Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Is 'Rethinking' Its Service, and Suspending 1M Accounts Each Day (washingtonpost.com)
Twitter's CEO told the Washington Post he's "rethinking" core parts of Twitter:
Dorsey said he was experimenting with features that would promote alternative viewpoints in Twitter's timeline to address misinformation and reduce "echo chambers." He also expressed openness to labeling bots -- automated accounts that sometimes pose as human users -- and redesigning key elements of the social network, including the "like" button and the way Twitter displays users' follower counts. "The most important thing that we can do is we look at the incentives that we're building into our product," Dorsey said. "Because they do express a point of view of what we want people to do -- and I don't think they are correct anymore."
Dorsey's openness to broad changes shows how Silicon Valley leaders are increasingly reexamining the most fundamental aspects of the technologies that have made these companies so powerful and profitable. At Facebook, for example, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has commissioned a full review of his company's products to emphasize safety and trust, from mobile payments to event listings.... In recent months, Twitter has made several changes to promote safety and trust. It has introduced new machine learning software to monitor account behavior and is suspending over a million problematic accounts a day.... Dorsey said Twitter hasn't changed its incentives, which were originally designed to nudge people to interact and keep them engaged, in the 12 years since Twitter was founded.
Dorsey's openness to broad changes shows how Silicon Valley leaders are increasingly reexamining the most fundamental aspects of the technologies that have made these companies so powerful and profitable. At Facebook, for example, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has commissioned a full review of his company's products to emphasize safety and trust, from mobile payments to event listings.... In recent months, Twitter has made several changes to promote safety and trust. It has introduced new machine learning software to monitor account behavior and is suspending over a million problematic accounts a day.... Dorsey said Twitter hasn't changed its incentives, which were originally designed to nudge people to interact and keep them engaged, in the 12 years since Twitter was founded.
Ban conservatives right in time for the elections. Obvious politically motivated FANGS and li'l sidekicks are obvious.
and someone else will build a better generator and connect the two in a generative adversarial network.
2) The social media sites have always pushed a liberal agenda.
3) They are just more open and brazen about it now.
4) If someone thinks "Good. They should", don't get too comfortable. They'll be coming for you next. Always happens.
The problem is that most of the "alternative viewpoints" are just opinions backed by little or no actual facts. Simply *really* believing those facts because they align with your existing belief structure should not be considered anything more than giving voice to propaganda and lies.
They will keep whoever makes them the most cash. Trump Twitter is more popular than they will admit. Anyway if they closed his account they would probably find themselves in a close encounter with a cattle prod wielded by Cerberus also called the SEC, IRS, and DOJ.
Youtube Famlands. It's a new documentary by a new age right political activist about what's happening right now in South Africa. It looks at the full history of division there and who really sews it.
To one big one with the correct opinions.
The President is a special case and everyone with two connected brain cells is aware of that. Kick him off and a third of the country follows him someplace that doesn't censor opinions, like GAB.AI. That's about the most insanely stupid thing Twitter could possibly do. They have no significant competition now, why would they go and create competition by fiat?
The second Twitter makes the calculation that it won't hurt them significantly, rest assured Trump will be shown the exit.
--- Mercutio was right.
Setting politics aside for the duration of this post...
Twitter is doing its utmost best to destroy what little utility is left on the platform. I logged in yesterday for the first time in a couple weeks (which shows you where I’m at with Twitter nowadays). Right at the top was the annoying “in case you missed it” section, which I routinely flag “see less often” but continues to show up every time I log in. But then, below that, something new - two blocks, each containing numerous posts, where two accounts I follow had been mentioned by other random accounts or had been liked by other random accounts. THEN, below that, were now two paid advertisements in a row - and each one is significantly larger than has been the norm, since the advertisement (aka “promoted”) thing started.
So, at that point I’m roughly five or six page scrolls down - and I haven’t even hit my actual timeline!
