Hacker News Reader

Comment by WORMS_EAT_WORMS | Hacker News Reader

Whoever you are, whatever your politics and positions are, you have to admit and appreciate the humor in the saying: “it’s a private company, they can do what they want”.

Full 180 and probably shouldn’t use an argument you don’t believe in to help make your point if you are on the receiving end of that joke.

Just trying to enjoy the ride on by this one…

I’m still much more concerned with the on-demand Ludovico Technique / aversion therapy device TikTok is using on kids.

If anything comes from this Twitter mix up and supposed transparency — hopefully some algo literacy. Just not a healthy way to be informed through a click bait anger machine designed for engagement.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4woPg0-xyAA&t=3m10s

Aka, don’t ever tune in and tune out!

View on HN

I don't think most of those people are saying Musk can't do this, just that it's going to make the whole site worse. There's a reason I prefer Twitter to 4chan.

They can do whatever they want with Twitter, but I don't have to use it. Which is exactly what everyone complaining about "censorship" on Twitter was told as well. If Musk wants to make Twitter more hospitable to trolls and harassers, then they're welcome to go annoy each other in their new paradise.

Honestly I find 4chan much less toxic than Twitter in practice. Like I can find some of the most horrible, infuriating and potentially illegal content on Twitter whereas on 4chan it's relatively rare depending on the board and the occasional shooting that gets posted on there first or whatever.

Twitter with a proper /b/ section would be great though

Thanks for the idea

I comment this as a parody last week and it's now being promoted as a desired outcome the next week.

lol, let me check that out

your threads are more so focused on the threat of more bigoted stuff

I’m focused on how it would be a hilarious meme factory, amplifying the amusement park that twitter already is to 4chan levels of entertainment, while inheriting a much better more modern interface than 4chan if they tweak twitter just a little more

Yeah that comes with crazy, I’m looking forward to it. I really like that “but muh advertisers dictate what I do” goes away when reducing the options for advertisers. This could be a big and lulzworthy shakeup for the overton window.

> I’m focused on how it would be a hilarious meme factory

I'd like to buy an Internet Experience without memes.

For some mysterious reason, no one, including you, gets specific about what type of content and memes will now be allowed.

Because we dont care

They're looking forward to 4chan but better... do they really need to?

4chan's /b/ is entertaining if you enjoy gore, racial epithets, homophobia, and literal nazis

Yeah its shocking

I always find myself laughing at the speed and meme preparedness of the respondents though. Twitter has some of that but it really pales in comparison.

People will just have to find a different forum if they want something else shrug

I really like the potential for Elon to tell advertisers to pound sand since he wouldnt need to impress shareholders with the idea of ad revenue growth, and many people and organizations will still see the value of advertising there.

I didn't think it would be possible to make Twitter more hospitable to trolls and harassers, and I figured Musk's play would be minimizing bots, trolls, and extremists in order to attract the sane masses and drive up the stock price (sane people = better content = more ad/subscription revenue).

This is essentially the opposite of everything he's said about why he's looking to buy Twitter. It's all about him complaining that the "trolls and extremists" are being unfairly censored. He's all but said he wants to reverse Trump's ban.

There's no world in which Musk is going to be anti-trolling. The dude literally started this whole thing BY TROLLING.

"Trolls" is probably too broad a term since it covers "far-right trolls" as well as shitposters/clowners. Musk is against the former, not the latter. In any case, I'm excited about the potential to shake up moderation; my politics aren't "unfairly censored" by any means, but I'm having the most extreme, caustic positions shoved in my face all the time by an algorithm that optimizes for en(r|g)agement.

Are you sure Musk is against the former? I don't have strong knowledge either way, but it's pretty hard to split that line. The recent history of at least the US far-right can be described as recruiting/evangelizing primarily via "clowning" and "shitposting" that seemed fun until it wasn't. Musk has been fairly open history about palling around with folks I'd easily describe as "far-right trolls", or at least only a few degrees away from them.

I'm mostly unsure if I trust Musk, someone I associate with unfiltered mental garbage intended to en(r|g)age on Twitter to lead the vanguard to moderate out any of that.

I can never know anyone’s intentions, but I also don’t assume the worst for no reason at all. Musk hasn’t measurably changed in the last five or so years, but left-wing opinion of him has nearly reversed. I also reject the characterization of recent right-wing history; I think it is harmless as harmless as any clowning, but the left let that genie out of the bottle a decade and a half ago.

