TLDR: this post is entirely to calm advertisers, it can be boiled down to "don't worry, we still prioritize brand safety like before".
It does have this gem in it:
"What has changed, however, is our approach to experimentation. As you’ve seen over the past several weeks, Twitter is embracing public testing. We believe that this open and transparent approach to innovation is healthy, as it enables us to move faster and gather user feedback in real-time. We believe that a service of this importance will benefit from feedback at scale, and that there is value in being open about our experiments and what we are learning. We do all of this work with one goal in mind: to improve Twitter for our customers, partners, and the people who use it across the world."
What a weird thing to say... A/B tests are a thing, does anyone buy that experimenting with new things by rolling out new features to all users at once is a good strategy?
Twitter was previously doing A/B tests. Spaces, communities, downvotes, circles, and even moderation were applied only to a subset of accounts while they actively experimented. The new policy is an objectively less scientific approach to testing functionality than what was occurring before.
A/B tests are pretty problematic for social networks, since anything effective can also influence the control group. They are excellent for single-player activities like shopping carts and signup flows.
"Network Experimentation at Scale" from Facebook describes how difficult this problem is. Most A/B test frameworks don't reach this level of sophistication. It does make some sense to just ship things if you don't have time to build out something like that. (disclosure: I worked at Twitter long ago)
They're also problematic because you'll likely optimize for whatever metric you pick with no regard to the ethics of the optimization. Sometimes a double blind test is not the right thing to do.
I've never really bought this argument. There might be unethical growth hackers in the company, but A/B tests are not the problem in that situation.
In my experience, they mostly just catch bugs. Stuff like "hmm, our much better looking signup flow underperforms... oh, the form is broken on Safari." That kind of thing.
To make it easier for everyone to understand the other posters point...
a double blind test can help you determine the most effective way to cause pain to a monkey, but it will never answer the question of whether you should be doing so.
Think of the AI optimizing for a stated goal while ignoring implied constraints (e.g. eradicating humanity to stop wars).
This can be the case for A/B testing. Sure, you can increase ad clicks by 30% ... if you trick the user into clicking it through a carefully timed layout jump.
I think GP's argumentation may go in this direction. I'd probably not say A/B testing is the problem itself, it is a tool after all, but I could imagine it's sometimes not used very well.
Another point: Spotify's core flow changes so much (feels like almost daily) that I've lost all confidence in using it.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Many quality studies are A/B tests. A/B just refers to the two IV states you're testing, which you're then observing a DV - sales, engagement, errors, etc.
A/B tests can be double blinded (don't tell the error monitoring people which results are from a trial), and have high number of samples, far beyond even most pharmaceutical trials.
They can also be really crappy, changing too many variables at once, etc. But they are certainly "real science".
EDIT: an example, Drug vs placebo - is an A/B test.
This isn’t true. Science is ultimately the scientific method — make a hypothesis, test a change, observe the results, repeat. It’s an algorithm for learning and broadly gaining information about reality. It can equally be applied to things having to do with humans and things not having to do with humans.
Not gp, but there's a significant kink when this applies to humans; namely, that humans have the ability to reflect on publicly known outcomes, and change their behavior en-masse in light of information so gained.
I put this earler in the phrase "reflection completeness": https://sdrinf.com/reflection-completeness ie there are things which stops working when people know about it.
In particular with A/B testing, this means that the initial A/B test is intermingled from at least 3 effects: specifically it measures how the naive population's behavior changes as a function of new functionality being made available. This is heavily, heavily time-dependent; specifically there's a "novelty effect" (early data collection will not be representative to long-term usage patterns); and there's "reflection effect" (once the outcome of the test is widely known, people can change their behavior based on that). Controlling for the first is difficult, but possible; controlling for the second, beyond just "keeping everything secret", is significantly more so, as the timelines for that might be years in length.
I strongly suspect GP was pointing at this timeline factor, and specifically that market engineering, as currently, generally, widely practiced, is grounded on the immediately available signal of "does it increases sales in 2 weeks of A/B test running". Which, given novelty effects, is heavily biased towards "yes"; and these people aren't incentivized (nor have the time/energy) to measure _very_ long-term effects beyond novelty, and reflection period.
I agree that it can be a difficult thing to analyze. There's also the Hawthorne Effect at play here too. But those are just confounding variables, they do not negate the fact that A/B tests are still "real science".
An A/B test just refers to observing how a dependent variable changes when an independent variable is in two different states, State A and State B.
Most companies (or at least the ones doing things properly) will also have a long running retro test to see if impact persists (new test group = don't use the new changes).
I feel like it's especially bad for any UI changes that have relation to long-term productivity; measuring how given change affect existing users and whether the performance will go back to previous level or get below it after few weeks or month.
Agreed. My point is I am not going to see a marketer as aiming for the same goal “as an experimental physicist.”
To borrow the Lindy effect; whether someone likes the jacket in color A or B is of such short lived value it’s a huge waste of the resources that went into the pipeline needed to come to the conclusion.
Here’s an A/B test; rethink logistics to increase customization of outputs or continue to create design jobs who define what’s trendy and acceptable?
I think we're are getting caught up on what's being tested.
In the context of what we're talking about, you can A/B test more than marketing, you're can test variables like UI/UX.
Yes clothes fall in and out of fashion, but changing the placement, color, size of the "add to cart" button isn't something that's going to be changing frequently.
Another example might be adding a "trending" tab the top navigation of a page or whether the "what's trending" vs "what you like" provide more engagement as the default page.
Youtube recently tested randomly lowering people's video resolution to see who changed it back to gauge the importance of the resolution to their customers.
> Youtube recently tested randomly lowering people's video resolution to see who changed it back to gauge the importance of the resolution to their customers.
I wish they start gauging how frustrating such tests are, particularly for the test group. I've been cursing at YouTube many times over the past weeks because of this very issue - and now I learn it's not even a bug, but an A/B test.
It wasn't "scientific" to begin with but what's happening right now is pretty clearly panicked throwing stuff at the wall based on Elon's intuition and day to day demands... while that may have worked for him in the past, I don't think it's going to work as well in this domain where you're working with a complex system dependent on millions of people's behaviors and incentives.
Did it? The nature of Tesla and his other current businesses buffer that a bit even if it has been his approach, and it seems to have gotten him thrown out as CEO at X.com twice; among the things going on Twitter seems to be Musk trying to relitigate his failure at X.com without other investors being in a position to kick him out, but he seems to be piling up existential threats without resolving them.
Others have addressed the ways in which A/B testing does hew quite closely to the standard of empirical observation under controlled circumstances, with which I largely agree.
Where A/B studies may go wrong in my view is a few other elements:
- A/B studies have difficulty in determining differences based on multiple interacting characteristics. In fairness, so does empirical science, and the principle of "holding all else constant" is a frequent assumption of scientific processes.
- A/B studies face an inherent self-selection / exclusion bias: the participants in this round of A/B testing are those who've not been driven off the project/product from past experiments and design changes. Given that many Web 2.0 companies eventually dance with pushing people right up to the border of tolerance, it's quite possible that A/B testing has a long-term effect of pushing those participants whose tolerance has been exceeded out of the study population entirely. I don't know how large a factor this is, though loud / rage quitters are certainly a prominent (if not necessarily large) cohort. Whether or not they're also influential, or perhaps more importantly when they become influential is another question. Again, this is a fairly common problem with any social experiment, including natural social experiments, see various forms of brain-drain and social flight.
- A/B testing tends to focus on short term changes and behaviours, which may mask longer-term outcomes. This has some overlap with the above, but also with subjects' general response to change. See the classic case of this in the Hawthorne Effect (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect>).
The upshot is that A/B testing can be valid and useful, but that experimental design, particularly in the case of social and psychological experiments, where subject feed back into the study and its methodology itself, is exceptionally thorny.
> it's quite possible that A/B testing has a long-term effect of pushing those participants whose tolerance has been exceeded out of the study population entirely.
I'd compare this to how evaporation rate increases with temperature, as more particles find themselves with enough energy to escape the liquid.
From my personal experience, even if I can tolerate a lot of UX abuse, each such "optimization" lowers my threshold of switching to a competitor. Software in general, and SaaS specifically, resists commoditization, but every now and then an actual alternative to a product/service I'm using shows up - and whether or not I switch (and when) is correlated with how much I resent the incumbent for their UX "improvements".
I'd add one bullet point to your list:
- Unlike regular scientific experimentation, A/B testing is a methodology primarily spread in business circles using regular hype channels. That is, the average practitioner is not qualified to execute it correctly, which is one of the reasons I see A/B testing more as tools to launder arbitrary decisions. Because consequences of doing it wrong are typically not immediately apparent or obvious, both companies and customers suffer (and a vast space for fraudsters is created).
I'm in a charitable mood, so I'm not passing judgement on people for not having PhD-level understanding of statistics - just pointing out that, to the degree much larger than in sciences (even soft ones, which suffer some of the same structural problems), there's little pressure to do such tests correctly (and there's lot of ways to make money or status by doing them without regards for correctness).
From what I hear, a common way of executing A/B test badly and getting bullshit results, is by terminating the test early when it shows the relevant metrics improving for the test group - vs. running it longer if no big improvements are observed (or the metrics start getting worse for the test group). This biases the experiment towards giving false positives. This problem was big enough that there was a debacle around Optimizely few years ago, whose UI was accused to promote this early termination of tests. The cynical take I'm still somewhat partial to is that it wasn't an accident (if not done on purpose, then possibly... a result of an A/B test!) - false positives make the (statistically naive) users feel they're getting more value from Optimizely than they actually are.
That’s not at all an argument for dropping AB testing, it’s an argument for being more rigorous, especially since in principle the circumstances under which services with a large active user base can test are downright luxurious.
Sociologists will frequently not have as good access to such a large participant pool under near ideal experimental conditions with such good ways to observe behavior. And the stuff you have to keep in mind when running experiments is not terribly complex. A bit of statistics, a few things you absolutely have to get right, that’s it.
Obviously there are reasons why AB tests are often not run rigorously (statistical illiteracy and pressure to get things done quick as well as to produce tangible results as often as possible – all three of which might lead you to run underpowered experiments with too few participants and to stop testing early which will lead to too many false positives). However, stopping to do experiments (and instead just releasing new stuff and observing the reaction) isn’t really an improvement that leads to better outcomes compared to that.
If "actual science" is a real thing, then absolutely nothing humanity has ever done in the name of scientific endeavour is "actual science," given every experiment exists on a continuum of trade-offs.
A case could be made that A/B testing is insufficiently rigorous given specific goals, resources, limitations, context, etc. But that case isn't being made here.
Hah! You're fast. I was about to comment on that: "actual math" probably exists. "actual science" probably doesn't. I'm not sure any experiment can ever be free from error, uncertainty, trade-offs. (And now I'm super curious about this...)
Thanks though. I've narrowed my original comment to more accurately represent the scope I am referring to.
to be fair whether mathematics is a science or not is debated[0], so your initial claim might very well stand true depending on which side one takes in the argument.
That's fair. Though that gets into semantics which I don't find interesting or fun. In this context, I think it's fair to say we're talking about "things that can be experimented on to learn more things."
Based on what reasoning? Data quality with respect to computer systems approaches perfection, it is far more reliable than any data you can hope to approximate in the real world. There is also plenty of "actual science" with terrible data quality, hence the replication crises spanning large sections of the scientific landscape.
If they're done right, they are exactly as rigorous as we'd expect from science, since they are literally the same as randomized control trials. You can do even better with A/B testing because you have much tighter control over inclusion criteria, treatment compliance, and outcome analysis.
what is not scientific about it? maybe its not good science, but it is science. really almost anything is science...
Science is just observation and experimentation.
Science doesn't dictate how you do the above. Now, someone would find it impossible to reproduce your findings, but - that would just suggest bad science
Incorrect conclusions are frequently drawn from A/B tests. To some, this makes it unscientific, to others, it just means it's bad science. I think the argument is more semantic than objective.
For example, if your metric is "time spent interacting on the platform", then a testing of a rollout of a feature ends up with longer page load times, so users spend more time there because they're waiting for pages to load would increase that metric, and management decides it's a good idea.
But both of those qualifiers exist on continuums and where an experiment lies on them is subject to opinion, so there's no singular threshold. It means it would depend on the person reviewing the experiment whether it's "systematic" and "rigorous" enough to (personally) be considered science. What you're describing is the quality of the science, not whether or not it is science.
