So "X" - nothing to see here. Elon's in control - Part XXX

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121196985#Comment_121196985

The information was given at the time based on the information available from trials. You know this. So it is an utterly disingenuous argument. There is simply no comparison between the basis for the claims made in favour of vaccines versus against.

We already have a 'department of truth' for advertising standards, claims about products, medicines, foods - this argument was already made on the thread. Are you in favour of abolishing these? If not, why not? If there is no 'department of truth' on Twitter, then your position is to allow companies to pay shills and bots to spread false claims about their products via Twitter posts to boost sales which would bypass entirely all such mechanisms.

Your concept for Twitter still needs a 'department of truth' to make determinations about what is and isn't abuse and abusive misinformation in scenarios such as Sandy Hook shooting. So as a 'slogan' it makes no sense and your posts discredits your use of it.

Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on, and was completely discredited last time you proposed it - which was only recently. You post here again, with the same discredited arguments, ignoring all the previous replies on the thread about it which you left unchallenged. When you offer no effective response to such counter arguments, it is positive proof yours has no credibility.

hotmail.com

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121197206#Comment_121197206

What you on about. Look at the title of the thread.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121197242#Comment_121197242

It's amazing how you're inventing your own argument from your own imagination, and you're still not winning it.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121197307#Comment_121197307

whoosh!!!!!!!

HalloweenJack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121197242#Comment_121197242

Again, on what basis? Do you have statistics from 'departments of truths' with staff profiles and CVs that back-up your claims? Or are you just talking out your arse?

All your posting is doing is showing your own bias with no proof whatsoever to back up your point.

Actually, I understand know why you are sceptical of any fact-checking; it Would put the onus on you to provide evidence for your own easily-dismissed claims. Your faux concern is quite transparent: Complain about misinformation but undermine any proposals to tackle it.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121197282#Comment_121197282

We already have a 'department of truth' for advertising standards, claims about products, medicines, foods - this argument was already made on the thread. Are you in favour of abolishing these? If not, why not?

No, because that's different. When something is sold as medicine it has to be approved as medicine and any claims related to it must be backed by facts. Actual facts and studies, not a department of call centre level people deciding with no accountability what is fact and what isn't. And also none of these restrictions apply to individuals.

And if you want to say I don't trust Musk/X to hire proper people for this, you're right, I dont. He would hire the cheapest. Someone in the backhole of the 3rd world deciding what is true on my behalf, thanks but no thanks.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121197321#Comment_121197321

Win what? I'm sure you know that meme as old as the internet about winning arguments on the internet.

Cordell

And if you need to be upset about something, apparently there is a shadowbanning in progress on the pro Ukraine / anti Russia content. That is something which is actually concerning, not the fact that people are now more free to say whatever they want to say.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121197347#Comment_121197347

When you can't even respond to the points put to you, it is proof positive your argument is without foundation.

Your post bears no relation to the arguments put to you and is a complete strawman.

Your earlier post was about vaccines which are a MEDICINE. So in the first instance, you completely contradict yourself in the scope of a post.

And it was already put to you: So who in Twitter is going to stop companies from spreading false claims about their products on social media sites such as Twitter, by shills and bots masquerading as 'individuals. Or false claims about their competitors products? Except in the first instance a Twitter 'Department of Truth'?

And you also failed to offer any reply to this argument:

Your version of Twitter still has a Department of Truth for e.g. Sandy Hook type scenarios, for determining what is abusive - which makes your perjorative use of it back fire all the more dramatically.

And guess who would carry that out - these are your words remember:

a department of call centre level people deciding with no accountability what is fact and what isn't.

Your entire line of argument is self discrediting, demonstrated by its internal contradictions and lack of engagement with counter arguments.

Agent Coulson

Twitter sorry X is now nearly all just an echo chamber for racists, peados, nazis, conspiracy nuts etc who pay for the blue tick mark and get the ideology they and the owner and funders of X want promoted to the top of nearly every area of X thus making them the most powerful algorithms on the social media site that infects every users view of the site.

It is no longer the public square that the owner proclaims it to be it is the extreme right wing racist, nazi, peado speakers corner given control of the the entire square by the onwer and backing funders of the site.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121197356#Comment_121197356

Because that's the kind of people (neck beards and blue hairs?) who would work for this department on truth (a name and department you made up), they would get a kick out of it even (based on what?). Them and those with no other option (who?), both not a good match for this kind of role (a role you made up).

You're inventing something which doesn't exist, and ascribing motives to "neck beards and blue hairs" based on nothing, adding in "those with no other option" which is utterly meaningless, and saying they're all not a good match for the thing that you've invented in your own head.

You're making up something that doesn't exist, arguing against it, and you're not even making good points.

All forms of online moderation are imperfect. There's no doubt about it. But some form of online moderation, backed by established guidelines, codes of practice, review/appeal processes, transparency and justifications, are better than a free-for-all.

