You could make the same argument about media in general. A newspaper runs the stories that make money and ignores the stories that don't. A TV station runs the programmes that make money and ignores the ones that don't.
Should a programme or journalist cause more trouble than they're worth, they will get axed. And/or their stories no longer accepted by the newspaper/TV network.
Further should be trust people like twitter to keep our secrets when we could trust software platforms where nobody holds the key to giving our identities to a man in a suit that will do his best to ruin us.
Surely it can be inferred that the question of whether a platform has an agenda is relevant to whether they can be trusted.
There are many people who supported trump who strongly dislike him, especially when it comes to racism, but found key aspects of Hilary's platform unacceptable and didn't see another choice.
It's quite possible to be bothered by both sides.
I'm genuinely curious, by what logic did you come to this conclusion?
Not to mention, Twitter is a business. Their business depends on having users. If too many of their users leave the platform because they are constantly being assaulted by white supremacist drivel or being harassed by other users, then they're in trouble (kinda like they are now)
Meta: I'm _so_ twitchy about this stuff. I'm sorry if that's lead me to read your posts less charitably than I should :(
Yes, it's Twitter's platform, and so entirely their choice whose speech happens there.
> Not a fan of Twitter, but
It's not like you're taking a controversial stance here. In fact, you're taking the same one as the article and the rest of our echo chamber.
I don't unconditionally hate Twitter either, but I don't try to get a cookie for it.
I mean, haven't you noticed people do it IRL? "Look none of us like ____, but we gotta admit, ___! Amirite? Amirite?"
EDIT: Basically, what stagbeetle said, but you just say it all the time whether or not it's true.
Not a fan of X, but <something good about X>
Don't mean to be rude but <something actually rude>
I'm not saying X is right but <something right about X>
This is internal noise that the writer spills out. There's no need to write these things.
Here's the kicker: I think it will rain tomorrow. The I think is unnecessary, you're saying it because you're thinking.
Just like the original statement: "Not a fan of twitter, but..." might be seen as a side-note and unimportant to the main point, but it certainly adds information.
Similarly, all of the phrases you mentiom carry information about how the comment should be interpreted.
Not a fan of X: I'm generally biased against X, so my opinion they did well here carries extra inferential weight.
Don't mean to be rude: I don't know how to say this politely and request that you "iron man" the question or statement. There are arguments about if you truly need to say such things, but I'm generally on the side that rudeness is better than censorship.
I'm not claiming X is right: I explicitly disclaim a typical inference one would draw from making an argument that something about X is correct.
What you see as "noise" are inclusions of internal probabilistic weights, parse requests, other meta-comments, etc.
Opinions for, by those against their topic, are usually valued higher than those for, by those in favor of their topic. It's more likely to be grounded in reality.
> Disclosure: I usually hold the opposite viewpoint
> of the one that I just expressed.
In fact, one reason people might make these caveats is an attempt to ward off those people who seem to think every issue is an absolute dichotomy, and respond on the basis of that fallacy. I can't say that it is a very effective tactic.
It would only be meaningless to put similar language on every post because you would presumably be lying. Is the distinction there not obvious?
I mean, it's not like people want to risk being fired from their job just because they posted something in some random forum, but that is exactly what could happen in some quarters.
While HN tends to have really smart people voicing opinions, there are also people with knee-jerk reactions for whom anything that does not fit their view of the world require an immediate inquisition.
(Note how I started my last paragraph. I did not have to do that because it's obvious, but I have to because some people would then flame over the second sentence alone).