Moving to Canada requires moving out of the US. People can, and mostly do, have a presence on more than one social media platform. This is more (exactly) like "I'm not using Digg anymore if they don't role back the changes", which actually happened.
That crowd has been around for every presidential election since I was old enough to understand what it meant. Don't remember one person ever carrying out with the threat from either side.
However, this comment is a decent litmus test on how I can safely ignore anything from them after that point.
Let's be honest. Not many people are going to leave. Just look at #deletefacebook, #deleteinstagram, #deleteTwitter. They didn't delete anything and stayed on the platform.
I'd like to call out that individual responses to this don't matter. What matters is if Twitter remains a place for public discourse. So long as we allow public discourse to happen on private platforms that aren't held responsible for maintaining the availability, accountability, and freedom (as in speech) of these public forums, Twitter will continue to be problematic.
Whether it's Musk or a private group of shareholders, the ownership doesn't much matter if whoever controls it at the time can decide what the public is or is not allowed to discuss or share.
That's one approach. Regulation is another--we have regulatory models and regimes for broadcast television, radio, and newspaper. Social media is a bit more complex as it is both broadcast and at times bi-directional, but I suspect a lot of concepts between mediums still apply.
EDIT: I'd appreciate counterpoints over downvotes. This isn't Reddit. Make your thoughts known, I welcome insights or opinions other than my own.
I didn't downvote you but I think regulation here could only make things worse. IMO it only did harm to TV and radio. Most people are probably tired of hearing and debating this idea.
Apologies for the confusion, my previous comment was not directed at you @usrn, but at downvoters not participating in this dialog.
You may be correct that the topic is a bit of a dead horse. In my own experience, I find regulation is both an unpopular and controversial topic on HN. I suspect this is why it has been a frustratingly difficult topic to solicit substantial counterpoints on. Your thoughts, while different than my own, are very much welcome.
It still boggles my mind how none of the big media conglomerates haven't even tried to set up their own servers.
To me is the biggest evidence that big media doesn't really care about the the quality of public discourse of the dominance of closed platforms, and all those editorials are just posturing.
This is not what I mean. What I mean is that they (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NYT, WSJ et caterva) could, e.g, set up a Mastodon server and give accounts to their staff and at least encourage cross-posting. They could give free accounts to their subscribers. There is so much that they could to send a strong signal that they are against Twitter/Facebook as the single place of public discourse.
But of course they don't do any of that. The NYT is more interested in paying 7 million dollars to buy Wordle than in combating the Big Tech oligopoly.
They don't even need to use Mastodon itself. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NYT etc could put ActivityPub in their content management systems and be direct participants to this wider standards-based ecosystem.
btw it'd be nice to see the fedi grow beyond being the "mastoverse", other implementations of AP exist
Definitely, I used Mastodon as an example because it is what has become associated as the alternative for Twitter. But the important thing would be for them to adopt ActivityPub and get the "public square" out of the control from any single entity.
I don't think this is the best way to send that message. The best way to send that message would be to stop breathlessly covering the various goings-on on Twitter. If done well, that sends the message that there are plenty of other ways to have public discourse than on two specific websites. Edit: Trying to compete with Twitter specifically will just reenforce the impression that what's happening there is uniquely valuable.
Attempting to clone Twitter, even if only for their staff and subscribers and/or in a federated form, opens them up to the exact same issues that motivated them to get rid of the comment sections. There would even be the additional problem that they'd need to advertise the thing. The software being available off the shelf doesn't matter, because the software is not the only hard part.
Of course NYT are more interested in buying Wordle than in trying to "combat" the big tech oligopoly. They also didn't try to compete with, say, Ma Bell or Clear Channel, but they have been a big player in the word game space for longer than the personal computer has existed.
> The best way to send that message would be to stop breathlessly covering the various goings-on on Twitter.
Reporters are going to report on what brings readers, and one of the most upsetting things about the press nowadays is this idea that they should help "shape the narrative". If the press is truly independent, they could and should report on what happens at Twitter.
In any case, your idea and mine are orthogonal.
> Attempting to clone Twitter
I used Mastodon in the example, but it wouldn't be a twitter clone. This is not what ActivityPub is.
The point of adopting ActivityPub for them would be simply to be able to claim that they can be in control of their own discourse and that they do not depend on Big Tech and their social networks.
