Even advertisers aren’t immune, I’ve seen community tags on paid ads calling them out for being drop shippers.
Of course anything illegal or against ToS should be removed and only be the purview of Twitter's moderation team (or what's left of it).
Gave me some hope that Elon is serious.
How does that work? can anyone post a "community note", or by what process is that decided?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25906672
Edit: this, from https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/about/introducti... (via your third link) is interesting:
Community Notes doesn't work by majority rules. To identify notes that are helpful to a wide range of people, notes require agreement between contributors who have sometimes disagreed in their past ratings. This helps prevent one-sided ratings.
Then they link to https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/contributing/div..., which expands on that. It seems they're basically trying to control for ideological perspective, i.e. to identify signal that doesn't just boil down to "I like / agree with this". I've often wondered if something like that could work.
I didn't look into the details myself, but there is a 24-page paper linked from this page:
>Details of our methodology and past findings can be found in our paper.
https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/under-the-hood/g...
https://github.com/twitter/communitynotes/blob/main/birdwatc...
(Perhaps I should add: yes, I'm being lazy; no, I'm not being critical - I just want someone to explain this to me so I don't have to work to find out.)
But twitter is not only counting the yes / no votes. They need people who have voted differently on some previous notes, to agree in their votes on this note, before their algorithm makes the decision to publish or reject the note.
A lot of proposed notes will never get enough votes to be decidedly published or rejected, so they will linger in the "proposed" stage forever.
Perhaps the confusion is that CN was originally called 'Birdwatch' and people don't realize they're the same thing.
Advertisers are fleeing Twitter and nobody knows how much longer Twitter will exist, because, well, they don't want their ads to be displayed next to Nazi content, in any circumstances.
If you find Twitter better, good for you for swimming in that kind of content.
Funny how algorithms work. They make us see the world in binaries and absolutes. Of one side being capable of no good and the other side capable of no evil.
You are making a positive claim that I don't see as obvious. I don't even doubt that there's some calls for genocide, I just doubt it's every pro Palestinian post with more than 20 comments.
> From the River to the Sea
This is actually a good example of a non-genocidal statement being portrayed as one in bad faith. It's true that Hamas adopted this as their official slogan, but ultimately it's meaning goes beyond what Hamas adopts.
Quiet literally, the call is for Palestinians to have a say in government. Or a one state solution. Claiming it means "kill all the Jews" is an extreme stretch. Even in the most extreme views of this, it's a call for the end of the current state of Israel. That does not mean genocide for Jews any more than calling for the end of Hamas is a call to genocide Palestinians.
> Just wink nod “that’s not what it means”
That's the problem, any negative sentiment towards the current state of Israel is portrayed as "this is anti-Semitic". Israel is not jews and jews are not israel. Calling for a system where Palestinians have some say in their own governance is not anti-Semitic.
Further, as you can imagine just because a terrorist organization adopts a phrase does not mean the original or current meaning is what that terrorist organization is implying by it.
So I'll ask again, do you have examples of calls for genocide? Or is this the main one? If you asked 100 people who chant "from the river to the sea" would they all, most, or even many claim they are calling for the death of jews or genocide? I think not. That's a uncharitable view of what that phrase means. [1]
Do you think that when the Jewish voices for peace use the same slogan they are calling for genocide? [2]
[1] https://apnews.com/article/river-sea-israel-gaza-hamas-prote...
[2] https://twitter.com/JvpAction/status/1721368469428482523
https://x.com/hgmeryem/status/1739710696693125432?s=20
I see posts like that all the time.
The closest is seeing "from the river to the sea" creatively misinterpreted.
It's not a misinterpretation to take the meaning of the phrase as it's stated and understood.
That's like saying "blood and soil" doesn't mean what it means. Or Intifada. "Oh don't be silly... they don't REALLY mean that."
They absolutely mean it.
You're being disingenuous to deny the commonly understood meaning of a clearly genocidal phrase while defending it.
Then you complain of others being "genocidal/racist". classic.
If you want to see what a call for genocide looks like, listen to the prime minister of israel:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/netanyahu-openly-calls-...
This just scratches the surface of the extreme levels of racism permeating every level of Israeli society and the foreign racists who support it.
Why is "Amalek" a call to genocide (remove the others from our land) but "from the rivers to the sea" (remove the others form our land) isn't?
Trying to take you at face value, I looked into what Amalek is and tried to find something more unbiased than you seem to be.
https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/05/the-s...
"I recently asked one of his advisers to gauge for me the depth of Mr. Netanyahu’s anxiety about Iran. His answer: “Think Amalek.” “Amalek,” in essence, is Hebrew for “existential threat.” Tradition holds that the Amalekites are the undying enemy of the Jews. They appear in Deuteronomy, attacking the rear columns of the Israelites on their escape from Egypt. The rabbis teach that successive generations of Jews have been forced to confront the Amalekites: Nebuchadnezzar, the Crusaders, Torquemada, Hitler and Stalin are all manifestations of Amalek’s malevolent spirit."
