|
Electric Wrigglies posted:He was not asked about the TOS, he was asked about banning a specific concept. Any example found of this concept on the site is proof it is not banned.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
pumpinglemma posted:TIL that murder is legal. It must be, since if it were banned then it would never happen. I have heard of no murders personally. Are murders banned y/n?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 17:21
|
|
|
Make crime illegal, problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
Pachylad posted:Why can't he just say "gently caress no, we don't condone racism" like how is this so hard. He didn't give a half-hearted mealy-mouthed answer about 'we'll do better' that is the expected tech-bro platitude at this point, he just gave a more half-hearted mealy-mouthed psuedo-philosophical 'enlightened centrist' take that thinks that doing action on racist statements is bad?? He tried repeatedly to say that the TOS does not condone hate speech but the interviewer was having none of that and kept going back to asking about whether substack censored a specific concept. That is my entire point. The interview was purely about avoiding the "gently caress no, we don't condone racism" answer and setting up the guy for a lay down misère "ahh but here is an example where your site DIDN'T censor this concept!". The reality is that substack likely just want to rely upon the TOS and reports and not commit to actively moderating the stuff on their site to a measurable standard. Active moderation comes with its own heeby jeebies (you should also prevent your volunteers/employees from being exposed to anything you don't condone), costs and like with Facebook, opens you up for being in situations you just don't want to buy into (Palestine should be censored anyone?). He likely would rather that the hate speech would just gently caress off as most of us do but it's a big statement to say "yep, we are totally up to saying yes to completely censor a concept on our site each time an interviewer with an angle formulates one." Remember, TOS ruling out hate speech was not good enough for the interviewer, the interviewer was specifically challenging whether a specific concept was censored (ie totally removed). pumpinglemma posted:TIL that murder is legal. It must be, since if it were banned then it would never happen. Electric Wrigglies fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Apr 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:
Lmao if you think a goon is going to let some dumbass interrupt him before he's finished. JeffK is leet
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:He tried repeatedly to say that the TOS does not condone hate speech but the interviewer was having none of that and kept going back to asking about whether substack censored a specific concept. At which part of the interview does the CEO talk about Substack's ToS not condoning hate speech? Is it part of the interviewer's notes where he admits this: quote:I want to call out that I got something wrrong here — I came up with what I thought was an easy hypothetical, about whether posts calling to kick brown people out of the country would be moderated on Substack Notes. I thought it was a gimme because, well, obviously, but also because I read Substack’s content guidelines a little too loosely. Here’s the relevant section, under the topic of “Hate”:
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
The correct answer to “does your website allow brown-people-are-animals type of racism” is “we wouldn’t.” If the journalist later points out that this racism does exist, the correct response is then “our moderation isn’t perfect and we’ll look into it.” The wrong answer is “we don’t condone racism but I can’t tell you now if brown people being animals is racism. We think freedom of speech is really important.” There’s no loving gotcha here. By the journalist’s own account it’s a softball question. The guy just wasn’t prepped to answer a standard policy question that CEOs of YouTube, Facebook and whatever have rehearsed a thousand times. edit: as pointed out above he didn’t even say Substack’s ToS bans racism. So it’s just literally the worst possible answer to an easy question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
Can we check that we are all on the same interview here, cos the interview that Electric Wrigglies is describing is nothing like the one I listened to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
Substacks TOS say:quote:Substack cannot be used to publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes. Offending behavior includes credible threats of physical harm to people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability or medical condition. So the reason the CEO wouldn't commit to moderating content that says "all brown people are animals and they shouldn’t be allowed in America" is because it isn't against their TOS to say that since their is no explicit threat of violence, but he wanted to weasel around saying it. He almost comes out and says it here, but wrapped in "free speech" nonsense: quote:The way that we think about this is, yes, there is going to be a terms of service. We have content policies that are deliberately tuned to allow lots of things that we disagree with, that we strongly disagree with. We think we have a strong