> They also didn't try to compete with, say, Ma Bell or Clear Channel,
Is not that they would do it to "compete", they could do it simply to stop contributing to the problem that they are so frequently writing about. And it certainly requires infinitely less resources to run an AP server than to create a phone network. I can profitably run a Mastodon server for the NYT for less than $500/month.
The platforms themselves, expressions of free enterprise and free association, are part of the discourse - not merely a location.
We're not, and never really have been over the full course of the information age so far, in need of new, online public fora. (Go to your city council meetings.)
WhatsApp is not a social network, but it is owned by Big Tech and is being exploited to monetize users attention. Also, the conversations may be encrypted, but the metadata (the really interesting part for FB) is being mined. Good on OP that they got it out of their device.
Good luck communicating with people without using Big Tech products. I just wonder what operating system they use in their mobile device considering Android and iOS are both developed by Big Tech.
I would also like to know how is WhatsApp exploited to keep my attention, you think I randomly search for users or not even sure how could I keep attention to it without actually writing or reading messages.
In Brazil, e.g, WhatsApp is the facto tool used by people to talk with their doctors, to order food from a restaurant or for group chat with hundreds/thousands of users, some of them political or sensitive in nature. Facebook can correlate your messaging partners, location and even time to know what ads to offer you on their other properties.
> Good luck communicating with people without using Big Tech products.
There are alternatives. Signal is already known even by non-techies. Matrix is not perfect, but usable and it can be setup in a way to bridge with other protocols, like Discord, Telegram, XMPP and even whatsapp.
> I don't use any other Facebook product besides Whatsapp.
You are still being tracked, your data is still being available to every site you visit and has tracking codes from Facebook and your data can still end up on some shady exchange.
> what device and operating system not from Big Tech you use to run these "alternatives"
I am running /e/OS, an Android base without Google bits, on a Fairphone 3. It has its own app store that proxies to Google's, so you can use any app that works with microg. You can also use F-Droid, which gives you a huge catalog of FOSS alternatives.
Elon's statement suggests forced "authentication" for all users, so that'll presumably be the end of anonymous Twitter profiles and the start of needing to prove identity at sign-up time:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1518677066325053441
I would expect that feature roughly the same time I expect full self driving in Teslas, or the Cybertruck, or a mission to Mars. Musk makes lots of promises.
It makes no difference to me who owns it. I barely use Twitter but I guess I might use it more if there are any improvements made. I really don't like Twitter
You kinda touch on something I think is interesting and I'm hopeful for - a more return to balance. It seems a lot of people and groups who go against the status quo were effectively banned or suspended until they fall in line. Where's the fun in that?
Do I want to see it turn into Voat? God no. But I'd appreciate way more diversity in thought than they currently allow.
My primary issue with Twitter moderation is that the ban process is so opaque and inconsistent. They’ve certainly got it wrong many times, but it seems like consistency and transparency are what’s missing most.
> But I'd appreciate way more diversity in thought than they currently allow.
I keep hearing this sentiment and I guess I don’t get it. Richard Spencer wasn’t banned for his “diverse thought”, he’s still on the platform. Trump wasn’t either. I see plenty of absolutely repugnant comments and tweets so what does this mean?
These debates about what should and shouldn’t be allowed seem almost intentionally vague. What are people getting banned for saying that they shouldn’t be banned for?
It seems to me Twitter has a policy that seems fair, but is applied in an unfair way, if that makes sense. Basically, if they don't like someone, they ban them for violating policies that thousands of others violate daily.
A quick scroll through that is pretty telling they have no interest in allowing conservative people on their platform.
Were most of them banned for cause? Probably. But again, there's thousands if not millions not banned for identical or worse behavior.
So my 'diversity in thought' comment means just that... differing opinions. Even if some opinions are stupid.
I think one giant problem today is that having an opposing opinion on many topics is called out as 'hate', which is a super broad and often misapplied label.
I honestly don't think it'll change that much. Musk's statements thus far suggest that he lacks a basic understanding of the problems inherent to running a platform like Twitter, so he'll probably just get frustrated and lose interest once he starts running into them. I suspect that the company will end up in the hands of a group indistinguishable from the current board, except they'll be Musk's friends.
I don't think you'll see changed policy, but you'll see the one-off demands of a guy who gets what he wants. So Trump unbanned, people who upset him randomly banned, etc.
Yeah, that's for sure a possibility. The purchase might even end up as a marginal improvement since he actively uses Twitter and might request some QoL features once in a while.