Oh, and “notifications”... I’ve got about a hundred unread notifications. I stopped checking those months ago because Twitter started shoving random crap in there. It used to be that section only included stuff you’d actually want to get notified about, like new followers or direct messages. Now, any real notifications are buried in a sea of garbage posts.
It used to be that Twitter was the best place for breaking news, which was the only reason I got on the platform at all. But now, it’s basically worthless. I know they need to monetize somehow, but destroying the platform’s actual utility isn’t going to make them more money.
#DeleteChrome
We're removing more right-leaning people that we disagree with.
Trump followers should follow him to the gallows and hang for treason right beside him.
If you were willing to censor before, you are willing to censor now; you're just hiding it behind "reforms."
Who else hid censorship behind "reforms"? That was the Communists.
Interesting how the guys who want to get the richest fastest are all Communists these days.
Alternative Right.
Let it all out, have a good cry snowflake nazi scumbags. You're the "real victims" lol
According to the Left, it is anyone who is not Leftist enough.
Apparently, to be OK with these people, you have to hate white people and full Socialism. You also tend to be authoritarian.
I think it's silly calling these people "fascists," just like calling anyone but an actual National Socialist a "Nazi" is screwy.
But Communists? If the shoe fits, let them wear it.
Alternative Right.
Oh look, a slippery slope fallacy. So tired.
Conservatives and their never ending persecution complex are hilarious
It's like looking at the tabloids in the checkout at a grocery store... even the most hardened cynical intellectual will do it. It's just human interest, and oodles of delicious gooey drama.
Trump knows how to play an audience, and somehow comes out with most of what he wanted in the first place. Like him or hate him, he knows what he is about, and he has all of us tuning in like to a soap opera.
Alternative Right.
The government has done this before: if your private property acts like a public space, it can be regulated like a public space.
Really interesting stuff, whichever side you come down on in this issue.
In my view, most of this drama could have been avoided by retaining common carrier status to webhosts and making an antitrust case against Google. If we did it Microsoft, we should do it to this new company which is doing the same stuff that Microsoft did.
Alternative Right.
Where's YOUR conservative twitter, little trumptard crybaby ? Are you trying to convice me that a conservative-run social media would give equal and fair representation to all viewpoints, including liberal ones ?
Go suck Alex Jones' dick, trumptard traitor.
2) The social media sites have always pushed a liberal agenda.
3) They are just more open and brazen about it now.
4) If someone thinks "Good. They should", don't get too comfortable. They'll be coming for you next. Always happens.
This is about to come to a boil - Trump just tweeted about the problem and saying:
"[...] Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won’t let that happen."
Bill Maher tried to support free speech using Alex Jones as his example, and got shot down by his panel. Apparently, the left thinks that suppressing speech is OK when it promotes their cause. Bill also mentioned the recent Charlottesville protests, implying that the violent counter-protests from last year (Antifa and the like) are having a chilling effect on dissent in the nation.
If the "social media giants" are not scrambling in panic right now, they should be. Their attempts at midterm meddling is going to cause the government to crack down on them with regulation.
And when it comes, it will be regulation they won't like.
Such as forcing them to support free speech.
Most of the media would be very happy with a far left one political party system. They have either convinced themselves, or by other far left that this is the path we must take. Call it socialism, progressivism or whatever you like but its pretty obvious that is the goal of social media too. To ignore leftist hate and take down far right hate is just exposing your true colors of a society where hate is OK if your on the left side of a issue. Not surprising to look at any country that is socialist or communist in nature to embrace a news media that will voluntarily be a voice for this type of one sided ideology.
I remember when Conservatism was something about principles and standards. Now it's just an appropriated slogan for treasonous criminals like Donald Trump to shit on with his nazi scumbag Twitter following of disillusioned cucks.
their stock in trade is eyeballs. They need to ban phony eye balls or they'll get sued by their shareholders for inflating user numbers. That's literally all this is.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Wah, I want to be a nazi and force everyone to accept my violent head-in-ass retard ideology as if it's legitimate, waaaaaaah." Sorry bitch, that's not what the 1st Amendment says, dumbass. Go fuck yourself - this is Twitter.
