• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

'Hidden' Twitter Posts

dragonfart28

Gab Ambassador
Jun 12, 2009
4,656
427
1,025
This might actually be a good idea to bridge the gap between censorship and free speech.

Another win for fair speech?


Twitter pilot project will allow Canadians to hide replies to posts — to a point

Twitter is launching a pilot feature in Canada that will allow you to hide some responses to your tweets unless readers click on a feature to reveal them.
As part of the pilot project, starting next week, the hidden responses won't appear in the main thread of a post, but you'll still be able to click a special button to see hidden replies.


 

merlinevo

Member
Apr 28, 2019
243
460
255
These social media companies are making this too complicated. The easiest fix is censoring all extreme views. Neonazi, terrorism, illegal fetishes, militant feminism, militant lgbt, militant black lives matter, illegal immigrants endorsement should all be censored, not just views from conservatives.

They could have fixed 99percent of the problem if they had removed extreme liberal content when they purged conservative content. Extremely liberal ideas are as toxic and harmful as anything social media deemed hateful, the only difference being the liberals were given permission to spread their vitriol under the moral high ground pretense. Let the moderates be the sane voice in the room and boot the vocal minority. Social media is a cesspool that the vocal minority thrive in and removing them is the only solution to fix this dialogue problem.
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2011
4,111
8,820
940
Very happy to be off Twitter.

Another win for fair speech?
No, it's another win for authoritarianism and to suppress views of other people for arbitrary reasons.

The only speech that matters is free speech.
Fair speech. Hate speech. These are all fabricated technicalities to allow those wishing to push narratives and agendas to do so under the pretence of virtuousness, rather than the reality of intolerance and ideology.

That a communications platform is engineering ways for its users to stifle communication is about as backward as it's possible to get.
Par for the course with Twitter though - the largest platform for hate and division that civilisation has ever seen.
 

Barnabot

Member
Oct 16, 2018
1,440
1,785
550
But why? I mean what's the point? You wanna be brave and reply but at the same time you are feeling too uncomfortable to get a reply back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gashtronomy
Dec 15, 2011
4,111
8,820
940
But why? I mean what's the point? You wanna be brave and reply but at the same time you are feeling too uncomfortable to get a reply back.
Social media is compulsive because of the feedback-loop and dopamine hit. Post something. Get a reaction. Get validation.
Build your "reach", your "influence", your "followers", your "brand".

But, increasingly, people are only able to deal with positive feedback.
Anything negative is "hate" or an "ism" or anything you need to label it as in order to dismiss it.
People need that feedback - but they only want the good feedback, not the bad.

The bad is outweighing the good, because that's human nature. Tribalism. Lord of the Flies etc.

Twitter is reaching maturity, like mobile phones were a number of years ago.
It is no longer about getting people to have it. Everyone now has it. Just like everyone has a mobile phone.
So the strategy is to keep people.
And that means to give them a service that makes them feel like they get value.
Meaning, in Twitter's case, if you can silence those that aren't stroking your fragile ego, you'll stay on Twitter for longer rather than desert it due to the hostility it fosters.

No brand is going to be as transparent as this, but that's what it's about at the end of the day.
Twitter's commercial value is volume and reach. So they must protect it from being diminished.
Furthermore, and with the election-year looming, Twitter and other pervasive social media seek to maintain their control over the societal narrative.
This measure adds more tools to allow them to do that and, better yet, award themselves both plausible deniability for the user-controlled levels of censorship the platform will enable, but also score virtue points with those that take issue with the fundamental concept of free speech.

As OP seems to fail to understand: There isn't a bridge between censorship and free speech.
You are either for free speech or not.
You are either for censorship or not.
These are two sides of the same coin.
The only people that want a little of A and a little of B are dishonest, ignorant or both.

Twitter's priority is Twitter.
Their motives are not for your benefit, nor for the benefit of others.
Twitter is not about to give up its revenue nor its influence. It is not altruistic.
 
Last edited:

Barnabot

Member
Oct 16, 2018
1,440
1,785
550
Social media is compulsive because of the feedback-loop and dopamine hit. Post something. Get a reaction. Get validation.
Build your "reach", your "influence", your "followers", your "brand".

But, increasingly, people are only able to deal with positive feedback.
Anything negative is "hate" or an "ism" or anything you need to label it as in order to dismiss it.
People need that feedback - but they only want the good feedback, not the bad.

The bad is outweighing the good, because that's human nature. Tribalism. Lord of the Flies etc.

Twitter is reaching maturity, like mobile phones were a number of years ago.
It is no longer about getting people to have it. Everyone now has it. Just like everyone has a mobile phone.
So the strategy is to keep people.
And that means to give them a service that makes them feel like they get value.
Meaning, in Twitter's case, if you can silence those that aren't stroking your fragile ego, you'll stay on Twitter for longer rather than desert it due to the hostility it fosters.

