Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Twitter Communications Social Networks The Internet

Twitter Will Start Hiding Tweets That 'Detract From the Conversation' (slate.com) 183

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.

Twitter Will Start Hiding Tweets That 'Detract From the Conversation'

Comments Filter:
  • Cool (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Wednesday May 16, 2018 @07:22PM (#56623520)
    Twitters new group think reinforcement feature!
    • by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Wednesday May 16, 2018 @07:38PM (#56623610)

      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.

      • 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 [makeuseof.com]

        • None of the alternatives are very good.

          And yes, I'm including in that list Gab, as ideologically inclusive as it tries to be.
      • by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Wednesday May 16, 2018 @08:30PM (#56623870)

        > 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?... [youtube.com]

        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.

        • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          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 p

          • 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.
        • 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, throug

          • 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 bec

        • 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

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        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 r

        • by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Wednesday May 16, 2018 @09:29PM (#56624238)

          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.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        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.

        • by drnb ( 2434720 )
          I think you are responding to the wrong post
        • by Cederic ( 9623 )

          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.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

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

      • 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 visibi

        • 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.

      • by mjwx ( 966435 )

        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 t

        • by drnb ( 2434720 )
          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 compa
    • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

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

  • Translation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by duke_cheetah2003 ( 862933 ) on Wednesday May 16, 2018 @07:25PM (#56623538) Homepage

    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Wednesday May 16, 2018 @07:47PM (#56623672) Journal
      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.
      • 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 hav

    • 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.

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      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.

  • by SirAstral ( 1349985 ) on Wednesday May 16, 2018 @07:31PM (#56623574)

    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!

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

    • Re:The Noisy 1% (Score:4, Interesting)

      by apoc.famine ( 621563 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .enimaf.copa.> on Wednesday May 16, 2018 @09:44PM (#56624284) Journal

      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.

      • by houghi ( 78078 )

        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

        • 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

        • First Post!

        • by Raenex ( 947668 )

          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".

  • by poity ( 465672 ) on Wednesday May 16, 2018 @07:40PM (#56623636)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    How Internet Fighting Works [smbc-comics.com] courtesy of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

  • by DeplorableCodeMonkey ( 4828467 ) on Wednesday May 16, 2018 @07:52PM (#56623700)

    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.

  • by 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

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Ok, np

    • by 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!

  • 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.
  • 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 o
  • titter is like faebook
  • 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

    • 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 h

      • by Nonesuch ( 90847 )
        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.
  • by Elias Israel ( 182882 ) <eli@promanage-inc.com> on Thursday May 17, 2018 @01:55AM (#56625162)
    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.
  • https://qanonposts.com/ [qanonposts.com]
    http://www.endthefedreserve.co... [endthefedreserve.com]
    https://www.patriotssoapbox.co... [patriotssoapbox.com]
    Get in the fight or get enslaved. There is no middle ground under totalitarian control.

  • 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 [wikipedia.org] of the Internet. Sometimes they get busted, but then word gets

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Working...