commitment to freedom of speech, freedom of the press. We think these are essential ingredients in a free society. We think that it would be a failure for us to build a new kind of network that can’t support those ideals. And we want to design the network in a way where people are in control of their experience, where they’re able to do that stuff. We’re at the very early innings of that. We don’t have all the answers for how those things will work. We are making a new thing. And literally, we launched this thing one day ago. We’re going to have to figure a lot of this stuff out. I don’t think… This isn't terribly surprising since a Substack employee posted that anyone leaving Twitter because of Musk's content philosophy wasn't welcome at Substack either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 17:44
|
|
|
So if Substack Notes becomes overrun by racism and transphobia, that’s fine with you? We’re going to have to work very hard to make Substack Notes be a great place to have the readers and the writers be in charge, where you can have the kinds of conversations that you find valuable. That’s the exciting challenge that we have ahead of us. I'm not sure how much more he can say other than an explicit "yes". As long as readers and writers who subscribe to a specific substack are cool with it they don't give a poo poo about racism and transphobia. They are explicitly building a platform for those people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
It doesn't matter what the TOS is or what the question was, he fumbled it and looked like an idiot in a way that's stereotypical to many who roll their eyes at tech CEOs. He didn't just randomly end up in that interview. The question was entirely predictable. He's in the most powerful position at his company if he can't be prepared for that moment I would have a hard time believing in him if I worked for him and I would feel increasingly uncomfortable if I was a person of color.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:The question was not "do you condone hate speech on your website", it was "do you censor hate speech on your website?", which is to say that any single example of implied hate speech found is proof that hate speech is indeed not censored. That is why the question was asked that way. Electric Wrigglies posted:That is why the question was asked in absolute terms of whether it exists (ie, do they censor/remove all examples of), not whether they have a policy on it.  quotes and because some of Nilay's questions are actually interesting philosophical frames on moderation and technology, let's see the transcript. We start with Nilay's intro where he sets the table. It's an irritatingly podcast bro way to describe the premise that the closer you are to internet infrastructure, the thornier it is to say 'you don't have to go home but you can't Klan here'-that the consequences of being perma'd by Something Awful and by Cloudfare are drastically different. quote:Nilay: Notes is the most consumer-y feature. You’re saying it’s inheriting a bunch of expectations from the consumer social platforms, whether or not you really want it to, right? It’s inheriting the expectations of Twitter, even from Twitter itself. It’s inheriting the expectations that you should be able to flirt with people and not have to subscribe to their email lists. quote:Nilay: Wow. I mean, I just want to be clear, if somebody shows up on Substack and says “all brown people are animals and they shouldn’t be allowed in America,” you’re going to censor that. That’s just flatly against your terms of service.  the order emergent from the empowered. In the bold, we see Chris' first attempt to have it both way: Each community gets to establish its rules, unless it's bad. We also see Chris' first refusal to provide any insight into what is bad.quote:Nilay: Wait. Hold on. In America in 2023, that is not so extreme, right? “We should not allow as many brown people in the country.” Not so extreme. Do you allow that on Substack? Would you allow that on Substack Notes? Here, Nilay does what any softball trade journo does when his guest ignores the lob down the middle because he's too busy sticking forks in electrical outlets and Chris just rams that sucker in there deeper: quote:Nilay: No, I really want you to answer that question. Is that allowed on Substack Notes? “We should not allow brown people in the country.” quote:Nilay: But it’s the thing that you have to do. I mean, you have to make these decisions, don’t you? Nilay, committed to allowing Chris to make contact, gently sets the ball on a tee. Luckily, "I don't want to admit I approve of white supremacists using my platform to find community and further my goals" comes up so frequently that Chris just has developed a blanket policy to avoid the topic entirely: quote:Nilay: You have to figure out, “Should we allow overt racism on Substack Notes?” You have to figure that out. quote:Nilay: If I read you your own terms of service, will you agree that this prohibition is in that terms of service? Still here we cannot call white nationalism bad. We can simply grant that for the sake of argument: quote:Nilay: Okay. I’m granting you the out that when you’re the email service provider, you should have a looser moderation rule. There are a lot of my listeners and a lot of people out there who do not agree with me on that. I’ll