No brand is going to be as transparent as this, but that's what it's about at the end of the day.
Twitter's commercial value is volume and reach. So they must protect it from being diminished.
Furthermore, and with the election-year looming, Twitter and other pervasive social media seek to maintain their control over the societal narrative.
This measure adds more tools to allow them to do that and, better yet, award themselves both plausible deniability for the user-controlled levels of censorship the platform will enable, but also score virtue points with those that take issue with the fundamental concept of free speech.
So let's say the guy who repeatedly said "F'ck you Trump" in so many ways in so many replies of one of the tweet Trump made a couple of weeks ago (there's the tweet in the Clown Thread but I couldn't find that yet) because the guy felt so brave for doing that. But he's also so scared to get replies in return because of people calling him out for that reply and he may not be emotionaly prepared for that. So he sends the reply but decides to hide the tweet to preserve his "bravery" so no one is gonna call him out. Is that what this Twiiter pilot project is for?
 
Dec 15, 2011
4,111
8,820
940
So let's say the guy who repeatedly said "F'ck you Trump" in so many ways in so many replies of one of the tweet Trump made a couple of weeks ago (there's the tweet in the Clown Thread but I couldn't find that yet) because the guy felt so brave for doing that. But he's also so scared to get replies in return because of people calling him out for that reply and he may not be emotionaly prepared for that. So he sends the reply but decides to hide the tweet to preserve his "bravery" so no one is gonna call him out. Is that what this Twiiter pilot project is for?
My understanding is that the person who issues the tweet can selectively suppress replies to that tweet - not suppress their own tweet.

In other words: everyone gets the tools to build their own per-tweet echo-chamber.
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
1,767
1,487
1,545
Montreal, Quebec
In June, Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould publicly chastised the company.

"We hope that Twitter will start to take some responsibility for the content on their platform," Gould said, irritated that the company had not yet signed a declaration on electoral integrity she had drafted. "We know their platform has been used and manipulated by foreign malicious actors and we're still waiting to hear what their plans are here in Canada."

On Thursday, Gould welcomed Twitter's pilot project.

"I am encouraged that Twitter has selected Canada to test a modification on their platform," she said. "As active users of social media, Canadians are regularly exposed to disinformation and extremist rhetoric online. This step can contribute to a healthier online ecosystem."
This appears to be a cheap ploy to soothe critics in government, one that does more to stifle communication than to improve it. This does absolutely nothing to stop the flow of disinformation, so I'm curious as to why Gould would say that.

Here's a better idea, Twitter: force every member to read a brief page mentioning the common methods malicious actors use to take advantage of the platform so everyone's better informed and more capable of dealing with them on their own terms while you work out how to better deal with the problem. If you nail a high profile malicious actor make an example out of them rather than burying the story. A little critical thinking can go a long way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gunslikewhoa

dragonfart28

Gab Ambassador
Jun 12, 2009
4,656
427
1,025
Forcing people to have fewer options over their twitter account doesn’t seem like the right answer to me.

As far as I understand fair speech, it's a democratic process where we constantly reassess what the context should be.

We already do that naturally with making excessive vulgarity taboo, for instance.
 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
34,733
7,130
1,340
these things never work out

i'd rather they update the tos with human speak every year so people know what they are getting into when they enter the public space
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gunslikewhoa
Dec 15, 2011
4,111
8,820
940
'Fair speech' is a made up term.

Repeatedly pushing this is to downplay adoption of free speech and to muddy clear waters and justify double standards (in exactly the same way as those who attempt to redefine the word 'racism' do).

Be wary of anyone pushing fair speech Instead of free speech.
 

gunslikewhoa

Member
Mar 3, 2014
2,156
785
505
These social media companies are making this too complicated. The easiest fix is censoring all extreme views. Neonazi, terrorism, illegal fetishes, militant feminism, militant lgbt, militant black lives matter, illegal immigrants endorsement should all be censored, not just views from conservatives.

They could have fixed 99percent of the problem if they had removed extreme liberal content when they purged conservative content. Extremely liberal ideas are as toxic and harmful as anything social media deemed hateful, the only difference being the liberals were given permission to spread their vitriol under the moral high ground pretense. Let the moderates be the sane voice in the room and boot the vocal minority. Social media is a cesspool that the vocal minority thrive in and removing them is the only solution to fix this dialogue problem.
The notion that more censorship would fix anything is laughable. You're missing the point entirely.
 
Last edited:

dragonfart28

Gab Ambassador
Jun 12, 2009
4,656
427
1,025
In a world of fair speech, who determines what is fair? :unsure:
Everyone.

'Fair speech' is a made up term.

Repeatedly pushing this is to downplay adoption of free speech and to muddy clear waters and justify double standards (in exactly the same way as those who attempt to redefine the word 'racism' do).

Be wary of anyone pushing fair speech Instead of free speech.
'Free speech' is a made up term.

