I bet Twitter has reasons (the analytics? backlash in media?) that warrant erring on the safe side in a general case. I'd rather assume your experience is uncommon because of mostly technical tweets, rather than accuse the company of acting stupid ;)
-
-
Who accused them of "acting stupid"? I accused them of dishonesty. You can believe the dishonesty is intentional, or due to incompetence, but you can't believe "this was a competent company acting honestly", because that behavior by definition can't produce the observed results.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
They could have behaved honestly (label the tweet as "this comes from a user we have flagged"), they could have behaved competently (actually review tweets and label them when they are offensive, or give me the option of opting out of their "algorithm").
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @notegone
Incompetence or dishonesty? How about priorities? I'd think that making tweets of people who are only occasionally offensive more visible aren't the biggest fish to fry for them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Just so I understand you correctly: by "priorities", you are saying that _neither_ changing the message text to be accurate, nor adding an opt-out checkbox to the preferences, were high enough "priority" to fit inside an annual R&D budget of around eight hundred million dollars?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @notegone
I can't quanitify in dollars. Just saying that Twitter is known for its toxicity, botting and overall enabling of bad things. Their priorities are perhaps to address that, while your concern is to the contrary. Why allow opt out that undermines their own shadowban?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You didn't answer my question. It seems you you do believe Twitter is acting dishonestly, but that they have good reason to do so. If that's true, then you agree with me, so great :) If you don't agree with me, please be clearer about how they are being "honest" here.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
As you can see from the thread if you reread it, at no time did I suggest Twitter was acting against their own best interests. I simply said they were either dishonest or incompetent. As far as I can tell, you're not actually arguing with that.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I mean, to simplify the discussion, can you come up with a plausible explanation for how the concept of a "shadowban" can ever be honest in the first place? It is inherently an attempt to lie to your user base about what is happening, that's why it's a shadowban instead of a ban.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @notegone
It is similar to isolating detected cheaters so they matchmake only to other cheaters. Informing them about that would only let them know that they need to create another throwaway account. Judge yourself, if this is "dishonest". IMO they exempted themselves from honest treatment
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I guess our problem here is that you think someone is somehow _not_ dishonest if they had a good reason for lying. Perhaps we could agree by being more specific: Me: Twitter is dishonest _and_ bad You: Twitter is dishonest _and_ good So we could at least agree on dishonest?
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @notegone
I don't think Twitter is dishonest. I am inclined to think that users whose replies were filtered, violated its TOS, and were treated accordingly to the public Twitter policies. Now, given almost certain AI usage, it may have been a false positive, but better safe than sorry.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
In general I do not share the sentiment "X company is bad and evil because that's their nature", and this is my motive to defend Twitter (they are not paying me). It's much harder to hold a toxic user accountable than a "dishonest" company... so again, better safe than sorry.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.