Until you can objectively measure how "systematic" and "rigorous" an experiment is, your definition of science only applies to you.
"Experiment and observation" is something we know humans have been doing for literally thousands of years (and without written evidence, probably 10s-100s). At least for loose versions of "experiment" which ties back to rigor.
We haven't been doing science for very long. The primary difference is the desire and effort to add rigor and systematic thinking. The difference in efficacy is hard to understate.
Again, this comes back to your definition. Many would disagree in that science has existed for, at least, as long as recorded human history because an actual tenable definition of science is something along the lines of "the endeavor to build knowledge by experimenting and observing the results". The rigor of the experiment is part of the quality of the science, not whether it's science itself.
No one is arguing that rigor isn't important to good science. It is important because rigor lends to reliable and valid results. What we ultimately want is results that are reproducible and can be used to predict. If you observe bad results, it's because you did a bad experiment, thus bad science, not that you didn't do science at all.
As an analogy: if I took notes during a meeting that no one can understand or use, that doesn't mean I didn't take notes. It just means that I took bad notes.
> Many would disagree in that science has existed for, at least, as long as recorded human history
Not sensibly. Or at least; let's avoid bogging down on the semantics. We started doing something quantifiable different recently, which has had a massive impact on our world. It is quite sensible to ask "what changed?" and try to understand it. If you want to give it a different name from "science", ok, but that's mostly likely to confuse people. If you want to claim such a shift didn't happen, you've got a hard row to hoe.
And this is sadly true about almost every good A/B testing system out there. They always involve tooling that has to exactly fit your stack, and it's really tough to make a general purpose product that would offer anywhere near the same value.
To some extent, you grow your company and codebase around your A/B testing system, not the other way around, because it has to slot into so many places: deployment, testing, front-end, back-end, analytics, monitoring, etc. Almost no two companies share the same stacks across all of those dimensions, and an A/B testing system that doesn't hook in tightly to every one of those systems is not complete. This is why I always get a bit scared when people think they can just use one of those "drop-in" services and be done with it: yeah, great, you can now fiddle your JavaScript from some third-party website, but you're going to have a big project ahead of you passing group assignments out to all of the different systems that will need to know about them, and almost guaranteed some part of your stack will not have a library available from the service you picked so you're going to be writing your own REST wrapper, and dammit they don't document that API very well and it seems to be responding differently since the last update, and man it'd be a lot easier if I could just pipe results straight from my own service into Big query rather than running a daily user export, and damn, their dashboard doesn't let me set exclusion criteria on my own metrics, I have to send activation events now, and etc, etc. By the end you've basically built your own A/B test system from scratch, you've just paid someone else to do the "int myGroup = Random.next()" call, which is the easiest part to build.
I think this new idea of "public testing" is really just a post hoc recasting of Elon's failed Twitter Blue rollout. Calling it by those words is...creative? But the failure was less an experiment as it was a lesson in humility.
> I think this new idea of "public testing" is really just a post hoc recasting of Elon's failed Twitter Blue rollout. Calling it by those words is...creative?
Its just a diplomatic rephrasing of Elon’s “do lots of dumb things” tweet:
But advertisers who have pulled out because of distrust and lack of stability aren’t likely to be reassured by rationalizations for the policy instability, they’ll just be confirmed in their decisions to wait to see how things shake out.
And regulators concerned about noncompliance with binding rules aren't going to care about a PR rationalization at all, except insofar as it provides evidence that the failures were intentional rather than inadvertent.
It's just a CYA statement, basically saying "oops, I meant to do that...", and leaving the door open to make more oopsies as intentional "experiments".
A typical HN comment on a SpaceX post might have once looked like:
> Unfortunately, the "move fast and break things" attitude doesn't work with rockets.
You will likely find this comment verbatim from the last 10 years. Given that is so, I can't see how someone could claim that Elon Musk is new to visible experimentation.
How is that different from Tesla essentially using Tesla car owners as unpaid betatesters for their autonomous driving (and other) software while disclaiming all responsibility when anything happens?
This "learn by doing" is going to end up well ... not. Especially when trying to learn by repeating mistakes with completely foreseable consequences, like that blue "verified" badge being available for anyone who pays without any verification.
Maybe because it's unsafe and misleading? The US Department of Justice has already started a criminal investigation [1]:
> Oct 25 - Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) is under criminal investigation in the United States over claims that the company's electric vehicles can drive themselves, three people familiar with the matter said.
> The U.S. Department of Justice launched the previously undisclosed probe last year following more than a dozen crashes, some of them fatal, involving Tesla’s driver assistance system Autopilot, which was activated during the accidents, the people said.
I'm unhappy about it because I have to share the road with Tesla's cars, and I'm also tired of people buying wholesale into hype. I personally stay away from Tesla's on the road for fear that they have the "self-driving" software engaged.
Most people are probably just amused. I'm more on the unhappy side because a vehicle can actually kill people when it crashes and Musk seems like more of a "move fast and break things" personality, which is not a great combination for safety.
He promised I would be able to earn income on my car driving around town all on its own while I was asleep at home by the end of 2016. Instead I have to pay him to have a computer drive full throttle into stationary objects - something that I am more than capable of doing on my own.
I'm one of those people. Running FSD Beta in my Model S Plaid in BC. And your negative connotation doesn't apply to me or many/most of the other beta testers with whom I'm regularly communicating.
> What a weird thing to say... A/B tests are a thing, does anyone buy that experimenting with new things by rolling out new features to all users at once is a good strategy?
What it means: 'Elon looked bad when the blue checkmark fiasco happened. And more boo boos are on the way. Now Elon doesn't like to look bad. Solution? Everything we do is now covered by "it was just a test" disclaimer. Problem solved.'
I largely agree with your point, but I have to say as a user I generally don’t enjoy A/B testing at all. It’s invisible to me, and some part of the app or website I’m using is now either broken or annoying in some way, but still works normally for the people I mention it to, since they’re not in my group. Additionally, the changes are sometimes totally transient, so things are disrupted for me briefly, only to be distrusted again.
A/B testing when it's like the color of something (did you know you can change the hacker news banner color?) doesn't bother me much, but when it's more invasive and I can't turn it off or switch teams, it starts to get annoying.
Especially when you're trying to help someone and they are seeing something different from what you see.
Apparently Twitter had some huge problem with bots when Musk was trying to get out of the purchase. Thankfully he solved the bot problem after the purchase so he could run polls and really get the will of the people and not, you know, all those previously problematic bots.
It's perfect, in a way, that the full quote is "Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit." which translates to "And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness."
It's only weird, if you attempt to parse it with a straight face.
This is some B-grade best-effort spin on what has been uncontrolled chaos with predictably awful effects.
The only thing keeping Twitter rolling is the majority percentage of the casual niche user in non-political and non-technical niches, who haven't been paying attention to the chaos; and who by virtue of being casual users are not notably surprised at everything that has broken both culturally, wrt safety and content, and technically.
Unfortunately for Leon the money comes from corners who HAVE been paying attention and not only see what's happened, and ongoing—they see through this kind of comedic college-try at handwaving around it.
I was a lurker before, I read twitter all the time with out an account. It as a pain because they kept trying to force you to create an account so I kept having to find ways around their account signup walls which was fun...
What's funny is they no longer try to force you to create an account. I used to use nitter.net to browse someone's history, but now I can do it on Twitter apparently with no restrictions.
That's because you're a right wing troll, no? You're exactly the target demographic Musk is rolling out the red carpet for, so it stands to reason you're having a great time with it. This clearly doesn't refute the OP though.
Will certainly be interesting to see if there are enough of y'all willing to shell out $8/mo to have your speech boosted above the free variety to make up for the lost ad spend of the Pinochet-helicopter-meme-adverse.
I am an independent libertarian that strongly believes in free expression, beyond the idea that only governments can censor people.
>>speech boosted above the free variety to make up for the lost ad spend
I think the reduced ad spend is temporary and in some ways unrelated to Musk whom they have used as an excuse to virtue signal for something they were already going to do in the first place
Also I think the plans are to expand twitters revenue model beyond Blue and ads so it will be more interesting what Elon plans to expand twitter into
It sort of makes sense if the experiment is about judging not just individual user reactions but the wider reaction of the media, advertisers, "the conversation" to a change.
I don't think that makes it a good idea though, seems like each failed "experiment" poisons the pool and certainly makes it possible to do experiments in isolation.
The thing is Twitter already A/B tested a LOT and Twitter’s new owner is naive to those prior findings as well as the long-term effects of them. Any advertiser is going to want to know about attrition rates, and those were previously best reported through now-fired employees as well as earnings releases. This is Twitter’s new owner learning the hard way that there are dumb advertisers out there who do want quick lift but longer term he’ll retain only spam. No way Twitter ever gets better than Doubleclick now.
Elon's late night tweets always make me think of that scene in The Office where the new CEO (James Spader) decides to close one of the branches without telling anyone and when asked about it he goes "I got into a case of Australian Reds... and... How should I say this, Colombian whites"
Musk literally said "we're going to dumb things" and keep the things that aren't dumb.
This "going to do dumb things" is completely on brand for him with his 5 step manufacturing improvement process, step 1 of which is "make your requirements less dumb".
This is actually how Nike works, having worked there. They try all kinds of weird things aren't aren't afraid to, and then drop the ones that don't work with no regrets, keeping what works. Try new things, fail fast isn't a bad strategy for innovation.
Whether or not it'll work out for twitter remains to be seen. Especially with the rest of biased tech still upset that they lost their monopoly on the narrative arrayed against him.
the marketing team writes a Grown Up , Adult blog post to try to look normal, then commander Elon will come out tomorrow high fiving more nazis [1] and banning more non-nazi accounts for supposedly belonging to "antifa" and saying things he doesn't personally like [2].
This is the same "trapped enabler" pattern we saw with Trump in the early days, with his staff constantly coming out to try to paper over whatever horrible thing he did. They had no shame, and neither does the Twitter staff that wrote this blog post.
Looking forward to a verified @RealEliLilleyCEO account appearing 5 minutes after Twitter Blue 2.0 3.0 comes out, which only allows you to trivially impersonate people, after which Musk will completely independently invent Verification 2.0 3.0 which will either just be the old system again or a separate Twitter Blue badge. Visionary genius at work.
Oh I agree, this post won't change anything at this point. But I guess that's why it was released (and as others noted, also for regulators / to save face after weeks of chaos).
I do not think it means A/B testing and such is going away, but that public testing is going to be more widespread about things most people will probably be interested in.
It might be just an escape plan when Musk uses platform for his own needs. Banning users he does not like or allowing certain speech when filtering others and so on….
I'm guessing that some product people finally managed to explain what an AB test is to Elon and why they use them to validate product ideas before rushing implementations out the door based on gut instinct. Aside from trying to assuage advertisers about his capricious product decisions he's also trying to act like he is now an expert on digital product development.
It could make sense in the context of twitter. They're a "public square" so to speak, so if everyone experiences the same change, they can discuss it at the same time instead of small subsets experiencing it and being confused (or getting back data from the wrong people)
He should unban Trump as an A/B test, like ones who answered Yes in that poll should be in B group, ones answered No in A group got him banned. It would be great even to separate these people completely into the A/B Twitter (2.0) so they don't see each other's tweets. The main metric should be better poll distribution. Like instead of stupid 51/49 polls better miniority-suppressing 85/15 polls, and these 15 go into C group then eventually getting us to fair 100/0 polls and poll-communism, preventing any pesky problems with different opinions, we all know they are easily solved by polls.
I wonder why they don't have 7/12 polls in court, surely 9/12 is enough to decide a sentence already, and all americans think it's fair, why twitter doesn't freakin comply with 75% poll rule?
It's kind of hard to calm your advertisers when the boss has basically cut most of the marketing staff responsible for keeping contact with them. That's been the biggest issue so far, aside from the right-wing favoritism that the boss (Musk) has online (he's banned Crimethinc on a whim of Andy Ngo's hearsay). Basically, I wouldn't bother advertising on Twitter since the new boss/owner has no one to filter his nonsense out of the daily decision making. It's one thing to spew platitudes for free speech and it's another to actually lay out the rules of free speech on the platform (i.e. trying not to trigger regulations or reprisals of big govt agencies).
It's just referencing the fact that the new Twitter is more open and transparent. I can't believe how many people are spinning this as a bad thing.
We heard almost nothing from Parag and little from Jack when he was running it and experiments were opaque from the outside.
