Twitter Will Start Hiding Tweets That 'Detract From the Conversation' (slate.com)

Yesterday, Twitter announced several new changes to quiet trolls and remove spam. According to Slate, the company "will begin hiding tweets from certain accounts in conversations and search results." In order to see them, you'll now have to scroll to the bottom of the conversation and click "Show more replies," or go into your search settings and choose "See everything." From the report: When Twitter's software decides that a certain user is "detract[ing] from the conversation," all of that user's tweets will be hidden from search results and public conversations until their reputation improves. And they won't know that they're being muted in this way; Twitter says it's still working on ways to notify people and help them get back into its good graces. In the meantime, their tweets will still be visible to their followers as usual and will still be able to be retweeted by others. They just won't show up in conversational threads or search results by default. The change will affect a very small fraction of users, explained Twitter's vice president of trust and safety, Del Harvey -- much less than 1 percent. Still, the company believes it could make a significant difference in the average user's experience. In early testing of the new feature, Twitter said it has seen a 4 percent drop in abuse reports in its search tool and an 8 percent drop in abuse reports in conversation threads.

Comments

Cool

[Mr D from 63]

Twitters new group think reinforcement feature!

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Awww. Poor snowflake. You’re perfectly free to stay on your alt-right shithole Gab.

Re:Cool

[BeauHD (5)]

Ya, rumors are he listens to Alex Jones. One of those "end the fed" morons.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

And no one abuses -1 here.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

obviously the only speech that will be silenced is trolls! there's no chance that once unleashed, the censorship machine will silence dissent. Only trolls.

Obviously.

Re: Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Same AC here. Fuck the alt-right! I'm so pissed that conservatards are even allowed to live! It's total fucking bullshit!

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

its not new. they've been shadow banning for ages

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

How is having a different opinion make one a snowflake? You are the snowflake where you are can not accept others may think a different way using labels as a way of grouping people together when you don't even know them. Hopefully all platforms that force group think will collapse.

Re:Cool

[Ichijo]

Indeed, they will silence the non-PC posts and think they've silenced the trolls, all the trolls, and nobody but the trolls.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor snowflake.

I like the part where you don't seem to understand the colloquial meaning of snowflake. But of course, braindead Marxists just parrot whatever they hear, so that makes sense.

Re: Cool

[Highdude702]

The people of compassion and tolerance, give it up for AC.

Re: Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to be fair and let them post. If that means modding down each and everyone of their posts, so bet it. We will not censor.
 
-=BeauHD=-

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Still searching for that legendary creature more rare than Bigfoot: the Tolerant Liberal Who Is Actually Tolerant.

Haven't found one yet. Plenty of rage-filled name-calling discriminatory cunts though

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

all platforms that force group think

One of the most effective ways to enforce group think is to introduce user moderation, and slashdot was basically the place that invented it. Just sayin.

Also it gives the website owners total deniability if they're ever accused of suppressing free speech.

Re:Cool

[sexconker]

A triggered snowflake AC on Slashdot has been trolling anything that has a whiff of "wrong think" to it and calling other posters snowflakes.
It's been going on for a couple of months (that I've noticed).

I don't know if they're trying to be funny (by being a whiny snowflake who calls other snowflakes), or if they're actually just that retarded.

Re:Cool

[another_twilight]

One of the most effective ways to enforce group think is to introduce user moderation, and slashdot was basically the place that invented it. Just sayin.

I disagree.

The way user moderation is implemented at Slashdot seems to allow contrary opinions to exist. Nothing is modded below -1, so dogpiling is mitigated and even -1 comments are sometimes replied to. Nothing is modded over +5, so positive comments all top out to the same amount - there's no fighting for 'most votes'.

You'll still see strongly differing opinions with positive moderation in threads - something that doesn't seem to happen to the same degree on other sites.

I've yet to see evidence of collusion or deliberate suppression of ideas. I've seen mods that looked like '-1 disagree' but more often I see negative moderation for posts that are flamebait, offensive, trollish or offtopic. If you have an unpopular opinion, stating it in a way likely to attract criticism is a great way to play the victim. Rather than taking care to express yourself clearly and risking being unsuccessful in convincing people to change their minds, it's easier to be deliberately confrontational and then claim any negative response is part of 'group think'.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you know? Why would a tolerant liberal identify themselves as such or find themselves in conflict with you so that you'd notice?

Same with non-evangelical religious folk, atheists who think belief is personal and don't bring it up otherwise or vegans who aren't out to convert.

What's your methodology? You say you are searching - are you, or is this just rhetoric to allow you to perpetuate the us-vs-them and more-victimised-than-thou?

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

The way user moderation is implemented at Slashdot seems to allow contrary opinions to exist.

Slashdot invented it, Reddit perfected it.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup... 1A much? Whoever is policing the policy... is in fact the thought police. =P

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

A triggered snowflake [sic] AC on Slashdot ...

How have you been able to identify a single AC? The use of 'snowflake,' which is now an insult hurled by both sides across the fence, seems as poor a criterion as 'retarded.'

Re:Cool

[apoc.famine]

There are two major issues with /. modding. Or three. The first is that sockpuppeting still happens, although the random mod point distribution does help with that. The second is that it doesn't seem like many people metamoderate, and that system is broken and showing me unmoderated posts 3/4 of the time when I go anyway.

The last problem is that it seems that a lot of bad mods get done by the twitchy tweeters and redditors who dive into an article shortly after it's posted, and then hack and slash, close the tab, and move on. Over the next few hours, days and even weeks those mods get reversed into what seem more sensible mods, but it takes the thoughtful slow old folks some time to get to it.

During all that time, the modding is slowly going from frothing angst towards reasoned discussion, but the earlier people hit an article, the worse the moderation tends to be. I think if the metamodding was fixed and people actually took the time to do it, that would go away somewhat faster.

Re:Cool

[Austerity Empowers]

How is having a different opinion make one a snowflake?

There is a pretty clear distinction between censoring contrary opinions and removing blatant troll posts. Of course it's up to the users to make sure that's actually happening.

It starts with not swearing incoherently, threatening violence, insulting people and insisting on opinions that have no factual support. If you can do those things and you get censored, probably you're on a platform that needs to be abandoned.

Re:Cool

[another_twilight]

sockpuppeting still happens

It does, but I'm not sure that it's widespread enough to have anything more than the occasional, minor impact. The effort to stamp it out, completely, is likely to do more to distort discussion than the sockpuppets themselves. I'd go so far as to say that there are posters whose posts make more of a difference than the moderation of even a fairly dedicated sockpuppet.

it doesn't seem like many people metamoderate, and that system is broken and showing me unmoderated posts 3/4 of the time when I go anyway.

There have been times, years ago when there were more posts and metamoderation was new, when I'd be shown posts from weeks back and everything was moderated. That I'm seeing posts only a day old and many unmoderated suggests to me that most moderated posts are being metamoderated. I'm not seeing unmoderated posts being offered for meta moderation as broken, but a sign that the system is very healthy. I've no proof either way, 'though.

To be fair, I've no real evidence to back any of this up. Your observations match mine, but I attribute cause differently.

When an article is fresh there are fewer posts. It takes time for a range of posts to be made that will attract the attention of different mods. Time-zones differ and so there will always be an effect that sees moderation take place over a day or so. As more people moderate, you'll see a regression to the mean lead to a fairly even distribution of moderation. In short, a skewed distribution of moderation is not unusual for a new article and isn't necessarily a sign that there's anything wrong with the system.

Re:Cool

[apoc.famine]

I almost agree, except that the pageviews fall off exponentially some amount of time after an article is posted. That means that the early modding and commenting has a disproportionate amount of eyeballs on it.

And the early modding and commenting tends to be a lot of the flailing wailing types, and less of the slow and thoughtful types. I occasionally go back to older articles on the weekend that I just looked at for a few minutes when they were posted, and there's often a noticeable shift in tone and conversation.

That's not broken, per-se, but it's at least not ideal. But in this day and age of twitter-speed, I'm not sure there's an alternate that wouldn't alienate most readers.

Re:Cool

[PopeRatzo]

It starts with not swearing incoherently, threatening violence, insulting people and insisting on opinions that have no factual support.

Jeez, you're no fun at all.

Re: Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

You rock

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Minus 1 for disagreeing with me, LOL... Seriously tho, good point. There is a downside to this system, however, which is that posts in a thread about, for example, a recent, laughably embarrassing vulnerability in a cryptographic hashing algorithm will inevitably get posts about flat-earth-ism, international conspiracies, the Jews rebuilding the Temple, the glories of the (fill in the blank with your favorite hue) race, and how 9/11 was a false-flag operation conducted by lizard-people working with the CIA for the milk & sugar cartel that secretly runs Baskin Robins, etc... and the lowest such an off topic, troll, AND flamebait post, (oh, I almost forgot, the post will also claim the poster made 96,000 dollars last year from h0m3, and that you can too by checking out this website...) and the lowest THAT post can be modded is MINUS 1. I get why, but that doesn’t change the fact that that is a bit of a problem.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

How is having a different opinion make one a snowflake?

