Twitter Is 'Rethinking' Its Service, and Suspending 1M Accounts Each Day (washingtonpost.com) 224
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.
MAGA (Score:2, Insightful)
Ban conservatives right in time for the elections. Obvious politically motivated FANGS and li'l sidekicks are obvious.
Re: (Score:1)
Ban conservatives right in time for the elections. Obvious politically motivated FANGS and li'l sidekicks are obvious.
Either Jack Dorsey supports free speech or he support censorship. My money is on censorship.
Re: MAGA (Score:1)
Jack Dorsey isn't the government, so fucking what.
Re: (Score:1)
Jesus, if I had a penny for every idiot like you.
Re: (Score:1)
Free speech keeps all of us safe, even you. It came around after many hundreds of years killing each other for different opinions and then deciding there must be a better way.
By the way, anyone wanting to remove free speech is the epitome of vile. You had really better check yourself.
Re: MAGA (Score:1)
The first amendment protects anything except calls to violence. Saying the jews are bad is protected just like saying the government is bad, and it should be protected. These companies are blocking users who express hatespeech, but not all of them are calling for violence, which is where all the controversy comes in
Re: (Score:1)
The question then becomes who are you calling a Nazi? There are very few who call themselves Nazi today. The left however, likes to classify everybody right of Bernie Sanders a Nazi. This is why half the country will vote for Trump again. They are sick and tired of the left's antics.
Re: MAGA (Score:1)
Nope. About 15-30% would never vote for anybody except Trump because they hate and despise the caricature of the left so much they will literally embrace the worse possible demagoguery because he tells them he is attacking those liberal Nazis.
You do know we know about the right's own antics, right?
Now if the remaining sane Conservatives would clean house, it would be nice, but they find themselves afraid to do so.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I classify your rant as hate speech, so lets ban you first.
Then with in 6 months twitter will be more dead, than myspace.
Re: (Score:1)
Neither was the baker who got sued for refusing to make a gay wedding cake.
But when the injured party is someone you don't like, suddenly you're all pro-freedom and anti-intervention. Funny how that works.
Re: (Score:2)
Why tech giants aren't the same as Christian Bakeries [breitbart.com]
Re: MAGA (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.
Re: (Score:1)
You forgot to mention that they were also demanding the baker go to their wedding to deliver and setup their wedding cake. I disagree with the baker's refusal, but I don't think the government should be able to make you go to a wedding that is against your religious beliefs.
Re: MAGA (Score:1)
Nope, the marriage of Craig and Mullins was actually in Massachusetts, so no, they were not asking him to attend it, or even deliver it.
Re: (Score:2)
next, they will make you watch some gay porn naked.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The supreme court didn't "punt on the issue"; they ruled in his favour.
Not really. https://www.theguardian.com/la... [theguardian.com]
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.
Re: MAGA (Score:2)
It's almost like people are upset at the Supreme Court's cowardly ruling which resolved nothing
Incorrect; the jackoff pulled his "tranny wants a cake" routine before the supreme court had a chance to rule.
Re: MAGA (Score:3)
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 woul
Re: MAGA (Score:2)
That's exactly what the baker admitted. He would not serve a same-sex couple by baking them a wedding cake, even though he would bake that same cake for others.
This isn't difficult, so I'm not sure why you're failing to understand it. If a Nazi walks into my store and asks to buy a cupcake, and I say yes, I am serving a Nazi. If that same Nazi tells me he wants me to make him a cake for a Nazi rally, and I say no, I am not refusing to serve Nazis. I'm merely refusing to create a special order for an event I object to.
The hilarious thing is that most of the jackasses objecting to his "discrimination" would have no objection to him refusing to serve Nazis entiely
Re: (Score:2)
Nazis are not a legally protected class. Though an argument could be made for extending the protections to cover political views, in these harshly divided times - you don't want people to get fired because their boss finds out they support the 'wrong' party.
Re: MAGA (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't difficult, so I'm not sure why you're failing to understand it. If a Nazi walks into my store and asks to buy a cupcake, and I say yes, I am serving a Nazi. If that same Nazi tells me he wants me to make him a cake for a Nazi rally, and I say no, I am not refusing to serve Nazis. I'm merely refusing to create a special order for an event I object to.
