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.

21 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. MAGA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ban conservatives right in time for the elections. Obvious politically motivated FANGS and li'l sidekicks are obvious.

    1. Re: MAGA by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Masterpiece Cakeshop clearly and flagrantly violated that law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for one couple, despite baking wedding cakes for dozens of others. His reason? Explicitly stated, he didn't want to serve a same-sex couple.

      Bullshit. He told them he would be happy to serve them, but that he would not bake a cake specifically for a gay wedding. They could purchase whatever goods they wanted from the store, but they couldn't force him to create something which went against his beliefs.

      That's why he lost in court, and even the most blatantly partisan members of the Supreme Court had to punt on the issue because they knew they were already going to be mocked for their tortuous claim about judicial bias in Colorado, so actually trying to pursue their facetious agenda would have just lead to them being compromised to the point of say, the Taney Court.

      The supreme court didn't "punt on the issue"; they ruled in his favour.

    2. Re:MAGA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Watching FANG dismantle the network is amazing how short sighted their motivations are.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Their *whole* business built on that very thing.

      'everyone' used to shop at Sears right up until they didnt.

    3. Re:MAGA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My account was banned about a month ago. I published several tech articles, including one featured on highscalability.com with my Twitter username, and I gained a few hundred followers. I even got my current job from a recruiter that saw my Twitter account there. Also, I made more money with the last book I published with Addison-Wesley from Amazon affiliate links I published to Twitter and a few other places than I made from the publisher! I can't tell how much of that was from Twitter versus other places, but I would guess it's the vast majority. Losing my Twitter account is going to cost me money.

    4. Re: MAGA by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Informative

      The supreme court didn't "punt on the issue"; they ruled in his favour.

      Not really. https://www.theguardian.com/la...

      They ruled that the way the decision to require him to bake the cake had been flawed, but not the decision itself. Indeed, from the text of the decision:

      "The courtâ(TM)s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws"

      So the question isn't settled either way, it looks like it will have to be re-examined.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re: MAGA by Jarwulf · · Score: 2

      If he doesn't want to bake a cake and he's a private business he shouldn't have to whatever reason. Sorry you're proslavery.

    6. Re: MAGA by Jarwulf · · Score: 2

      The idea of 'public accommodations' is a fever dream by LBJ to justify the government sticking its nose into private business. Its an absurd vague definition where you can eventually turn everything 'public'. He presumably built and runs the business with his own money so its private. In a sane world that should be all that matters. One exception if he is a monopoly like the tech companies and you have no other choice then I can understand regulation. Otherwise you have 99.9999999999999999% of other cake shops to choose from. tough luck.

    7. Re: MAGA by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      Seriously, you might not the anti-discrimination laws and think they should be overturned for freedom of speech* reasons, but could you please not state the obviously wrong?

      Nothing I said was in the slightest bit wrong. The original doofus claimed that the baker refused to serve homosexuals. I pointed out that he was happy to serve homosexuals, but would not provide a service which required him to create something he found objectionable. If a straight couple came in and asked him to make a cake saying "gay wedding are awesome", he would have refused that as well, but thanks to the retarded way these laws are designed it wouldn't have been considered discrimination, nor would it have been deemed illegal.

      So, making custom cakes was a religious belief? Otherwise, I'm not seeing how the form of icing on a cake has to do with religion per se.

      His legal battle was based on religious grounds, but personally I don't give a shit about religion. If you go to a baker and ask him to make a cake with a swastika on it, he should be able to refuse. It doesn't matter if he's Jewish and objecting on religious grounds, or if he's an atheist and just thinks you're a disgusting piece of shit. You don't get to force people to create things which they object to. That's just evil.

    8. Re: MAGA by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      I don't give a shit about religion; I still don't think people should be forced to do things which violate their own moral codes.

    9. Re: MAGA by Powercntrl · · Score: 2

      This is why half the country will vote for Trump again. They are sick and tired of the left's antics.

      No, this is why the country is fucked, because of voters who don't care if we go straight to hell in a handbasket, so long as it pisses off the "liberals".

      The greatest trick the 1%ers in this country managed to pull was turning the 99%ers against each other. God forbid a properly operating democracy became an impediment to their acquisition of additional wealth.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    10. Re: MAGA by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      Nazis are not a legally protected class

      Which is, of course, inherently discriminatory. How insane does a government have to be in order to define minority groups which deserve special protection while ignoring minority groups which, apparently, do not?

      It's rather ironic that "anti-discrimination laws" are themselves usually discriminatory. But it goes hand-in-hand with left wing ignorance. Where it gets really funny is watching them try and figure out if it's OK for a Muslim to discriminate against homosexuals. It's like that episode of Star Trek where Kirk blows up the robot by putting it into a logic loop.

    11. Re: MAGA by cheekyboy · · Score: 2

      I classify your rant as hate speech, so lets ban you first.

      Then with in 6 months twitter will be more dead, than myspace.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  2. 1) Jack is an asshole by SensitiveMale · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:So Twitter gets to decide by RandomFactor · · Score: 2

    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.
  4. Ugh, Twitter by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  5. Private property can be treated as public spaces by alternative_right · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:What is a Nazi? by Alypius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Today, "fascist" and "anti fascist" is like "flammable" and "inflammable."

  7. Re:Build a better bot detector by snapsnap · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Underrated post. Their current system has way too many false positives.

  8. Too much rethinking? by iampiti · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  9. "safety and trust" by ooloorie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  10. Internet of Shit by McGruber · · Score: 2

    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,