There is a pretty clear distinction between censoring contrary opinions and removing blatant troll posts. Of course it's up to the users to make sure that's actually happening.

It starts with not swearing incoherently, threatening violence, insulting people and insisting on opinions that have no factual support. If you can do those things and you get censored, probably you're on a platform that needs to be abandoned.

It’s like “Nazis”. The word “snowflake” USED TO mean something but through overuse, it has come to mean, in most cases where it’s used, nothing at all.

“What?!? You think Yellow Submarine was better than Sergeant Pepper?!? You NAZI!”

Like that. Personally, I’m waiting to see someone get called a “Nazi snowflake.” That’d be almost as good as “Communist Atheist Nazi Jew...”, which I’ve seen hurled by someone who clearly didn’t know what at least SOME of those words meant, or maybe what ANY of them meant. It does make me wonder, though, how different slashdot would be if they could have a minimum requirement to post of “must not live with parents,” or “must be able to prove you have lived on your own, as an adult, holding down a full time job x 1 year at least”. I suspect there’d be marked improvement.

Re:Cool

[AmiMoJo]

Mod points are handed out semi randomly, but there are flaws. New accounts are far more likely to get them. This makes it easy to game the system with sock puppets.

Re: Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet $5

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two major issues with /. modding. Or three.

There's four if you include an almost fanatical devotion to the pope...

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

> Twitters new China-like Social Credit Score feature!

How long until it is mandated elsewhere do you imagine?

Re:Cool

[Highdude702]

how different slashdot would be if they could have a minimum requirement to post of “must not live with parents,” or “must be able to prove you have lived on your own, as an adult, holding down a full time job x 1 year at least”. I suspect there’d be marked improvement.

There are a bunch of things in life that should have those requirements. I feel it would make life much better.

Re:Cool

[tinkerton]

I doubt shadow banning has ever been used on a large/automated scale but I could be wrong.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, twitter is setting up their machine for next elections, they can't miss it this time.

Re:Cool

[tinkerton]

/. moderation is still community moderation. It has its own flaws but it's very different from extra moderation from above. The moderation from above means other players can put their finger on the balance, in a manner which is not transparent and the lack of visibility can be tuned at will till it's full censorship.
As long as there is a setting for it there will be a feedback mechanism where if too many people switch off the setting then it is relaxed. But the feedback mechanism can be obfuscated so that people rarely know what they're missing.

he main factor in all this is control, and I expect that to tighten.

Rather than taking care to express yourself clearly and risking being unsuccessful in convincing people to change their minds, it's easier to be deliberately confrontational and then claim any negative response is part of 'group think'.

I agree, but it does not describe the situation well. it is harder for unpopular opinions to avoid confrontation since you're sticking your neck out against the vocal majority and at the same time groupthink will pounce on any sign of confrontation, uh, alism. When a discussion goes offtopic then the unpopular opinion can easily be flagged as offtopic, The moderation system can't be expected to work well when people are swept up in a general mood of say, anticommunism or mccarthyism, or currently russiantrollism. That's not an argument against the moderation system, it's just about being aware of the limitations. Unpopular opinions have to work quite hard to avoid confrontation, while those going along with the dominant opinion can afford to be very sloppy.

Re:Cool

[Wootery]

No, they're quite different. On reddit, there's no upvote ceiling, and the highest scoring comments rise to the top. On Slashdot, the earliest comment is always shown at the top.

Slashdot's approach has the advantage that downvotes don't bury dissenting posts as much, but it can mean that a low-quality post steers the whole conversation.

Incidentally, on boths sites there are idiots who downvote stuff they disagree with, but I'd say it happens more on reddit. I suspect Slashdot's 'mod points' feature deserves some credit here. On reddit, any account can vote, and there's no protection against people using sockpuppet accounts to vote multiple times.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

This post was hidden by the department of truth.

Re: Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to be fair and let them post. If that means modding down each and everyone of their posts, so [be] it. We will not censor.

I honestly can not tell if this is satire or not.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

But it won't go away. The twitchy tweeters visit, the ad is served. Mission accomplished. The older wiser folk attempting public interest and sanity damage control is just a bonus.

Next troll submission.

Slashdot was sold. These people only care about money.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

some jewish faggots dont realize that the people laffing at niiggers and homos are not the "sensitive" ones

leftists are weak, stupid pieces of shit that need censorship to "feel better" and protect their delicate feelings because they are comprised of the ugliest, shit-tier whites and subhuman minorities (and jewish fags are in both categories)

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter was fine with toxic posts, trolling and abuse - when it was being done by their lefty mates.

Then... one day... a tiny percentage of the chan audience spilled onto Twitter and discovered what a fun game it could be. This tiny percentage of the internet underbelly overwhelmed the snowflakes of Twitter. Their humour was crass and committed the absolute worst crime of all... it was actually funny.

Naturally, it had to be stopped.

Re:Cool

[Raenex]

If you have an unpopular opinion, stating it in a way likely to attract criticism is a great way to play the victim

Just stating your unpopular opinion bluntly gets you labeled as a "troll" and causes offense. Slashdot moderation is broken. They should just take away the downvote system, or at least mitigate it so that it costs more points to downvote than to upvote..

Re:Cool

[KingBenny]

someones been steeling from steemit https://steemit.com/introducti...

Slashdot should do the same...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's start by banning the posts about Trump and his sons going to prison. Get rid of the leftist spam.

Re:Slashdot should do the same...

[Anonymous Coward]

Awwww. Poor baby. Are the smart kids making fun of you again?

Re: Slashdot should do the same...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know any smart kids? I suspect they donâ(TM)t associate with brain washed nutjobs like you

Re:Slashdot should do the same...

[dbreeze]

https://qanonposts.com/ "He who laughs last laughs the longest."

Translation

[duke_cheetah2003]

Twitter will be censoring certain users and accounts from appearing prominently in any feeds, unless explicitly searched for.

Which is fine, I'm all for stepping on the trolls, but then I remembered, censorship is bad, even in this situation. Who decides what gets published and what gets buried? That's what bothers me.

If it's an algorithm, then I gotta ask, who wrote the algorithm? Explain it to us, in all the gritty details, because otherwise, it's just censorship based on some unknown criteria. Censorship is bad enough, but censorship without an obvious target? Scary.

Re:Translation

[AHuxley]

Re "Who decides what gets published"
SJW.
Brands, sjw, cults, faith groups, nations, celebrities will be ensuring any mention of topics they don't approve of will be set as distracting.
Only conversations they approve of will be allowed.
Write a negative comment about a movie? No more social media after that negative review.
Mention a nations human rights.. Social media will correct that comment thanks to tourism ads.
No negative reviews of brands that buy ads.
Faith groups will report any blasphemy about their teachings. No history about religion on social media.
Support one side of politics and every comment is approved.
Support another side of politics and that conversation will be removed.
Discover who funds a politically active NGO? That news is not going to be part of the conversation.
Under new social media censorship rules everything will always be approved and correct.

Re:Translation

[kelemvor4]

Twitter will be censoring certain users and accounts from appearing prominently in any feeds, unless explicitly searched for.

Which is fine, I'm all for stepping on the trolls, but then I remembered, censorship is bad, even in this situation. Who decides what gets published and what gets buried? That's what bothers me.

If it's an algorithm, then I gotta ask, who wrote the algorithm? Explain it to us, in all the gritty details, because otherwise, it's just censorship based on some unknown criteria. Censorship is bad enough, but censorship without an obvious target? Scary.

Twitter's been censoring the site for quite some time. Probably since its inception. It's notorious for censoring accounts that share opinions the management disagrees with. When it comes up in the news, they label the censored account some nasty thing and smile.

Re:Translation

[NicknameUnavailable]

Twitter. It’s their site and their rules. You’re perfectly free not to go there if you disagree. You may have a Consitutional right to free speech in the US, but no one is obligated to listen to you.

This was disingenuous before it was stale, get a new talking point if you want to remain interesting.

Re:Translation

[another_twilight]

The ideal of an impartial press that publishes with as even a coverage as they can has proven to be less profitable than the press that panders to the masses desire for scandal and self-reinforcing ideas.

Were someone to strike out and establish a system where anyone could say anything without fear or favour, it would be frequented by a few idealists, some fringe groups that aren't welcome most places and a lot of trolls. Most people have little use for the ideal of free speech if it comes at the cost of having to wade through uncomfortable ideas, let alone the sea of comments that deliberately seek to disturb or garner a reaction.