So Netty says that hamAss is an existential threat? no shit. hamAss needs to be removed? Definitely. No peace as long as hamAss exists. Can't have peace with terrorists.
But is Netty saying to remove ALL Palestinians? remember... Net (as well as others) have tried to negotiate peace with "Palestinians" and have been denied over the years (since recreation of Israel). So Israel has been willing to negotiate while "Palestine" has only been open to solutions that are "from the river to the sea" (read: Genocide).
Infitada and Sea comments are absolutely, unequivocally and undeniably calls to remove Jews from the area.
I love the parallels from 2009 to today... the "overreaction" (read: disproportionate reaction by Israel to a terrorist action of oct 7th) in response to an "existential threat" caused by terrorists killing innocents, hiding like cowards and using human shields.
But I digress. Don't be expected to be taken seriously in your attack on "genocidal" Israel while downplaying and ignoring genocidal hamAss. The war sucks but was started by terrorists and Israel has the right to defend itself from existential threats. No peace as long as hamAss exists.
How would you interpret that?
https://www.axios.com/2022/12/29/israel-netanyahu-far-right-...
Remember... hamAss'oles were founded with a charter that denies Israel's right to exist and has been designated a terrorist organization by... well... the entire world. Oh, they are in charge of Gaza.
And just FYI... your biased article? laughable. Try something less blantatly biased.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/19/1213797712/israels-lack-of-a-...
"In a 2022 interview, Netanyahu admitted he was offering Palestinians something far short of political equality. "I don't hide that for a minute. I say it openly," he said. Palestinians are just as open that they aren't interested."
Both sides have to be willing to negotiate... and it's clear that Net has to keep the security of Israel in mind and it's also clear that Palestine isn't interested in solutions. remember - not my words. Clear history.
Also in article: Israel has been working on peace in the region without "Palestine". Was working towards peace with surrounding nations. Also was trying to bring "Palestine" prosperity and it was looking good until Oct 7th when terrorists do what terrorists do.
Now we see the consequences. Do terrorist things and get responses.
From the book of samuel.
Not coincidentally, putting death to women, children and infants is what they are currently doing - in vast numbers. Theyre fairly open about this, too.
It's pretty clear what Netanyahu means and it's pretty clear that Israel supporters in the United States (mostly older and always on the more racist side) endorse this.
Whereas "will be free" is a call for exactly what it is. Freedom.
"they're fairly open" they also drop leaflets, tell people to leave and have given more warning than any other country would do given a remote bombing campaign.
They give more warning than the terrorists did on Oct 7th.
"on the more racist side" "aNyThInG I DiSaGrEe WiTh Is RaCiSt" /eyeroll
People like you are why the claims of "racism" and "nazi" mean nothing. When everything is LITERALLY racism then nothing is.
You're clearly unable to have a real conversation. Freedom will not happen for Palestinians until terrorists like hamAss'oles are removed.
It is clear what Israel wants - safety from terrorists - and they, unlike "Palestine" have in the past been willing to work towards a 2 state solution. We are in the situation we are currently in because "Palestine" refused previous offers and instead elected terrorists into power. No freedom is possible until those hamAss'ole terrorists are gone.
Full disclosure: I work for Meta, but not on ranking, and my opinions are my own. Edit: this isn't specific to Meta; it's common to all content platforms.
This is really hard. There's universally objectionable material like CSAM. That's (politically) easy to exclude. There are leaked state secrets the public should know. There's hate speech (laws vary by country). Sexual material (laws vary). Nudity (laws and customs vary). Then there's libel (which is hard and slow to prove). That's just on the legal side. That's what you're calling for, but that's hard enough. I have no idea how Kiwi Farms and 4chan do it.
Then there's ranking. Maybe the posts are there if you know where to look, but realistically, you'll never see them. People say "just show the posts in chronological order," but this doesn't scale for humans reading it, especially as you follow more people.
That's just rationalizing a business decision. Nobody is saying there should be no algorithmic timeline. If it "doesn't scale" for my own timeline, that's 100% on me. Why take away the decision or "nudge" into the other direction?
If the algorithmic timeline really were THAT better, there would be zero need to remove the chronological option or "forget" when the user sets it as an option. People would just use it.
Just having the option to not see anything I am not explicitly following and always seeing posts in reverse chronological order would be nice.
Right now I barely ever go to Facebook because my timeline is a mess. I've manually unfollowed all my friends and yet the spam comes through.
If you've unfollowed everyone what do you expect to see?
Having a clear "you are caught up" point probably isn't positive for engagement metrics so I understand why they don't do it but I'd rather the app be oriented towards UX than to be oriented towards engagement metrics.