Now we're hearing from the CEO and employees like George Hotz about what they are doing and planning, and they're involving the community, asking for feedback directly.
> previous Twitter wasn't as transparent as it is now
Reinstating accounts on the basis of a poll, on a platform you have spent months railing for having too many bots, is a good example of CYA transparency.
That's your response? That polling is transparent because both sides will just turn it into a game of CoreWars, and may the best argument win (at CoreWars)?
Elon specifically mentioned that his polls were actually a great way to obviate bots, as reflected by the bot activity seen on them. He was going to reinstate the accounts anyway.
Our Trust & Safety team continues its diligent work to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct, abusive behavior, and any violation of Twitter's rules
Should have prefixed that with "What is left of our trust & safety team..."
Has anyone shown actual data that proves Twitter has dropped the ball on this front, despite all the raging commentary about how many people have been let go or left?
To me it was obvious without the numbers. Saw a spike in "hateful conduct and abusive behaviour" in replies on tweets by others, though I think it subsided again. A number of accounts went private. Myself got burned by using Twitter search in public places as innocent queries started returning porn media.
> What has changed, however, is our approach to experimentation
including I suppose Elon's experimental approach to management.
I hope that in 10 years, we will look back at this twitter 2.0 (= musk's debacle) as the impetus that lead to more widespread adoption of social media 2.0 (= federation)
I already see the snowball effect getting momentum with all this coverage (NPR, NYT...) and big name exits (Apple...)
It won't. Federation doesn't solve any of the problems Twitter now has.
That instead of one poorly managed understaffed silo full of trolls and abusers you have 2000 poorly managed, even more understaffed systems with 2000 different approaches to moderation and content doesn't make anything easier or fixed for people who use Twitter today.
It is the same like we had federated chat with Jabber for 20 years now - and nobody uses it. The best implementations of it ended being the nonfederated ones - like Google Talk or I believe Whatsapp used that protocol. And apart from nerds and some engineers literally has no clue that something like XMPP even exists.
People don't care about the technology, they care where they want to communicate with their friends and network.
The Twitter issues are first and foremost human, business, management and social problems, not something you can throw some network protocols and technology at and declare it solved.
> doesn't solve any of the problems Twitter now has
> you have 2000 poorly managed, even more understaffed systems with 2000 different approaches
It is not about short-term problem solving. It is about long-term investment in more decentralized social networks. 2000 different approaches is exactly what is needed for "natural selection" to do it job.
> are first and foremost human, business, management and social problems, not something you can throw some network protocols and technology at and declare it solved.
Agreed. But the protocols should by designed to adress and resolve those problems the best they can. This will take a lot of iterations. The more (and sooner) people jump ship, the better chance we have to test and iterate.
>2000 different approaches is exactly what is needed for "natural selection" to do it job… The more (and sooner) people jump ship, the better chance we have to test and iterate.
I don’t think users are going to participate in these sorts of experiments long term. People are signing up now out of fear and anger and hope but Mastodon still lacks the user base — people for you to follow and people to amplify your posts. (Partly because it’s still a fraction as popular as Twitter and partly because the hosts all seem to be blocking a different half of the other hosts so even if two people are both on Mastodon they may not be able to connect.)
If, on top of all that, people are expected to tolerate “a lot of iterations” before things work right I see them leaving. Let’s not forget that the Twitter/Mastodon mode of interaction can be pretty toxic so there needs to be a big carrot for people. Mastodon doesn’t have it. Twitter barely did tbh.
There are nearly 3M users across the fediverse. I can't keep up with my timeline. This genuinely sounds like the words of someone who hasn't actually looked at mastodon in the last month.
> people are expected to tolerate “a lot of iterations” before things work right I see them leaving
This is literally what Elon just said they're gonna do with Twitter.
Look, don't get me wrong, I think it's very likely mastodon remains a bit niche. But not for these reasons. I'm much more concerned about issues of search/discoverability, general usability, and the downsides of a purely chronological timeline than I am about either of the issues you just focused on.
> I don’t think users are going to participate in these sorts of experiments long term
You are right, not in the mainstream. What I'm talking about is what is already happening in the underground (and also hoping for some right people to join in). This is enough for that "natural selection" work. Don’t you feel the pace of those decentralized new projects every week on HN?
> if people are expected to tolerate.... I see them leaving
Maybe you're right? I said I'm "hoping". Deep inside, I believe this crisis is just a steppingstone (may be an important one ?). At the very least we have sown some seeds in mainstream social networks (like Tumblr's move to federate) and mainstream media (all the mastodon talk). We need more underground work to sort all the stuff you and others are complaining about. The next crisis we will be more ready.
Utterly disagree. I trust the people running a small/medium-sized instance I've personally vetted to host my account infinitely more than I trust some anonymous group of contractors in a content moderation farm somewhere…or Elon, lol.
Twitter's current issues by and large are a result of trusting corporate media silos with our precious time, data, and safety online. It's wildly unacceptable.
Smaller communities can be more focused and managed. Trying to get everyone in one place agreeing on one set of rules sounds impossible. At least federation has the potential to let groups exist differently as desired.
That is the thing, people do not go to twitter to be in "Small Focused Community"
They do it to interact with the globe, and the more people on that network the better it is.
There are a million ways to create a niche site (like hacker news) that allows a Small Focused Community to interact, that is not a replacement for Twitter
Agreed, but that's kinda the point in my eyes. Maybe a global forum with no moderation everyone can agree with is a bad thing? Ie maybe it makes everyone unhappy?
Everyone was on Facebook too. We're not all looking for Facebook 2.0 currently, are we? Yea, we have different form factors of social networks, definitely. But some (not all!) of the core features of Facebook were misguided or mismanaged. Some features of Facebook aren't looking to be replaced.
I'm not saying Mastodon is a replacement for Twitter. I'm simply saying maybe some features of Twitter aren't worth being replaced for many people.
>>Maybe a global forum with no moderation everyone can agree with is a bad thing? Ie maybe it makes everyone unhappy?
I do not agree, and it does not make me unhappy at all. I am late 70's child, I experienced the Wild West of the internet, nothing posted to twitter (or the chan's for that matter) shock me, or makes me unhappy
I think people need thicker skin, and maybe more anonymity not less...
Censorship is not the solution, never has been in history and never will be in the future.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Actually plenty of us (and I've also been on the internet for many decades now) would like to hop online to engage with some cool folks about [insert interesting topic here] without having utter garbage and dreck thrown up in our faces like racism, transphobia, misogyny, bigotry, etc., etc.
Well it is good thing for you all major platforms have the ablity to block, mute, or otherwise curate your experience, including sharing "block lists" and other innovations so your personal experience is what you make it to be
I support giving people the power to create their own echo chambers and safe spaces, feel free to do so..
No one should be forced to communicate with anyone they do not want to, however you also should not be able to prevent me from communicating with others that I desire to
>>What a ridiculous thing to say
Not really, it is sad parents have stopped teaching "Sticks and Stones my break my bones but words will never harm me"
We really have lost the cultural axiom "I may hate what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" haven't we.
> Well it is good thing for you all major platforms have the ablity to block, mute, or otherwise curate your experience, including sharing "block lists" and other innovations so your personal experience is what you make it to be
Why would i choose a platform where i have to moderate thousands of individuals? Ie what's the purpose in that lol?
Where is this world where we went from having Forums of communities to global cesspools where we want to manage what sort of nonsense shows up on the feed?
> We really have lost the cultural axiom "I may hate what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" haven't we.
I didn't say this, so your two replies in one feels odd. However, no one is stopping you from saying it. Say it all you want. I'm advocating a smaller forum where i don't have to listen to you say things to me that i'm uninterested in.
I'm not stopping you from being on the internet. From having electricity. Just like i'm fine with you yelling on the street corner.
I'm moving to the other side of the street. And you object to that, for some odd reason. Because by me moving, it doesn't give you a voice?
Edit: To sum it up, this isn't about safe spaces. This is about spam. There's only so much "Vaccines give you 5G!!!" i can put up with lol. Just like the guy on the street corner. Hard to have a conversation around that annoying screaming.
Emotions are real, but is it not the public responsibility to manage your emotions. Each person, solely, is responsible for their own emotions. If "emotional harm" becomes the basis for what speech is allowed and what is not then we cease to have a culture of free expression
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." -- Stephen Fry
You can not have free expression if the only thing required to shut down that expression is to claim emotional harm. I did not respect that position when it was the Christian right claim harms if gays spoke nor do I today when the authoritarian left claims emotional harm over the wrong pronouns
> Emotions are real, but is it not the public responsibility to manage your emotions. Each person, solely, is responsible for their own emotions. If "emotional harm" becomes the basis for what speech is allowed and what is not then we cease to have a culture of free expression
Yea, this is bunk. What do you think fuels things like mass hysteria? What do you think fuels illogical decisions made in mass?
I'm not advocating for mass censorship, but lets not pretend humans are either logical or capable of handling their own emotions. They're terrible at it. Look at any collection of humans. You can't walk forward without stubbing your toe over examples. Daily commute traffic is full of humans who can't manage their own emotions. edit: Even police know that human memory can't be trusted. What do you think fuels decisions we make, if our memory is so mutable?
Likewise, if it was just emotions up for discussion that would be one thing. But it's not, it's so much more. It's "facts". A mass information war is taking place. Standing on the sidelines saying again, people can handle it, has already been proven false. Repeatedly. People cannot nor will not handle it, at least without help.
The more quickly we recognize how horrible humans are at handling emotions and information ingestion the better we can make reasonable decisions about how to aid humans in actually making progress.
then proceed to advocate for mass censorship, you are functionally saying we need fact checkers the problem is I do not trust the fact checkers that have been appointed in the past because they have been proven to be partisan hacks that spread "approved" disinformation only dispelling unapproved disinformation
Nor do I trust government agencies (like the CDC or the WHO) to be the "source of truth"
> then proceed to advocate for mass censorship, you are functionally saying we need fact checkers the problem is I do not trust the fact checkers that have been appointed in the past because they have been proven to be partisan hacks that spread "approved" disinformation only dispelling unapproved disinformation
I did not, you misunderstand.
I merely advocate for acknowledging that humans are terrible at the things i pointed at. Which conversely, you seem to advocate that we are capable there. You can both identify that we are terrible at information and not advocate for surveillance/censorship. Why do you jump to those contrasts?
To think of it differently, we have to acknowledge we have a problem before we can fix it. Information is a gun, and we have not taken gun safety. We need tools and acknowledgement of our limitations before we can wield the power you so haphazardly throw around. I do not trust young children with guns. We are nothing more than children in our current state.
My previous post advocated that we don't pretend the children can handle guns safely without training and safety tooling. edit: That we should find ways to prove gun safety training / tooling, rather than remove guns (in this analogy lol)
>>To think of it differently, we have to acknowledge we have a problem before we can fix it.
That is the thing, outside of mass censorship it is unsolvable problem
You either allow people to speak freely, in which case misinformation will spread, and emotions will be harmed. or you restrict speech eliminating the very concept of free expression
> That is the thing, outside of mass censorship it is unsolvable problem
Completely agree there. edit: Or rather, that it's an unsolved problem. I misread `able` for `ed`
> You either allow people to speak freely, in which case misinformation will spread, and emotions will be harmed. or you restrict speech eliminating the very concept of free expression
> There is no utopia to be found here
Yes, those are the current available options. I'm not questioning that.
I'm challenging your assertion that we're capable. More specifically, saying we must acknowledge that we're not capable. We must acknowledge and identify the problem.
> I do not agree, and it does not make me unhappy at all. I am late 70's child, I experienced the Wild West of the internet, nothing posted to twitter (or the chan's for that matter) shock me, or makes me unhappy
Yea, i did say "everyone" but i didn't actually mean everyone. Lots of people enjoy Facebook in all it's glory, too.
> Censorship is not the solution, never has been in history and never will be in the future.
My comment wasn't about Censorship, though. It was about people and a possibility that they may prefer categorized focused communities like many of us grew up with. Which may or may not include moderation (aka "censorship")
I certainly enjoyed the forums of old more than the modern day global scroll feed. But i prefer focused/categorized content, clearly.
My point wasn't that you do or don't. Merely to pose a question. A question (among many) that could dictate whether or not the Forums of old have a place in the modern day. Whether or not the global attention draw that is Twitter is actually desired. edit: Desired enough to keep it alive and "successful", at least.