Facebook, Youtube, Twitter etc. are offering a service that people will want to use. To the degree that 'free speech' is desireable, it will be provided, but it will be heavily diluted from the ideal. There will remain some more niche services that pay more than lip service to 'free speech' but they won't be popular.

Popular or principled - I don't see something that's both existing until people change.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

No you dumb cunt, all of the people you hate and label with stupid labels will still be on twiter. You'll just have to click "Show More Replies" to see them.

Don't worry - your rage-stream will still be there, just a click away. Hell, if I was to make a guess based on your posting, they're the ones that are going to have to click "Show More Replies" to see your posts. And that's probably going to make the world a slightly better place.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

So if they buried everything about black social issues or gay awareness, no one would be able to challenge them about it?

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter is a business, they exist to make profit. As it is now twitter is more or less an open forum for people to participate in, but does little to generate profit. Twitter's purpose as a business is finding some way to manipulate the platform they have control over in such a way that they can sell their manipulations as a service.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't care about interesting, I care about being RIGHT.

Re: Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly not by the definition of right I was raised with.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality is the left are those that are "batshit crazy", those who are obsessed with silencing others who they disagree with. Read your post. It's mostly hyperbole and nonsense. You're clearly a shiller or a closest Marxist.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Effeminate SJW triggered, call the fag police to detain the cracker on the grounds that communists are too dumb to pound rocks.

Re:Translation

[Cederic]

your use of the term "sjw" is a dog-whistle/code word for abusive and bullying behavior. You want to be able to demean people online based on gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity and/or political affiliation. You are conflating "free speech" with personal attacks, lies and mud slinging. Your intent is to deny online access to anyone you disagree with. You don't want free speech, you want hate speech.

I don't know what the fuck you mean by 'dog whistle' and 'code word' is just incorrectly used.

But in reply to someone using a lazy label to collectively identify a group of people you appear to have responded with personal attacks, lies and mud slinging.

Sorry, I've lost track, who was it that wanted hated speech and who is just fucking giving it out?

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Censorship might be bad but moderation is good. Without strong moderation, channels just becomes the wharrgarbl hell we see with Twitter (and so many fora on their last legs).

It's an interesting technical challenge to bot-ify reputation; and it's an open question whether Twitter will be doing it right; and it's even opener whether such a bad user should really be banned.

I guess we'll see. Until then the freeze-peach absolutists will (see upthread) moan and moan.

Re:Translation

[houghi]

That is so not true How can a removal be a bad thing?

Sorry Anonymous Coward, but I think you are mistaken. Imagine if your comment would be deleted or not shown on /.. What would you make of that? And I do not mean just hidden. And what if that is done to the comment you replied to as well? That poor fellow will not even be able to defend himself.

Re:Translation

[duke_cheetah2003]

Twitter. It’s their site and their rules. You’re perfectly free not to go there if you disagree. You may have a Consitutional right to free speech in the US, but no one is obligated to listen to you.

This was disingenuous before it was stale, get a new talking point if you want to remain interesting.

Damn, that's usually my stance! Stop trolling me! Also, it's true. Free speech never extends to private entities. And hopefully never will. But then, I don't use Twitter, so at the end of the day, I am not invested in this discussion and I don't actually care. I just like to present my perspective, then let y'all fight it out.

Re:Translation

[duke_cheetah2003]

Censorship might be bad but moderation is good.

Agree with this 100000%. I don't understand why more sites on the internet don't use a moderation system like the one here on Slashdot. It's super effective, we self-moderate ourselves here. Get your comment downmodded to -1? Got no one to blame but your peers who think you're an idiot. And it's not censorship, your comment is still right there, for anyone to see, assuming they want to see stuff that's been modded down to -1.

More of the internet needs Slashdot's moderation system.

Re:Translation

[NicknameUnavailable]

Don't care about interesting, I care about being RIGHT.

You don't get that option with that stance, the most you can obtain is to be interesting while being wrong.

Who's to say

[Anonymous Coward]

What is trolling, and not. Everyone's perspectives can differ, so... Will anyone really notice less trolling after it's implementation? We'll see.

Re:Who's to say

[AHuxley]

Will the approved side of politics on social media then start reporting their own?
Will US social media go full Hundred Flowers Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and ban its own politically trusted users?
From what starts as conversations getting banned will then become having to support healthy criticism of all approved accounts?

Under the guise of helping we can only harm

[SirAstral]

O yea, this won't be abused at all. Everything starts off as some wacky form of good intentions. Soon after, someone with no so decent intentions gets their mitts on the controls and then people start wondering how it all happened.

Oh well, score 1 for the echo chamber at least!

Re:Under the guise of helping we can only harm

[h33t l4x0r]

It's not good intentions, it's self-preservation. If their platform becomes too toxic people will go somewhere else.

Re:Under the guise of helping we can only harm

[Anonymous Coward]

People will eventually go somewhere else. Twitter was never viable as a business. It's just a place for internet sewage to travel.

The Noisy 1%

[duke_cheetah2003]

So I was thinking.. where have I seen this before? What does this remind me of? OH YEAH, the Ultima Online forums about 15 years ago.

I remember taking note that there's a lot of people bitching about the game's problems. Then I dunno where I came across this, but something to the effect of "The people posting here are the disgruntled ones, a very small percentage of our users, maybe 1%, they're the ones making all the stink, everyone else either doesn't care, doesn't know the forum exists, or has nothing to say."

The same can be applied to Twitter, in my opinion. A lot of tweets, and I'd wager a vast majority of them are from a fairly regular noisy selection of the entire service, and when you tally up that selection, they'll be probably about 1% of total accounts. 1% of the users making 99% of the noise. And you're gunna censor these people? Good luck. For starters, these are people who have an axe to grind, they want people to read their tirades and toxic posts. They will find a way to make enough noise to drown out everyone else. They always do.

So in short, Twitter is dealing with a problem the "online community" has known about for many many years. There exists a very vocal but definitely minority that is disproportionally prolific in their dissent.

It's not even unique to any particular platform, forum, service, or anything else where messages are written and others may read what's written. It always happens. Even right here on Slashdot, I bet the percentages are about the same too, 99% of those visiting this site never post anything, it's almost certainly that 1% that is prolific that's doing all the posting on this site.

Re:The Noisy 1%

[apoc.famine]

One time on one forum that I kick myself forever for having forgotten, they did group shadowbanning for trolls. Big PSA not to feed the trolls, and then shadowbanned a whole lot of them.

What happened? The trolls essentially got their own forum, trolling each other, and it appeared to them that the PSA was amazingly effective. Normal users didn't reply to them, but other trolls did, and they did all sorts of trolling of each other. Because they still got replies, and didn't know who was shadowbanned and who wasn't, it took awhile for some of them to figure out what was going on. So underneath this quiet, sedate forum, a frothing troll fest was lurking, and if you were too much of a troll on the surface forums, you'd suddenly find yourself sucked into the cesspool.

The problem was that the cesspool was vastly more entertaining than the surface forums, which rather defeated the point.

Re:The Noisy 1%

[houghi]

I have seen the same thing when I was on Usenet. The banning was done by myself. At a certain moment I thought that is was all very nice, until I looked at my kill file. I deactivated it and about 80% of the people I had blocked.
Some where really trolls, but most, I have to admit, where people that did I just did not agree with and perhaps kill filed them because I was angry at one specific post at one time for whatever reason.

If I am unable to make a serious distinction between what I think is trolling or just disagreeing, why would anybody else be able to do that for me?

I know I have been labeled "troll" here on /. on what to me was a joke or perhaps a stand at a situation. What I see as a witty remark, other will find offensive and trolling. The way I try to deal with it is to re-read something before I post and then wait 10 seconds to let it sink in.
It tomes down the heat a LOT and I think I have not-posted more that that I have posted.

Re:The Noisy 1%

[apoc.famine]

If I am unable to make a serious distinction between what I think is trolling or just disagreeing, why would anybody else be able to do that for me?

If it's not serial, it shouldn't be banned. That's my viewpoint. I think a system which can parse posts into "definitely tr0lling", "maybe tr0lling" and "probably not tr0lling" could be of use, if users were able to set their tr0lling threshold.

If someone tr0lls 50% of the time and is insightful the other 50%, for some that's far too much tr0lling, and for others it's fine. For some people 5% of the time trolling is too much. And even if this system wasn't perfect, being able to personally adjust the ratio would likely allow you to fix some if the issues.

Where I think a real problem lies is in someone else (most like an algorithm) setting that ceiling for you. That's a bit too authoritarian and heavy-handed for my taste.