They make their rules. Don't like it? Hang for treason for all we care, stupid nazi cucks. You aren't legitimate citizens, you're traitor trash from literal trailers. Roll your double wide down to the bottom of the ocean, snowflake.
Make your own rules in Hell, nazi scumbags. But you will burn.
4) No, Conservatives aren't being silenced - nazi faggots posing as Conservatives are getting a taste of what they deserve - hanged for treason.
And here we have a perfect example of gaslighting. Telling someone their experiences are not what they saw in an attempt to make them think their own beliefs are crazy.
Youtube and facebook are pretty strong about removing right leaning items.
Dare to state that maybe we shouldn't chop off parts of infant penis? That's anti-semetic you nazi!
Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
There is a difference. I'll give you an analogy.
If Twitter was banning people for being gay, then you'd have a point. This whole cake shit is a smoke screen. It be like telling Alex Jones, no you won't bake a cake for him because you don't like the things he says. And as a business you should have that right. But you don't have the right to ban someone because they don't like who you THINK they should like.
One is being discriminatory to a WHOLE class of people. Which is wrong. The other is being discrimnatory AGAINST that ONE person.
Now you may say "but it's just conservatives getting banned. Well, then there may be something behind that then. Could it be that what these conservatives are spewing
lies/hate/propaganda?
There are certain words and phrases that have no fixed definition, so the use of them usually says more about the person using them, than the object they are being used to describe. Like “fascism” in modern times, the term “feudalism” was mostly a term of disparagement in the 18th and 19th century. According to scholars of the subject, the word “feudal” was first used in the 17th century, as in feudal order. It later came into more common usage in Marxist political propaganda in the 18th and 19th century.
Just because feudalism was largely used as a meaningless epithet, it does not mean it did not exist. Scholars generally agree that feudalism was “a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs.” The lord owned the land, the vassal was granted use of it by the lord. The land was the fief. In exchange for legal and physical protection, the lord expected service, usually military service, but also food rents and labor from the peasants.
Marxists later pointed out that the codes and customs that we associate with this period relied on the lord owning the one thing of value, the land. The person at the top of the feudal order had a monopoly on the one store of value and that gave him a monopoly on the law. The old saying about the golden rule is true. The man with the gold makes the rules. This is why as coinage made a comeback in the medieval period, kings took control of the mints. It was both a source a wealth, seigniorage, and a source of power.
A useful example of this is the decision by Henry VIII to dissolve the monasteries of the Catholic Church. By seizing church lands, which constituted about a quarter of the national wealth, and redistributing them to favored aristocrats, Henry fundamentally altered English society. He weakened the power of the old nobles, by filling their ranks with new members loyal to Henry. He also eliminated an alternative source of economic power in English society. Henry was supreme power because he controlled the land.
Feudalism only works when a small elite controls the source of wealth. Then they can control the exploitation of it. In Europe, as Christianity spread, the Church required lands, becoming one of the most powerful forces in society. The warrior elite was exclusively Catholic, thus they had a loyalty to the Pope, as God’s representative on earth. Therefore, the system of controlling wealth not only had a direct financial benefit to the people at the top, it had the blessing of God’s representative, who sat atop the whole system.
That’s something to keep in mind as we see technology evolve into a feudal system, where a small elite controls the resources and grants permission to users. The software oligopolies are now shifting all of their licencing to a subscription model. It’s not just the mobile platforms. Developers of enterprise software for business are adopting the same model. The users have no ownership rights. Instead they are renters, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the developer or platform holder. The users is literally a tenant.
The main reason developers are shifting to this model is that they cannot charge high fees for their software, due to the mass of software on the market. Competition has drive down prices. Further, customers are not inclined to pay high maintenance fees, when they can buy new systems at competitive rates. The solution is stop selling the stuff and start renting it. This fits the oligopoly scheme as it ultimately puts them in control of the developers. Apple and Google are now running protection rackets for developers.
