> user "the account was “artificially” amplifying information".
That is newspeak pure and simple.
That is newspeak pure and simple.
The only things they’re not happy about is news they don’t agree with is getting engagement.
I.e. “you’re holding it wrong.”[1]
[1] https://www.wired.com/2010/06/iphone-4-holding-it-wrong/amp
Where does it say the information was false in that sentence? The newspeak worked.
and to go from "artificially" to bots and fake accounts... OK, maybe. But how do you know? Not because they told you in that sentence, that's for sure.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-mani...
There is nothing ambiguous or euphemistic about the phrase. It is very meaningful.
Definition of artificial
1 : humanly contrived (see contrive sense 1b) often on a natural model : man-made
// an artificial limb
// artificial diamonds
2a : having existence in legal, economic, or political theory
b : caused or produced by a human and especially social or political agency
// an artificial price advantage
// Within these companies, qualified women run into artificial barriers that prevent them from advancing to top positions in management.— James J. Kilpatrick
3a : lacking in natural or spontaneous quality
// an artificial smile
// an artificial excitement
b : imitation, sham
// artificial flavor
4 : based on differential morphological characters not necessarily indicative of natural relationships
// an artificial key for plant identification
5 obsolete : artful, cunning
Definition 2 doesn't apply, or if it does it's a bit of a stretch.
Definition 3 clearly applies. So, "lacking in natural or spontaneous quality".
So, what "amplification" activities on Twitter have a natural or spontaneous quality? Intentional clickbait or flamebait? Using tools to schedule posts in advance to maximize engagement? Jumping on trending hashtags? Paying a person to manage a Twitter account for you? Setting up a bot to automatically post articles from a website? All of these are allowed and can be used to amplify information, but none sound "natural" or "spontaneous" to me.
The meaning is clear and Twitter's rules are (IMO) very reasonable, but there is definitely something euphemistic about the phrase. The literal phrase would be "disallowed amplification", because the only real criteria for what is considered "artificial" are Twitter's own rules for what is allowed and what is not.
From wikipedia (or a reading of the book) "Newspeak is a controlled language of simplified grammar and restricted vocabulary designed to limit the individual's ability to think and articulate "subversive" concepts such as personal identity, self-expression and free will."
What you are reacting to is a technical term that Twitter uses to describe a type of activity that they have found on their network. Specifically, using bots and fake accounts to create the impression that a message is popular or being retweeted by actual people.
As noted elsewhere in this topic, Twitter has an actual definition[1] of what this means.
There isn't really any reason to be confused by the wording of the reaon for the account being deactivated.
[0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak [1]:https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-mani...
Your wikipedia links references merriam-webster which says:
> propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/newspeak
Exactly the definition of "artificially amplifying information".
Newspeak is about destroying words to reduce the thought quality. The theory being somthing like: less precise words mean less precise thoughts.
This is the opposite of newspeak, this is creating new words association for new concepts (artificially amplifying information here meaning buying bot comments, retweets and likes). You can agree or disagree, you can find that this formulation lead to misinterpretation (i do), but this is not newspeak.
It's like Jordan Petterson reading of 1984. This really, really angers me. Even with people i kind of agree with. Maybe people should buy a text explanation of Orwell, as this is far from the easiest anticipation book to understand (the US government pushing of this book proves that really well) or read his experiences and how they translate in his books. And maybe tehy should re-read the books too. Winston's job was to remove words from the dictionary, not add new one.
I'm sorry, this is not personnal, but this is the 4rth time THIS WEEK that i hear someone talk to me about newspeak and being dead wrong about it. One of them critizing adding (ADDING ffs!) a new word in a dictionary. This had to come out.
Agree with your sentiment I guess. Don't use the term newspeak though, this is imho disqualifying.
When lazy or dishonest or weak arguments are used, I get more upset if it’s in support of things I agree with than things I don’t.
It undermines the position and makes it that much harder to discuss it in the future because I now have to disentangle from that on top of actually making a proper argument in favor of the position.