And that's one reason I still come to /. - very few posts ever get deleted, and I can browse at -1 and mod stuff up there that needs it. I can set my own threshold to view at, and I can adjust how posts modded different ways are weighted. While there is a mod system, I've got control over how I interpret the mods, and what triggers a post to be hidden or visible. That's hugely important to me.

-------

Sigh. And then stupid shit like this: Filter error: Lameness filter encountered.

Apparently I said tr0lling too many times. Now let me go back and replace the os with 0s so the filter lets me post....and here I was saying nice things about /.

Re:The Noisy 1%

[tinkerton]

First Post!

Re:The Noisy 1%

[Raenex]

Some where really trolls, but most, I have to admit, where people that did I just did not agree with and perhaps kill filed them because I was angry at one specific post at one time for whatever reason.

I always took it as a badge of honor when somebody publicly "plonked" me after losing a debate. Good of you to mature and realize that "troll" is usually synonymous with "I disagree".

Twitter will censor what they deem as trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing I have learned about internet and providing people a pulpit to speak their minds. Its not always going to be positive or without stupid vulgar language. Social sites, comment sections all attract the trolls of the internet and censoring them really doesn't stop anything.

A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[drnb]

Twitters new group think reinforcement feature!

Seriously. Silcon valley liberals think silencing non-politicallycorrect non-leftist posts will help their side? They will just reinforce their leftist bubble of estrangement from the rest of the country and this will possibly lead to even greater election defeats.

Prior to the 2016 election I had some arguments with friends in that bubble. Trying to explain to them that the "blue wall" of the industrial states was nonsense. That many blue collar "democrats" are moderate non-ideologues who are not necessary loyal to the party, they have a certain independence. All things being equal a democratic candidate may have an advantage but if a republican candidate can deliver a "better" message to them they will consider voting for the republican candidate. Ex: the "Reagan Democrats". But no, to the silicon valley types the blue wall was impenetrable, no one could ever vote for a republican, no one could ever let economic fears and concerns be their deciding factor. And on election day they learned how wrong they were.

This twitter feature will just silence those outside the bubble, and those inside the bubble will hear fewer "warnings" from outside and have an even deeper sense of false security in the future.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[kelemvor4]

Twitters new group think reinforcement feature!

Seriously. Silcon valley liberals think silencing non-politicallycorrect non-leftist posts will help their side? They will just reinforce their leftist bubble of estrangement from the rest of the country and this will possibly lead to even greater election defeats. Prior to the 2016 election I had some arguments with friends in that bubble. Trying to explain to them that the "blue wall" of the industrial states was nonsense. That many blue collar "democrats" are moderate non-ideologues who are not necessary loyal to the party, they have a certain independence. All things being equal a democratic candidate may have an advantage but if a republican candidate can deliver a "better" message to them they will consider voting for the republican candidate. Ex: the "Reagan Democrats". But no, to the silicon valley types the blue wall was impenetrable, no one could ever vote for a republican, no one could ever let economic fears and concerns be their deciding factor. And on election day they learned how wrong they were. This twitter feature will just silence those outside the bubble, and those inside the bubble will hear fewer "warnings" from outside and have an even deeper sense of false security in the future.

I never found twitter useful personally, but for those that do there are several alternatives. Maybe one will come up as the popular replacement. https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/twitter-alternative-social-networks

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[Antique Geekmeister]

> Seriously. Silcon valley liberals think silencing non-politicallycorrect non-leftist posts will help their side? They will just reinforce their leftist bubble of estrangement from the rest of the country and this will possibly lead to even greater election defeats.

Not in their bubble of self-reinforcing, self-approval. Silencing criticism, making it seem as if it is entirely from outside detractors, is commonplace among the most self-righteous groups of both the left and the right wing. I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam War protests and the original hippies, They had many excellent points and reasons for social protest, much as modern social justice warriors do. The very best of them welcome speech from their political opponents, speech to expose reality and real policies and the real issues that underlie people's concerns. But there are those in their political movements who seek to silence their opponents, who treat dissent as a sin.

I was recently pointed to this example of where it went extremely wrong, where "liberal" professor M.A. Click called for violence against a reporter for covering a political event in a public space.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

She was eventually fired, I think justly, for her behavior. This is what I would hope for when a student or faculty calls for violence to stop free speech and, in this case, the freedom of the press to cover news events in a public space.

Thinking further: David Brin described an idea in his book "Earth", a policy that required people on the Internet to see opinions other than their own to re retain their right to vote. A brilliant heroine in the book tuned the necessary filter to receive the most _outrageious_ of the disagreeing postings, to keep her mind and her atttitudes fresh. I admit that I found the policy to be very tempting. Exposure to opposing opinions or opposing data is vital to science and to engineering. It is very easy for a subtle skew in the data being gathered or presented to reinforce an unjustified belief. It's why I appreciate acquaintances of distinct religions, nationalities, or political beliefs. They provide perspective that people just like myself could not provide.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[another_twilight]

Do you realise you are doing pretty much exactly what you are criticising?

"Silicon valley liberals" do this, think that etc. Exactly what you criticised your friends for doing with people in the industrial states.

Can we please, everyone, stop doing this? Stop with the 'they did it first, so it justifies me doing it'?
You're right to describe the habits and assumptions of groups of people, it's useful. And you're correct in pointing out that the Democrats lost the last election in part because of failing to recognise the deep disatisfaction of much of the rural and industrial areas of the US. It's when you take those behaviours of the group and assume that all members of that group exhibit those behaviours equally that you run into the very thing you object to.

Not all blue collar people vote the party line. Not all silicon valley liberals think they do. Some do. In both directions.

Please, call out the behaviour, but do so without falling into the same trap, yourself.
All that does is create a kind of tribalism that precludes any useful compromise or working together and allows for an 'other' that we can rally against and feel like we belong. It's us and them.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[drnb]

Do you realise you are doing pretty much exactly what you are criticising? "Silicon valley liberals" do this, think that etc. Exactly what you criticised your friends for doing with people in the industrial states.

You'd have a point if I were as mistaken about the nature of the consensus in silicon valley as they are about the nature of the consensus in the industrial states. Certainly there are individuals of various opinions but regional leanings are identifiable. Here is an unfordable truth for you to ponder, the partisan determination of offending posts by facebook, youtube, etc in recent history.

Can we please, everyone, stop doing this? Stop with the 'they did it first, so it justifies me doing it'?

No such argument was made. The simple argument is that twitter likely can not be trusted to make the determination on offending posts, no more than facebook or youtube, and local culture has a lot to do with this failing.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[drnb]

You'd have a point if I were as mistaken about the nature of the consensus in silicon valley as they are about the nature of the consensus in the industrial states

I see. It's OK when you do it because you're correct in your sweeping generalisations and attribution of characteristics of a group to an individual. Thank you for illustrating my point.

Your point is false. Other than my friends that I referred to, people whose politics I know quite well, I referred to the consensus of a large group, not an individual. A group that through their content removal at facebook and youtube well establishes their political leaning in the domain we are speaking of.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[AmiMoJo]

It's Slashdot blocking the n-word censorship and/or some kind of leftist conspiracy to silence contrary opinions?

To me it seems like a simple spam filter. It doesn't stop us discussing stuff, it hasn't been a slippery slope. That word adds little to nothing to the conversation.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[rtb61]

Twitter are a public relations marketing scam. Their focus is to sell advertising, the drive is to create a communications channel that sell shit, full a pathetic lying scum sucking influencers. Who gives a fuck what they do, it is an utterly pointless and worthless communications channel. It is not about promoting quality discussion, it is all about selling shit, about false advertising as long as it is paid for those false ads, whether political manipulations, social manipulations or simple shit product promotion. Twitter is a suckers marketing channel, that is all it is, twits making tweets and the gullible reading it. Twitter is starting to die and so it should, just another empty worthless crap marketing channel like Facebook all destined for the same fad trash heap as MySpace.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[AmiMoJo]

We have to agree what is freedom of speech too. It's got silly now - the recent "Day of Freedom" being a great example. I mean, is Sargon really oppressed, with only 800k YouTube subscribers and $8,000/month from Patreon alone?

This is a spam filter. You can turn it off. Choosing not to listen is not oppression.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[drnb]

I think you are responding to the wrong post

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[Jane Q. Public]

None of the alternatives are very good.

And yes, I'm including in that list Gab, as ideologically inclusive as it tries to be.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[Jane Q. Public]

Mr. Antique Geekmeister:

First, please do us a favor and learn Slashdot's formatting features so we know what are actually quotes and what are not.

