Twitter Hires Academics to End Combative Conversations on the Platform

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,969
Twitter has hired scholars from multiple universities to study how echo chambers form and their effect upon others on the platform. It has been proven in the past that those who don't share the same sentiment as those within the echo chamber are treated badly and with resentment. They will use many metrics to analyze hate speech, racism, etc. Twitter also has a second group of scholars working on intergroup conflict. Past studies have shown that when conversations contain positives added to the conversation then reasoning occurs and friendships form. The end result is to create a friendlier more accepting social platform.

Earlier this year, as part of our global health initiative, we committed to serving the public conversation and working to increase the collective health, openness, and civility of the dialogue on our service. We want everyone's experience on Twitter to be free of abuse, harassment, and other types of behaviors that can detract or distort from the public conversation.
 
IIRC Overwatch already had some interesting findings on this, right? I think they found that most toxicity comes in spontanious bursts from mostly good, ordinary, reasonable people, not dedicated trolls as many believe.

I remember a local newspaper reaching the same conclusion when it reached out to some hatemail writers.


That being said, Twitter is a whole different animal. A ton of people go there just to participate in an echo chamber... I don't see much good coming from this.
 
Constructive discussions in 140 280 characters or less? Yeah, that was never going to happen. It's the perfect platform to yell a narrow minded view and then suppress an intelligent discussion on the topic.
 
DNMock said:
So they don't want their platform to be a bunch of mini echo chambers, they want it to be one large echo chamber...
Click to expand...

Yep they are just going to farm out the culling of free speech to ultra left wing groups, so they can still claim "hey we are un-biased, we are taking all of this input in form outside sources." But once you look at the sources they are using you find that they are radical left wing groups that are far from un-biased.

Just like they have already been doing with the SPLC

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/06/splc-partner-google-facebook-amazon/
 
Azphira said:
The only thing toxic is people that want a one way system of free speech.
Click to expand...

096baccd26e44443f5c013718cbbe437--joe-dirt-chris-farley.jpg
 
Daarken said:
several of the scholars who are leading this new adventure are also super anti conservative..
I fully expect more censorship of alt speech.
Click to expand...

People who have never worked and lived in the real world shuffled through a left leaning / quasi-socialist system all their lives way into adulthood .. what could wrong.

Remember teacher knows best.



*i am not taking a binary side by just stating an opinion.
 
Last edited:
GNUse_the_force said:
People who have never worked and lived in the real world shuffled through a left leaning / quasi-socialist system all their lives way into adulthood .. what could wrong.

Remember teacher knows best.
Click to expand...
See, this is part of the problem, when people take a binary side. Left, right, democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, whatever. The problem with these labels is they come with baggage. So I choose not to accept these labels, as they drag you with other ideologies.

I support abortion rights, so I would be labelled left, but I'm for No "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants and more border control, so I would be labelled right. I'm the worst kind of person for both sides in that I don't take a side, I take on issues. This generally creates mini echo chambers as I would need many to discuss each topic. Its much easier to get people to support an ideology when you're already part of the club, whether you like it or not.
 
DukenukemX said:
See, this is part of the problem, when people take a binary side. Left, right, democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, whatever. The problem with these labels is they come with baggage. So I choose not to accept these labels, as they drag you with other ideologies.

I support abortion rights, so I would be labelled left, but I'm for No "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants and more border control, so I would be labelled right. But I'm worst kind of person for both sides in that I don't take a side, I take on issues. This generally creates mini echo chambers as I would need many to discuss each topic. Its much easier to get people to support an ideology when you're already part of the club, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

It's much more granular than that. You'll have no problem expressing your views supporting the right to abortion, even if you do so using vile, crude language and ad hominem attacks. Nothing will happen.

Now, say "Illegal aliens must be deported in accordance with our democratically enacted immigration laws" and you'll be shadow banned.

Ditto for anything else which adheres to or violates leftist orthodoxy.
 
I'd rather they focus on bots and fake accounts and such. This last season of 'Homeland' really prodded the conspiracy theory section of my mind.
 
They should just leave it alone and look at it as the perfect reflection of society that it currently is. Twitter is just 4chan with nicer clothes. At least 4chan wears its intentions on its sleeve without any pretense. No, I'm not defending the place, but to make a point, twitter is the same sewer but the turds are more polished.

All of these sites end up in the shitter because that's where the unwashed masses spend most of their time and direct their attention. Accept this truth and leave it be, wall it off somehow or close it altogether...doing anything else is just lipstick on a pig.
 
Last edited:
So.. if you had been holding on to any Twitter stocks for some reason, you should probably sell them now.
 
Basically more clever and advanced ways to shadow ban. To stifle opposing views without being obvious they are picking favorites.
 
DukenukemX said:
See, this is part of the problem, when people take a binary side. Left, right, democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, whatever. The problem with these labels is they come with baggage. So I choose not to accept these labels, as they drag you with other ideologies.
Click to expand...

The other part of the problem is when people assume just because a statement is made about a particular demographic that instantly makes them part of the 'other side'. Id agree discussion is important and free speech tends to help move that along nicely.
 
Last edited:
GlowingGhoul said:
It's much more granular than that. You'll have no problem expressing your views supporting the right to abortion, even if you do so using vile, crude language and ad hominem attacks. Nothing will happen.

Now, say "Illegal aliens must be deported in accordance with our democratically enacted immigration laws" and you'll be shadow banned.

Ditto for anything else which adheres to or violates leftist orthodoxy.
Click to expand...

Hammer meet nail.
 
They should stay the fuck out of editorial control and just give people better tools to surface content they like and block whatever they want. If people choose to build an echo chamber oh well. You aren't going to stop them no matter what kind of heavy handed editing you try.

Unfortunately that conflicts with their monetization strategies of force feeding you sponsored content while trying to make it look like unsponsored content so, yeah - good luck with that.

What I don't understand is my understanding of the safe harbor provisions that didn't make them liable for content on their system only applied if they didn't try to maintain editorial control. So the more they do this won't they be more liable? Say someone cyber bullies someone on the edge of suicide to follow through can the family of the suicide person now have a stronger case against Twitter?
 
Riouken said:
Yep they are just going to farm out the culling of free speech to ultra left wing groups, so they can still claim "hey we are un-biased, we are taking all of this input in form outside sources." But once you look at the sources they are using you find that they are radical left wing groups that are far from un-biased.

Just like they have already been doing with the SPLC

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/06/splc-partner-google-facebook-amazon/
Click to expand...

fadedlogic said:
I really do enjoy their solution of hiring a known "echo chamber" to investigate their echo chamber. Free speech has been under assault on campuses for quite some time; what a RETARDED idea, Dorsey
Click to expand...

Daarken said:
several of the scholars who are leading this new adventure are also super anti conservative..
I fully expect more censorship of alt speech.
Click to expand...

GNUse_the_force said:
People who have never worked and lived in the real world shuffled through a left leaning / quasi-socialist system all their lives way into adulthood .. what could wrong.

Remember teacher knows best.



*i am not taking a binary side by just stating an opinion.
Click to expand...

Nukester said:
Universities are liberal breeding grounds, Twitter hires professors from Universities, Left+Far Left=This isn't going to go well.
Click to expand...

Just like everyone said and to no one's surprise.... Guess what some people found when they looked at the social media accounts of the academic's who have been selected to facilitate this new program.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/33844/twitter-hires-anti-trump-academics-combat-bias-ryan-saavedra
 
First step in curing twitteritis: Disagreeing != hate speech.
 
If you disagree with me you're a nazi. I can't lose!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top