Censorship and moderation are very different things. Moderation is more about format than content: too frequent posting, adding hyperlinks to irrelevant sites, intentionally poor formatting (all capslock) and so on. And moderators are usually public figures, because the rules are simple and widely supported. Censorship is "wrongthink moderation": censors dont care about format of the message, but care about the thought behind it. Censors are usually anon figures and the rules are usually unpopular and secret for this reason.
> That instead of one poorly managed understaffed silo full of trolls and abusers you have 2000 poorly managed, even more understaffed systems with 2000 different approaches to moderation and content doesn't make anything easier or fixed for people who use Twitter today.
But it would effectively kill the various cat-and-mouse gaming of the entire system by spammers, scammers, and sub-nation-state adversaries.
I think calling Mastodon and friends "federation" is too generous, "fiefdoms" fits much better, each with king/admin (not actual users) deciding what's allowed and what is banned.
How much did any of us think about or notice social network ads for Apple products? I remember the #AppleEvent hashtag emoji campaigns that cost a pretty penny but that's not what's going on now.
I don't understand why people put an equals sign between less moderation and the inevitable fall of the platform to trolls?
I feel HN is not that moderated - bar - I don't feel like it happens that often that people's opinions get disappeared - Imo the main appeal of the site is that people of differing opinions are and worldviews are able to have informed debates about stuff here - even if limited to the world of technology.
HN is still a very niche community where Eternal September hasn't happened yet. Moderation is largely enforced by the community itself thus far, and one(?) superhuman moderator.
You can be sure that if a flood of new users happens, the current system won't scale, and we'd see a diminishing quality of content and comments posted. Some old timers would probably say that has already happened, but it's still largely under control.
This site doesn't have the benefit of, say, Reddit, where niche communities can still exist in relative isolation and with their own moderation rules, even with the amount of users and low quality content on the rest of the site.
Mastodon doesn't do any of the things I want out of social media, and has the most backwards thinking to moderation. The moderation system is based on witch hunting. Federation can't work when there are discrete sets of people that absolutely hate each other. Right now Mastodon is full of the most far-left people.
First it's "The government can't stop me from saying anything I want", then it's "Corporations can't stop me from saying anything I want on their platform", and now you've progressed to "Private individuals running their own instances have to federate with me and listen to what I say or else they're witch hunting leftists". It's my own instance, I will federate with who I want. You have the right to run your instance, I have the right to tell you to fuck off.
The local HOA can be far more oppressive than the faraway president. IRC servers were often run by petty tyrants. Mastodon federates at the wrong level.
It’s your own instance and I’ll never go there or any other instance that wants to control what people say publicly and to each other and spy on peoples private conversations.
>First, none of our policies have changed. Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
Twitter is those public-use bulletin boards at the entrances of grocery stores.
(are those still a thing? Practically every store of any size had one in the 90s, at least, but I haven't paid attention and can't for-sure recall seeing one in years)
This is like a big private club that allows anyone to enter and has effectively taken the place of a town square, due to (among other things) lack of such a public project. It ought to be owned by the government, but we've privatized it.
It isn't a town square - a town square is public. Twitter is a private organization. In this case, Twitter is the tavern. The Internet is the town square.
Sure, but for a lot of people sites like Twitter are their way of spreading information and having discussions online. Sadly the days of everyone hosting their own personal site or blog are gone for most of the less technically savvy.
I think the idea is more about Twitter functioning as a public square. The claim is usually that if Twitter functions sufficiently similar to a public square, then the public should reasonably concerned about how/if Twitter amplifies or restricts certain people.
> First, none of our policies have changed. Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
They recently unbanned many controversial accounts based solely on Twitter polls. Who do they expect will believe these statements?
I'm having a hard time thinking that anyone should be called a journalist -- without mocking quotes -- at this point. After the past couple of years of "reporting" about COVID, vaccines, protests, Ukraine, China, Twitter, etc., et. al., EVERYONE has taken positions at the "fringe."
For 20 years, I've made sense of the news by looking for the pieces of the puzzle where people agree. That is now literally impossible. There is ZERO overlap on ANY issue between the two sides now.
The few actual journalists remaining are known by name, and moving from newspapers to Substack.
Sure, the truth doesn't exist and reality is an illusion.
But Andy NGO has an especially concerning history of misrepresenting facts, using misleading cuts, and closely associating with far right insurrectionary groups such as the Proud Boys.
> Sure, the truth doesn't exist and reality is an illusion.
I don't know who Andy Ngo is, and I don't care, but if we're talking about misleading cuts, let's talk about the ENTIRETY of the mass media making out like Trump said Nazis were "fine people." All it took was 2 minutes of looking at the transcript when the furor broke out to understand that's NOT what he said, but half the country still believes he somehow came out in direct support of them. And this is precisely the back and forth I was alluding to when I say that there is literally no overlap on what is considered truth any more.
First the article says Chad Loder was recently suspended because his name was provided to Musk by far right accounts. Several paragraphs later it backs off and says it might be that he was suspended because he was supposedly on a right wing list of people they were trying to mass report (suddenly this isn’t about Musk any more but the standard reporting mechanism). The evidence for this is an archive.ph snapshot of an obscure Substack by a username in Japanese characters who alleges on Nov 7 that Loder was on a list, maybe, when you actually look at the text it’s not at all clear what exactly the person is saying. The article makes no effort to explain this or confirm the information. It’s a pretty shoddy piece of journalism.
Even when Loder is quoted he openly speculated about what happened and says he doesn’t know. The piece is just a tissue of insinuations.
It is interesting you focus on just one of the banned accounts, glossing over the case of CrimethInc, for example:
In the 14 years that CrimethInc has been on Twitter, the account has never violated Twitter policies and has never been suspended. This changed last week after a Twitter exchange between Musk and Ngo.
Ngo asked Musk to suspend the CrimethInc account, calling it an “Antifa collective” and falsely claiming the group had “claimed a number of attacks.” Within hours of Ngo’s request to Musk, and without citing any specific violations of policies, Twitter suspended the @crimethinc account.
You can call this piece "a tissue of insinuations", but the evidence, taken together, is quite damning. A pattern emerges. At least for anyone who does not have tissues in their ears.
Ya I looked at their lead example and the one they talk about the most and they made serious errors. I see the CrimeInc case has slightly more evidence, like at least we know they asked for them to be banned.
So yes, in addition to clearly misreporting and making misleading and false statements about their lead example Loder they seem to have other examples where there is circumstantial (but zero actual) evidence Musk may have done something.
Personally I like much more rigorous journalism than this even when it’s about people like Musk who I dislike.
Ok but groups like the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club are not a trivial account (or frankly even a journalist). They're a radical antifa group who follow people (include government agents) officials around with guns, openly assaulting them, and has been part of deadly riots. It's like the proud boys x2
I also wouldn't call Andy Ngo, a gay asian journalist who's spoken in front of congress, far right. He basically records riots in Portland and uploads them to twitter, and he's only right wing in the sense that more republicans watch his videos than democrats
You have not presented any evidence that any John Brown Gun Club chapters have assaulted or killed anybody.
The Gun Club arms itself to defend against far-right violence and often appears as a security force at protests to protect against expected far-right violence.
To date, Gun Club members have reportedly not engaged anyone with their weapons during one of these protests.
Perhaps. Let's look at Andy Ngo's invitation in context. Republican lawmakers asked him to testify during hearings about the January 6 insurrection attempt. His testimony mainly aimed to downplay the feeble insurrection attempt, and shift focus to riots. Of course, he fails to mention that the riots were often directly caused by police action.
Well right, because Jan 6th was a peaceful protest until cops started murdering protesters. The only deaths were of protesters, and the only murderers were the cops. Nobody was arrested for bringing a gun/weapon into the capital, and the guards unlocked the doors to let protesters in. I mean the fact republicans weren't allowed to appoint anyone to the Jan 6th committee should tell you everything you need to know
So banning right wing users for having right wing opinions are OK…
But banning antifa-accounts, that is accounts held by people taking part in month long riots and looting and political real-world violence… that is bad?
Is this satire? Is this an honestly held opinion? Or am I missing something?
This is a false premise. Without understanding why each account was banned and what infraction was cited we can't make a clear comparison or judgment about either case. Otherwise it's just more outrage-porn.
I read the Intercept article, and clicked through and read some the screen captured tweets from the “antifascist” accounts that were banned that the article did not care to include.
The Intercept article is not journalism. It’s a PR piece for the accounts that were banned and quotes spokespeople for the impacted groups totally uncritically.
Calling them antifascists seems a misnomer too, they seem to me to be actually anti-capitalist rabble-rousers and professional rioters. Educating, equipping, funding and inciting violent riots seems a clear TOS violation to me.
The “no true antifa” arguments sounds like the sort of ploy that was used when these riots kicked off and democrats in Congress and MSM talking heads were trying to laugh off the idea of “antifa” as a violent domestic terrorist organization simply because they don’t have an org chart.
Ah, classic. So this is actually all just shitposting and looking for ideological battle then.
The “antifascists” literally wore the mark themselves while committing upwards of a billion dollars of property damage over the course of a year+ of riots.
But seriously, please just take it elsewhere. Your innuendo is borderline if not actual libel.
> Calling them antifascists seems a misnomer too, they seem to me to be actually anti-capitalist rabble-rousers and professional rioters. Educating, equipping, funding and inciting violent riots seems a clear TOS violation to me.
So I take it you think everyone involved in the January 6 riot including Donald Trump should be banned from Twitter then?.
> So banning right wing users for having right wing opinions are OK…
What views?
I saw some of the tweets people got banned for. Are you okay with me associating those views with right wing views?
> that is accounts held by people taking part in month long riots and looting and political real-world violence
So, you are saying that your alleged criminal activities off Twitter should feature into whether you are banned? (Note, you never claimed they violated ANY of Twitters rules in your comment)
Is this satire? Is this an honestly held opinion? Or am I missing something?
You are missing the fact that no-one was getting banned merely for having an option or for their actions outside of the Twitter platform. They were banned for continuously violating the terms of service e.g. inciting violence, racist or xenophobic content, doxxing etc.
And what happened here is that those left-wing accounts were banned without any such violation i.e. it was purely arbitrary and the very thing you claim you don't want.
> You are missing the fact that no-one was getting banned merely for having an option or for their actions outside of the Twitter platform. They were banned for continuously violating the terms of service e.g. inciting violence, racist or xenophobic content, doxxing etc.
Where's the evidence for this claim? Twitter did not publish rationales for bans and there was no clarity or consistent enforcement of what did or didn't constitute a ToS violation.
What's odd to me is if this question came up a few months ago we would see lots of "it's a private platform" and "freedom of association" comments that aren't as prevalent all the sudden.
Those left wing people that were banned, very likey supported the system that just got them banned.
No one in this thread is arguing that people who violate the rules shouldn't be banned. We are discussing the hypocrisy of what Elon is saying vs what he is clearly doing.
He is free to do this all he wants. We are free to laugh and mock as he flails around, lying and making stuff up.
You just wanted to quickly jump in and make this comment because you "got 'em" but really you just missed the mark.
I don't think people care if left wing or right wing people are banned. People want consistency, safety and the rules applied equally.
Right wing people seemed to act like shitheads more often so they are banned more often.
I'd continue arguing however, conservative law, jurisprudence and overall culture seems to always boil down to that there are in groups who the law protects BUT does not bind, and out groups who the law binds but does not protect.
You can pretty much view all of twitter's new moderation capability through that lens and then it starts to make perfect sense.
There you go. Not a problem when right-leaning accounts were banned on the same ToS violations of inciting violence and impersonation, and now somehow it is a problem when it is applied to left-leaning accounts doing the same thing.
> Those left wing people that were banned, very likey supported the system that just got them banned.
Exactly, and the rules must be applied equally, which wasn't the case before.
If both sides are now angry over Twitter's moderation system and are building their own echo-chambers, then Twitter (2.0) will remain as a site for a more balanced discussion without either extreme screaming on the platform.
At the end of the day, I'm still laughing at the entire Twitter chaos and the screeching minority who are pretending to leave Twitter whilst keeping their accounts and screaming about Elon Musk elsewhere rent free unable to ignore him in their own echo chambers.
The right-wingers that got banned presumably broke one of Twitter's rules - maybe they said "I wish someone would shoot (insert politician they don't like here)". Even if you take "pre-Musk Twitter had a left wing bias" as granted, that doesn't mean the right-wingers were wrongfully banned.
>But banning antifa-accounts, that is accounts held by people taking part in month long riots and looting and political real-world violence… that is bad?