Thinking further: David Brin described an idea in his book "Earth", a policy that required people on the Internet to see opinions other than their own to re retain their right to vote. A brilliant heroine in the book tuned the necessary filter to receive the most _outrageious_ of the disagreeing postings, to keep her mind and her atttitudes fresh. I admit that I found the policy to be very tempting. Exposure to opposing opinions or opposing data is vital to science and to engineering. It is very easy for a subtle skew in the data being gathered or presented to reinforce an unjustified belief. It's why I appreciate acquaintances of distinct religions, nationalities, or political beliefs. They provide perspective that people just like myself could not provide.

Don't get me wrong; I loved "Earth" as a novel. However, there are several things wrong with this idea.

The first is the assumption that listening to what we, as a civilized society, know to be ideological garbage. Like strong Socialism (or one my say "Communist wannabes").

That is an experiment that failed so often, so consistently, and so horribly, throughout the 20th century, it's a surprise there are still hangers-on like Venezuela and (to a slightly lesser extent) China in the 21st. Venezuela as a political entity is in its death throes, and I think China will start to decline soon as well.

The reason I bring this up is: you might be amazed at just how much NON-valuable, ideologically crazy stuff there is out there in social media. Twitter included.

Trying to listen to the most extreme alternate views will not refresh your mind; it will destroy your faith in humanity.

Intellectual diversity is a great thing. But accepting (for example) young-Earth Creationists and their ideas into your circle of friends will not, in general, make you a better person.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[Jane Q. Public]

I have been on Twitter since late 2006, and have never once seen a commercial ad, except for the occasional newby spammer who started that same day.

But then, different people use it different ways, I suppose.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[serviscope_minor]

Thinking further: David Brin described an idea in his book "Earth", a policy that required people on the Internet to see opinions other than their own to re retain their right to vote. A brilliant heroine in the book tuned the necessary filter to receive the most _outrageious_ of the disagreeing postings, to keep her mind and her atttitudes fresh. I admit that I found the policy to be very tempting.

The thing is that idea fails for exactly the same reason communism, libertarianism and unregulated capitalism fail: it does not take into account that people are crap. I mean sure if everyone wasn't crap and all other opinions were well researched, locically coherent and grounded in some kind of facts then that would be a fine policy.

The problem is that other people's "opinions" also include the "perspective" that I ought to be murdered becuase I'm part of some evil, secret world controlling cabal.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[tinkerton]

This twitter feature will just silence those outside the bubble, and those inside the bubble will hear fewer "warnings" from outside and have an even deeper sense of false security in the future.

I think so too but I have to add two things
- what the bubble is is more than 'silicon vallue liberals'.It will be a consensus bubble where multiple parties have a say . All the parties with significant clout.
- It is not a passive bubble. When you learn that whatever you post can affect your visibility and the visibility of your 'friends' there is a conditioning effect, an enforcement of conformism. You'll watch what you say and the bubble will grow. A lot of people will drop out, but the bubble will still grow.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[tinkerton]

Also a lot of the work is getting the whole system in place. You can always start with tolerant settings but that does not make the system less powerful. You can change them at any moment and for instance enforce selective blackouts.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[Cederic]

It's censorship, and I fucking hate it.

I don't even use the word, except when discussing its use, but it's a perfectly legitimate word, it has meaning, it has both historical and modern context and it's a hell of a lot more oppressive to ban its use than it is to use it.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[Cederic]

You really want to raise the 'Day of Freedom' and Sargon as examples?

Twitter told Sargon that "âoeYour account was suspended because it was found to be violating the Twitter Rules, specifically our rules around participating in targeted abuse."

Ok, has Twitter also banned the accounts of the people participating in targeted abuse against a Labour voter that was also at the 'Day of Freedom'?

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/201...

I mean, is she really being oppressed when people are merely trying to destroy her career for daring to perform a drag act in front of a gay man, a lesbian woman, a Scottish communist and (because free speech is an apolitical issue) a bunch of idiots, and she ends up losing multiple sources of income?

This is not a spam filter. This is Twitter imposing specific political views and it's extremely appropriate to call them out on it.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[AmiMoJo]

The irony of this post getting "censored" is palpable.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to agree

Funny. You say that, but then proceed to demonstrate an unwillingness to agree with a certain group of people.

is Sargon really oppressed, with only 800k YouTube subscribers and $8,000/month from Patreon alone?

Why not? Oppression is about liberty, not how rich (though 8k/month is hardly rich) or popular you are.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[mjwx]

Twitters new group think reinforcement feature!

Seriously. Silcon valley liberals think silencing non-politicallycorrect non-leftist posts will help their side? They will just reinforce their leftist bubble of estrangement from the rest of the country

If that was true, Twitter would simply start to die.

I've seen perfectly good forums get taken over by right-wing extremists. I checked on that forum a few months back, it's down to 3 members and a load of news bots. Its only a matter of time before the owner stops paying the hosting.

I think your real fear is that they wont die and that your extremist philosophy will be ignored out of existence.

When I think of people that are estranged from reality and are set for even worse electoral defeats, I think of the kind of person who uses the word "leftist", especially where there is no left to speak of.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think the downgrading of some posts will be that severe? This is the same twitter that Trump uses isn't it?

I think you over react. I doubt posts will be filtered in the way you propose. More likely, obvious trolls will be downgraded. Much easier to filter and probably perceived as a blessing by almost everyone.

To do what you suggest would have Twitter censoring Trump posts and that just isn't going to happen. Too much money and cred to lose and too much childish retribution to risk.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey silly. Facebook's mistakes were intentional and part of their overall contempt for public interest. Twitter will act in their business interest. I don't see Twitter's advantage in engaging in bulling behavior the way Facebook is. Twitter just isn't powerful enough. They likely are just trying to keep business by curbing trolls.

Really, Facebook and Twitter are two COMPLETELY different situations. Confusing them under the banner of Silicon Valley is ridiculous.

Facebook's "mistakes" were intentional and like their post hearing changes were all just chest beating. Kind of like how the mob wants you to know that the guy who was murdered in public was their doing and they got away with it. Oops, we went too far in censoring, I guess it's just too much to ask a company to avoid selling all your data and serving the desires of Putin's Russia. Darn it. Oh here are our reforms that just increase assurance of your identity and do NOTHING to promote respectful use of data. In fact the opposite.

But hey you have anti-intellectual needs. We get it.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many "brands" being advertised to you that you do not realize. News channels putting their tweets out there in order to sell their brand. Political pundits posting in order to reach additional dollar bill sized donations by selling their brand. Musicians and movie stars posting frequently in order to squeeze a little bit more revenue for the new release. TV personalities posting their candid thoughts on whatever book they may or may not have read lately. Even Presidents use it to sell themselves and their ideas. Twitter is sometimes a more valuable sales tool than just straight advertising.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[drnb]

Your reaction to the word "leftist" is amusing. Please consult the dictionary to return to reality, it doesn't mean what you think. Your notion that I am an extremist betrays yourself, you are projecting. I am actually an independent. Agreeing with dems on some things, usually social, repubs on others, usually defense or fiscal. The fact that you assume ill-intent for the accurate observation of silicon valley having a pronounced political leaning and that such a leaning has been demonstrated at other companies who try to remove inappropriate content, facebook and youtube, demonstrates my point regarding a hostility to non-politicallycorrect non-leftist posts. Thank you for the assist.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[Anonymous Coward]

and here i was going on history and seeing that it wasn't the left/right false paradigm to fool idiots, but more the power elite vs truth tellers.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[Anonymous Coward]

All it's going to take is an infrastructure spending bill for the rust belt, and those states are going red for a long time.

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[Antique Geekmeister]

Are my quoting practices really so bothersome? I admit that they're a very old style.

> Trying to listen to the most extreme alternate views will not refresh your mind; it will destroy your faith in humanity.

The point David Brin made was that it was necessary to at least hear other opinions. There was no requirement that one agree with them, or even discuss them. The requirement was merely to _see_ other opinions, opinions outside of the politically isolated echo chambers that many social media groups become. Seeing such opnions need not make one a better person. But it does help provide a reality check that there are, indeed, people in the world who do not share your particular views.

Re: A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[Arunex]

napicliffs.com tries to fight the noise and spam of twitter and other social networks

Re:A stronger "silicon valley" ideological bubble

[Anonymous Coward]

If you quack like an RWNJ, dont be all triggered when you get called on it snowflake. Sad.

How is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't slashdot been doing this for years? Can I get a +1? lol

Race to maximum fragility

[poity]

By operating at a lower threshold for offense-taking than your opponents, and reporting them at a greater rate than they do you, you can leverage the apparent functional criteria of Twitter's "anti-troll" algorithm to your own ends. The race to maximum fragility has begun. Shed your tears freely and rest not those report buttons, as they are ammunition in the war for visibility.

Re:Race to maximum fragility

[sinij]

I am deeply offended by your violent words meant to marginalize my beliefs in not getting offended. You should be euthanized (without any pain, I am not a monster) for this!