You're claiming there's a 180 but I don't see it. I haven't seen anyone arguing that Musk shouldn't be legally allowed to operate the site as he sees fit were he the owner.

Ellen Pao literally wrote an op-ed arguing this in Washington Post. This was before he bid for the company, just because he was invited to sit on the board!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/04/08/musk-twitt...

"Musk’s appointment to Twitter’s board shows that we need regulation of social-media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication."

...said a multi-millionaire in a newspaper owned by a multibillionaire.

There were also hundreds of notable comments and dozens of articles to that end across the usual websites. People should stop doubling down on their lies and just admit that their past positions weren't based on any real principles.

That's not a 180. To show a 180 you need to show Ellen Pao also saying that “it’s a private company, they can do what they want”.

I don't think that was ever Ellen Pao's position. What you've done is taken two groups of people:

* People think that twitter is private and should do whatever it wants (hence can moderate if they like),

* People that think twitter has a big public influence and therefore has a responsibility to act in a certain way (ie, moderate a certain amount)

And claimed that these two positions are in opposition and therefore hypocritical. But there is no hypocrisy because they're not the same people, they just disagree.

https://twitter.com/ekp/status/1322641942463700992

A straightforward reading of that tweet is "It's a private company, they can remove hate and harassment if they want."

I read that tweet as "People on this platform say that Twitter shouldn't remove hateful content because of the first amendment, but here's people literally breaking first amendment and you all seem to be quiet". She's not saying "Twitter can do what they want" she's saying "YOU say twitter is bound by the first amendment but don't actually seem to support the first ammendment"

Her tweet from 1.5 years ago argues that the First Amendment does not prevent companies from removing hate from their platforms. That is true. Private companies can remove hate from their platforms and no one's first amendment rights have been violated.

Her WaPo editorial from 2.5 weeks ago argues that even though the First Amendment exists, the government should force Twitter to remove hate from their platform.

One could simply turn the charge of hypocrisy back on Ellen Pao - if she cares so much about the first Amendment (see the tweet that preceded the one I linked), why does she want the government to regulate speech on social media?

I don't think that's right, her tweet was saying "This is the standard you set, where are you". She's not endorsing it, she's saying you* endorse this standard, you defend it.

Murdoch isn't already a rich person controlling large channels of communication? Bezos isn't already a rich person controlling a large channel of communication?

All of these channels are controlled by rich people. Who is controlling the lobbyists? Who is financing political parties/campaigns. This is the cost of oligarchy. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't know how we get out of this spiral. I think a huge tax on digital ad revenue would help make these channels more organic and less contentious but I really don't know.

Yes, we KNOW, we're upset at "yet another billionaire" gaining control of a "yet another communication channel".

Why is everybody assuming we are all hypocrites who are 100% in support of the status quo?

Can you expand on what you're specifically referring to regarding TikTok?

Algo Literacy is just some crappy half-baked term I made up on the spot.

It guess it is like Media Literacy where a person is able to contextualize the info they read about in a bigger picture sense.

The second someone — especially a kid — opens TikTok / social media, they are essentially granting access and unlocking their mind for someone else to cram as much information as possible into it.

The Clockwork Orange example is just a reference of mixing that concept with emotional videos and high screen time. The whole idea is not new and it has serious impact on your behavior and sense of self.

Social media is easy to blame for problems but it would be better if people learned to guard themselves a bit.

I take TikTok is just an example and that this applies equally as well to other social media like Instagram/FB/Youtube? Or is there anything particularly notorious about TikTok?

I haven't used TikTok myself but I have observed others using it and it certainly feels a lot more fast-paced and saturated compared to Instagram (which for me already feels like that anyway).

I'm not a behavioral expert, and I don't use tiktok, but I know people who do use it daily, almost as soon as they wake up even. I think the speed and short blasts of visual information acts as sort of a desensitizer to certain content, like if I said to you, in short 5 second bursts "facts", you might retain the 35th "fact" and not question it because you're already on the 50th "fact".

I often am told certain things that might or might not be true, but are often couched in true things. The one i heard the other day was a long list of mandela effects, now some of them were true, but often had context around them that wasn't given ... e.g. Pikachu not having the black stripe on its tail, that could easily have context with regards to time that picture was used, lore in pokemon..etc. but it's reduced to a far more simple "fact"

What's the "full 180"? Where is the hypocrisy?