It also means the end of any useful development. Take a look at the situation Stefan Molyneux faces. A band of religious fanatics has declared him a heretic and wants him burned. The Great Church of Technology is now in the process of having him expelled from the internet. As he wrote in a post, he inves
The stove is on fire, soon the house will burn.
As if, slippery slope!
The kitchen is aflame, soon the house will burn.
Stop being an idiot
The entire house is alight, it's going to spread!.
Would you give it a rest?
Huge Forest Fire burns California.
Well that was unexpected. AND UNRELATED!
Yeah, things like someone being deplatformed from multiple independent platforms on the same day is in no way a canary. It's pure coincidence it's also before american midterms, and only effects one side.
According to popular thought, twitter banning Trump would not be censorship since twitter is not the gov.
Only Western World is populated with completely idiots a.k.a. liberals, Soros useful idiots
No way this U.S. Amerika could ever sink! Too big to fail!!
Enjoy beautiful Detroit!
....That will make me vote for Trump for the first time next election. Trump is winning- personally and for the country, and you're just digging holes.
Next to the Hillary supporters.
Reduce "echo chambers"? What are you gonna do show me twitts from the other end of the political spectrum? Show me twitts of people I don't actually follow?
Maybe what I want is an echo chamber. I thought the point of Twitter was to follow people whose posts you find interesting.
Also I think they block people way too easily: I've seen blocks for twits you can hardly find controversial and that weren't attacking anyone. In addition now there's talk of preventing people who have been blocked before from opening new accounts. One unfair block and you're out forever?
Do they really think that's a good idea?
You can read all about it at Amerika.org.
Daily rants about the fall of Rome 2.0 and the denialists who empower it...
Alternative Right.
Hillary isn't being investigated for treason. Trump is, and is guilty, and even implicated his own son who will probably get to prison just before he does. Popcorn? Hillary will enjoy her final years outside of Federal prison. Trump? :)
Interesting that that legal decision is on the same basis as requiring that bakery to make a cake supporting gay marriage:
"the views expressed by members of the public in passing out pamphlets or seeking signatures for a petition thus will not likely be identified with those of the owner."
The same argument was made in the cake case, that no-one would reasonably assume the message was by or endorsed by the baker so they couldn't refuse on those grounds.
Somewhat odd that you would now support this line of reasoning, given your views on its application to the bakery.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Thanks Ivan, but Trump is hanging for treason, not Soros. #You didn't read that in your Fox Newspaper?
In case you need a translation, "safety and trust" means "censoring viewpoints that don't agree with those of Silicon Valley's progressive billionaire class".
I do hope they get on with it, though: the more they censor, the more irrelevant and disliked they make themselves.
You're triggered and irrational. It's like a lazer pointer on a wall with a cat, except in your case I think the cat is significantly smarter.
You can play stupid, you're a nazi faggot and it's a credible link. But you do know that Trump is compromised by Putin and sucks his cock at every opportunity until we hang him for treason with his bitch beta traitor sons too.
Yes, you do.
These fancy words just mean they'll kick you off for good if you call someone a faggot.
He may not be a nazi but he is enabling them by allowing them to remain on the platform and he doesn't do jack shit about harassment. If Twitter were a public utility it would be difficult to ban anyone, but since it's not a public utility, they can ban whoever they want. If they want it to be democratic then they'd ban Nazis and ban @realdonaldtrump thought not @potus.
You can't claim that Titter has a right to ban pro Nazi propaganda because it's their platform, while saying the Baker can't refuse to make a Gay themed cake even though it's his shop.
At least not without being a hypocrite.
It used to be that Twitter was the best place for breaking news, which was the only reason I got on the platform at all. But now, it’s basically worthless.
The only thing left on twitter worth reading is Internet of Shit's feed: http://twitter.com/internetofshit,
No, Trump is not being investigated for treason. Claiming such is just plain delusional.