The only way to boil this down to a politically neutral rule is if we banned every right-winger who was at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 alongside everyone who went to a BLM rally that turned violent in 2020. And as far as I can tell neither behavior alone was a violation of Twitter rules as they stood at the time. The rule was no inciting violence on-platform, not no being involved in violence whatsoever.
As far as I can tell, pre-Musk Twitter had two biases:
- Their moderation team was understaffed and overworked because Twitter was too big of a target to effectively moderate. Twitter moderation would overprosecute easy-to-detect cases (i.e. LMG staff getting banned for months because of them sarcastically saying "I'll kill you") and underprosecute difficult ones (i.e. everyone harassing Twitter's villain-of-the-day).
- As a direct consequence of this, right-wingers were more likely to be banned. This is because their rhetoric is inherently more violent[0] in ways that were easier to detect.
Musk has basically decided to cut the moderation team in half and unban all the right-wingers in the name of "balance". All this does is say "we are now letting right-wingers break all the rules, but left-wingers must be on their best behavior, if we let them stay on the platform at all".
[0] Specifically, left-wingers were saying to smash windows, right-wingers were saying to smash people.
> their rhetoric is inherently more violent[0] in ways that were easier to detect.
Do you have any evidence for this generalization? The only overt violent threats I’ve seen on Twitter are men encouraging rape and murder of JK Rowling and other supporters of women’s rights. I don’t know if they’re “right wing” or not, but their surrounding rhetoric is what’s usually associated loosely with the “left”.
But surely this depends on what one happens to see. That’s why I’m wondering if you have any kind of random sample from which you can draw your conclusions.
> Sp banning right wing users for having right wing opinions are OK…
Maybe! Being part of a group that also holds certain opinions isn't really relevant to whether expressing those opinions violates a policy. But which opinions did you have in mind?
> First, none of our policies have changed. Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
This is bullshit on its face. The first sentence and the second sentence directly contradict each other.
I think they're referring to their legal policy (like the one you sign with twitter when you sign up), and there's no reason that would have had to change for the changes he's implemented.
On November 23, Twitter stopped enforcing its "COVID-19 misleading information" policy.
The previous policy received acclaim from medical professionals: In an advisory to technology platforms, US Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy cited Twitter’s rules as an example of what companies should do to combat misinformation.
When journalist Kara Swisher in September 2020 confronted Musk with the possibility that many people could die if they didn’t follow public health recommendations, the man who believes he is making cars safer and saving mankind by going to Mars replied bluntly: “Everybody dies.”
The argument could be made that Elon cares more about virtual, future people than actual people living today.
And note how Musk through simply engaging with these people gives endorsement to this ridiculous and baseless link between pedophiles and left-wing accounts.
The antifa fueled BLM riots were some of the most damaging riots in the country’s history.
The national guard was called out in dozens of cities during these months long protests… Portland and Seattle were basically under siege. City blocks were literally occupied for many days leading to inability of police and medical services to respond on those areas.
The policy has catch all clauses in it (like "we can do what we want whenever") to avoid lawsuits, so if they ban people who otherwise aren't explicitly in violation of a policy it's easy to unban them without changing policy.
First Twitter was going to crash in a week, then it was everyone would flee to Mastodon, now it’s that all the advertisers would leave.
Maybe Twitter really didn’t need 7500 people, and maybe having more voices speak is a good thing (there is always block button), and maybe advertisers won’t flee forever. That seems more likely to me than Twitter imploding.
Was it? I read a lot of comments saying that mass-firing people is going to cause immediate degradation in some areas like content moderation (which we have seen) and eventual unpredictable failures in others. If you saw people predicting a sudden crash I'd take their opinion with a pinch of salt in the future, sounds like quite a reactionary take.
> then it was everyone would flee to Mastodon
Well some people have been trying out Mastodon, some have been tinkering with Tumblr or Instagram, and some communities have started to solidify around discord servers and other places. One near-universal thing I've seen is more popular accounts being very vocal about sharing their links to other services with the aim of making Twitter non-essential - so if it goes down, or they'd rather leave then they could do so without starting completely from scratch.
> now it’s that all the advertisers would leave.
To be fair it sounds like a lot of them have, prompting this very letter ...
> Maybe Twitter really didn’t need 7500 people
Maybe. It remains to be seen whether axing so many so suddenly was survivable in the long-term financially or operationally, though.
Yeah I've no idea how Twitter works or what kind of fires they have to put out on a day-to-day basis, or what other things grow - so I wouldn't dare to make any rash predictions like that. My thinking is that even if Twitter had double the headcount they needed, it'd be really tough to axe that many people without firing or turn away the people needed to put out those fires.
And yeah if you weren't a Twitter user before, you're probably not signing up at this moment in time :)
Also I've heard stories by some pretty prominent Twitter users who just left the platform and feel like their time on there has mostly been a waste of their live and won't be going back.
Maybe people just don't need another "online community"
According to 10-K filings, Doordash went from 3,886 to over 8,600 employees in calendar year 2021 (!!!). While the global macroeconomic situation is certainly fragile right now, the current trend towards corporate-tech layoffs needs to be viewed through this lens. Most public tech companies hired a truly ludicrous number of people in 2021, and the 2022 layoff season is more of a market rebalancing than an overall market shrinkage.
Obviously something is going on, but there's not a secret info line that big companies are into. Interest rates are up, it's harder to get easy money to expand. Some companies are going to spend less money on new software, and lots of companies are trying to reduce costs because it feels like we will have a recession. At the same time, there are lots of jobs, and out of the tech world people are getting raises for hourly work, and they still can't hire enough people. $20/hour at my local mcdonalds. I am still get random job and interview requests on linked in. If you are an experienced engineer there are plenty of jobs. Google, Amazon etc has done some layoffs but they grew a lot the last 2 years. Seems like plenty of smaller companies are hiring.
I've dipped into Twitter trending topics a couple times in the last week. Each day it was 100% Alt right, Crypto, an error (like a sentence fragment), or world cup news for top 20 topics. That looks like a disaster to me.
If Twitter was a new app just launched, I would think it was a seriously sketchy back alley and not a town square.
Twitter is still OK for users that have been there for a while and built up a network of good accounts to follow. It's probably a much worse experience for brand-new users.
Twitter was a second tier advertising destination before there was any inkling of a Musk deal, and advertisers started leaving before the deal closed when he was trying to get out of it. The biggest advertising firms in the world are advising their clients to leave.
Why would they come back? Musk is the Donald Trump of tech - plenty of devoted fans, but not someone brands want to associate themselves with. Even if he wanted to, it doesn't seem that Musk can stop impulsively tweeting controversial things.
Claims that were classified as COVID misinformation include:
- surgical masks don't work against aerosol viruses
- lockdowns and curfews will not stop covid
- natural immunity due to prior infection is more effective
- mRNA shots don't stop transmission
- mRNA shots don't stop infection
- mRNA shots cause myocarditis
One by one these have been revealed as true, with naysayers looking like ass-covering idiots, or worse, paid shills for big pharma.
If at this point you still have any faith left in the biomedical establishment, the one who doesn't belong on Twitter is you, because you will hysterically fall for the next big thing just the same.
Claims (2, 4, 5, 6) are very weak because you are making them absolutes (e.g. "don't stop"). By themselves, these 4 claims don't tell us what our plan of action should be. They become misinformation when they are used as recommondations because they are missing so much context.
For example, claim (6) about myocarditis is usually used to say that vaccines are dangerous and should be avoided. This is a wrongheaded examination of the risks:
> Given that >90% of cases of myocarditis will completely recover, that means in young men the vaccines prevent six deaths per million doses while causing <4 cases of myocarditis that have less than complete recovery. In all other groups the results are much more dramatic, saving hundreds of lives for every case of myocarditis (including the mild cases).
> We also have to keep in mind that COVID-19 infection itself causes myocarditis. ... That’s 1,500 cases of myocarditis per million COVID-19 infections, vs 40 per million in the high-risk group of young men from mRNA vaccines, and 1-2 per million doses in lower risk groups. The risk is literally 1-2 orders of magnitude (10-100x) greater from getting infected than from the vaccine.
P.S. Claim (3) misses the entire point? The point of vaccines is to not get as sick and possibly avoid getting sick altogether. "Natural immunity" requires you to have a "prior infection" as you say.
Here's another absolute claim: there will be herd immunity at 70% vaccinated. There will be no fourth wave. 100% safe and effective. etc. etc. THAT is the language that was used to justify recommendations, and that was the real misinformation. Which you couldn't question at the time, until months later, when it turned out to be a lie.
An intramuscular shot cannot create a targeted immune response in the mucus membranes of the airways. This was known, and ignored, making the idea of getting a shot to protect grandma a complete lie.
The goal posts have moved so much that even the word vaccine was redefined, thus tainting the concept and creating a ton of justified skepticism. Like really, do you not realize how ridiculous you sound to ordinary people, trying to rule lawyer your way past this elephant in the room?
The point about myocarditis remains that informed consent should have been asked for, and that they shouldn't have authorized an emergency medicine when due diligence wasn't done. Quite frankly, I don't believe covid is more dangerous than the jab. I don't believe we live in an environment atm where the truth is being investigated objectively. And this is an entirely reasonable belief, given the undeniable corruption and lies.
Like, you know how it takes 2 weeks after your shot before you count as vaccinated? Guess which category vaccine injuries in the first two weeks were attributed to in many cases... that is the level intellectual honesty we're dealing with here. It's detestable.
As for natural immunity: the point here is that forcing people with prior exposure to get jabbed anyway was immoral and unnecessary. This is the _very important_ point you are missing. And you think you're making sense!
Human rights were violated, in the name of shoddy science, endorsed by people who are much more eager to dunk on the rubes and appear sophisticated, than actually establishing reasonable and objective standards.
Go sit in shame, and stfu. Nobody wants to hear it.
Thanks, these are much stronger claims, plus they include recommendations. This basically confirmed what I thought your larger goals were.
> I don't believe covid is more dangerous than the jab.
A million EU residents died of covid in 2 years. Even ignoring the cause of death, ~500k more EU residents died in 2020 than usual, predating the roll-out of the vaccines. (link will only plot individual countries, not the EU total).
Twitter definitely took measures to prevent network outages. I can go through my timeline within 10 minutes; after that, I'm seeing posts from the day before. This was impossible pre-Musk; the timeline just went on forever.
AFAIK, most of the people I follow are still tweeting; I just don't see as many now.
The ideologically driven hyperventilating over Twitter is so ridiculous.
Pre-2015 Twitter wasn't the apocalypse before all the content moderation policies were rushed in as a response to widespread narrative that a bunch of people in swing states changed their votes because of Russian accounts.
It's not the apocalypse now. You can block hateful trolls anytime you want.
At the end of the day, there's a chunk of the US population who believes that they are much, much smarter than most of their countrymen, and that their unique ability to identify misinformation isn't shared by these buffoons in swing states who don't vote the way they want them to. There's a huge swathe of people like that in the software industry.
> Maybe Twitter really didn’t need 7500 people, and maybe having more voices speak is a good thing (there is always block button), and maybe advertisers won’t flee forever. That seems more likely to me than Twitter imploding.
Exactly. 7,500 is far too much to run a site like Twitter which at the time, it was already running itself to the ground. But it seems just like the so-called mass advertiser migration from Facebook, that never happened will be no different with Twitter despite the unusual levels of vacuous claims of Twitter's immediate 'imploding', which that has been greatly exaggerated by very emotionally charged people.
Twitter was already dead. Twitter 2.0 on the other hand seems more alive than ever, and I'm laughing at both the Twitter chaos and those pretending to leave Twitter whilst keeping their accounts.
Why are remaining workers asked to be hardcore and do long days if there is nothing to do?
These are the best of the best, so they should probably get their work done really fast and leave early.
That was the talking point last week and the week before. You need to get up to speed with the latest outrage narrative. Don't worry about following up on any of it. There will always be a new one ready to go. Writing Elon articles is like the 'easy button' of mainstream media. It will always generate clicks which is a great way to advance your career as a professional 'content creator'. Just focus on this while the rest of the uninteresting world goes under reported.
I see comments like this frequently on hackernews and i'm curious on your motivation. Do you actually use twitter so this comment isn't lining up with your expectations? Do you not use twitter and expect this person to justify their experience by doing further research? What is _actually_ motivating you to comment like this?
i use twitter and have been using twitter for the past... fifteen years (my profile say "Joined October 2007").
my own twitter experience has not changed at all -- i'm seeing the same tweets i was seeing before and seeing none of the hate people are seeing. but, ofc, the plural of anecdote is not data.
