[prohobo]

Regardless of your view on "misinformation", this sounds like a stupid idea that's meant to cover Twitter's butts in the short-term.

The goal of any social platform should be healthy engagement. Where is the research that this change will foster that? Twitter isn't really the place to be testing half-baked ideas.

Also, misinformation is coming from mainstream media as well as conspiracy theorists. At least conspiracy theorists are trying to find the truth. Twitter doesn't seem to acknowledge that, so what we're doing is creating digital totalitarianism? That's their great idea?

[drchopchop]

This is not "totalitarianism", it's the reduction of free newsfeed distribution. Twitter, and society, doesn't have a long-term interest in a newsfeed flooded with false/defamatory information (widespread voter fraud, for example)

>conspiracy theorists are trying to find the truth

Some of the biggest conspiracy theories that flourish on the web are the result of viral, provably false, information. These people are not truth-seekers, there is no proper research or scientific method - it's instead the equivalent of the supermarket tabloid taken to the extreme: QAnon, flat earthers, 5G cancer, etc.

[dudeithinkBLM]

Ugh, those three listed are widely accepted in truth seeking community to be utter nonsense. They are ridiculed and dismissed as theories planted by shills and three letter agencies to make conspiracy theorists seem crazy. Instead substitute three conspiracy theories truth seekers actually believe: "three World Trade Center buildings fell on 9/11", "fluoride in the water lowers your IQ" and "vaccines are full of contaminants and neurotoxins". Just looking out for you bro.

[prohobo]

This tacit acceptance of a "newsfeed flooded with false/defamatory information" when it happens to support one obvious partisan side is, frankly, something embarrassing to have to see.

I have no interest in defending the Trump administration except to point out that what you are supporting is, in fact, a hypocrisy. I can think of four examples which I know are hypocrisies that make it through the supposed "fake news" filter.

1) Russiagate, an unsubstantiated hoax promoted in the media for 3 years leading to countless defamatory attacks on Trump, and millions of dollars spent on investigations.

2) Cambridge Analytica, a tactic used by Obama's campaign which was praised in 2011 as being a new progressive way to reach voters, and then miraculously became an act of corruption when Trump did the same thing in 2016.

3) "Mostly peaceful protests", an ongoing gross misrepresentation of what normal people would call riots.

4) "Trump supporters are racist white men", an ongoing smear of the Trump administration and emotional abuse towards the Trump base (or anyone who doesn't buy into the narrative), which has been proven absolutely false by the latest election.

So which is it? You do or you don't want a newsfeed flooded with false/defamatory information? Just allow the stuff you don't personally see as false/defamatory?

This is an extremely dangerous problem, and people need to start waking up to it instead of thinking they got it all figured out, as if Alex Jones yelling at frogs is the reason everything is falling apart.

The fragmentation of reality which we're seeing (Trumpers, leftists, QAnon, flat earth, 5G, etc.) will NOT be solved by slowing down how fast people can "like" something. The entire internet is broken, and the social media platforms need massive rewiring. We need to properly research the ways the current platforms poison discourse, and find remedies that work to dissolve fragmentation and help people communicate better.

Currently, things are rapidly spinning out of control, and the social media platforms have decided to opt for totalitarianism. As they ban and hamstring everyone who doesn't buy in, good or bad, those people will find each other on the decentralized internet. This is creating a powder-keg for narrative chaos and conflict.

[drchopchop]

You'd have a better argument if you left out the first half.

>"Mostly peaceful protests", an ongoing gross misrepresentation of what normal people would call riots

That's a partisan, Fox News talking point. Statistically, the BLM protests were overwhelmingly peaceful. The news happens to focus on the small number that were not.

That's also an example of something which could be fairly, scientifically reported on. "Most protests were peaceful, and there were a few riots" is a good headline. "ANTIFA IS BURNING DOWN YOUR CITIES" is not.

If the latter gets better/viral newsfeed distribution than the first, then we have a serious problem.

[prohobo]

That's exactly what we're talking about, isn't it?

Fragmentation of reality on the internet. There's no way around it because someone will just deny someone else's reality and substitute their own.

With intellectual honesty, the following can't be disputed:

* "A few riots" is actually hundreds of riots over the longest sustained period of civil unrest in American history (besides the civil war). Here's a geographical chart of all protests and riots from May 2020 to August 2020: https://acleddata.com/acleddatanew/wp-content/uploads/2020/0...

* For the people living in Portland, Seattle, New York, and other major cities the rioters were/are a threatening presence. In Minneapolis alone, 1,500 locations were damaged or destroyed by rioters. https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-st-paul-buildings-ar...

How does the information I just showed you present a picture in which "mostly peaceful protests" is the most accurate summary? What kind of information would it take to change your mind? Would that even be possible? Is this cherry picking?

I think on a forum like Hacker News we might actually get to the bottom of this particular point. But that's only because Hacker News isn't social media - it's a community based around tech, and it's heavily moderated. That changes the audience that will see our argument, and the entire dynamic of the dialogue.

I'm not here to argue about the riots or left/right politics. I'm just trying to show you that you are capable of being wrong, so stop trying to argue the politics and try to tackle the problem of how to end fragmentation.

[drchopchop]

> I'm just trying to show you that you are capable of being wrong

That's quite a rude way to try to win an argument. And yes, you're cherry picking. Did you even read the article which contained the first image you linked?

"The vast majority of demonstration events associated with the BLM movement are non-violent (see map below). In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity. Peaceful protests are reported in over 2,400 distinct locations around the country. Violent demonstrations,4 meanwhile, have been limited to fewer than 220 locations — under 10% of the areas that experienced peaceful protests. In many urban areas like Portland, Oregon, for example, which has seen sustained unrest since Floyd’s killing, violent demonstrations are largely confined to specific blocks, rather than dispersed throughout the city"

https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-vi...

[HeroOfAges]

Since when has sustained rioting been acceptable as long as it's "confined to specific blocks"? It quickly became clear to any rational person that rioting in Portland would occur consistently following peaceful protests and that a number of the peaceful protesters would participate in the riots. The effort to downplay what has been occurring in Portland is astonishing. I mean, how many blocks of sustained rioting are ok? Two? Ten?

[lldbg]

What is peace? And when is something peaceful? Webster's dictionary defines peaceful as "untroubled by conflict, agitation, or commotion". Certainly, if almost 10% of my coworkers were violent, I would not call my workplace peaceful. If one in ten of our servers were disrupted due to commotion, clients would quickly start leaving for alternatives.

In my own country we also saw protests after the death of George Floyd. These were dispersed forcefully by police, indirectly because of Corona restrictions. I do not think the police officers, who put their health and safety at risk, felt particularly peaceful when engaging huge crowds with batons and riot shields.

There were peaceful protests, and there were violent ones. There were orderly citizens as well as looters and rioters. The trend is what matters, the frequency. Imagine if 10% of a rock band's concerts resulted in venues being burnt down, people seriously hurt and even killed, would that band's concerts be considered peaceful?

I've seen videos from the affected cities and neighbourhoods, if that's what a peaceful America looks like then I hope they never experience commotion or unrest.

[ChrisLomont]

> the longest sustained period of civil unrest in American history

This is not even close to true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unr...