"it's a private company they can do what they want" is a response to the right-wing claim that moderation is somehow illegal. It isn't, and it still isn't. Online forums are allowed to moderate as much or as little as they want to.

Moderation isn't illegal. Reduced moderation also isn't illegal. I hold the the opinion that some moderation is preferable to no moderation, and I am disappointed that this move may lead to a reduction in moderation and an increase in spam and trolling on the platform. That's not hypocrisy.

It wasn't the response to it was illegal, it was the response to it wasn't right.

Noone was saying what they were doing was illegal, they were saying they didn't like what was happening and perhaps it should be illegal.

So people said "it's a private company, go make your own Twitter".

Turns out the network effect is hard to overcome, so the solution is new management.

No, it was absolutely in response to the claim that it was illegal. All the huxters and fascists who were banned from twitter cried "free speech" and filed lawsuits. Thus the response: it's legal for a private company to moderate their platform.

It is not a violation of your first amendment rights for me to refuse to lend you a megaphone. In fact the opposite is true, if the government compelled me to give you my megaphone, that would be a violation of my free speech rights by compelling association.

People who used to say "increasing moderation on twitter is good and legal" now say "decreasing moderation on twitter is bad, but legal". Those are not contradictory.

> No, it was absolutely in response to the claim that it was illegal.

Every dispute of Twitter's moderation you read was claiming it was illegal?

Like every single comment? Would you like to link to those comments on here? I can go to a thread and find plenty of arguments of people saying it should be illegal.

I have to think that you aren't arguing in good faith because that's such a ridiculous statement.

edit: I picked a random thread and found this exchange immediately:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17929780

Nobody who supports Twitter's (imho responsible) use of censorship thinks that Musk's plan to libertarianize Twitter should be illegal, unlike the folks who used to shout "First amendment! Free speech!" about Twitter's moderation. They're just saying that his actions are childish and will make the site substantially worse.

And having seen the arc of many social media sites with "libertarian" moderation, I'm firmly in that camp.

I mean, Hacker News would not be what it is today without firm-handed moderation.

Hacker News is not a valid comparison. dang is not going around telling people what is "right" and what is "wrong" and what is "misinformation", or trying to control a narrative. Hacker News' heavy-handed moderation is specifically what allows a vast array of opinions to be discussed and debated honestly and openly, in a way that Twitter and YouTube would simply remove as "misinformation".

Dang is not without his biases. He seems more willing to tolerate nationalist flamebait when America is the target of it. And yes, I know his standard response of claiming whatever bias seen in him merely reflects your own bias... that is another of dang's biases.

My personal "anecdote is not data" has been that I was censured for arguing that opposing covid safety measures shows how American conservatism is post-truth, and delta's hospitalization rates showed the cost of that attitude. Repeatedly getting in arguments on this subject got me censored. It's his site, it's his prerogative.

However, I see similar commentary of "anybody who supports inclusive language is just giving stupid prizes to weenies" or something like that. This, by contrast, is fine.

It may be just that dang disagreed with my tone, or never saw the latter, or just thinks this is "my bias", or simply the large number of comments posted (which is kind of a natural effect of being heavily opposed -- agreement with the consensus on this site is intrinsically quieter than disagreement). I don't know.

Either way, their site, their prerogative. Either way, I'm trying not to get into politics on this site anymore.

No doubt, dang can moderate this website as he [and his employer] sees fit. That much at least seems beyond dispute.

> He seems more willing to tolerate nationalist flamebait when America is the target of it.

I thought you were gonna say when Americans are the ones doing it. (I think you mean the opposite, when non-Americans are flaming the US - let me know if I misunderstood you.)

I see far more toxicity allowed about China and (recently) Russia than about the US. I've even seen misinformation allowed in the titles of posts (which are usually heavily moderated to remove even hyperbole, much less misinformation), when the target is Russia.

This only reinforces your "Dang is not without his biases" point though. As a (presumed) political leftie, he's probably more inclined than the average US-ian to allow self-criticism of the US. But as an American in the first place, he's inevitably imbibed some of the caricature of places like China and Russia, and likely doesn't even see the toxic flaming of them for what it is. You see the first bias as the one stands out, while for me the latter is the one that seems visible and obvious.

I wish 1000 dangs could moderate / set moderation policy on most major platforms

I think your first and second sentences contradict each other. If content gets removed, it's removed. Why do you care if the moderators remove it as "misinformation" (which is probably is), or for being hate speech, or being stupid?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com