I personally do, and nothing has changed for me since he took over. I would like to see some semblance of a proof when someone tries to be as bold as to claim something is demonstrably false, he's not talking about having a different experience he is saying as a matter of fact that it is a false statement.
For all the jokes about excessive sourcing that hacker news gets it's probably one of the things that keeps it from turning into yet another hearsay platform.
This is genuinely the only place in the internet right now I can actually read and have a decent discussion about musk without it either turning into a hate circlejerk or a flamewar, would be nice to keep it that way.
>>Do you actually use twitter so this comment isn't lining up with your expectations?
yes, and I see zero hate or other issues with content on my feed
> What is _actually_ motivating you to comment like this?
I hate when people attribute opening the Overton window to more than just Extreme left authoritarian political opinions, which is what Political Twitter was isolated to before elon, is some how a bad thing
> I hate when people attribute opening the Overton window to more than just Extreme left authoritarian political opinions, which is what Political Twitter was isolated to before elon
This is incorrect.
"Based on a massive-scale experiment involving millions of Twitter users, a fine-grained analysis of political parties in seven countries, and 6.2 million news articles shared in the United States, this study carries out the most comprehensive audit of an algorithmic recommender system and its effects on political content. Results unveil that the political right enjoys higher amplification compared to the political left."
Nothing in your comment refutes my position. The very rules and actions of "Trust and safety" are what I am talking about, not what links users of the platform share.
Try to actually talk about what I am complaining about
> Try to actually talk about what I am complaining about
> > I hate when people attribute opening the Overton window to more than just Extreme left authoritarian political opinions, which is what Political Twitter was isolated to before elon
I literally quoted what you talked about and responded to your claim - please try to improve your reading comprehension skills.
No you did not, you responded with an unrelated fact that "right news" (which is widely over categorized in these research papers BTW) is the most shared link
This does not refute the position that twitter employee based censorship was largely in one direction, this does not refute the fact that twitter policies were written and enforced in one ideological direction, this does not even really indicate why those links where shared or the reaction to the link, where they shared for outrage or criticism, for support or derision?
> No you did not, you responded with an unrelated fact that "right news" (which is widely over categorized in these research papers BTW) is the most shared link
Yes, on Twitter, which according to you was "Extreme left authoritarian" until recently. Odd that leftist authoritarians allow right wing content to dominate their platform.
> twitter employee based censorship was largely in one direction
Any evidence for this claim?
> the fact that twitter policies were written and enforced in one ideological direction
Evidence? Twitter's own data says that this is not the case in the links I provided.
> No your link proves and supports nothing
My links (there were two) prove and support my point - you haven't read them though.
You: "...Extreme left authoritarian political opinions, which is what Political Twitter was isolated to before elon"
If true, then we would not find much, if anything, that was not "extreme left authoritarian political opinions" amongst the detritus of "political twitter", right?
And yet, when shown that not only did there exist content from the political right, it was amplified more than content from the political left, you reply:
"you responded with an unrelated fact"
Let's try it this way. Let's say I make a statement that the birds at my feeder are isolated to crows. If you then point to my own videos which show not only that there are many other kinds of birds, but these other kinds of birds eat the most seed from it, what should I reply? "Oh, I'm sorry but that is an unrelated fact"? Or perhaps, "That proves nothing, how do we know the other birds were not brought there by the crows?" Or how about, "The fact that there were other kinds of birds at your feeder does not refute the fact that you prevent non-crows from coming to your feeder." Etc.
You quite literally stated that Political Twitter was isolated to "Extreme left authoritarian political opinions" prior to Musk's takeover. Which is of course both demonstratively false and a ridiculous claim on its face.
If anything, the person responding to you gave you the benefit of the doubt, presuming you may have meant that views outside the "extreme authoritarian left" were systematically de-emphasized by the recommendation algorithm. Which is also false but at least not a mindbogglingly stupid thing to actually believe.
Someone interested in an actual discussion might have taken the opportunity to clarify their initial statement. But abrasiveness and the "read what I meant, not what I wrote" approach also works I guess.
In order presented: Yes. No. You mean, it is not obvious? I am motivated by curiosity.
A claim was made that is not supported. It isn't unreasonable to request such a claim to be validated by demonstration.
Personally, I have not seen an increase in "hate" or violence or bigotry or any other -ism or -ist. I've seen people disagree in a much more whole-hearted way, while at the same time, seeing prompts for reducing the strength of language. For example, you get a pop up if you write "I think you are stupid" but not "I think you are silly."
Quid pro quo: what is _actually_ motivating you to comment like this?
I guess it feels like this is just banter amongst bored people at work and demand for works cited comes off as sealioning or just maybe misreading the room
I find that anything related to Twitter/Musk produces some of the lowest quality comments on HN, and the top comment in this thread is one of them. It's a reddit style "amirite?" comment that does not engage with the topic (Twitter says they've limited reach for "hateful" content, so "impressions" could be down, even if the total number of hateful tweets sent might be up, so it's absolutely not obvious, and it's very questionable how some random person would know which tweets had what amount of impressions), doesn't care to present any reasoning or data, and the user vanishes when asked to substantiate.
Musk brings out the worst in some people. Hearing about him shuts down their brains and they "return to monkey", just throwing feces. And they're certainly not dumb, it just looks like those old spy movies with sleeper agents. One minute your friendly neighbor jokes and smiles and the next he hears some specific sentence on the radio and his programming takes over, his face freezes and he gets his gun and marches towards city hall. That's what I see happening to some people here when Musk gets mentioned.
Hi, I didn't vanish. I have a busy life. And HN has Guidelines [1], and you may want to re-read the last two:
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.
You appear to be violating both of those guidelines.
You assert that my comment "does not engage with the topic". I disagree. I think I analyzed the submission, and found parts of it worth discussing.
Why did I make the comment I did? I should have taken more time to establish myself, and I'm sorry I opted to quickly highlight rather than to explain. Allow me (now that I have a moment) to explain.
It's a puff piece.
Despite being a puff piece, does it make any actual claims? Yes. Hmmm - maybe it would be interesting to identify the actual claims.
Are any of the claims actually falsifiable? Yes. Hmm - maybe it would be interesting to point out the claims that are actually falsifiable.
Do I think any of the falsifiable claims are demonstrably false? Yes. Hmm - here they are.
Am I sure that they are demonstrably false, and do I have the evidence to back that up? No. Darn. I can't say they're definitively false, but I can at least highlight the two that I have the strongest belief that yes, they are probably wrong.
Hence the only thing I added to them: "I think both of those claims are demonstrably false."
I'm sorry I didn't have time to go find the primary sources that would back up my belief.
1) Our Trust & Safety team... remains strong and well-resourced...
Wow. If you scan through the comments complaining about my comment, I don't see anyone who seems to have any problem with me pointing this one out. We've all seen the articles about the layoffs, firings, and resignations. I believe a recent one identified that there is exactly one (1) person left, doing an important moderation job, in a major market...? I wish I had the reference at hand, to show a primary source.
2) ...impressions on violative content are down over the past month...
If you scroll through the comments, I think you'll see some interesting discussion, including bringing up the Overton Window, and someone even provided references. (Great username, trs8080!) So, it appears folks on HN thought it was worth discussing. I'm glad to see their discussion. Maybe it would have happened without me pointing out that section, but maybe it wouldn't.
> Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter.
Never heard sealioning before, "thanks, I hate it" I guess. Reminds me of "dog-whistling", and in a way is an exact example of what PM_me_your_math is getting at.
You can decide someone is being disingenuous, but if you can't demonstrate that somehow, I'm inclined to disbelieve you. The GP said "those claims are demonstrably false", and then a follow up comment said "okay, please demonstrate", and you can claim that's being disingenuous? Don't you see how that creates an iron-clad thought bubble?
Hi, given the layoffs, firings, and resignations, I think the claim "Our Trust & Safety team... remains strong and well-resourced..." is the one that has the burden of proof.
The second claim is absolutely more nuanced, and I admit, will be much harder to falsify.
> First, none of our policies have changed. Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
"Nothing has changed, except..."
> Our Trust & Safety team continues its diligent work to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct, abusive behavior, and any violation of Twitter's rules. The team remains strong and well-resourced, and automated detection plays an increasingly important role in eliminating abuse.
It's undeniably less well-resourced than it was a few weeks ago, and people's experience indicate it's clearly less effective as a result.
What a non-statement. I doubt advertisers will react the way Elon hopes they will.
Yea.. how does he expect this to be interpreted? Their stance hasn't changed.. cool, except before Twitter said some people posted hateful content, and banned them. Now they unbanned them, so what is the non-change?
Does twitter agree that the comments were hateful, did that not change? If didn't change, then twitter agrees they were hateful comments and twitter is now happy to have them on the platform.
Musk can't keep his foot out of his mouth here it seems.. it's very confusing.
Maybe their stance is that people shouldn't be banned forever?
I personally, don't believe in eternal bans. I always hate the horror stories where someone has made a mistake and thus Google bans them from all non-related activities for life, then bans the account of anyone who gave that person privileges too.
With respect to Twitter, I'd say sure Trump is an insurrectionist and a shameful individual, but it's been 2 years... while we can't all rightly forgive him, we can at least him speak his thoughts in 280 characters or less.
> Maybe their stance is that people shouldn't be banned forever?
They are entitled to that stance, and advertisers uncomfortable with either the actual or anticipated results of that stance are entitled to not advertise on Twitter.
Problem in the long run is that it doesn't matter whether or not Twitter believes they are hateful. Heck, it doesn't even matter if the person you're responding to thinks they are hateful.
For Musk to not lose gobs and gobs of money, it only matters whether advertisers, in their sole estimation, consider those people hateful. The guys with the nine figure ad budgets will almost certainly fall on the "cautious" side of that line.
The only thing that will help here is finding small, less PR minded brands or businesses to replace the players in the nine figure club. This won't be easy, but I think it is the only reasonable way forward to create the kind of Twitter that Musk seems to want to create. Having worked at "DDB Need'em" long ago, I'd set his chances of pulling that off relatively low, but I don't think it's impossible.
> The only thing that will help here is finding small, less PR minded brands or businesses to replace the players in the nine figure club.
My partner runs a small business that spends a few million on ads each year.
Why would she take the risk (and it is a huge risk) of advertising on Twitter when Facebook, Google etc. give her the confidence and results her business depends on. Smaller businesses are far less likely to take risks.
Except they actually keep suspending accounts for violations of the hateful content policy, specifically for Tweets with fairly mild criticism of Musk and nothing that even superficially relates to what is prohibited by the hateful content policy.
The idea that the suspensions are restricted to only hateful content is simply false. It's a popular lie by political propagandists who know the truth and want to push the myth of systematic distortion, and I guess your argument is a natural way for someone who has internalized that propaganda, doesn’t know the methodology, but has seen the definition to try to rationalize what they have internalized, but its just not true.
Remember way back before the era of social media mob justice, when there was this concept of 'forgiveness'?
At least some of the banned deserve a second chance. Those who were total monsters will probably be quickly re-banned. Others have found their own echo chambers elsewhere and won't even bother coming back.
Elon is pretty clearly unbanning violent right-wing extremists while banning rule-following accounts on the left, sometimes transparently at the direction of the right wingers. Why do you insist on pretending anything else?
Which rule following accounts on the left have been banned since musk bought the company? I only know of a couple accounts that were banned for very clearly violating terms of service, i.e. impersonating other people. I personally don't agree with even those bans, but I am curious to know which rule followers were banned.
You need to be more specific - he wasn't banning George Takei or Occupy Democrats. He banned ANTIFA accounts that were being used to plan "direct action", ie: riots. Something that was previously against Twitter's TOS, but it wasn't being enforced specifically against ANTIFA accounts because Twitter employees were sympathetic to the cause.
> He banned ANTIFA accounts that were being used to plan "direct action", ie: riots
Please provide evidence that accounts like Chad Loder were posting about imminent, direct actions to riot. I followed that account pretty closely for the last month and saw none of that.
I would think about your comment because this is pretty defamatory.
Loder was suspended for ban evasion. He ran the masksfordoctors Twitter account, which was suspended last year for violating the covid misinformation policy.