Please, stop reading Jezebel and /r/The_Mueller - it's damaging your brain badly enough that you are beginning to babble. Soon enough, you'll be doing it non-AC, and then everyone will know how stupid you are.
Considering a Court has declared Trump's personal Twitter account a public forum, that's not as clear as it used to be.
2. These sites have to make money. The most money they can.
3. The majority of people sit to the left. They are not conservative. This is born out by survey after survey. And by the fact nearly every other nation is to the left of where America currently is. It's why most advertising in liberal.
3. In order to make said money, appeal to the majority. See point 3.
Dusty Smith. Just for saying the word "Bitch". WTF?! #FreeDusty
It's scary that you're that fucking stupid to believe any of the shit you typed. The "investigation" actually has nothing to do with treason. Try to keep up, feces-for-brains.....
The "proof" that Twitter is anti-conservative:
https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/...
(It's a GOP Senator who doesn't understand how to change a simple setting).
Sure I can. I can easily distinguish between the criminal organization that is the Nazis and the non-criminal nature of a same-sex marriage.
So can the Colorado law. It doesn't provide protection for any expression, but merely certain defined characteristics.
Look it up.
I'm really surprised at the slashdot take on this.
We had this discussion here a long time ago. It was argued endlessly and Slashdot as a community was strongly convinced that all information should be free. And online services are not responsible for user content. Remember that? It was very, very important that online services like Slashdot avoid getting in the business of taking editorial control over user generated content. Because right-wing types kept threatening to either regulate offensive speech or hold internet companies liable for offensive and/or slanderous content.
Apparently the Slashdot community has collectively lost their minds. Are we really forgetting the "hands off" tradeoff that was made to keep these companies exempt from being held responsible for user-posted content?
And yet here we are, with politicians loudly agreeing that the big user-generated-content companies should exercise editorial control over the content on their platform. In many cases these are the exact same politicians who crafted the policy that allowed the internet to have Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. People like Chuck Schumer, Nancy Peloci, etc. were there when the policy was created. Their fingerprints are all over it, so they know full well that deciding which political views are acceptable negates the deal, opening these platforms up to liability for the user generated content they publish.
When they started with their "truth commission" ideas back in 2015/16 I thought this was obvious. It should be painfully obvious by now. But somehow the passage of time has allowed everyone to forget the terms of the deal. I wonder if they'll rue the day they chose to follow this path, or if everyone will somehow forget the deal and craft a new world where you can exercise editorial control over content and yet not be liable for that content.
The only problem with this is that if you had grown up in Germany in the 1930s you saluting hitler and calling for the extermination of Jews and Gypsies. Whether you want to end white privelege or end Jewish privelege largly depends on where you were born.
Also these so called right wingers would be supporting communism if the had grown up in Belarus in the 70s. Our most deeply held convictions are an accident of birth. Please dont hate someone for being born in a differnt part of the country from your enlightened self.
You misunderstand the law and the reasoning by the court. The baker is making art, it is not a public space. Compelling an artist to create something that is fundamentally against their ethos is a 1st amendment violation. On the other hand, social media has become a "public space" because of the large number of people that go there to exchange ideas, politics, points of view, and so on.
Om, nomnomnom...
They'll be coming for you next. Always happens.
No. They won't.
Conservatives always say that. But you know what? They won't "come for me next". I endorse this idea of sweeping conservative ideas into the shadows. The world will be a better place, and the affirmative action boogeyman that people bleet about won't be a problem.
It's going to be fine.
"It's a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn't only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word, which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well – better, because it's an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good,’ what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning or ‘doubleplusgood’ if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there'll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words – in reality, only one word. Don't you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.'s idea originally, of course," he added as an afterthought.
I think you may be misreading the law there. Since the bakery is forced to issue the cake as a statement, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the bakery and the message.
The point is that if a space is open to all, and people transact things there which are not directly related to the output of the owner, it is a public space. The analogue would be going into the bakery and holding up a sign demanding gay marriage or transgender preschool teachers.
