[1] https://twitter.com/yoyoel/status/1588657228462317568
Every time I see people advocate for less moderation its really freedom to lie through their damn teeth.
The freedom to publish statements that the establishment (aka Ministry of Truth) deems as false.
It's also called lying.
You might think it's obvious what's true and false, but if that's the case you clearly haven't done enough philosophy...
I'd rather not live in a place where absolutely nothing is real. Societies crumble under such a culture. Birds are considered real only because its not politically advantageous to believe they aren't real. What a dumb fucking value system to live under.
"As recently as two weeks ago, Twitter was touting the team’s debunking efforts as a key aspect of its approach to the 2022 midterms. But on Friday, multiple Twitter employees told The Washington Post the entire team appeared to have been cut amid Musk’s layoffs."
And companies very frequently cut 10-15%, just to shore up the bottom line, to prepare for a bad quarter. I work for a company that is FAMOUS for binge-and-purge hiring practices. They shed that every couple of years, and have for three decades.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/02/white-house-twitter...
> Most of the 2,000+ content moderators working on front-line review were not impacted, and access will be fully restored in the coming days.
An implication here is that engineering was hit that much harder.
(Assuming that "most of" doesn't mean "50% + 1")
> In October 2020, ahead of the U.S. presidential election, the team added context to all trends that could be found in Twitter’s prime real estate — its “For you” and “What’s happening” boxes — on its app and website. As recently as two weeks ago, Twitter was touting the team’s debunking efforts as a key aspect of its approach to the 2022 midterms.
> But on Friday, multiple Twitter employees told The Washington Post the entire team appeared to have been cut amid Musk’s layoffs.
It's hard to know where exactly the cuts were made inside of the trust and safety org, and even how twitter is laid out internally to know whether (or how) if trust and safety intersects with departments paying attention to information ops.
anecdotally, i've seen at least a few people working in those areas laid off.
The whole point in either case is that what is being reported is accurate and verified.
I think Twitter moderation these days is pretty transparent and fact-based when they take action.
The article is making assertions based on claims made by anonymous people who claim to be Twitter employees, and that either through malice or stupidity or "telephone" style information loss, there are countless ways that this article can end up being wrong. And precisely to your earlier point, the article encourages the reader to fill in the blanks about what various departments existed, what their roles are, whether they have direct, indirect, or no effects on the material on Twitter. There is nothing accurate nor verified about any of that.
It's all intentionally hazy, and contributes to the article's overt desire to push a specific narrative rather than provide clarity.
Do I trust a twitter figurehead, who clearly has tweeted this for Elon's sake, more than a journalistic enterprise? No, actually. I think there's a lot to read between the lines. My questions actually came FROM the twitter thread. The article filled in more holes that the twitter thread left open.
1. Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect[1]
2. Ligma Johnson[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...
[2] https://www.wionews.com/world/ligma-johnson-two-pranksters-p...