> There have been 17,937 daily tweets mentioning the misogynist term c*t on Twitter, up 33% on the average daily rate in 2022 before his takeover of 13,514
This is highly disturbing, and I'm glad CCDH is here to warn us of the dangers of Australians using the Internet.
I'm curious what the proliferation of "dick" is on Twitter, as by their logic, it is a hateful misandrist word and must be stopped at all costs.
With dick, I have to wonder if they have a reliable way of excluding the name. When Dick Cheney was all over media in the early 2000s, this metric would be totally meaningless.
They just use Brandwatch and paste in the N-word and other terms to come up with their findings. It's not like there's heavy statistical analysis here.
1. Lack of research. You made it sound like the research was questionable, when it took me 30 seconds to find the publication and the methodology laid out within it. That means you spread wrong information. Even of that was unintentional, don't you think posts with wrong information should be downvoted?
2. The topic itself is not rocket science. Many people on here are also on twitter and have their own anecdotal data on such shifts happening. So by you being overly critical you making it sound as if this was some outlandish claim (Einstein was wrong), while it is pretty obvious to most (water is wet).
My best guess is that at the top of the page, in the center of the navigation banner is a link that says "Research + Policy"[0] which includes the requested data. Similarly a quick google search leads to the same page. The question itself implies that you (one or more) didn't open the article's link, didn't look at the website for their argument, and/or didn't attempt googling. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't, but no one likes performing a task for another which could have been more easily been performed by themselves. We've all had that boss...
But maybe you did try to google or search and just failed to find. That happens. In this case, I would have changed your wording. Your parent comment accuses the CCDH of not doing something which we can verify that they actually did do. Instead maybe say "Does anyone know where I can find the CCDH reports? I'd like to learn more." And even if this was lazy (as above) people would probably be happier to provide. The second sentence about the public deciding is also not that great since it is indistinguishable from mob rule. The second line is better, but maybe we can tweak it a bit if you really are trying to understand both sides, we can be more neutral. "I'm not sure I have all the context here, can someone help me understand each side's position before I make a realistic conclusion?" would probably see far fewer downvotes. Political topics are charged and we all have different priors. Your language is accusatory of one side and so justifies a certain prior. Language is fuzzy and those priors are necessary since there's a lot of gaps to fill in (despite what one might think). What I've suggested may not be different from what you internalized your comment as, but it is different from how it will be read. These are two completely different things that don't necessarily relate.
> The Center for Countering Digital Hate’s research shows that hate and disinformation is spreading like wildfire on the platform under Musk’s ownership
I mean... his first action was to very publicly fire the head of policy. Then he fired the moderation teams. Then he pulled the plug on automated tools for combating abuse.
I understand that there's a lot not to like in Musk, but I'm a confirmed compartmentalist and in the compartment of "Created an electric car industry where nothing previously existed, and given a 10 year head start, did it openly, and still managed to get a 20 year lead on the competition" I'll give him a good grade.
To put it as analogies: Picasso was an asshole in his private life, but we can still admire his work. Tesla (the man) was never able to make much money off his amazing work, but we still admire that work and the man who created it. Strange these were the first two I thought of.
I can admire his past achievements, but not the man. Unlike Nikola Tesla his past achievements were commercial and not very fundamental, so I think history will be a lot less kind to a man who seems hellbent on destroying his reputation and legacy while he’s still alive.
So absolutely nothing of substance about the below allegations from the lawsuit, which means they're probably true, since the response is all empty platitudes and grandstanding.
>Additionally, X Corp. alleges that the CCDH gained “unauthorized” access to Twitter’s data through Brandwatch, a software company that lets customers monitor brands on social media. Instead of working directly with Brandwatch, the lawsuit claims the CCDH obtained the login details for another customer’s Brandwatch account, allowing them to access the service without the knowledge of Twitter or Brandwatch. Brandwatch did not respond to The Verge’s request for comment.
I agree, who seriously cares if CCDH used someone else’s account login (presumably with their permission) to gather their info? If that’s all Twitter (“X”) has, that’s some pretty weak sauce. CCDH seems to be right that this is just a silencing tactic, and one which seems to be having the opposite effect (a.k.a., the Streisand Effect) in that I for one never would have heard of CCDH if it weren’t for this lawsuit.
I understand trying to track misinformation but why are we tracking 'hate speech'? Tangent: If I am in a conversation with someone (a friend) and you over hear me saying 'that's gay' don't bother to come and tell me that's offensive. I wasn't talking to you and I don't think that is hate speech, especially in the context I was using.
I feel like society is trying to police too much shit. It reminds me of the old movie Demolition Man where he is fined for saying a dirty/hate word.
> I understand trying to track misinformation but why are we tracking 'hate speech'?
One of the main rationales given by advocates for very strong first amendment protections of free speech in the United States - for example, allowing Nazis to do their bullshit Nazi things rather than censoring them as the Germans do - is that it allows us to keep an eye on the Nazis. Who they are, what they're up to, etc.