Alternative Right.
In both cases, free speech is preserved. The artist is not made to state something as if it were his opinion, but neither is social media, because there is no expectation that users will represent the company.
Alternative Right.
The "anti-fascists" seem to have authoritarian tendencies.
Then again, Antifa was a project of the Communist Party, so it is not entirely surprising that they endorse Utopia by violence and suppression.
In the meantime, American voters cannot distinguish between:
They randomly call the above "fascist," and lump them in together, despite their being some crucial differences.
Alternative Right.
I posted "I, yes agree" in a tweet. First tweet in a week.
Seconds later... account suspended due to automated posting.
Seriously Twitter... go fuck yourself.
Treason. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
In America, in that period, Jehovah's Witnesses were being compelled to the pledge as well.
Eventually that was rejected too, but coincidentally, a Colorado student was recently struck in order to make him stand for the pledge. (Not to mention the President threatening NFL players over the anthem). So it seems there is still work to do.
I'd be happy if Twitter and all social-media companies simply enforced their rules universally. If I post something incendiary, a flagrant violation of the rules, I get suspended/banned--as it should be. Donald Trump or Alex Jones or any "celeb" does it, and it is just A-OK with them--because ad revenue. No, I'm sorry, but screw that. The rules apply to all, or they should apply to none. Hell, look at that moron Logan Paul and what he did on Youtube...he was given a slap on the wrist and that was it. But other accounts were whole-sale deleted by them for doing far less...again because of ad revenue. Enforce the rules or do not have any. That is the only way. Nobody should be above the law. Not me, not my mother, not the President, not Kim Kardashian, ... nobody.
"Bullshit. He told them he would be happy to serve them, but that he would not bake a cake specifically for a gay wedding. " HAHAHAHA "I will serve you but only for something you did not ask and as long as I can discreminate agaisnt your gayness". You are fooling nobody. He did not want to server and the "happy to serve" is bullshit.
Always happens?
Go ahead big boy, prove it. I'll wait.
Oh, got nothing? Of course. Go back to 4chan.
And what treason, pray tell, would that be?
Removing a million accounts a day, yet Trump's following continues to grow -- up 7 million people this year.
Aug 18 - 53,8xx,xxx ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Aug 11 - 53,7xx,xxx
Aug 4 - 53,5xx,xxx
Jul 27 - 53,3xx,xxx
Jul 14 - 53,1xx,xxx -- down just 200,000 followers after Twitter's 70,000,000 user purge!
Jul 7 - 53,3xx,xxx
Jun 23 - 53,xxx,xxx
Jun 16 - 52,8xx,xxx
Jun 9 - 52,530,207
May 5 - 51,487,876
Apr 21 - 51,023,983
Apr 7 - 50,061,006
Mar 24 - 49,445,231
Mar 17 - 49,140,672
Mar 3 - 48,480,771
Feb 24 - 48,210,362
Feb 17 - 47,926,133
Feb 8 - 47,593,645
Jan 27 - 47,166,251
Jan 21 - 46,949,636
Jan 14 - 46,649,119
People who excel at the use of language have always pushed a liberal agenda.
FTFY.
It's not a 100% correlation, but people who work primarily with the written word always lean to the left within their own political group.
Less use of the written word: resource sector jobs (agriculture, mining, forestry, fisheries), service jobs (front line), and joyous singalongs in giant barns with stained glass windows.
Just watch what happens when a Baton Rouge conservative acquires too much gift of gab:
Rod Dreher's Monastic Vision — May 2017
I'm liberal, I guess, judging by how I read the whole damn thing—as I tend to do most of the time.
Apparently up to 3 or 4 left leaning accounts get banned too out of each million "bad" accounts....
You mean being awesome?
1/3? Barely 1/15th of them voted for him, and according to current approval ratings, about 1/30th pay him any attention at all. And nobody will stay on gab for very long unless they truly like being bombarded with Nazi propaganda literally on every page. I fully understand why gab is 90% bots now.