Bring it on.

He will either plunge Twitter into obscurity or make it so horrific governments have to do something about it rather than pretending everything is fine while the current Twitter board make a token effort.

https://theintercept.com/2022/04/04/amazon-union-living-wage-restrooms-chat-app/

Following the meeting, an “auto bad word monitor” was devised, constituting a blacklist that would flag and automatically block employees from sending a message that contains any profane or inappropriate keywords. In addition to profanities, however, the terms include many relevant to organized labor, including “union,” “grievance,” “pay raise,” and “compensation.” Other banned keywords include terms like “ethics,” “unfair,” “slave,” “master,” “freedom,” “diversity,” “injustice,” and “fairness.” Even some phrases like “This is concerning” will be banned.

Really interesting thread from former Reddit CEO on free speech and censorship on social media:

https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1514938507407421440

I read a book earlier this year called "Custodians of the Internet" by a Microsoft researcher called Tartleton Gillespie which might be interesting for this discussion. It is essentially about how major platforms make content moderation decisions and why. A whack of algorithmic stuff in there (it opens with Facebook taking down a photographer posting that horrific Vietnam was photo of the girl on fire, which was part of the photographer's "10 most important photos of all time" post) but also gets into some of the bigger business decisions.

JonB wrote:

I don't believe for a minute that FB and Twitter don't want people being shitty to each other - it increases engagement. Sure, they have to step in sometimes when it reaches a certain level, but how long did that take with, say, Trump on Twitter? He was great for traffic on the site.

This is where is starts and ends for me, absent of more revealing statistics.

I too love drama and goss, but I shouldn't be put in charge of a social media platform either.

Yossarian wrote:

I can entirely believe that social media execs don’t want the drama that comes with conflict on their platforms while still wanting the engagement that the conflict brings, the problem is that they’re only rewarded for one of these outcomes.

Its a bit like online gaming. You dont want people to act shitty towards each other or cheat but the nature of competitive play brings out the worst in some (many?)

I mean even here, this place wasnt set up to give a space for arguments and yet it still happens. Mostly because of Yoss (he is our Omega event) but still...

(actually found that Reddit guys thread very interesting and felt it made a lot of sense)

Yossarian wrote:

I can entirely believe that social media execs don’t want the drama that comes with conflict on their platforms while still wanting the engagement that the conflict brings, the problem is that they’re only rewarded for one of these outcomes.

I don't use Facebook enough to know how it pushes content, I'd guess it's similar to Twitter, but I wouldn't know for sure. 

Sure, Twitter profits from these popular accounts, but from what I can see, there's no conspicuous funnel. At least not for me. When I see suggestions to follow Elon Musk, for example, I have two choices. It's the same when I see a certain class of argument I don't like. 

What I would say, is that the social media companies should police threatening and abusive behavior. 
It should be forced by law, and they should pay. But that might be a different argument.

I think a better question to ask, is where those squeaky wheels get their oil from... To get 10,000+ people to follow anything, especially some random blert on a microblogging platform, needs time or money. Most of the time, it's some renegade professional, and in those cases, it makes sense. Occasionally though, it does actually seem to be some pillock in a dark room, rolling multiple alts. So I wonder where those people get their support from.

But then what I'm writing here is only a tiny fraction of a much bigger story, tbf. Some of the censorship stuff that you bring up interests me. There are going to be certain subjects that won't be helpful for the 'publishers', or us, the great unwashed, to share. Beheadings and all that shit for a start. And then there's stuff like National Security requests. 

But then there's those grey areas where some posts are purged contentiously. In which case, that's an extension of the problem we've had since Rupert Murdoch. And tbf, more often than not, is more usually conservative voices that break those kind of rules in the most common cases. 

...

I'd wonder what a Beeb run Twitter would look like, for example. In fact, I'd like to know what rules they use to determine when to put a comment stream under a story. When they do allow comments on a story, especially on the sports pages, or very rarely, some of the bigger political stories, those streams read almost exactly like the ones on the Daily Mail.

But it's clear they have a nuanced policy to all that stuff there, and I think it would be useful to understand more about what they're trying to do.

If you can write, then write. Don't screw around with valueless shit like Twitter.  Any platform isn't worth the effort apart from some PR gunk.

It's fine, even good,  for micro-niche folk getting together but it's transient, fleeting. Content passes by too quickly and can't be easily referenced. I maintain the forum is superior for that.

Some people like the truncated format because it forces them to really think how to condense an idea down, a bit of a challenge I guess. It's obviously no replacement for a proper page+ of writing though.

GurtTractor wrote:

Some people like the truncated format because it forces them to really think how to condense an idea down, a bit of a challenge I guess. It's obviously no replacement for a proper page+ of writing though.

The impression I get is that folk don't rise to that challenge.  Sure, posts in forums can ramble, but having that replaced by soundbyte mentality isn't the solution. It depends what you are talking about I suppose.

Short form is always going to lean towards polarised opinions rather than nuance. It feeds on instant, brief, clear reactions, not considered takes about a thing that came up a few days ago. Of course, some people go to the trouble and create interesting threads, but it's a very small percentage.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3273956-musk-says-twitter-is-biased-against-conservatives-facts-say-otherwise/

The twittersphere can fuck off.  Literally no-one would be worse off for it.

I wouldn't have got many of the work opportunities that I have had, without Twitter. It's also pointed me in the direction of lots of good communities that have benefited my life greatly. It's not an ideal platform by any stretch of the imagination, and something would have filled the gap, but it hasn't so Twitter has, and continues to have, its uses.

It's also probably incredibly beneficial for minorities looking for jobs in spheres like writing, as it allows them to network outside of the established boys clubs that make up 90% of publications.

I've no doubt there is plenty of good about Twitter but it does also seem to be the default place to go if you fancy an argument.
Doesnt really matter the subject, somebody will argue it and at about the basest of levels too.

Unfortunately that arguing spills into otherwise informative, entertaining or useful posts.

Some people exist on there purely for this, making whole careers and personalities out of it. These people then spin into cults both for and against. This is the stuff I can't wrap my head around. Why anybody bothers to waste their time arguing for or against these people and their followers.

Oh well. My main use for Twitter is searching #MUFC when they lose in the hope of Maguire gifs.