The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[drnb]

What is trolling, and not. Everyone's perspectives can differ, so... Will anyone really notice less trolling after it's implementation? We'll see.

Confronting a leftist with an "uncomfortable" truth is trolling. Seen it many times, the accusation is a defensive reaction to dismiss the "uncomfortable" thoughts, to avoid having to respond on the merits.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[Kjella]

Confronting a leftist with an "uncomfortable" truth is trolling. Seen it many times, the accusation is a defensive reaction to dismiss the "uncomfortable" thoughts, to avoid having to respond on the merits.

Left, right, sideways... there's more than one axis and more than Democrats and Republicans. I'll admit that when I was younger I thought a lot of people were trolling, you can't seriously mean that. But the older I get the more I realize that people do see things very differently, if you're kind we have different opinions and viewpoints if you're mean there's many with a very warped view of reality. Particularly the people who think if something is not working, you need to do more of it or you're not doing it right. It's like ideology precedes the facts, because it's not working you can't be doing it right because if you did it'd work. Prime examples are capitalism and socialism.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[drnb]

Confronting a leftist with an "uncomfortable" truth is trolling. Seen it many times, the accusation is a defensive reaction to dismiss the "uncomfortable" thoughts, to avoid having to respond on the merits.

Left, right, sideways... there's more than one axis and more than Democrats and Republicans. I'll admit that when I was younger I thought a lot of people were trolling, you can't seriously mean that. But the older I get the more I realize that people do see things very differently, if you're kind we have different opinions and viewpoints if you're mean there's many with a very warped view of reality.

I'm not sure we are in disagreement. I'm not saying that people with a different opinion are trolling. I'm pointing out a tendency to dismiss the different opinion as a troll or fake, to make the opinion unworthy of response, to sidestep the necessity of offering an intellectual counterargument. I just used the language of one side because that particular side will most likely be making the determination of what is an offending post and we've seen how that goes with facebook, youtube, etc.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[another_twilight]

Your use of 'leftist' drew the flamebait flag. It has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with form.

To your content;

Your statement is an example of what you accuse 'leftists' of doing. You claim they call anything 'uncomfortable' trolling. You're dismissing accusations of trolling as being a defensive reaction to being presented with an uncomfortable idea. The example 'leftist' is dismissing an idea because it is uncomfortable. You are dismissing a criticism because you attribute a motivation to the person making the criticism that allows you to dismiss it and then demonstrate that very trait in your reaction to the flamebait tag - you assumed it was a reaction to your 'uncomfortable idea' and not a valid criticism of the way you expressed the idea.

Your idea isn't uncomfortable and characterising criticism of your idea as being because the critic can't handle it is condescending and cheap.

But then, perhaps I'm a 'leftist' and my reaction is just a justification for not being able to deal with your uncomfortable idea.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[apoc.famine]

No dude, they do not prove your point. Quite the opposite.

The "leftist" epithet is a very lame bit of virtue signaling on your part to try to both demean a strawman you've created to allow you to hate a large portion of the population and signal to "your tribe" that you're one of them.

It's flamebait through and through.

As much as you wish there were "leftists" out there to hate, the uncomfortable truth is that nobody is a "leftist". That's not a thing, nobody identifies as that, there isn't a "leftist" political party, and "leftist" doesn't have a creed or values.

So why would you talk about it like it's a thing? To stir up flames. I.E., to flamebait.

I've seen it many times - making up a strawman as a defensive reaction to avoid having to respond on the merits another group may have.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

Confronting a leftist with an "uncomfortable" truth is trolling. Seen it many times, the accusation is a defensive reaction to dismiss the "uncomfortable" thoughts, to avoid having to respond on the merits.

Confronting (a large proportion of) rightists with "uncomfortable" truths, on the other hand, is met with abuse and threats of violence. That too has been seen too many times.

I agree with you that these are defensive reactions deployed precisely "to avoid having to respond on the merits," but if you think the other side does this, and yours does not, it is highly filtered "truth" you are seeing.

More pertinent would be to divide people into those who engage with differing opinions rationally and those who rely instead on unthinking evasion.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[drnb]

Your use of 'leftist' drew the flamebait flag. It has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with form.

No, it has to do with the uncomfortable truth. If we were discussing an organization with strong rightward leaning and I used the term "fake news" would you have a problem? Are you denying that twitter is likely to have a very left leaning employee base? Are you denying we have seen similar leanings and bias when facebook and youtube recently attempted the removal of offending posts?

Again, my point is demonstrated. An uncomfortable truth is offensive to some. The uncomfortable truth is the leaning of various silicon valley companies.

But then, perhaps I'm a 'leftist' and my reaction is just a justification for not being able to deal with your uncomfortable idea.

A crack in the bubble. ;-)

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[drnb]

No dude, they do not prove your point. Quite the opposite. The "leftist" epithet is a very lame bit of virtue signaling on your part to try to both demean a strawman ...

Except its not a straw man, its a factual observation, an uncomfortable truth. See facebook's and youtube's recent examples of partisan determination of what is or is not an acceptable post. The failures overwhelmingly lean in one political direction, hence the accurate epithet.

... signal to "your tribe" that you're one of them ...

Nope, its a simple observation of behavior at similar companies. And my tribe, the "independent" tribe, a tribe that votes for individual candidates based on individual merit, not political parties, isn't impressed by the type of signaling you falsely perceive. I suspect some projection on your part.

If we were discussing a right leaning organization that attempts to avoid discussion with false claims of "fake news" I would have used a "rightist" epithet. But that's not the case here as facebook and youtube demonstrate.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you that these are defensive reactions deployed precisely "to avoid having to respond on the merits," but if you think the other side does this, and yours does not, it is highly filtered "truth" you are seeing.

I said nothing about the other side. If we had been discussing a company that leans to the other side I may have used the term "fake news" rather than "trolling" and used the epithet "rightist" rather than "leftist". But that's not the case here, we are discussing a company that leans to one particular side and its the left.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[apoc.famine]

Except its not a straw man, its a factual observation, an uncomfortable truth.

What's factual about making up a label with no definition that nobody really adheres to and then slandering that label? I might as well tell you how shitty the unicornists are, and how they want to shut down any discussion of how horses are superior.

And more hilariously, there's no censorship on /.. Your flamebait being marked for what is proves nothing other than that one person thinks it's flamebait. (Well at least two, counting me.)

You've made a giant boogyman up of "leftists" and see their impacts everywhere. Yet they don't exist. Who is projecting?

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[drnb]

What's factual about making up a label ...

There is no making up of a label, facebook and youtube erred primarily in one political direction in their removal of content "not contributing to the conversation". Twitter is similar in its makeup.

Your flamebait being marked for what is proves nothing other than that one person thinks it's flamebait.

And yet all I did was provide objective observations of similar companies that engaged in behaviors similar to that proposed for twitter. Thank you also for demonstrating that such uncomfortable truths (silicon valley errs primarily in one political direction) are flamebait/trolling/etc to those who feel their political bubbles threatened by honest observations.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[another_twilight]

No, it has to do with the uncomfortable truth

I could make the same accusation of you and with more evidence in this exchange than you've shown.

If we were discussing an organization with strong rightward leaning and I used the term "fake news" would you have a problem?

If you were using it as a pejorative, absolutely. If you were using it as an ad-hominem, the same.

I'm not objecting to your content. To be plain, I think there are people who identify as 'left' who use victimhood as a way of life; who use rhetorical tricks, logical fallacies and populist tactics to stifle debate and silence dissent. I can speculate as to their motives, but it's unnecessary. Their behaviour can be criticised.

But not all people who identify as left do this, and not all who do this are left. By using 'leftist' as you have you're dismissing criticism of your own behaviour in the same manner as people who call 'troll' in the face of something they don't like.

Are you denying that twitter is likely to have a very left leaning employee base ...

Irrelevant to the criticism I'm levelling. Whether I agree or not, whether you are correct in your characterisation or not is content. Your 'flamebait' mod is deserved for the manner in which you presented it. You claim it's for the content. I disagree.

I am criticising your manner. For your dismissal of my criticism to be true, you need to demonstrate that I'm uncomfortable with your content. Please proceed. All I've seen so far are assertions and avoidance.

An uncomfortable truth is offensive to some.

Now that is a far more reasonable statement. One that doesn't use pejoratives and can be applied to people from various factions, groups and leanings.
That is not what you said in the first place, and _that_ is what I was criticising.

A crack in the bubble.

Fair answer. My last line was sarcastic, and this is a nice foil. Appreciated.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[apoc.famine]

"Leftists" is the label that is made up. If it's not made up, please direct me to the nearest leftist headquarters so I can ask them what they stand for.

You provided no objective observations, just like I can't provide objective observations of the unicornists. They don't exist. Like leftists.

I'm somewhat confused how you don't understand this.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[drnb]

If we were discussing an organization with strong rightward leaning and I used the term "fake news" would you have a problem?

If you were using it as a pejorative, absolutely.

Leftist is a pejorative? And I thought it was a simple noun used in context to describe the general political leanings of a group.

""leftist
noun
1. a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views.
adjective
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or advocated by the political Left."
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[another_twilight]

Please, don't be disingenuous.

"Using a word as a pejorative" =/= "the word is a pejorative".

I answered your challenge to me and you're attacking that based on legalism and dictionary definitions while continuing to avoid the substance of my criticism.
I've made my point as clearly as I can and don't believe that it's useful to continue.

Thank you for your time.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[drnb]

Using the word "leftist" as a perforative is your spin. It was not my usage.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, you'll conveniently decide when something is "used as a pejorative" depending on your views on the matter.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[another_twilight]

Yes. Meaning is contextual.

Do you have a point?

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[Savantissimo]

Quite true. One major class of uncomfortable truths:
any fact that that falsifies their religious belief in equality, or their resulting dogma that differences in groups' success are due to privilege and discrimination.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

I said nothing about the other side.

I, agree, you didn't.

If we had been discussing a company that leans to the other side I may have used the term "fake news" rather than "trolling" and used the epithet "rightist" rather than "leftist". But that's not the case here, we are discussing a company that leans to one particular side and its the left.

But you were not exclusively (if at all) addressing the behaviour of the company.

You wrote: "Confronting a leftist with an "uncomfortable" truth is trolling," which we might reasonable take to mean any leftist. Indeed more likely a leftist you might encounter on Twitter rather than the corporation itself.

I put it to you that it is not a characteristic particularly of "leftists" to eschew engaging substantively and that, if anything, it may even be more a characteristic for conservatives (or what passes for 'conservative' today) to avoid "uncomfortable truths" by resorting to invective &c.. Again, my point was that the pertinent divide here isn't between left or right, but between those who engage rationally, and those who evade by labelling ... And I'm not sure the Twitter as a company does "lean to the left," though the user base might (and the company needs must respond to pressure from them).

Actually describing any silicon valley corporation as "leftist" rather stretches the imagination. Painfully PC perhaps, but as my leftist teenager said the other day "identity politics is class consciousness for liberals" (by which he meant those comfortable middle to upper middle class folk to the right of a leftist position, albeit to the left of a conservative one). One rather suspects no too many tech billionaires are all too anxious for any serious redistribution of social wealth.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

"Leftists" is the label that is made up. If it's not made up, please direct me to the nearest leftist headquarters so I can ask them what they stand for.

You were doing passably well, but just about here you lost the argument. Your surrender below when you wrote "[a]re you five?" is noted.

You don't need to go to "leftist headquarters" to ask us what we stand for (anymore than you should need to go to "feminist headquarters" to ask what feminists what they stand for). Notwithstanding that "leftist" is clearly too broad a category comfortably to summarise --as you correctly note the Left is hardly homogeneous (however that might be asserted about a putatively nonexistent entity) -- what we stand for is the overthrow of capitalism and the radical redistribution of social wealth on an international level ... so not Twitter, Facebook, Google or Apple obviously.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[houghi]

As Twitter is a US company, as a European I absolutely doubt that the average twitter employee is left leaning. Furthermore most companies do not claim to be a democracy, so it does not even matter what the majority says (or think) they are.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out latestagecapitalism on reddit. There's a TON of millennials there that self-identify as leftists - not liberals, but leftists of the Stalin-did-no-wrong collectivist variety.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[drnb]

Please consult a dictionary, "leftist" does not mean full blown communist. For an example of leaning far to the left and intolerance witness the behavior of students on US college campuses when a speaker confronts the current US leftwing bubble. Silicon valley isn't quite that bad but it leans towards such intolerance and silencing of what makes them uncomfortable.

Re:The "uncomfortable" truth is trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it was, if it wasnt for the sock puppets all your posts would have been trolls.
At least show some honesty and stop your pretence of fairness, you clearly use leftist as a perjorative, but dont have the balls to admit it.

Troll schmoll.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Based upon the Slashdot use of the Troll mod, it's obvious that "Troll" many times means something that one doesn't like to read - regardless of the truth behind it.

Equality of Expression. Nope. By Twittter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Censoring people you don't agree with is not the way to "improve" something. Its a way to make your platform homogenous and boring, and not useful at all except to those who are brainwashed by the media.

Re:Equality of Expression. Nope. By Twittter.

[another_twilight]

The problem is that more people want homogeneous and boring than want lively debate, confronting ideas or uncomfortable news.

Look at how many media organisations have moved away from trying to be impartial reporters and found a niche to pander to with scandal and feel-good.

I agree with everything you've said, I just don't see it changing until people realise that echo chambers are dangerous and comfort is best had in moderation. Until then, we'll see the same cycle again and again. As something grows in popularity it will either choose to pursue an ideal of free speech (less common) or chase continued popularity (more common).

How Internet Fighting Works

[Anonymous Coward]

How Internet Fighting Works courtesy of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

hid tweets

[Anonymous Coward]

If you hid tweets that distract from the conversation. Isnt that pretty much every tweet?

I still remember...

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

When Instapundit was suspended for tweeting that if your car is surrounded by "protesters" on a highway you need to get out of there even if it means running some of them down. Meanwhile, on the "black" side of Twitter, you can post all sorts of threatening things because you're part of the "oppressed class" and according to progressive lore, racism is only possible if you have power (which only whites and honorary whites like certain types of Asians have).

So by "detracting from the conversation" I think he means things like posting hatefacts back at whiny activists and celebrities who think it's 1930s and they're the courageous anti-Fascist opposition when the only organized and regimented organizations using violence to stifle politics are on their side.

Re:I still remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

they're both crazy. We have protests all the time without people getting torn out of their cars and murdered. Telling people to pre-emptively run down protestors with their cars is pretty irresponsible.

Re:I still remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

Username checks out. The very fact that this duality exists eats your ass to no end. Why do you want to be so racist? But you're gonna say you aren't, right? If you weren't, this wouldn't be pissing you off so bad. Guilty dogs bark, and they bark loudly, Old Yeller.

Re:I still remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's officially bizzaro world when asking that people have the rules applied to them equally is shouted down as "racism".

Thankfully, the craziness in your claim is so outrageous, it's easily ignored.

Please Ignore This Post

[Anonymous Coward]

eab7 5d15 f483 0969
002d f62d 376c 6018
9dbc d0af d98e 00dd
a5fb da7d b08a 536f
86ee e35d 36c1 b35c
cfb0 9479 7764 053f
fb29 6785 036b 6bfe
5559 c69f 84a0 41b2

Re: Please Ignore This Post

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, np

Re:Please Ignore This Post

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to ignore the post, but it's full of spelling and grammatical errors. I mean, "b08a"? Really? Everyone knows it's b08c!

radical thought- opt-in

[Anonymous Coward]

radical thought: opt-in, with every internally tunable option exposed to allow users to tune as they see fit.

Probably that will happen, exactly in proportion to what their advertisers think of each option.

Twitter was never about Free Speech.

Bots

[blackfeltfedora]

This sounds like a pretty convoluted way to hide bots without actually removing them, but I guess this keeps there user numbers/interactions up. P.S. Twitter we still want an edit button.

how to know if your spouse is cheating

[mistycephus072]

Do you need service of a hacker who can help you get your job done? Search no more. They have reputable service to get your job done without trace, speedy work recovery, guarantee non data lost, expert in handling of Phone penetration, email hacks, WhatsApp previous and current messages access remotely and remote server shutdown.They are the guru in terms of service delivery. What are you seeking for?. Do you want get access to another WhatsApp, Phone, Email, Facebook, School Grades, spy on Phone. This is our job. Contact them Today for speedy work and no excuses....TEXT NUMBER:+15186284630 or through their WHAT'S APP number:+15185049376 or visit ehir website for better understanding .WEBSITE ; oneofonehack.com

Embrace, extend, and extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the part where you don't seem to understand the colloquial meaning of snowflake.

While it is more usual for the right to adopt, refashion and return leftist criticism, this is a case where the opposite occurred. Object all you may, but the horse has well bolted. 'Snowflake' is now used in equal measure for SJWs or for RWNJs who are too easily triggered and melt.

Re: Embrace, extend, and extinguish

[UnConeD]

Yeah, except the word didn't refer to being triggered, it referred to people wanting to be a "special snowflake" with all the various identities they adopted for themselves through the magic of intersectionality. The far left using it in the other direction is an amazing example of how they cannot imagine what reasonable criticism of their own position is all about.

Re: Embrace, extend, and extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

It has become a losing battle to post here, UnConeD. 1%er/troll/leftists are everywhere. They are quite happy to destroy reasonable discourse. In fact, that is the only kind they want to destroy.

Re: Embrace, extend, and extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

There's another important reason: practically every insult is "Deeply Offensive" to one of the downtrodden, minority classes that make up their ranks. Remember, these are the kind of faggots that balk at "retard".

Fortunately "snowflake" is not on their list of offensive slurs (yet). They should be grateful their adversaries have picked such a tame word or else they'd sound like the limp-wristed Rust-lang homosexuals going "you big jerk!"

The far-left is just an awkward weirdo faggot, full of shame, and deeply afraid of being humiliated. But also excited by it. That's why they can spend all day sputtering with "outrage". Because it's just a thin veil over their submissive faggot and female domination fetishes.

Re: Embrace, extend, and extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

The far left using it ...

It's not the far (or radical) left who indulge in the distraction of "intersectionality," it's liberals.

... in the other direction is an amazing example of how they cannot imagine what reasonable criticism of their own position is all about.

You think calling someone a "snowflake" counts as reasonable criticism? Well good luck imagining what the "reasonable criticism" of your position "is about" when I call you a fascist scumbag. ;)

I doubt many people have often been persuaded into honest self-reflection by virtue of being abused.

In any case, whatever the original intent behind 'snowflake' might have been, it's rather escaped that now.

Delete Twitter!

[Anonymous Coward]

group think indeed

Thank you regarding uncomfortable truths

[drnb]

"Leftists" is the label that is made up.

"leftist
noun
a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views."
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

Thank you once again for the assist in demonstrating the bubble's ability to reject uncomfortable truths.

You provided no objective observations

Other than facebook and google erring overwhelming to the left of the political spectrum in similar efforts, and of twitter having similar composition to those companies?

Re:Thank you regarding uncomfortable truths

[apoc.famine]

Wonderful. Then as I requested, please provide me with the location of the "leftists" headquarters so I can go and talk to them. I have a lot of questions.

Just because you can find a definition of something doesn't make it a real thing. Are you five?

And on top of that, "the political left" isn't a homogeneous thing either. "Left" doesn't even fully overlap with "Democrat" at this point in time! Your flamebait was well earned. I hope the leftists don't turn you into a gay SJW tonight. Sleep tight!

Re:Thank you regarding uncomfortable truths

[drnb]

Just because you can find a definition of something doesn't make it a real thing.

Actually it can, and it certainly debunks your claim that the word is "made up". Unlike the definition of "unicorn" that you cite, the definition of "leftist" that I cited did not use the word "mythical".

"the political left" isn't a homogeneous thing either. "Left" doesn't even fully overlap with "Democrat" at this point in time!

"homogeneous", "fully overlap", both straw man of yours. I don't recall referring to democrats. Simply people who lean left, as demonstrated by previously mentioned actions at facebook and youtube.

Your flamebait was well earned. I hope the leftists don't turn you into a gay SJW tonight. Sleep tight!

Thank you for the further hysteria over the use of the word "leftist". Did you read the definition: "a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views". I don't see mention of gay SJW in there, I don't think those are requirements. The lengths you go to dismiss the observable facts of leftist leanings at facebook and youtube and likely twitter is quite amazing. Truly it is an uncomfortable truth for you. What do you think is so wrong about being sympathetic to the views of the political left?

Re:Thank you regarding uncomfortable truths

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonderful. Then as I requested, please provide me with the location of the "leftists" headquarters so I can go and talk to them. I have a lot of questions.

In the US, that would be the DNC National HQ.

Have fun.

Oh, and...

You're welcome. :)

Re:Thank you regarding uncomfortable truths

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

twitter is like faebook

[dogo365]

titter is like faebook

Twitter isn't fun anymore

[Nonesuch]

I first signed up for twitter back around 2008, mostly to follow a few local bands and get the nightly specials at my favorite local restaurant, The Weary Traveler.

Around the time of the presidential election I gave up on posting anything of substance on twitter, and I've slowly stopped using it entirely over the past six months or so. Seemed like all the "top tweets" were always on one side of the political spectrum, and everybody on both sides has been getting more thin-skinned, blocking anybody who doesn't agree with them 100% on every issue.

But the biggest reason I've dropped out is that my primary account is connected to my real name, and during a big "social media" push by my employer (encouraging everybody to follow the company from their personal account) my direct manager decided to "follow" me about a year ago; He uses his twitter account to post all about his personal political beliefs, and now I'm reluctant to even "like" anything the least bit divergent from the left-wing party line.

And that restaurant? The Weary Traveler switched over to Instagram years ago.

Re:Twitter isn't fun anymore

[BlueStrat]

But the biggest reason I've dropped out is that my primary account is connected to my real name, and during a big "social media" push by my employer (encouraging everybody to follow the company from their personal account) my direct manager decided to "follow" me about a year ago; He uses his twitter account to post all about his personal political beliefs, and now I'm reluctant to even "like" anything the least bit divergent from the left-wing party line.

Delete your twitter account. If your boss asks, just make up some vague reason to do with personal taste in social media. No employer can force an employee to join and/or participate in some third-party social media site if that was not part of the original job description and requirements for hiring.

If he/they try to force you anyways, that's your cue that "it's time for you to leave" like Cain leaving the monastery after snatching the pebble from the master's hand.

Hopefully you won't be forced to move a huge brazier of hot coals with your bare forearms to reach the door. Those dragon-shaped scars *are* kinda cool, though. :)

Strat

Re:Twitter isn't fun anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Unmoderated fora always degenerate to the lowest denominator. It is known.

Re:Twitter isn't fun anymore

[Nonesuch]

No need to delete, it's easier to just log in once a year (in incognito browser mode), like a few controversy-immune "First robin of spring" posts, and then log out. Same as for Facebook.

Twitter is Dead

[Elias Israel]

With this and recent changes to their API access, Twitter has basically affirmed that it is meant for celebrities and big companies, and that everyone else should just talk to their *own* friends. The lack of viable answers for individuals and small companies, other than "shut up, create content for us, and pay us to tell anyone about it" is pathetic to the point of being corporate suicide. Close your account, Twitter is over.

The Firehose is rigged, not so much the comments.

[Anonymous Coward]

> I've yet to see evidence of collusion or deliberate suppression of ideas.

In posts, no, but in the Firehose? Certain people are blacklisted and will get dogpiled down to nothing regardless of the submission.

I used to submit a lot here and I have many successful stories, now it's not worth bothering. I'll be voted all the way down and falsely flagged as spam, even if I post a well-written summary that links to past coverage and someone else simply copy/pastes the first paragraph of the article into a submission, whether or not that leaves the story comprehensible.

Granted, in theory, the mods might see the submission even still, but I wonder how much they go through the posts flagged as spam.

What could possibly go wrong?

[IHTFISP]

Suppression of Wrong Think is an act of LOVE®.

Welcome to the Future Hive Mind, where facts are acts of hate that detract from the collective conversation.

Attack of the snowflakes

[biggaijin]

This censorship plan is a logical extension of the speech police that are now operating at American universities. Not only will the miscreants be censored, they won't even know that they are being censored until someone asks them why they dropped out of a conversation. We are well on the way to a harmonious groupthink, where no one will be offended and everyone will be equally unhappy.

Welcome to China...

[dbreeze]

https://qanonposts.com/
http://www.endthefedreserve.co...
https://www.patriotssoapbox.co...
Get in the fight or get enslaved. There is no middle ground under totalitarian control.

Just like slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to the bottom and click on
X replies beneath your current threshold.

A Hillary-Only Feed

[micahraleigh]

Life observations are so anecdotal and arbitrary.

She is the smartest woman in the world and rises above our petty interests.

You see world historical significance is the only measure to apply in the grand scheme of things.

We are only puny, ordinary people ... leaching resources away from what rightfully belongs to politicians and party heads.

Doubleplusgood

[Anonymous Coward]

I applaud BB for putting an end to thoughtcrime and making the world safe for ingsoc.

Technical solution to a social problem.

[Mal-2]

This is going to do a lot more harm than good, because those who wish to cause trouble will always discover how to stay just inside the boundaries. Meanwhile, they will troll people into stepping outside those boundaries so they are the ones getting banned. One thing autists and 4channers are really good at is following rules literally while completely violating the spirit. It's like every forum is infested with thousands of wannabe Sean Averys of the Internet. Sometimes they get busted, but then word gets around about exactly what is not allowed.

Twitter knows it will not end well. They're just buying time, in the hopes that they can somehow solve their fundamental problem: computers still can't discern the meaning of text, while the required large moderating pool of humans required is too expensive for a free service.