News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists. Parent comment

Re:The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists by tptacek on Friday December 09, 2022 @12:54AM (#33918030)
It doesn't matter what "most people" would consider, because Twitter provided their definition of the term at the time. People disagree about all sorts of terms, and that's totally fair, but what Weiss is doing is retconning her own personal definition of the term on Twitter's policy statements, which were unambiguous. She is, in turn, being unambiguously dishonest.

It's interesting how selective people are about the supposed Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists by bavell on Friday December 09, 2022 @01:19AM (#33918184)
Right, Twitter provided their own definition which delicately tiptoes around the unsavory issue and Weiss expanded the definition to suit her own self-interests.

How does that make what "most people" would consider not matter? Seems like a non-sequitur to me but maybe I'm not understanding your point.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists by rhaksw on Friday December 09, 2022 @03:49AM (#33919131)
Agreed, it's rare for any service to outright say "we shadow ban" as done here [1] for example.

And, most services still use a form of shadow moderation [2]. So it's perfectly fine to discuss here. Attempts to shut down conversation are just that.

[1] https://getstream.io/blog/feature-announcement-shadow-ban/

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33916414

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists by tptacek on Friday December 09, 2022 @01:26AM (#33918226)
Because the thread is about Weiss's claims. If you want to talk about how Twitter's definition of shadow-banning is problematic, or their moderation practices in general, start another top-level thread.
[ Parent | on HN ]