I fail to see how this is a problem. Much less one that necessitates spending billions of dollars developing sorting and recommendation algorithms to solve.
Unless your priority is not "show the user what they have explicitly requested to see".
Users were perfectly happy when twitter, Facebook, tumblr, MySpace, and literally every other site was a reverse chronological feed. Now that they aren't, we have federated social media with no algorithm, just reverse chronological. People are perfectly happy with it now, same as always.
If you follow too many people to keep up with, the problem is that you follow too many people. Users will self regulate. If you give them filtering and sorting tools, they'll use them.
It's crazy that we keep reinventing the same solutions and wonder why heaping additional complexity on top of the original idea does nothing but make it worse. You'd figure that someone somewhere would be at least aware of what came before, but apparently not.
We're just gonna keep inventing wheels, and keep touting how many more edges this new wheel has compared to the last one until we get back to round and wonder where it all went wrong.
If I see a post on mastodon, it's from someone I follow or a post that someone I follow thought was worth sharing. That's a genuine interaction between humans. I get to decide what's in my feed based on who I follow and the filters I set up. The system is designed only to connect me with people I choose to follow.
Meanwhile, an algorithmic feed with no options is designed for one thing: manipulating users to optimize "engagement". That by definition requires ignoring what users prefer. I really shouldn't have to explain that this is a bad thing.
You're wrong about the design of algorithmic feeds. I worked on them, that's not how we designed them.
Also, 20% of people is hundreds of millions of people.
My experience is meta prioritizes instant gratification, which yeah people and their immediate actions says they want. But also I’ve completely stopped using Facebook and instagram because it became clear it’s of limited value to me. Yeah, i might mouse over a piece of salacious content because it’s salacious. But i know it’s low value to me. And most of my peers are in the same boat.
When those were reverse chronological feeds everyone and their mother wasn’t on these sites. They were smaller groups of people who were mostly younger and the overall traffic was lower. For people who didn’t follow a bajillion people, including people they didn’t know you would feasibly reach the end of the feed. But that’s not how people use the sites anymore.
But even then, if you wanted people to actually see and respond to your posts you’d have to time out when you posted it to hit around lunchtime. No 2AM musings if you expected to have anyone see it. And good luck with having your engagement or childbirth announcements getting to people in a different time zone if your family is international.
I'm not saying anything about Meta, but content forums as a whole. I'm also not saying people will even make decisions. Sometimes those running the platform might, sometimes users might, sometimes users might implicitly decide as recommender systems learn their preferences.
You're right. Instagram feeds can get quite 4chan esque: https://www.wsj.com/tech/meta-instagram-video-algorithm-chil... Even so, TFA claims that Meta has figured out a way to suppress pro-Pal content... so clearly, something's up?
People say they want kind, honest car salesmen, but that doesn't scale for the kind of overleveraged floor plans and impulsive, short-term thinking that characterize most dealerships.
I'm not sure I agree with you. I'm in 40+ IRC channels and multiple networks. I have an IRC Bouncer with playback enabled and my window stops when I log off at the place where I left off. I can easily scroll back to the bottom an see what's current. Same thing goes for Discord and Slack.
I have never in my life thought, "wow I wish I could get a summary of all the dumb shit said in ##chat and ##politics in the same place when I come back." Maybe, just maybe, I don't need to know the highlights of everything that's happened since I last logged on?
It seems to me this just moves the problem, because then we'd be having discussions about how this stuff is wrongly tagged, no? Also who does the tagging? Random users? See how well that will work.
And I'm fairly certain Twitter still removes stuff? If I post "gas the Jews" or "gas the Arabs" I wouldn't expect that to stay up?
The two things that immediately come to my mind are the organisation of the genocide of Rohingya [1] and the live streaming of the Christchurch mosque massacre [2]. Both of these were promoted by Facebook too I believe.
Free speech absolutists see no issue with allowing that content to exist. I believe in free speech, but believe it has limits. It’s good to see the FB employee, dehrmann, with sane (personal) comments.
[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/29/facebook-new...
What is the platform for? Checking out pictures of your grandchildren and keeping up on with the knitting group or is it for an international propaganda war? If you censor nothing then it's no longer a platform, it's a war zone. You can argue that the censorship is unfair, politically skewed, etc but you can't argue that it shouldn't be done at all or there won't be one inch of the Internet not dedicated to this and every other conflict everywhere.
If HN itself went completely uncensored it would become useless to us almost immediately. Who ever posts most, wins.
Yeah. I don't think I've seen any pro-Israeli content on Instagram, just overwhelming comment spam on random posts asking said content creator to acknowledge Palestine.
As for Threads, both are common.
IMO you shouldn't censor anything. That's the only solution. When something is propaganda or false just quickly tag it as such with why it is false like Xitter does.