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").
-
-
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?
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Nuance is dead on Twitter, everyone just mentally replaces big words with "good" or "evil". Then jumps through whatever hoops necessary to justify it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I mean sure, but this wasn't even nuanced. I would have thought that blatantly misleading labels combined with secretly marking people's accounts for hiding would be clearly "dishonest", but I guess even that is too much to ask. Apparently everyone is Machiavellian now :)
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.