter still didn't fix this, in fact during all these years they add very little new features to their product when it comes to content curation or filtering. That's what makes Twitter so "toxic".

Your mistake is in expecting the web service to filter the messages people choose to share.

You can save a search.

My mistake is expecting anything from Twitter at this point. I don't care about being able to save a search.

"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should". RIP Twitter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com