former twitter exec doubling down on policies that led to Elon buying it
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1598899401732558848
adding a few extra words here because I accidentally posted this in the wrong thread first, deleted it there, and now as I try to post it in this thread (where it should have gone in the first place), the forum is telling me it is too similar to another post (that I just deleted)
Some Twitter perspective
I also am trying my best to keep matters in perspective, but Musk’s takeover of Twitter is far worse than anything Hitler ever did. I do not approve of mass genocide, but it pales in comparison to providing a social media platform where Eddie Izzard might be misgendered.
Meantime in the non-Twitter world
Predictably: LOL
You have fallen for the disinformation and regard anything that contradicts it as false.
Exactly. If the Post had been prohibited from printing it that would be an issue. For other sources to say they didn’t want to deal with it causes no harm.
There is no way the lab leak hypothesis can ever be truly disproven because as in so many cases it’s impossible to prove a negative. Of course China isn’t interested in investigating it because there’s no way to exonerate them. There’s also the complication that the local authorities tried to cover it up–in the process destroying most of the evidence.
The stuff that’s not being shouted from the rooftops is not information in the first place.
I don’t care what a Trump pollster said. Partisan pollsters aren’t worth much of anything these days. And stuff like the laptop was known–it was just dismissed as irrelevant because it’s impossible to show it’s not the equivalent of a photoshop. You believe it because you want to believe it, not because the truth has been established.
And Pfizer didn’t hold back anything other than what the research protocol required. This is normal–you wait until you have enough data points before evaluating the data. I don’t recall the numbers but they only analyzed the data once they had a certain number of confirmed infections in the test groups. (One of the attempts to discredit the vaccine has been based on there being a number of cases in their sample groups that had signs of respiratory illness but did not have positive Covid test results. If you pretend those were Covid cases anyway you get a pretty low effectiveness. However, the real world performance matched what they saw counting the confirmed cases.)
There’s no way to make the truth as persuasive as a well-crafted lie. Persuasiveness is a very poor measure of the truth.
Because the censorship hasn’t been lifted, it’s just been changed. Bans galore for people who make points Musk doesn’t like.
What did the officials do that you think made people not get vaccinated? And now you’re asking for the opposite of what you wanted before–they did change course as the information changed, you criticized them for changing course.
And this is supposed to be a problem? You don’t realize the vile stuff moderators of big sites see.
From the quote this appears to be satire.
But this one isn’t satire, it’s part of the hate being stirred up because schools try to reflect reality rather than the Christian White Supremacist ideas.
He is literally doing the opposite. You are the only one here who’s disregarding anything that is inconvenient to your preconceived beliefs“truths”.
Yes, it’s much easier to adamently surpress it and pretend it doesnt exist, than to simply ask Biden if those messages are authentic. Ok, “easier” isnt the right word, it is “safer” to ensure Biden doesnt have to lie about what can eventually be authenticated.
And to your own claim - if it is impossible show proof, then it’s impossible to debunk it too. Yet that’s exactly what a slew of talking heads and esteemed former whatnots did, pushing what is at best an equally baseless conclusion.
And for 2+ years now we’ve been told that isnt a problem because it’s a private platform that can do whatever it wants. That has not changed, only the response has changed.
Let me refresh your memory. The original data monitoring interim checkpoint was 32 cases for the PFE trial, as they laid out originally in their trial documents. Then, when they realized the results were going to be good and they didn’t want to release them before the election, they stopped processing covid tests so they couldn’t pass the threshold and sat on them for several weeks at least until they miraculously had over 90 cases to report on just after our Dear Leader’s coronation. I laid out all the timetime, changing goalposts and retroactive trial design changes by PFE, and shady political implications here.
Are you saying that suppressing a story is an in-kind advertising contribution to the Democrats, but magnifying the same story is not an in-kind advertising contribution to the Republicans?
I don’t think that is correct. They magnify by “curating” the most outrageous content, because that is what people are more likely to click on. The algorithms don’t just give you similar results, they dig a deeper hole for you.
The human mind gravitates towards outrageous click-bait, not towards persuasion.
I was thinking of our allies when I mentioned international relations.
If you dropped the word “social” I’d completely agree with you. I only have a problem with “social” media, because it amplifies, and I believe if makes the public less informed as a result, not more.
Sure it would be if they put it as a hard coded story on the top of everyone’s news feed. The alternative proposal isn’t that they magnify it to favor the R’s, just that they let people use the platform as they want without any new special political intervention. Let them talk about Hunter, Kardashians, whatever. If Hunter’s antics are popular, let them be.
I’d be OK with that if the platform’s algorithms did not create political intervention. The algorithms amplify – they take something (true or false, or likely and more often with elements of both, but with a particular political slant) that appears to be popular (real or manipulated, i.e. with bots) and make it even more popular by putting it at the top of everyone’s news feed.
Twitter banned people from sharing the links to the Hunter NYP story. It wasn’t about them amplifying it. They normally only used that level of censorship for child porn.
When you say “sharing”, do you mean posting? Isn’t a bunch of people accounts posting the same thing what causes amplification?
If we’re gonna get technical, I suppose if they had another way to suppress amplification without bans, that would be better.
No, they didn’t. They changed course only when it was clear that the public wasn’t going along with their recommendations anymore.
I criticized them for taking way too long to change course and keeping kids out of school WAY longer than nearly every other country.
The problem here is that your definition of the evil “amplification” is “making it available for others to read”.
People sharing a story has absolutely nothing to do with algorithms. I havent bought your argument about the algorithms - which does have merit, although I disagree that there is an inherent bias - because it really isnt about algorithms, it’s about silencing people who believe things you think are false as you just made clear.
How would investigating the origins of covid bring about repercussions we should be worried about with our allies? I figured they might care to know as well.
That’s just an arbitrary definition of social media though. The days of social media just consisting of users sharing cat pics have been over for a while. Social media is where people get their news just as much, if not moreso, than professional news media sites. Ask anyone running a legit news media website today (including legacy media) if facebook and twitter are integral to their reader/viewership and they would all respond that they are. CBS couldn’t even keep up a twitter boycott for two days.
Are you in favor of removing section 230 protections for social media sites? Do you want them to somehow distinguish corporate news from grandpa’s xenophobic rant/the gender studies major’s meltdown about misgendering - heavily regulating the former and leaving alone the latter? Or do you want them to heavily regulate everything, essentially making them a hollow shell of their former selves? Or something else? What exactly is your solution?
No, my definition of amplification is putting it at the top of everyone’s feed.
I was thinking along the lines of it potentially being the result of US-sponsored research. And even if that’s not true, China could make it true. Our own govt would be blamed.
I want them to somehow distinguish actual news from false or slanted personal opinions and to be responsible for amplifying it (not for simply making it available). Perhaps it would be sufficient to allow sharing with friends, maybe even followers (though I’m uncertain about this), without putting it at the top of everyone else’s feed, i.e., no amplification. If something is good enough it’ll spread person-to-person exactly like word of mouth, no computer algorithms necessary.
Now you answer a serious question: Do you not think that there is a problem with political polarization? Do you not think that social media is responsible (in large part, if not entirely) for it? Do you think we should allow a free-for-all, like glitch99 seems to, by letting every nut say whatever they want and have bots retweet it to make it appear at the top of everyone’s feed? What’s your solution?
That clearly does not reconcile with the quote I was replying to. If you’re opposed to algorithms that artificially inserts the article on pages to get maximum views, then prohibiting the article’s subject matter and banning accounts that post it arent even on your radar as possible reactions. Yet that’s the go-to response. You arent opposed to algorithms amplifying a story, you are opposed to algorithms amplifying stories you disagree with.
Yet you’ve been so adamant that it’s a one-way street. The prolonged problems for business owners and staff come when the supposed “truth” is amplified.
Do you agree with actor Mark Ruffalo that the government should take over Twitter to accomplish this?
As a worldwide ‘public square,’ this app should be heavily regulated for misinformation & spamming by hostile interests,” Mr. Ruffalo said in a Thursday Twitter post. “If Elon cannot do that with his ‘company,’ it should be seen as a public utility under governmental supervision. This system unregulated will be more deadly.”