Why do people keep saying he'll get frustrated and lose interest, as though he has a history of giving up on things once they get hard? People were saying that about his bid too.
Same... I'm not sure why people think that the guy who spent billions to create a reusable rocket that can land on little tiny pads in the ocean would throw his hands up and think the problem of bots and spam on Twitter is unsolvable.
Actually, he sounds to me like he has an entirely reasonable understanding of twitter. Can you provide specific areas where you think his understanding is deficient?
These articles almost pretend like the entire staff will leave and he will have to rebuild the service from scratch alone, personally. Surely, there will be some existing people and processes around to help him?
He seems to be intending to take Twitter back to the type and scale of content moderation social media firms had pre-2015, which is perhaps not co-incidentally when they achieved their huge levels of growth.
Too many HN readers appear to be trying to convince themselves of this idea: that content moderation is some insanely hard problem. It's not. Social media grew to billions of users with relatively straightforward policies. It only seems that way now because the type of people who are obsessed with "moderation" (read: banning ideas they don't like) also struggle to crystallize a coherent set of beliefs about what speech should and should not be allowed. The absurd false positive and noise rates on Twitter/FB moderation is evidence of this. In place of coherent policies there is an inconsistent and ever-shifting set of unwritten rules that must be reverse engineered by outsiders to even begin to understand the underlying "logic".
Reverting to a classical policy of:
1. No spamming.
2. No engaging in illegal activity (e.g. financial fraud, CP, copyright infringement).
3. Tweets that violate local laws will be hidden in that jurisdiction.
along with the usual boilerplates you find in any 2010-era ToS, would be plenty sufficient and would not in fact pose problems harder than literal rocket science.
The challenge seems to be that 1-3 in your list are highly subjective.
1. Requires a common definition of spamming. If a bot is posting headlines for the NYT on their official account is that spam? A person really eagerly replying to everyone about their favorite band? Someone trying really hard to sell you their diet pills? Musk seems to think all these are equally OK (except maybe the nyt bot).
2. Musk has been sanctioned by the SEC for illegal stock manipulation based on his tweets. He argues he should be able to. Who decides?
3. What about calling a British citizen a pedofile because you're angry he didn't like your idea? In the UK that's a crime (libel laws are different than the US, and I'm certainly no expert) but simply hiding it to UK citizens doesn't actually comply with the laws. Jurisdiction isn't clear cut.
The examples I gave are reasons why a self-described "free speech absolutist" probably isn't going to be adequately equipped to tackle these issues.
Content moderation at scale - leaving out political content or opinions - requires proactive decisions that are often murky at best. And many can have consequences for the platform, especially with both sides of the American political system attacking Section 230 and seeking to hold those platforms responsible for the content of their users.
1. Yes, but in practice people have a good shared understanding of what spam means. Email filters have few problems with defining this. To answer your questions:
1a. No, automated posting is not spamming any more than a mailing list is the same thing as spam.
1b. No, a fan "really eagerly replying" is not spam.
1c. Someone "trying really hard" to sell diet pills can be, you've been too vague to answer there.
Generally, sites impose usage limits on accounts to something reasonable that few people will ever hit organically. Whether you post within those limits using tools or manually doesn't matter. Then the rules say you're not allowed more than a small number of accounts. Anti-spam then mostly boils down to stopping people working around the usage limits.
Musk very obviously doesn't think they're all the same and it's a strawman to claim it is. I used to work in anti-spam and the stuff you're raising is easy. Spam fighting is hard, but not getting distracted by ideological noise that's trying to argue political censorship = spam fighting is really, really easy.
Musk himself claims that the only curtailment is "what is prohibited by law". This isn't some tweet dragged from his history, either. It's from two days ago, and is on this topic.
He's also talked about solving the spambot problem. These two things are not in tension.
People seem to acting like Musk's position is full of gotcha's or some incredibly complex experiment that's never been tried before. It's not. That policy was and still is used by many different discussion forums for a very long time. It's actually the post-Trump Twitter approach that's the experiment here and it's been failing hard.
Absolutely. Twitter (and similar social media) have become a cesspool for negativity, flame wars, left-versus-right, and spam that make it intolerable.
Here's what I have a problem with: He's probably going give the donald his twitter account back. I can hardly express how much better things have been since he was de-platformed. Like him or hate him, you can't deny his tweets were both divisive and a huge distraction around anything else happening in the world because everyone and every media source had to repeat them and give their reactions or hot takes. I hated every bit of it. I don't even use twitter but it didn't matter, I could not escape Trump's tweets. This, by analogy, is like being told your previously cured cancer is back.