Some other trends worthy of study come from having a free exchange of, ahem, "ideas." Like when we find police or government officials who can be held accountable under the law for openly racist, anti-Semitic, or harassing behavior in their public dealings on social media, and so on.
A more meaningful question would be, if you have the technology to track hate speech trends, why wouldn't you do it? I don't necessarily want the government to do it, but otherwise, sure.
> If I am in a conversation with someone (a friend) and you over hear me saying 'that's gay' don't bother to come and tell me that's offensive.
The bar for what CCDH (and more generally, sane people) regard as hate speech trends worthy of study is a little higher than stupid shit you were overheard saying to one of your friends.
25 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 72.0 ms ] threadCan someone care to explain what there is lawsuit, where is the Elon's contention?
I do wish they directly linked to a succinct summary of what they’re under fire for, but they have published this data on the site nonetheless.
This is highly disturbing, and I'm glad CCDH is here to warn us of the dangers of Australians using the Internet.
I'm curious what the proliferation of "dick" is on Twitter, as by their logic, it is a hateful misandrist word and must be stopped at all costs.
1. Lack of research. You made it sound like the research was questionable, when it took me 30 seconds to find the publication and the methodology laid out within it. That means you spread wrong information. Even of that was unintentional, don't you think posts with wrong information should be downvoted?
2. The topic itself is not rocket science. Many people on here are also on twitter and have their own anecdotal data on such shifts happening. So by you being overly critical you making it sound as if this was some outlandish claim (Einstein was wrong), while it is pretty obvious to most (water is wet).
My best guess is that at the top of the page, in the center of the navigation banner is a link that says "Research + Policy"[0] which includes the requested data. Similarly a quick google search leads to the same page. The question itself implies that you (one or more) didn't open the article's link, didn't look at the website for their argument, and/or didn't attempt googling. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't, but no one likes performing a task for another which could have been more easily been performed by themselves. We've all had that boss...
But maybe you did try to google or search and just failed to find. That happens. In this case, I would have changed your wording. Your parent comment accuses the CCDH of not doing something which we can verify that they actually did do. Instead maybe say "Does anyone know where I can find the CCDH reports? I'd like to learn more." And even if this was lazy (as above) people would probably be happier to provide. The second sentence about the public deciding is also not that great since it is indistinguishable from mob rule. The second line is better, but maybe we can tweak it a bit if you really are trying to understand both sides, we can be more neutral. "I'm not sure I have all the context here, can someone help me understand each side's position before I make a realistic conclusion?" would probably see far fewer downvotes. Political topics are charged and we all have different priors. Your language is accusatory of one side and so justifies a certain prior. Language is fuzzy and those priors are necessary since there's a lot of gaps to fill in (despite what one might think). What I've suggested may not be different from what you internalized your comment as, but it is different from how it will be read. These are two completely different things that don't necessarily relate.
[0] https://counterhate.com/research/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67654013/x-corp-v-cente...
I mean... his first action was to very publicly fire the head of policy. Then he fired the moderation teams. Then he pulled the plug on automated tools for combating abuse.
What did you think would happen?
Nobody I know has a favorable opinion of Elon Musk anymore. Everybody thinks he’s an idiot swinging a blunted axe around.
It probably hurts him more than we know.
To put it as analogies: Picasso was an asshole in his private life, but we can still admire his work. Tesla (the man) was never able to make much money off his amazing work, but we still admire that work and the man who created it. Strange these were the first two I thought of.
Maybe they should set an example and actually start REMOVING it instead of condoning further use.
>Additionally, X Corp. alleges that the CCDH gained “unauthorized” access to Twitter’s data through Brandwatch, a software company that lets customers monitor brands on social media. Instead of working directly with Brandwatch, the lawsuit claims the CCDH obtained the login details for another customer’s Brandwatch account, allowing them to access the service without the knowledge of Twitter or Brandwatch. Brandwatch did not respond to The Verge’s request for comment.
If CCDH obtained login info for a Brandwatch account that's an issue between CCDH, Brandwatch, and that account owner.
Is Brandwatch suing CCDH? If not, why not?
Is X suing Brandwatch? If not, why not?
I feel like society is trying to police too much shit. It reminds me of the old movie Demolition Man where he is fined for saying a dirty/hate word.
One of the main rationales given by advocates for very strong first amendment protections of free speech in the United States - for example, allowing Nazis to do their bullshit Nazi things rather than censoring them as the Germans do - is that it allows us to keep an eye on the Nazis. Who they are, what they're up to, etc.
Some other trends worthy of study come from having a free exchange of, ahem, "ideas." Like when we find police or government officials who can be held accountable under the law for openly racist, anti-Semitic, or harassing behavior in their public dealings on social media, and so on.
A more meaningful question would be, if you have the technology to track hate speech trends, why wouldn't you do it? I don't necessarily want the government to do it, but otherwise, sure.
> If I am in a conversation with someone (a friend) and you over hear me saying 'that's gay' don't bother to come and tell me that's offensive.
The bar for what CCDH (and more generally, sane people) regard as hate speech trends worthy of study is a little higher than stupid shit you were overheard saying to one of your friends.