That said, Loder is not a particularly nice person. He loves to both encourage violence and do violence to anyone who doesn't share his politics.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
"As the Los Angeles City Councilmember Mike Bonin noted on Twitter, the suspended users include Chad Loder, an antifascist researcher whose open-source investigation of the U.S. Capitol riot led to the identification and arrest of a masked Proud Boy who attacked police officers. The account of video journalist Vishal Pratap Singh, who reports on far-right protests in Southern California, has also been suspended."
"All four accounts had been singled out for criticism by Andy Ngo, a far-right writer whose conspiratorial, error-riddled reporting on left-wing protests and social movements fuels the mass delusion that a handful of small antifascist groups are part of an imaginary shadow army called “antifa.” In a public exchange on Twitter on Friday, Musk invited Ngo to report “Antifa accounts” that should be suspended directly to him."
Whatever you need to tell yourself to make your little delusion work. Obviously the banned accounts were not calling for any form of violence, otherwise the bans wouldn't have been news
"As the Los Angeles City Councilmember Mike Bonin noted on Twitter, the suspended users include Chad Loder, an antifascist researcher whose open-source investigation of the U.S. Capitol riot led to the identification and arrest of a masked Proud Boy who attacked police officers. The account of video journalist Vishal Pratap Singh, who reports on far-right protests in Southern California, has also been suspended."
"All four accounts had been singled out for criticism by Andy Ngo, a far-right writer whose conspiratorial, error-riddled reporting on left-wing protests and social movements fuels the mass delusion that a handful of small antifascist groups are part of an imaginary shadow army called “antifa.” In a public exchange on Twitter on Friday, Musk invited Ngo to report “Antifa accounts” that should be suspended directly to him."
reading the article it seems Loder continued to tweet about some right wing extremist even after being court ordered to stop. I think this qualifies as "breaking the rules" even if I disagree with him being banned (based on the article, I don't care to research Loder in depth).
It seems to me a reasonable course of action to ban people violating restraining orders on your website. I do suspect the restraining order is being misapplied here, but that maybe isn't twitters responsibility to determine? Not sure how I feel about that since twitter is aiming to be pro free-speech and this case specifically seems to be a free-speech issue. I could go either way, but I don't know enough about this Loder person, maybe he isn't high profile enough to warrant in-depth thought about his ban and otherwise would be unbanned in the name of free speech? I certainly would be more likely to think he would be unbanned if he was a right-wing activist, though, but I don't know that I've seen substantial evidence here that shows a banning bias as this particular ban could be entirely justified.
doesn't that just mean someone who doxes people they don't agree with? Great, i'm glad he helped arrest a criminal but the ends don't always justify the means.
Same game as always, but now the other team now has the ball.
With a propaganda weapon as powerful as Twitter, it's probably better for everybody if it's destroyed, rather than continues to be used/abused to escalate political divisions by either side of the great divide. And that seems to be the way things are going.
It should never have been taken so seriously to begin with.
> it's probably better for everybody if it's destroyed
At first I hoped Musk would see the nightmare, give up, just pull the plug, and go home. I think that's out though, now I hope it collapses under its own weight. Hope dies last.
By what metric was Twitter previously controlled by the "other team", by which you presumably the far left? Before Elon owned them, they were bending over backwards to allow right wing accounts ([0] for example), and they frequently banned left wing accounts that at all went afoul of the rules
From the same first quote - none of our policies have changed, just policy enforcement has changed.
Isn't policy enforcement a part of a separate policy? The policy for policy enforcement? They really wanted to be able to say "the policy hasn't changed." This is a bigger stretch than a taffy pull.
you have a procedure for the policy, thus procedures can change but the policy is the same.
policy's are goals, procedures are how those goals are met, and given the wide and subjective nature of all Big Tech policies, changing in procedures are more import and impactful than changes in policy, and the procedures are never open to public review
Yeah, I'm betting that a lot of advertisers will have concerns being on a platform that does not try to delete things like hate speech, but merely "demonetize it, and negatively boost it.
If I were an advertiser Twitter would be on my "never advertise here again" list, and I might re-evaluate in a decade or so. Besides look at the slimy ads have been common on twitter in the last 2 weeks. I would not want my ads showing up alongside those.
> Our Trust & Safety team continues its diligent work
IIRC, between direct firings and resignations they got rid of the entire team shortly after the takeover, including at least the first head installed after the takeover and firing of the former head, so the impression of continuity this seeks to invoke is at best misleading.
Well, whatever the team was doing before, it seems like their effectiveness has increased quite a bit without the missing team members.
In the past, exploitation victims had to literally sue Twitter to take down explicit material, because a "review" could not "find a violation of [their] policies" [1].
Now "the three biggest hashtags used by child abusers selling child sexual abuse material on Twitter have virtually been eliminated" according to a human trafficking survivor advocate [2]. They have also made it easier for users to flag such content.
I thought they had sacked the entirety of the Trust & Safety team. Especially considered I got added to something like 30 spam DM threads over the last week, and that reporting them did exactly nothing.
> What has changed, however, is our approach to experimentation. As you’ve seen over the past several weeks, Twitter is embracing public testing.
"Everybody calm down, the building is not on fire, this is just a test of our fire suppresion system. After we fired staff handling it. Also due to miscommunication someone filled it with diesel.
> Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
This is the only part of the statement that might possibly be referring to the algorithms. I think the worst thing twitter (and FB as well) has done in the past was to use algorithms to boost outrage and thus boost engagement. Are they saying they're going to change how this works? I'm skeptical.
As a reminder to developers and tech workers that are accustomed to the benefits of working in one of the more flexible and well-compensated fields for traditional employment, if Elon succeeds with his management style at Twitter—nay, even if he doesn't terribly and visibly fail—many folks managing large tech organizations and corporations in general will conclude that that management style is acceptable and sufficiently effective.
tl;dr: if Twitter doesn't get seriously hurt over the medium and long term, this entire industry is going to be a lot less fun to work in as management concludes they can put the squeeze on.
Reed Hastings has just called Musk brave and the most creative person. Marc Benioff recently tweeted not to underestimate him. Normally I'd doubt any executive could look at what Musk is doing as a positive for anyone, but maybe you're right and the wheels are starting to turn.
There's no way to run a platform supported by ads that upholds anything resembling free speech.
The advertising model is Twitter's fatal flaw. It puts the fate of the platform in the hands of a tiny corporate mob that are themselves subject to larger mobs.
If "the mission" was truly driving Twitter, they'd drop all advertising and build enough value that some decent percentage of users would pay for it. In a few years, with a lot of work, I believe they could build a $10+ billion/yr business using paid accounts and features. With zero advertising. Twitter is an incredible "channel" for information, marketing, customer support, etc.
But unless they kick their addiction to ads, it doesn't matter if they do or don't believe in free speech, because their advertisers (customers) most definitely don't and they're in ultimate control.
Closest thing to it would be WhatsApp, which during its early days charged a token sum to access and still managed to gain significant marketshare.
Other than this I don't know - the problem with social media is that you need network effects to make the platform valuable - nobody is going to pay for an empty place, and similarly nobody will join because they'd have to pay (so the platform would need to provide value from day 1).
Twitter is in a unique position when it comes to this - it already has the network effects and a significant userbase including influential people. This is why I'm also very excited about Musk's takeover of it. Do I agree with him about everything? Absolutely not - I think the man is unhinged. Yet, a stupid, ego-driven decision is our only escape from the cancer that is advertising.
Not really? Maybe Patreon or OnlyFans represent the best examples.
But there weren't any real EV companies or private space companies before Elon Musk threw his hat in the ring. Whatever you think of him, he's clearly capable of doing things people previously believed to be impractical.
Taking a first principles approach, there's no reason to believe that a social network used by the most influential companies, people, and governments in the world cannot charge its users directly for the value it provides.
It does seem likely to be less profitable in the short-term but possibly more profitable (and stable) in the long-term.
Some back-of-the-envelope math:
1 million business paying an average of $100/mo is $1.2 billion/yr. That should more than pay the bills.
In addition, 10 million consumers paying an average of $10/mo = $1.2 billion/yr. That's a decent profit.
That is probably achievable in the next couple years, with potential for much more over time if they can expand the product and tools.
But what matters beyond the network is how well it can be utilized by users. That layer of tools and functionality on top of the network is where Twitter could charge users. Particularly power users and businesses that can justify spending some money on it because they get so much value or even generate revenue from it.
Yeah, Twitter Blue was a very lazy attempt, which proves absolutely nothing about the potential of tools and applications built on the Twitter network. It just proves a lazy attempt won't get great results, which shouldn't be surprising.
> There's no way to run a platform supported by ads that upholds anything resembling free speech.
I think that's what we have been conditioned into believing, but I see no reason that the a sponsored post about Tide Pods has to have anything but platform coincidence to someone using the same tool to troll about how "the jews" bla bla bla.
Our selective outrage is insane. This is all political. I'm tired of it.
Nothing new here except that it's not signed Elon, which is a surprise to me. Looks like someone convinced him to put out a sane message out there placating advertisers.
Twitter ban me few years ago for not providing a phone number for SMS verification and that account is still ban. Literally only used that account to access another website, which I was not ban from and still use via direct login. Later, Twitter was discovered to be illegally using SMS numbers to profile users even though they explicitly stated they were not; they were fined for it. — Yet they have unban accounts for users that literally broke rules and were actual threats to safety of others.
This linked blog post is full of half-truths, if not out right lies — and company is literally run by Elon, who has lied so many times about his plans for Twitter than it’s beyond me why anyone is still using it.
Granted there's all sorts of pearl clutching, but odds are Twitter is probably just fine for now as there's no actual alternative.*
Majority of users have no awareness of any of this angst, they're just using it for its niche.
It's popcorn-worthy drama because of the headcount carnage and the culture clash with increasingly vapid corporate ESG posing, while in reality both headcount bloat (particularly non-maker roles) and corporate virtue signaling need a check.
There's a reasonable chance the image hit among various political and tech influencers is soon (months to years) offset by performance and utility gains from getting the other two under control.
All this is off the table if something with less friction gains network effects within the niche.
In that sense I'd agree with you: now's certainly a (rare) time to try to convince folks to change a habit many literally grew up with.
> odds are Twitter is probably just fine for now as there's no actual alternative.
Just because there isn't a direct alternative doesn't mean Twitter's future is bright. Twitter users can just quit Twitter without signing up for a new social media site. They can use other social media more, or find something else to do with their time.
Keep in mind, a vast majority of Twitter users don't actually post. To these users, Twitter is just a source of entertainment. And if these users aren't getting enough entertainment, they'll just stop using the site. Maybe not immediately, and maybe not in an organized fashion. But people can and do change their social media habits, and there's nothing forcing people to stick with Twitter.
The advertiser exodus (already well underway) is a far bigger threat to Twitter than a user exodus. The subscription model is dead on arrival.
There's plenty of options if you want a forum without "corporate ESG posing" - 4chan et al. They just don't make money, or interest the majority of people.
This is assuming the old "no such thing as bad publicity!" adage is correct and can only mean good things for whoever the subject is. However recall that any new revelations around Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX similarly shoot up the front page and get a load of clicks, eyeballs and comments ... so clearly there's a limit to where this applies.
Twitter isn't in the position FTX is in, but I personally believe that the publicity that Musk and Twitter have been getting over the last month has been nearly universally bad. There is little value in increased user engagement if so much of it is centered around the catastrophic Twitter management and Elon Musk or Tesla parody accounts, particularly if there fewer companies interested in advertising to those users.
If I had the time and resources, I would build a Twitter clone and focus on just getting journalists, editors, reporters, etc on the platform. This is a powerful community that is quite established on Twitter, but I suspect they would be willing to migrate. Maybe something like, Manuscript Wishlist or QueryTracker, but specifically with a Twitter vibe.
If you had your own twitter clone, what rule/process would you use for determining whether someone is a journalist/editor/reporter? Who should get the 'press' credential?
So many people do only editorialism but call themselves journalists. Journalists who do great investigatory pieces are often independent or bounce between publications frequently. Lots of influencers posing at journalists to obtain a veneer of legitimacy. More money than ever influencing the content of what is being written about. Lots of uncredentialed civilians tweeting newsworthy things. Lots of 'news' services writing articles entirely sourced via tweet.
I think the journalism industry is so blurry and chaotic right now, it's hard to know who is worthy of platforming.
I think it's easy to get sidetracked and lose sight of the social aspect of social media, especially in terms of how people think about Twitter. I suspect my first iteration would be an attempt to make it easier for people in the media business to build relationships with eachother -- especially because, as you say, peoples roles in the industry are often quite in flux.
