Social media controls the world


#1067



You know that whole death threat thing we missed? Our bad*.

*Nazis are still welcome just don’t overtly threaten people’s lives outside of DMs, it makes us look bad.


#1068

Yeah, our bot didn’t see the word “kill” or “murder” in the tweet so it wasn’t flagged for further review. We are going to hire new bots.


#1069

More likely: “Bob didn’t see anything wrong with the Tweet at the time. He was also running late to a rally and didn’t want to miss the lighting of the cross.”


#1070

More likely - Balaji didn’t see anything wrong in the 2 seconds he was allocated to review the tweet and moved on to the other 9,998 he had to review for the day.


#1071

#1072

So is he going to leave us hanging or tell us what category they created?


#1073

Literally white genocide conspiracy theories.


#1074

Hahahahaha


#1075

But they internally call it “conspiracy” theory, so it can’t be taken seriously, right? A technocrat said so.


#1076

My brain caught up with me today. I realized that Twitter is terrible by structure, and even worse by Jack Dorsey. I can’t, in good conscience, continue to read, respond, or participate in that platform. It amplifies everything bad about discourse and muffles everything good. I deactivated my account and will stop obsessively checking my favorite feeds.

Facebook is next. I’ve quit facebook before and when I rejoined, I’ve been very very selective about who I include on my friends list. And I never post anything that’s not personal to it. But it also is in the business of destroying civil society.


#1077

There’s an interesting twitter alternative called counter.social that you might like.

It’s still a social media thing, but it’s less terrible than Twitter. Runs on the mastodon open source social network framework.


#1078

My only use of Twitter is a RSS feed for games and game developers I’m interested in. It works okay for that purpose, but no idea why it’s been so successful of a platform for people to really try to communicate through.


#1079

Thanks! That actually does look pretty cool, and I like the informal tone and emphasis on user security. But all I really used Twitter for was to read feeds, so I’ll probably just do without, at least for a bit, but I hope something like C-S catches on.


#1080

There are in fact some folks on counter.social from “the real world”, like Will Wheaton. But it’s definitely nowhere near the size of Twitter.

It was created by The Jester, which is why it has a focus on security, and also why it bans users from a number of hostile nations.


#1081



#1082

WRT to that first tweet? Both groups are probably right.


#1083

Probably, which is why I find it an interesting issue in a lot of ways.

I trend towards less anonymity. Because, sure they can do it to you, but if they weren’t anonymous it would probably be easier to take legal action against them. A lot of the problems stem from the harassers being insulated/being able to endlessly make new accounts to threaten and harass people. If they got a visit from the police because you knew who they were and where they lived… in theory that would be a strong counter weight.

Assuming we could get law enforcement to stop treating the internet as “not real”. They’ve come around a lot in recent years, so there is hope.


#1084

Are they though? I mean look at Facebook… people with their actual names posting horrific and vile stuff. How do we know it’s their real name… they get fired in the coming weeks once it’s spread, often by some other social media like Twitter.

They’re not really ashamed of what they’re doing or saying. It’s rarely a one off or a bad day, and the only thing that really surprises them is that they can get fired.


#1085

I mean, isn’t that kinda the point? The lack of anonymity attaches consequences to that situation.

So sure it won’t stop shitbirds, in the short term, but in the long term once word of consequence reaches? Maybe.

Honestly I’d favor some sort of two tier identification. One that is public facing, can be anonymous. The other, like metadata, is not. This is not public, but is possible to link back to a person when legally nessecary. Like, you shouldn’t be able to find out the name and address of some person on whatever social media platform if they don’t want you to. But if you go around and SWAT someone? Then there is a way to track that anonymous is to a source.

Obviously there are technical hurdles that anyone sufficiently invested can get around. And how do you attach a global media platform to a positively identified person? You can’t do it by IP address, by device gets super crazy and fast.

I could map out many problems and solutions to both sides of my argument. Which is the trouble. How do you create a semi anonymous system that allows you to catch potential school shooters or SWATTers, or other serious criminal activity without creating a massive problem like now exposing any former Muslim activists living in Saudi Arabia to now being rounded up by the government.

That’s the answer I’ve never been satisfactorily been able to answer, other than straight up saying ‘we won’t answer to government requests from countries X,Y,Z’ which will likely cause them to be locked out of said regimes.

Also no need point out the problems of giving someone like Trump such problems. While it would be nice to say that any disclosure would require an appropriate warrant from the correct law enforcement level (state, county, federal judge or whatever), we know they all too often just act as a rubber stamp to perform the proper vetting for appropriateness of cause.


#1086

Seems like a decent starting place at least.