Cordell

From what I see here I can extrapolate that the Venn diagram of people wanting more moderation and people claiming that twitter is an echo chamber full of nazis without moderation is a circle and that's why I don't want more moderation. What it is now is more than enough. A free for all is better than a heavily moderated one. What you don't like you are free to ignore. Make your own echo chamber free on nazis, leave mine alone.

hotmail.com

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121197653#Comment_121197653

Been on twitter for years, probably not long after it started. All of what you say was there from the beginning.

I don't notice any difference.

Facebook also full of conspiracy theorists and nutters. It's the Internet.

Cordell

Look a this:

https://twitter.com/3DPrintGeneral/status/1708888100460720295

That's the danger of having some unaccountable neckbeard deciding that the world needs to be made safer by removing ALL of your content for no good reason. Linus Sebastian and Louis Rossmann are backing him, just in case you think he's some nazi weirdo getting what he deserves.

TheRepentent

why am I not surprised a social media site ran by an afrikaner is full of racist assholes.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121198360#Comment_121198360

A quick Google indicates that he was banned for having enough info on his channel which could enable people to 3D print guns, and that after a YouTube review he took down most (but not all) his videos on that, so they banned him.

That's not a free speech issue. That's not a nazi issue. That's not a neckbeard issue. It's a company removing content which breaches its rules to ensure there is no liability against them.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121198484#Comment_121198484

Actually it was just one interview, just the one. No tutorials, no content that would enable people to print guns. I trust you don't believe me, but maybe believe Louis Rossmann (he also had a video of a cat stricken for being dangerous) and the Wayback Machine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-QtwGfILTo&t=305s

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121198559#Comment_121198559

As per this dude himself:

https://twitter.com/3DPrintGeneral/status/1707938413788180922?s=19

He was demonetised for having 3d gun printing videos on his channel, he removed them, started uploading them on his friend's channel, then when he posted another gun video (a documentary-type video), it came to Youtube's attention again and they banned both channels.

He also posted the explanation from YouTube.

https://twitter.com/3DPrintGeneral/status/1709556910402244667?s=19

Regardless, none of that addresses the point that it's not a free speech issue. They have evidence his content and actions violated their terms of service and they've engaged with him through their appeals process.

You said some neckbeard with no accountability removed his content for no good reason. He had numerous videos about 3D printing guns. Get ta f*ck!

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121198559#Comment_121198559

I used to enjoy Louis Rossman but hes gone down a serious rabbit hole of being a whiny crank complaining about absolutely everything, long stopped watching him and dont believe he has any objectivity outside his tech repair speciality

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121198632#Comment_121198632

none of that addresses the point that it's not a free speech issue

It's an arbitrary decision issue, not a free speech issue. He had some videos manually approved then they were stricken, then he deleted them all and then after more than 1 year he uploaded an interview and he was gone. His appeal was denied. That was his livelihood, 3D printing reviews, not guns making, or guns in general, all gone because someone said so. That someone, low level employee or contractor, had too much power.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121198701#Comment_121198701

Erm, he also started dodging the policy by uploading them to another channel. Bypassing rules can get a person banned from platforms, it's not exactly shocking.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121198701#Comment_121198701

Not an arbitrary decision. As stated, the reason for his ban was his uploading of videos on another channel to circumvent the demonetisation on his main channel, then when he posted a video which discussed guns on his main channel it was brought to Youtube's attention and the ban was issued.

You say that "low level employee or contractor" (no basis for such a statement by the way) had too much power, but that's their job. They have to review reported items, check them against the rules of the site, and action in accordance with those rules. And YouTube are engaging with him on it as part of the appeals process, which means it's not just some low-level guy, but it's obviously been reviewed and they're standing by their decision.

Just because you don't like a decision doesn't mean it's wrong. It doesn't mean it's just a low-level employee or contractor throwing their weight around.

If the guy's livelihood was based on his youtube channel, maybe, just maybe, he should have ensured he stuck within the rules. If he didn't, then it doesn't matter if it was a low level contractor or Mr. Hugh Toob himself who banned him.

Cordell

I'm not going to investigate this any further, I trust Louis and Linus enough and if they sided with him he must be in the right. But it doesn't even matter, what it matters it that they removed the whole channel, which was about 3D printers not guns, and this was a quick decision made by someone irrelevant. I don't like this kind of power they have over people who are ultimately their source of income, I would like to see less of it, not more.

nachouser

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1709716880259252289

It's grand. Musk is just asking questions.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121198928#Comment_121198928

"I'm not going to investigate this any further, I trust Louis and Linus enough and if they sided with him he must be in the right."

And people wonder how misinformation spreads so easily on the Internet...