Trump says a lot of stuff. I think if he were given the option to rejoin he would do it in an heartbeat.
That said, Elon Musk isn't a big Trump fanboy AFAIK, so everybody assuming this means Trump is back seems kinda strange to me. Is it a billionaire solidarity thing?
That you still believe there is truth in anything that Trump says is absolutely mind boggling. Given the chance, Fat Boy would be back on twitter in a heartbet.
If he allows the trolls back on to tank the S/N ratio again then I'll probably have to leave, but I'm not jumping ship just yet.
I don't expect him to do anything to actually improve the situation, but it is possible he just maintains the status quo, minus that "Elon Musk Private Jet Tracker" account of course.
121 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 201 ms ] threadRemember that crowd?
Dukakis lost and as far as I remember nobody moved.
However, this comment is a decent litmus test on how I can safely ignore anything from them after that point.
The shit show must go on.
Whether it's Musk or a private group of shareholders, the ownership doesn't much matter if whoever controls it at the time can decide what the public is or is not allowed to discuss or share.
EDIT: I'd appreciate counterpoints over downvotes. This isn't Reddit. Make your thoughts known, I welcome insights or opinions other than my own.
You may be correct that the topic is a bit of a dead horse. In my own experience, I find regulation is both an unpopular and controversial topic on HN. I suspect this is why it has been a frustratingly difficult topic to solicit substantial counterpoints on. Your thoughts, while different than my own, are very much welcome.
To me is the biggest evidence that big media doesn't really care about the the quality of public discourse of the dominance of closed platforms, and all those editorials are just posturing.
But of course they don't do any of that. The NYT is more interested in paying 7 million dollars to buy Wordle than in combating the Big Tech oligopoly.
btw it'd be nice to see the fedi grow beyond being the "mastoverse", other implementations of AP exist
Attempting to clone Twitter, even if only for their staff and subscribers and/or in a federated form, opens them up to the exact same issues that motivated them to get rid of the comment sections. There would even be the additional problem that they'd need to advertise the thing. The software being available off the shelf doesn't matter, because the software is not the only hard part.
Of course NYT are more interested in buying Wordle than in trying to "combat" the big tech oligopoly. They also didn't try to compete with, say, Ma Bell or Clear Channel, but they have been a big player in the word game space for longer than the personal computer has existed.
Reporters are going to report on what brings readers, and one of the most upsetting things about the press nowadays is this idea that they should help "shape the narrative". If the press is truly independent, they could and should report on what happens at Twitter.
In any case, your idea and mine are orthogonal.
> Attempting to clone Twitter
I used Mastodon in the example, but it wouldn't be a twitter clone. This is not what ActivityPub is.
The point of adopting ActivityPub for them would be simply to be able to claim that they can be in control of their own discourse and that they do not depend on Big Tech and their social networks.
> They also didn't try to compete with, say, Ma Bell or Clear Channel,
Is not that they would do it to "compete", they could do it simply to stop contributing to the problem that they are so frequently writing about. And it certainly requires infinitely less resources to run an AP server than to create a phone network. I can profitably run a Mastodon server for the NYT for less than $500/month.
We're not, and never really have been over the full course of the information age so far, in need of new, online public fora. (Go to your city council meetings.)
They are just neat.
I would also like to know how is WhatsApp exploited to keep my attention, you think I randomly search for users or not even sure how could I keep attention to it without actually writing or reading messages.
> Good luck communicating with people without using Big Tech products.
There are alternatives. Signal is already known even by non-techies. Matrix is not perfect, but usable and it can be setup in a way to bridge with other protocols, like Discord, Telegram, XMPP and even whatsapp.
And what device and operating system not from Big Tech you use to run these "alternatives"?
You are still being tracked, your data is still being available to every site you visit and has tracking codes from Facebook and your data can still end up on some shady exchange.
> what device and operating system not from Big Tech you use to run these "alternatives"
I am running /e/OS, an Android base without Google bits, on a Fairphone 3. It has its own app store that proxies to Google's, so you can use any app that works with microg. You can also use F-Droid, which gives you a huge catalog of FOSS alternatives.
They can expect to make a ton of money using their famously named blue checkmark account for "Elon wants to donate you 1 BTC! Click here" spam.
Do I want to see it turn into Voat? God no. But I'd appreciate way more diversity in thought than they currently allow.