My hope wouldn't be to give people platform, so much as give media people meaningful connections. Who knows, though. I've not thought about it much. I would also leverage other unique advantages I have, in terms of other businesses, to increase the chances of those connections being built.
Hard to take this seriously when the CEO keeps peddling right-wing conspiracy theories and calling out advertisers who have reduced their spend due to concerns about the platform.
Who is musk hanging out with or reading that encourages his crazy views; he didn't use to be that way, I almost feel sorry that one of the world's riches people is so full of self-justifying bs. For most humans, the idea that you'd laugh at an attack on an 80 year person with a hammer in their home is horrible, out of bounds. There's no reason to believe this story is true of course, but on top of not laughing at horrible attacks, who cares if some older person is having sex with a younger person.
> Who is musk hanging out with or reading that encourages his crazy views
I don't get where this line of thought comes from. Why must it be someone else who is encouraging him? He's a middle aged man who is the wealthiest person in the world by some metrics. He should own his words and actions and can't blame others.
When people show you who they are, believe them. Which means he probably is the kind of person who would, as you say: "laugh at an attack on an 80 year person with a hammer in their home."
Making electric cars and space rockets doesn't make him any less likely to be exactly that kind of person.
That's a great point. Someone can be incredibly successful and be that horrible person, lol-ing at someone else's suffering. I want it not to be that way, but he does seem to be telling us who he is.
> Someone can be incredibly successful and be that horrible person, lol-ing at someone else's suffering
It's just my opinion, but I would go further and say "lol-ing at someone else's suffering" can actually help with becoming incredibly successful (though obviously it's not enough by itself). This is especially the case in spaces where success involves crossing ethical or legal lines.
The issue might be he isn't hanging out with enough real people and instead just drinking the koolaid of those @'ing him. Lil bit of the ol' chronically online sickness.
Nearly all of his public replies are to some of the worst right-wing grifters on Twitter, so ironically maybe he spent too much time on the platform he just bought.
No, he said "more than meets the eye" because of contradicting news reports in the medias early on when the story broke, with many unknowns and incoherencies remaining today.
Lol no, the "news report" Musk linked explicitly accused Paul Pelosi's attacker of being a spurned lover. Even the report you linked was apparently retracted because of some weird minor details about how the encounter with police went down, not the overall premise which is that the Pelosi house was broken into by a stranger looking for Nancy.
Attempts to paint it otherwise are either just covering for Musk for some reason (which I don't know why you would feel the need to do that) or trying to rewrite the narrative on what the right-wing conspiracy theory here is that Musk peddled in the first place.
I'll admit I had vague memory of Musk's tweet and thought he was merely questioning the overall narrative (which was quite messy honestly) with a text reply, but apparently he linked to an article with baseless claims like you mentioned.
I was willing to give Musk the benefit of the doubt about this initially, but that was clearly misjudged on his end.
Maybe online platforms should just stick to how social interactions work in meatspace:
You choose where and with whom you want to converse.
If you're indoors, you converse with your family/coworkers. If you're outdoors, you converse with friends or service providers + some public noise.
Privately, people can talk about whatever they want. If someone starts bothering someone, the "host" of the place can ask them to leave, kick them out, or call the police.
IRC almost figured it out like 900 years ago, but no then the centralized Hutts decided they want to control everything and "mOnEtIzE" all our interactions so now we have proprietary BS each trying to reinvent the damn wheel in its own broken half-baked way.
One thing that I don't see talked about a lot is that this approach of experimentation which is effectively Musk conducting twitter polls, de-facto excludes the majority of users on the site.
Surprisingly enough there's almost as many Japanese users as Americans on Twitter, not to mention everyone else, do they also get an input on the style of the public conversation?
Apparently he's having trouble with the EU now as well because he's shuttered the office in Brussels. Is this a global public conversation, a local one, is everyone going to live by one standard, pretty hard to figure that all out if you've reduced the workforce to keeping the servers running.
"Freedom of speech but not freedom of reach". Sounds like tyranny of a different form. I believe that any platform that enjoys protections of the federal government should be required by law to have 100% open moderation policies, regardless of whether it is reach or speech. Those policies should be required to be "legally" oriented and not based on platform preferences. Let the actual police handle policing.
For some reason I think of this cheesy watered-down focus-group tested Pepsi portrayal of social consciousness when I see the word "conversation" in corporate PR.
The policies? None have changed. There are zero changed policies. If there was one policy changed, that would be the one that has changed. But there are none that have changed. And of those that haven't changed, any two haven't changed.
In English, zero is grammatically plural. This isn't inherently true of all languages (that have a grammatical plural)--French, notably, treats zero as grammatically singular.
> Our Trust & Safety team continues its diligent work to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct, abusive behavior, and any violation of Twitter's rules. The team remains strong and well-resourced, and automated detection plays an increasingly important role in eliminating abuse.
And yet they lock accounts for tweets like "Elon Musk should pay taxes"
Not only does it look like Twitter will survive (if the mass-migration to another platform hasn't happened yet, when will it? If the site runs stable after the initial shock, why would it run less stable later?), it just might make Musk more powerful than we could ever imagine. Contrasting with other social media founders/owners he isn't shy to use the platform as a very personal thing, to actively shape the discussion and to pick and fight fights. The potential power he could potentially wield makes the purchase, as well as possibly running Twitter as a loss, worth it.
What else to spend money on, than to ... influence Western culture and thought? If you only have a few billion you can buy a sports team, but if you have a few hundred, and still your youthful energy, what else could you do?
well if thats all he wanted to do than sure he could do it with his pile of money but that (would) makes twitter a failed business as far as the rest of us are concerned. thats clearly not what his claim was on before & after the purchase. not to mention its highly disingenuous to claim that you just want free speech and then try to boot the speech you dont agree with.
Also, I'd argue there are better/efficient ways to influence western thought. you just have to look at some other billionaires like Koch brothers to see how its done, if you have any doubts read the book titled 'dark money' by Jane Meyer.
This post reads as an attempt to appease Twitter advertisers similar to Elon Musk's letter about abuse on Twitter before he officially took over, except it comes after Elon publically threatened advertisers and disparaged their largest one (Apple).
Last time I logged in on Twitter, I got right extremists in my suggestions to follow. There are tons of right wing trolls on the platform (check #thenoticing hashtag), one cannot follow the protests in China due to pr0n spam.
Yet, everything is FINE. We are just experimenting.
I think liberals should take this as an opportunity to do a fact check on themselves.
They are mostly right when they say they are loosing political terrain with Musk at Twitter.
I am m the opposite of a liberal, call it whatever you want. The Internet, media and corporate world is mostly always against my views. Guess what: I am still fine and believe it or not, despite two decades of massive liberal propaganda, my anti-liberal feelings are stronger than ever.
So if you are liberal you probably believe your side is the good one and can hold against facts, contradictions and fights. You should not be afraid of loosing some ground. If you are right, the stupid, opposite and wrong ideas of anti-liberals can't win. You are safe.
You seem to be afraid that allowing a bit of opposite speech will hurt your political stands.
I would say: trust yourself, trust your beliefs and spread them intelligibly, and mostly, live by them.
Remember, Americans: you don't live in a republic, you live in an oligarchy. When "the public conversation" is run by an oligarch, it becomes a bit more embarrassingly obvious.
Well, now instead of censoring people who spout right-wing hate speech and falsehoods on the regular, Elon is censoring people who say mean things about him or are known left-wing pundits while re-instating the right-wing hate mongers.
Concrete goals are apparently to stick it to the woke, or something.
This is Eon's previous claim that "nothing has changed" rehashed. It is an attempt to gaslight advertisers; "Do you believe all the people complaining about Nazis, racists and misogynists that you see with your lying eyes, or do you believe our policy statement?"
A lot of the dogpiling here is sensationalism fueled by the media. People have a very short fuse to comment and won’t bother doing research, or consider alternative viewpoints. It’s either left or right wing - and that sort of thing is blatant indoctrination into an incredibly narrow Overton window that did not come from within someone’s mind. It was put there, through constant reinforcement and propaganda.
Meanwhile it's reviving tens of thousands of accounts previously banned for harassment based on a single poll from Elon's fanboy as well as ending covid 19 misinformation policy. Pathetic attempts to appease advertisers, but it's just stacking another layer of distrust.
I'm starting to question how much he has ever. Has something changed with him? Or has he always been like this? If it's always been this rash, hasty and questionable then i can only imagine the real heroes are the people around him who managed to refine what he says and wants into tangible, achievable and coherent goals.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with his actions these days, it does at least seem a significant departure from how the public perceived his actions in the past. Over the past few years his actions have steadily grown more.. loud, at the very least.
> I'm starting to question how much he has ever. Has something changed with him? Or has he always been like this?
His growing group of admirers started treating his like a messiah, and he fully embraced that role, along with the behaviors that it engenders upon someone. He's not special in that way. It's a position a lot of ambitious people would like to be in.
He completely underestimated the difference between a corporate takeover of an established company and growing a startup. In addition, he appears to be getting terrible advice, which is not uncommon for powerful people who attract sycophants.
I think what's changed is that Twitter is 1) an established thing, rather than something Musk built up and 2) not really tech.
Tesla, SpaceX, Boring Co have ambitious objectives with clear right/wrong answers. You put something in orbit or don't. Your car goes 500km with 70kWh of energy or it doesn't etc. You can inspire smart engineers to work hard to meet ambitious goals that require creative thinking.
Twitter has none of that, it is more like a club. Having the loudest speakers or brightest lights isn't going to make your club the best club. There is a certain baseline of technical competence required, yes, but mostly its about attracting the right crowd (being extra nice to some people, kicking others out) and making sure everybody has a good time. Musk might have actually succeeded with this using his previous person, but his new culture warrior schtick isn't gonna work.
he had very capable partners/lieutenants at spacex and tesla (shotwell and straubel, respectively). elon's undeniably great at cheerleading and fundraising but it's unclear how much credit he deserves for the technical accomplishments of spacex and tesla. at paypal he was run out almost immediately upon becoming ceo and at twitter he's surrounded himself with non entities like jason calcanis and alex spiro
> at paypal he was run out almost immediately upon becoming ceo
Technically, he was never CEO “at Paypal”. He was forced out as CEO of X.com the second time just before it took the name of the main product (which it had acquired with the company that developed it, with Elon returning as CEO with the acquisition) and became PayPal.
Just because you don't know what he's doing doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's doing. That's a common error in logic.
You'll also have to ignore that he's built companies that land rockets back on Earth and produce millions of EVs. He's objectively demonstrated ability.
He also built the company, not the rockets. In a different thread here on HN, some of the SpaceX guys were commenting how he actually had very little understanding of rockets, understandably. But the credit goes to him regardless.
Honest question - Maybe he will very quickly? I have no skin in the game, but the occasional Twitter links sent my way in group chats still load just fine, pretty fast actually, and the related page content appears to be less 'spammy'. Seems like a little progress if anything.
I can say that, at least for me, the timeline and lists load far slower than they used to, to the point I see spinners for each individual item in the trending topics list for a second or more before they finally load in. I don't remember the last time that happened to me pre-buyout.
There have never been more spam bots in the replies and the site and apps are getting stuck in weird cache loops for the first time that I can remember. It's obviously a very robustly built platform but to me, it seems like it's coasting and hoping that nothing too big breaks.
The party that says you're "dismantling American democracy" if you don't vote the way they want you to is the ridiculous one, in my opinion. Especially ironic, given their name + authoritarian attitude.
All the arrogant and uncited claims in posts like this... I would for once like to see some honesty.
How many of you were saying "It's a private company, it can do what it wants!!" when it was a public company, and now it does what it wants... "It must be destroyed!!".
Some of you have decent points... Others are insufferable arrogant assholes who know everything about everything. I would like someone to just please admit "I'm mad that Musk isn't using Twitter to suppress the people I don't like".
It does have this gem in it:
"What has changed, however, is our approach to experimentation. As you’ve seen over the past several weeks, Twitter is embracing public testing. We believe that this open and transparent approach to innovation is healthy, as it enables us to move faster and gather user feedback in real-time. We believe that a service of this importance will benefit from feedback at scale, and that there is value in being open about our experiments and what we are learning. We do all of this work with one goal in mind: to improve Twitter for our customers, partners, and the people who use it across the world."
What a weird thing to say... A/B tests are a thing, does anyone buy that experimenting with new things by rolling out new features to all users at once is a good strategy?