Point me to which one of those is disabling an existing safety feature on a vehicle after purchase.
Yes, large companies generally put profits over lives. It’s kind of a major problem with our corporate capatilist system. We agree. Tesla is at the very least just as shitty as other automakers.
Thank you.
Also, “everyone else sucks too” isn’t really a good defense.
You’re free to go buy a Rivian I suppose. That’s how this works, if you don’t like it buy a competitor’s product. I think you’ll find, if you’re being honest, that Tesla still has a better record than most car manufacturers.
Elon can suck and Teslas can still be some of the best cars on the market. I still want a Cybertruck. I’ll add neon undercarriage lights and drive at sunsets on highways with lots of palm trees while listening to synthwave.
The (sometimes) richest man in the world, ladies and gentlemen!
And no, he’s not joking: they actually did this. If you try to contact Twitter’s press team, it automatically replies with a poop emoji.
Uh-oh.
So that’s the “lite” version of Order 666?
Reality is now a shitty reality show about one-dimensional celebs working their one dimension until they qualify themselves for the sequel reality show, which is about has-beens craving attention.
Twitter’s patting themselves on the back for their algorithmic hate speech moderation, which performed well in an audit that also defined hate speech with the same algorithm. If you define the problem as narrowly as possible it’s easy to solve!
Excuuuuuuuse me?
I assume they just keep everything Musk says out of the list, since he regularly spews hate speech which is force-fed to everyone on the platform.
Also patting themselves on the back for having two thirds fewer impressions than “non-toxic slur tweets”, rather than 100%.
or from the Boondocks
I didn’t realize the Boondocks was based on an actual thing that happened, it is funny how close it is to the real thing, which still seems surreal.
RIP Fred Willard
I mean only if you think Black Twitter is all of Twitter.
(it isn’t)
I assume that’s they angle they were going for, because anything else is fucking insane.
But Black Twitter tosses around stuff that’s “technically” slurs quite a lot.
In that context it makes sense that they don’t want to ban… well like all of Black Twitter because holy shit would that look bad.
Of course the fact that Klansmen and other racists can use the same backdoor is… problematic.
Or a big plus depending on who you are.
Edit: In related news:
I haven’t seen one of these in so long that I basically stopped bothering to report them.
It probably helped he went after literally every minority and was flagrant, but, again, that rarely matters.
I’ve reported people for saying we should kill all black people and Twitter shrugs.
“We hired guys to say a thing that makes us look good and check it out guys, they said we looked good!”
16% of English language Twitter users posted a toxic tweet between Jan-Feb 2023.
That’s a hilariously incompetent interpretation of the data. The screeshot is showing that in those two months, 300k users posted at least one public tweet with a slur, and 60k posted at least one toxic tweet that included a slur. The only way that data could be used to get the conclusion this random tweeter did is if there were only 300k English language users, all of whom posted at least one slur.
That seems pretty unlikely; even today there must be orders of magnitude more 60-day active English language Twitter users than that.
I’m pretty sure it’s a sample because that’s how stats work.
Also we’re talking about “stats” from a company who openly says they’re PR for your brand.
Maybe so, but at least the source of the screenshot says otherwise:
Sprinklr analyzed every english-language public tweet between January and February 2023 and identified 550,000 tweets that included at least one word from the list provided.
That’s a claim that the data set was exhaustive, not a sample.
But even if it were a sample, the 16% claim would be equally flawed. Because to compute the number they claim to have computed, you need two things: the number of active English-language Twitter users who posted toxic tweets, and the overall number of active English-language Twitter users. That screenshot has the first. It does not have the second.
Instead this supposed OSINT analyst used the number of users who posted a slur in a non-toxic context as the denominator (i.e. they computed 58.9k (58.9k + 299.35k)). The only way this computation gives the correct answer is if literally every Twitter user posted at least one tweet with a slur in that two month time period.
And yes, the 299.35k number is definitely users who posted a slur, not all users. The webpage the screenshot is from makes it clear that the comparison is between “toxic tweets with slurs” vs “non–toxic tweets with slurs”.
Also we’re talking about “stats” from a company who openly says they’re PR for your brand.
I think that’s a pretty weak argument too, but I didn’t want to address it to avoid sidetracking the conversation. Happy to go into it once we agree that the claim in the initial tweet is incorrect or at least unsupported by any facts: “16% of English language Twitter users posted a toxic tweet between Jan-Feb 2023”.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think the original study is worth giving any oxygen to. But you’ve somehow managed to find the least convincing arguments possible for why it’s bad.