> But I'd appreciate way more diversity in thought than they currently allow.
I keep hearing this sentiment and I guess I don’t get it. Richard Spencer wasn’t banned for his “diverse thought”, he’s still on the platform. Trump wasn’t either. I see plenty of absolutely repugnant comments and tweets so what does this mean?
These debates about what should and shouldn’t be allowed seem almost intentionally vague. What are people getting banned for saying that they shouldn’t be banned for?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions
A quick scroll through that is pretty telling they have no interest in allowing conservative people on their platform.
Were most of them banned for cause? Probably. But again, there's thousands if not millions not banned for identical or worse behavior.
So my 'diversity in thought' comment means just that... differing opinions. Even if some opinions are stupid.
I think one giant problem today is that having an opposing opinion on many topics is called out as 'hate', which is a super broad and often misapplied label.
Yeah, not really counting on it.
Namely I think he vastly underestimates how complex content moderation at scale is.
Too many HN readers appear to be trying to convince themselves of this idea: that content moderation is some insanely hard problem. It's not. Social media grew to billions of users with relatively straightforward policies. It only seems that way now because the type of people who are obsessed with "moderation" (read: banning ideas they don't like) also struggle to crystallize a coherent set of beliefs about what speech should and should not be allowed. The absurd false positive and noise rates on Twitter/FB moderation is evidence of this. In place of coherent policies there is an inconsistent and ever-shifting set of unwritten rules that must be reverse engineered by outsiders to even begin to understand the underlying "logic".
Reverting to a classical policy of:
1. No spamming.
2. No engaging in illegal activity (e.g. financial fraud, CP, copyright infringement).
3. Tweets that violate local laws will be hidden in that jurisdiction.
along with the usual boilerplates you find in any 2010-era ToS, would be plenty sufficient and would not in fact pose problems harder than literal rocket science.
1. Requires a common definition of spamming. If a bot is posting headlines for the NYT on their official account is that spam? A person really eagerly replying to everyone about their favorite band? Someone trying really hard to sell you their diet pills? Musk seems to think all these are equally OK (except maybe the nyt bot).
2. Musk has been sanctioned by the SEC for illegal stock manipulation based on his tweets. He argues he should be able to. Who decides?
3. What about calling a British citizen a pedofile because you're angry he didn't like your idea? In the UK that's a crime (libel laws are different than the US, and I'm certainly no expert) but simply hiding it to UK citizens doesn't actually comply with the laws. Jurisdiction isn't clear cut.
The examples I gave are reasons why a self-described "free speech absolutist" probably isn't going to be adequately equipped to tackle these issues.
Content moderation at scale - leaving out political content or opinions - requires proactive decisions that are often murky at best. And many can have consequences for the platform, especially with both sides of the American political system attacking Section 230 and seeking to hold those platforms responsible for the content of their users.
1a. No, automated posting is not spamming any more than a mailing list is the same thing as spam.
1b. No, a fan "really eagerly replying" is not spam.
1c. Someone "trying really hard" to sell diet pills can be, you've been too vague to answer there.
Generally, sites impose usage limits on accounts to something reasonable that few people will ever hit organically. Whether you post within those limits using tools or manually doesn't matter. Then the rules say you're not allowed more than a small number of accounts. Anti-spam then mostly boils down to stopping people working around the usage limits.
Musk very obviously doesn't think they're all the same and it's a strawman to claim it is. I used to work in anti-spam and the stuff you're raising is easy. Spam fighting is hard, but not getting distracted by ideological noise that's trying to argue political censorship = spam fighting is really, really easy.
Musk himself claims that the only curtailment is "what is prohibited by law". This isn't some tweet dragged from his history, either. It's from two days ago, and is on this topic.
People seem to acting like Musk's position is full of gotcha's or some incredibly complex experiment that's never been tried before. It's not. That policy was and still is used by many different discussion forums for a very long time. It's actually the post-Trump Twitter approach that's the experiment here and it's been failing hard.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-25/trump-say...
Personally, I wouldn't bet on it though, he sure loves the attention that comes with Twitter
That said, Elon Musk isn't a big Trump fanboy AFAIK, so everybody assuming this means Trump is back seems kinda strange to me. Is it a billionaire solidarity thing?
I don't expect him to do anything to actually improve the situation, but it is possible he just maintains the status quo, minus that "Elon Musk Private Jet Tracker" account of course.