Post

That one weird trick that lets you pretend that you took over Twitter to restore free speech, but regularly ban/shadowban/deboost those you don't like: just claim anything you don't like is spam.

521 reposts3.3K likes

My theory is these guys are used to lying to their toadies who are forced to pretend they’re being fooled since they’re economically dependent on them. So they come to decide they’re actually really smart and persuasive liars.

Yeah, because Elon implemented another stupid feature that he didn't think through. He never thinks these things through, which is why they're ripe for abuse. And no one around him will say "This is a bad idea." bsky.app/profile/qhst...

Q. H. Stone@qhstone.bsky.social

This is amazing. If a big account blocks you on Xitter, all your posts get squashed. And since Elon Musk implements stupid features without thinking of the consequences, this effect is getting abused. Every time he adds one of his dumb ideas, he has to yell at people not to abuse them.

Less than 2 hours between the tweets. Makes you wonder if he fully thought it through. Or rather, thought it through for the right, but then realised the left could use it to their advantage too (if they had the numbers), so tweaked the "algorithm" again.

The past Twitter management was more transparent about it though, when they banned people for hate speech they told people that they banned them for hate speech

I bet there’s a simple rule in the algorithm: if ($account == “ElonMusk@“) Return ignore(); And move onto the next cretin… Why would anyone still use that shitty platform where the rules are: censorship for others but not for me. Complete trash owner. Any other service would be shutdown.

He's threatening to shadow ban accounts who block his right wing add spammers that keep showing up in people's timelines. So if you block fascists, you get shadow banned. Free speech indeed.

Essentially, it’s an attempt to measure happiness. If you login and only see porn bots, spam, etc, then you have a level of regret about wasting your time. Once that starts happening, you’re less likely to return, or all Elon cares about: less likely to subscribe to Premium.

Yeah, because Elon implemented a really stupid "feature". bsky.app/profile/qhst...

Q. H. Stone@qhstone.bsky.social

This is amazing. If a big account blocks you on Xitter, all your posts get squashed. And since Elon Musk implements stupid features without thinking of the consequences, this effect is getting abused. Every time he adds one of his dumb ideas, he has to yell at people not to abuse them.

I totally agree with you! Elon Musk telling us he was buying Twitter to save free speech: a biblical hypocrisy! 😖 I was kicked out of X on my first criticizing of Donald Trump and his bunch of billionaires. I have made a little research and apparently, I was not the only one. 😞

There's a conversation I've had many times with people who insist that there should never be any content moderation or trust & safety. I just ask "what do you do about spam?" And the answer is often a variation of "well, of course you get rid of spam, but that's different." Except, it's not...

I mean, the other question is what you do about Nazis. That's why Kara Swisher's question to Zuck about Holocaust deniers was so telling. Zuck had not actually thought about the question. I think the requirement for owning a social media company is an explicit plan for dealing with Nazis.

I agree that moderation is essential for usability but dispute the implicit assumption that it must be done *by the platforms*. I continue to research systems where each user's moderation is handled by tools entirely in the hands/control of that user. e.g. news.mit.edu/2018/using-f...

news.mit.eduUsing friends to fight online harassment“Squadbox,” a crowdsourcing tool from MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, uses “friendsourcing” to better support targets of cyberbullying.

I mean, this entire site that we're on only exists because I made that same argument five years ago. So I agree that more power to the users is better. But some harms are not ones that are mitigated that way.

I agree that some harms cannot be mitigated by user-managed moderation. But the ones that I can think of aren't particularly well mitigated by platform level moderation either. They often reflect society-level disputes that shouldn't be resolved by the preference of a single enterprise.

I can't think of a time in the history of computing when so much processing power has been, literally, in the hands of the user and yet been doing so little for the user, and so much for somebody else. I want *my* devices to work for *me*.

“Except it’s not” — reminds me a bit how way back when I used to wonder how people who actually worked on the viagra account ever manage to use email. They had legit emails about viagra to send and receive. 😆

nobody asked but when I was a young lad some dude made an unmoderated board for like a dozen of us to post on and the bit was we were anti-oppression the idea that you can run an actual biz like this unmoderated is just the actually dumbest and most juvenile idea imaginable

It's very easy to classify anything you don't like as "spam." As Elon is doing here. But once you've started down that slope you've already admitted you recognize the need to moderate *some* content. It's just a question of where you draw the borders.

Elon draws borders only slightly differently than most other sites, but he does draw borders, as any website realizes it must. It's just that he then lies and claims he's the only one who supports free speech. And a lot of silly people believe him.

I also really, really love that he's explicitly stating that they can tell the difference trivially between bots and real users. SURE you can buddy. With perfect fidelity. Of course this is entirely a silly justification system for a way to throttle accounts he doesn't like.

I should also note that I think I got this framing of "Do you think we should ban spam? / Okay, we've now established you believe in content moderation, we're just haggling over where to draw the lines" from @dwillner.bsky.social who is the best there is at explaining trust & safety.

“verified” = Elon fan accounts, willing to pay a multibillionaire for a free web site, primarily to signal their support for everything he supports. Anything those people don’t like will be algorithmically buried.

What tickles me is the notion that free speech includes making everyone listen to content that they find both boring and irrelevant. I originally joined twitter for woolhour, where once a week, fibre crafters would show their latest woolly makes. Far right bots made even that intolerable.

This can't be good for the cash flow. I keep wondering what will happen when all of the people/corporations who backed Elon's takeover of Twitter finally decide that they would like their profits.

Of course we also have to factor in the fact that where Elon uses the word “bots”, he really means “people who won’t pay me money”. And when he uses the words “credible, verified subscriber accounts”, he really means “a group of users which includes bots that pay me money”.

Bottom line Democrats figured out Trump dividing our country is not worth destroying the country; it's better to let Trump win, decades of him destroying his own multiple companies, bankruptcies instead of causing chaos with mayhem with his delusional Maga followers; "let him hang his own noose"!

My God this is funny. Coordinated blocking? These fuckshits genuinely are furious that everyone is muting them. They don't want debate or free speech. They want to be pissy little assholes and still be part of the group. Angry fucking children.