Also, is the Linus you're referring to the guy from Linus Tech Tips, who recently had to issue an apology for not doing enough research on products they were reviewing and getting a lot of stuff wrong in their reviews?

https://www.pcgamer.com/linus-tech-tips-temporarily-halts-operations-puts-out-apology-video-linus-made-a-clear-and-egregious-judgment-error/

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121198928#Comment_121198928

"Not going to investigate further"

"Must be right"

Is that an echo I hear?

It is certainly not engaging with the evidence or counter arguments.

You have no idea who made the decision. What does calling them irrelevent even mean in this context?

If they are irrelevent why are you talking about them?

You have provided zero evidence to support your claims. It is without foundation or credibility.

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121198997#Comment_121198997

Dont ministry of truth his stories with actual facts and reality.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121198997#Comment_121198997

Yes, that Linus. If he, who's exposed to such levels of scrutiny can get things wrong, imagine how wrong and how often those low level employees get them wrong. And how many people had their channel deleted just because someone saw a kitty meowing the wrong way - they did it to Louis Rossmann in case you missed it.

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121198992#Comment_121198992

But it’s Dinesh, the powerhouse behind 2,000 Mules.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121199123#Comment_121199123

I didn't miss the Louis Rossmann thing. I ignored it because I never heard of him and, like the 3D printer guy who you casually forgot to mention posts videos about 3D printing guns, I assumed you're leaving out relevant information.

So fine, I spent 2 minutes googling. And what I found was a bunch of his videos were removed one day for breaches of rules, including two videos of his just featuring his cat meowing. Including this one:

https://youtu.be/jQl-yYaSqzo?si=MUEUmyy4b2bbDPGY

This video on YouTube, which I've just linked from YouTube, was removed from YouTube. Can't believe this YouTube video which is still on YouTube was removed from the YouTube account which is also still on YouTube.

Unless of course, it was removed at the time by mistake, and reinstated upon appeal/review. That would explain how the YouTube video is still on YouTube and hasn't been removed on YouTube.

Look, Youtube's moderation sucks ass. Nobody is stating otherwise. They can be over reactionary and so much of it is automated that it's open to huge abuse with regards copyright claims etc. Yet they can be completely blind to some of the horrendous and dangerous stuff, particularly as it relates to children and teens.

But as a company they still enforce the rules they set and if a guy is showing how to 3D print guns and they ban his account for it, maybe he should have printed literally everything else in the world except guns.

Cordell

This video on YouTube, which I've just linked from YouTube, was removed from YouTube. Can't believe this YouTube video which is still on YouTube was removed from the YouTube account which is also still on YouTube.

No need for this, I said flagged, not removed.

Look, Youtube's moderation sucks ass. Nobody is stating otherwise. They can be over reactionary and so much of it is automated that it's open to huge abuse with regards copyright claims etc. Yet they can be completely blind to some of the horrendous and dangerous stuff, particularly as it relates to children and teens.

That's my point. Moderation sucks ass because it's being delegated to low level employees who either can't be bothered or don't have the capacity to do it properly. Same kind employees who would be tasked with fact checking.

nachouser

...

Grayson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121199422#Comment_121199422

I used to work for eBay. They have loads of rules for what can't be on the site. And sometimes they get it wrong. I've seen times when the rules were misapplied. For example it's against the rules to use a celebrities name to sell something. You can't sell a pair of jeans and show brad pitt wearing a similar pair. This meant that I once saw a celebrity item removed incorrectly. It was the actual clothing that the celebrity wore and was being sold in a charity auction and someone removed it. It was reinstated.

The way items are reviewed now is by machine learning. This can remove hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of items in a month. Those items are generally breaking policy but some may also be illegal. Of the items that are removed, a random selection are sent to a human team who review to make sure that the program is correctly removing them. That same team would also deal with appeals. Because of this, hundreds of thousands of items, many of which are dangerous and illegal, are removed.

I know facebook do something similar but they also have teams dedicated to suicide, terrorism, child abuse etc.

I'd imagine that youtube videos are the same. About 3.7 million videos are uploaded every day. It's over 200k hours of video. It's impossible to have people review them all. I'd imagine that even just reviewing reports, it would me impossible to eyeball all the videos. I know that depending on your size, you get different levels of moderation. The largest accounts have account managers and reports are sent to them first for review. Smaller, but still larger accounts, would have managers who review the appeals and deal directly with the account holder.

But smaller level accounts would not have that and would have material removed by a system, not a person. And a person would look at the appeal.

And there's some fantastic moderation tools being developed to find fake news. Once a story/post/tweet is flagged as fake, the system can locate similar stories and flag them. They can be removed, reviewed or just have warning attached along with a link to a factual story.

The thing is that twitter got rid of most of their moderation teams. So there's next to no moderation on the platform. Whereas people could report posts that are harassing, or hateful or just misleading, that's not possible any more. There's no-one to look at them. And as imperfect as these moderation policies are across all platforms, at least they're there. I can tell you that although you might see material on them that is bad, they're still removing millions that are far worse. Twitter doesn't care anymore.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121198928#Comment_121198928

From everything I read Linus isn't supporting him per say he's simply agreeing he deserves an explanation. However YouTube are notorious for not giving explanations or reviewing decisions though and that's not new behavior so imo if you use the platform that's the risk you take.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121199422#Comment_121199422

You didn't say flagged, you said:

"And how many people had their channel deleted just because someone saw a kitty meowing the wrong way - they did it to Louis Rossmann in case you missed it."

Cordell

You're missing the point, again.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121200167#Comment_121200167

You're misrepresenting the point, by trying to put forward the idea that actions were taken against his account because of a video of a cat meowing, when really it was a case of that video getting caught up with a bunch of other videos they were actioning.

Just like you neglected to mention that the 3D print guy was printing guns in his videos (and then circumvented the ban by posting those videos on a friend's account for a year), and that's why actions were taken against his account.

You're twisting narratives and inventing your own boogeymen (low level untrained neckbeards) to justify your point, and your point seems to be that moderation isn't good enough, so therefore there should be less moderation, when the reality is that less moderation leads to far worse issues.

So are you arguing for less moderation, or better moderation? Because better moderation means more moderators, more supervisors, more training and more oversight. However none of that will ever fully eliminate mistakes.

Cordell

when really it was a case of that video getting caught up with a bunch of other videos they were actioning

That's even worse. Point is, moderation teams are made of people who sometimes will be flagging videos of cats meowing, that's their level of intellectual abilities. That's why we're better of without them.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121200455#Comment_121200455

Okay, so you're in favour of less moderation.

So what happens when videos do need to be removed? Who deals with them?

McFly85

The idea that content moderators are some sort of arbiters of truth is fanciful. They are people employed to remove videos that they believe have violated the ToS, that’s all.

And leaving everything up and letting the users decide what they believe to be true is an awful idea. People generally have bias towards some people or another but facts are always going to be the most important thing in believing someone’s statement.

You see it a lot with conspiracy theorists - the idea that they have the ability to innately know what the truth is, lots of patting themselves in the back for not being a sheep and believing what the mainstream media says - and having a platform that does not fact check or remove false statements makes it incredibly easy to exploit these people.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121200455#Comment_121200455

So unless a system is absolutely perfect with no possibility of faults whatsoever we should remove it?

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121200594#Comment_121200594

Plus when it comes to things like election or vaccine/public health misinformation, the arbiters of what content gets removed or not is not the individual moderators, or even the moderation team. Such policies would be judged in line with what official sources say. Ie. If someone is spreading a video saying you don't have to be registered to vote you can just show up with a bill from Netflix with your name on it, the "truth" isn't decided by a YouTube moderator scratching his neckbeard and pondering if that's right or not, the "truth" is the official election rules.

So for big ticket items like voting laws, emergency public health notices etc, the companies are going to go by the recognised official sources, if for no other reason than to protect the company itself from possible liability.

Moderators are like a HR department in many ways; they're there to protect the company's interests more than anything else.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121200685#Comment_121200685

No, what I was saying and what started this whole debate was that we should not let these people decide what is misinformation and what isn't, because they won't be able to do so. I was asked for proof, there you have it, they can't even get cat videos right. They can and will make arbitrary decisions, they will let their own bias guide them, because they don't know any better.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121201098#Comment_121201098

That wasn't a misinformation issue though. That was taking too much down when someone was teaching people to make guns.

No matter what you still have that type of moderation.

A lie will go around the world before the truth gets it's shoes on. If you allow random lies then it will just become a conspiracy forum as sheer weight of numbers from conspiracies outnumber the truthful posts and most regular people just stop bothering.

You will always have 4chan which is how this will inevitably go if moderation is not used.

francois

X twitter is descending into the shïtter

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-05/the-moral-case-for-no-longer-engaging-with-elon-musk-s-x

silliussoddius

It’s not even a moral case, people like that thrive on seeing the other side get worked up. People have made entire careers out of it. Stop giving him attention and be the bigger person and walk away, leave him to his chum bucket echo chamber.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121201098#Comment_121201098

Except your argument for what actually happened to those videos and channels effectively boils down to since the system isn't perfect they should scrap the whole system. The enemy of good is perfection.

AndrewJRenko

Here comes the cavalry

https://sfstandard.com/2023/10/05/elon-musk-sec-twitter-social-media-lawsuit/

Bobson Dugnutt

It’s quite remarkable that the “PayPal mafia” are some of the worst human beings imaginable. It must have been a gathering of complete aresholes. Musk, Peter Thiel, David Sacks etc.

eightieschewbaccy

I'm sure the resident defender will justify paying people for getting lots of views on violent attacks.