Repeatedly pushing this is to downplay adoption of fair speech and to muddy clear waters and justify double standards (in exactly the same way as those who attempt to redefine the word 'racism' do).

Be wary of anyone pushing free speech Instead of fair speech.
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2011
4,111
8,820
940
Everyone.



'Free speech' is a made up term.

Repeatedly pushing this is to downplay adoption of fair speech and to muddy clear waters and justify double standards (in exactly the same way as those who attempt to redefine the word 'racism' do).

Be wary of anyone pushing free speech Instead of fair speech.
Congratulations on another exhibition of your small-minded authoritarian mentality and parroting of things you don't appear to have the mental faculties to deal with for yourself.

I will "push" free speech over any other bastardisation of the concept.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gunslikewhoa

Saruhashi

Member
Oct 2, 2018
971
2,161
355
My understanding is that the person who issues the tweet can selectively suppress replies to that tweet - not suppress their own tweet.

In other words: everyone gets the tools to build their own per-tweet echo-chamber.
It makes perfect fucking sense to be honest.

Going back YEARS one of the best and funniest things I found about the Internet was that someone would write some big article giving an opinion on Subject X and within one or two comments the article would have been completely sunk by some randomer with better points and better arguments.

So that became things like "the comments on any article about Feminism are evidence for why we need Feminism".
No. Shitty ideas WILL be called out.

The absolute best time on YouTube were the glory days of the "response" video. Someone puts together a professional looking video to try and push their agenda. Utterly, and often hilariously, dismantled within 24 hours by some fat dude with a shitty microphone in his bedroom. BOOM.

So that became "bullying" and "harassment" and then finally transitioned to "hate speech".
No. Shitty ideas WILL be called out.

Twitter is the same. Some blue checkmark clown squeezes out a brain fart onto Twitter. Expecting to get thousands of virtual pats on the back. 1.03pm, "Today my five year old said loudly on the bus that if women can vote then they can be superheroes and the whole bus started clapping and cheering". 1.05pm "I'll have things that never happened for 500, Alex".

The history of the Internet has always had a strong element of people wanting to shut down responses that contradict them or make them look dumb.
Fuck, IMDB forums got shut down mostly because people were not afraid to shit all over the latest big budget flop. Then it was no more "want to see/don't want to see" voting button on Rotten Tomatoes and getting rid of the rating system on Netflix because some Hambeast released an unfunny comedy special and people said "it's not funny".

It even gets to the point where if someone puts together an alternative platform that will provide the totally evil service of letting people say whatever it just gets branded a "haven" for the <insert boogeyman of the day here>.

People just don't want to see their worldview questioned and year after year they get better and better at shutting down dissenting voices.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,163
21,717
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
'Fair speech' is a made up term.

Repeatedly pushing this is to downplay adoption of free speech and to muddy clear waters and justify double standards (in exactly the same way as those who attempt to redefine the word 'racism' do).

Be wary of anyone pushing fair speech Instead of free speech.
Yeah, 'fair speech' is doublespeak. Who determines fairness? Them, of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
34,733
7,130
1,340
Everyone.



'Free speech' is a made up term.

Repeatedly pushing this is to downplay adoption of fair speech and to muddy clear waters and justify double standards (in exactly the same way as those who attempt to redefine the word 'racism' do).

Be wary of anyone pushing free speech Instead of fair speech.
you don't actually believe that right?

this sounds like authoritarian speak to me, be wary
 
Last edited:

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,776
5,985
755
Everyone.



'Free speech' is a made up term.

Repeatedly pushing this is to downplay adoption of fair speech and to muddy clear waters and justify double standards (in exactly the same way as those who attempt to redefine the word 'racism' do).


Be wary of anyone pushing free speech Instead of fair speech.
I will take full responsibility for what I am about to say.

This is the dumbest fucking thing I have read on GAF to date. And I have read about cum closets.
 

Cunth

Fingerlickin' Good!
May 22, 2018
4,231
11,702
805
Everyone.



'Free speech' is a made up term.

Repeatedly pushing this is to downplay adoption of fair speech and to muddy clear waters and justify double standards (in exactly the same way as those who attempt to redefine the word 'racism' do).

Be wary of anyone pushing free speech Instead of fair speech.
I am 12 and what is this
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma

dragonfart28

Gab Ambassador
Jun 12, 2009
4,656
427
1,025
It's an acknowledgement of the nebulous.

A freedom fighter, a free speech campaigner? Rubbish. He’s a grandstanding idiot who stirs up anti-Muslim hatred in the sewers of socal media.
A FURIOUS Tommy Robinson fan attacked a BBC film crew while supporters hurled smoke bombs after the EDL founder was jailed for nine months today.

Robinson called for protests after he was found to have "encouraged mob rule" when he breached a reporting restriction to live-stream a video outside a child grooming trial.
 
Last edited: