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

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!

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

[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

[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.

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: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: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

[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: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.