Where "special" is actually your normal business, like a tailor refusing to make a bespoke suit for a Nazi. Not because the suit has any insignia or other objectionable characteristics, but because of who'll be wearing it. They didn't even get into design, he immediately said he'd not sell them any gay wedding cake. But it's just wedding cake for a couple that is gay. In fact, wedding cake is mostly just short for decorative white multi-layer [bettys.co.uk] cake, the vast majority I see on Google don't explicitly say they
Re: MAGA (Score:2)
When white people are economically and societally oppressed for centuries by mean brown people, they may be able to get protected status.
So then why the fuck don't we have it yet?
Re: MAGA (Score:2)
So, see, he's not forced to create anything. If anything, he's effectively forced to *not* create things for profit if he wants to discriminate. If you think that's evil, then I think you're pretty crazy.
Right. And telling a Jewish baker that he can't do business if he wants to discriminate against Nazi customers likewise isn't forcing him to do anything. Just like telling a black baker that he can't do business if he wants to discriminate against KKK members isn't forcing him to do anything. Only a crazy person would object to such things!
It'd really only be evil if depriving him of the work guaranteed no employment for him. There's tons of jobs governments forbid because their net effect is detrimental to society.
Agreed, wedding cakes are insanely detrimental to our society. The sooner we ban them the better!
Re: MAGA (Score:3)
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.
Re: MAGA (Score:2)
So, can I refuse to make a religious cake because it violates my beliefs sine I think most religious people are morons?
Depends.
Is it for Christians? Then yes, absolutely, tell them to fuck off.
Is it for Muslims? Then no, you fucking racist piece of shit, you better not be refusing! /progressive
Re: MAGA (Score:1)
No reasonable person would support forcing a Jewish bakery to bake a swatiska cake, even if the person requesting it was Hindu, and had a legitimate non-offensive reason for wanting it.
Even if legally they are within their rights and the letter of the law to request such a thing, why would they go out of their way to ask for it from someone who obviously has a deeply personal opposition against what it represents to them? The whole thing goes against the idea of live and let live. A gay wedding cake is le
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Private property can be treated as public spaces (Score:4, Informative)
The government has done this before: if your private property acts like a public space, it can be regulated like a public space [amerika.org].
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.
Re: Private property can be treated as public s (Score:1)
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 en
Re: (Score:2)
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 re
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This is correct. (Score:2)
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.
One-to-one correspondence (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like you're the one with a hatred problem.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Watching FANG dismantle the network is amazing how short sighted their motivations are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Their *whole* business built on that very thing.
'everyone' used to shop at Sears right up until they didnt.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not just banning conservatives. Two friends had their accounts banned recently, and both joined in June of 2008 when our boss made everyone join Twitter in order to follow his account.
Re: (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 pla
Re:Build a better bot detector (Score:4, Insightful)
Underrated post. Their current system has way too many false positives.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
For every motherfucker out there with a computer, there's another motherfucker out there with a computer. ~ © 2018 CaptainDork
1) Jack is an asshole (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.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh look, a slippery slope fallacy. So tired.
Conservatives and their never ending persecution complex are hilarious
Coming to a boil (Score:1)
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 scramblin
Re: (Score:2)
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 co
What is a Nazi? (Score:1)
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.
Why don't Conservatives have testicles? (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At the very least... (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Ugh, Twitter (Score:5, 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.
Internet of Shit (Score:3)
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 [twitter.com],
Re: (Score:2)
Not credible (Score:1, Troll)
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.
They're an advertising company (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is just something Democrats are telling each other. There's no actual evidence. None. If it existed we'd have seen it by now.
... unlike Uranium One's payments to Hillary Clinton, for which there is ample evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Too much rethinking? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
. One unfair block and you're out forever?
Do they really think that's a good idea?
Yes. Yes they do.
Because they know that they are on the side of everything that is true and just and right. And they know that nobody will ever exercise this control who isn't true and just and right, just like they are. It is impossible that someone could ever decide that their ideas were unacceptable. Because reality has a liberal bias. And they are on the right side of history. You'll see....
"safety and trust" (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.
Re: (Score:2)
"Safety and Trust" is right up there with "Ministry of Truth".
Twiitter blocked.... (Score:1)
Common Carrier Exception (Score:2)
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
double plus good (Score:2)
"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’?
The rules (Score:2)
Unfortunately a few "good" accounts banned too! (Score:2)
Apparently up to 3 or 4 left leaning accounts get banned too out of each million "bad" accounts....
Trump Twitter is brilliant (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Amerika (Score:2)
You can read all about it at Amerika.org [amerika.org].
Daily rants about the fall of Rome 2.0 and the denialists who empower it...