give you the out that, as the email service provider, you can have looser moderation rules because that is sort of a market-driven thing, but when you make the consumer product, my belief is that you should have higher moderation rules. And so, I’m just wondering, applying the blanket, I understand why that was your answer in the past. It’s just there’s a piece here that I’m missing. Now that it’s the consumer product, do you not think that it should have a different set of moderation standards? And for that, I have to give the man credit. I never would have thought of using venture capital to try and resurrect 8chan and drag it to the mainstream. He's a visionary! quote:Nilay: I understand the philosophical argument. I want to be clear. I think government speech regulations are horrible, right? I think that’s bad. I don’t think there should be government censorship in this country, but I think companies should state their values and go out into the marketplace and live up to their values. I think the platform companies, for better or worse, have missed it on their values a lot for a variety of reasons. When I ask you this question, [I’m asking], “Do you make software to spread abhorrent views, that allows abhorrent views to spread?” That’s just a statement of values. That’s why you have terms of service. I know that there’s stuff that you won’t allow Substack to be used for because I can read it in your terms of service. Here, I’m asking you something that I know is against your terms of service, and your position is that you refuse to say it’s against your terms of service. That feels like not a big philosophical conversation about freedom of speech, which I will have at the drop of a hat, as listeners to this showknow. Actually, you’re saying, “You know what? I don’t want to state my values.” And I’m just wondering why that is. So, after all that, Wrigglies: Can you point me to where Nilay asks this in absolute terms? Because it, alongside your fabricated quotes, is the foundation for your premise that this is somehow a gotcha. Electric Wrigglies posted:That is why the question was asked in absolute terms of whether it exists (ie, do they censor/remove all examples of), not whether they have a policy on it. At least, to the extent that "white nationalists shouldn't use our network to recruit and organize" can even be a gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 18:48
|
|
|
People are so used to journalists being stenographers for corporate sociopaths, police, and the US State Department, that any actual journalism becomes "gotcha journalism." Actual gotcha journalism is fishing for negative soundbytes, this guy was bending over backwards to let this abject moron cover his rear end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:People are so used to journalists being stenographers for corporate sociopaths, police, and the US State Department, that any actual journalism becomes "gotcha journalism." Actual gotcha journalism is fishing for negative soundbytes, this guy was bending over backwards to let this abject moron cover his rear end. I think it was a mix of surprise and shock that basically another Andreesen Horowitz product is prepared to embrace fascism/White nationalism/nazi/kkk/propaganda mindset all over again and say "it's up to the readers and writers". It's the "do you really want to say the quiet part out loud?" But here we are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 19:35
|
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:I think it was a mix of surprise and shock that basically another Andreesen Horowitz product is prepared to embrace fascism/White nationalism/nazi/kkk/propaganda mindset all over again and say "it's up to the readers and writers". It's the "do you really want to say the quiet part out loud?" Oh sure, I think that's a valid interpretation. It's just not "gotcha journalism." It's journalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Oh sure, I think that's a valid interpretation. It's just not "gotcha journalism." It's journalism. Oh! I may have not said this but: I agree fully, this wasn't some gotcha soundbyte scenario at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:lol at them creating a twitter clone and deciding they’ll adopt the Elon Musk brand of content moderation Substack was always like this. The main reason it wasn't a right-wing hellhole already was because they bribed a bunch of prominent writers all over the ideological spectrum to come write for them, which made it less obvious that the site was a favorite of transphobes and COVID-deniers who'd gotten banned from almost every other platform. Boris Galerkin posted:what the gently caress is a substack It's a Patreon-style platform for newsletters and longform articles, a blog site where the writer can put articles behind a paywall and you have to pay a monthly fee to them to see it. It's been popular among hacks who either couldn't convince a major outlet to carry their articles or couldn't bear dealing with editors anymore. That's where Bari Weiss went when she ragequit from the NYT, where Glenn Greenwald went when he ragequit from The Intercept, and where Matt Taibbi went when he quit Rolling Stone. Its minimalist moderation policy has also made it the platform of choice for notorious transphobes like Jesse Singal and Graham Linehan, as well as various COVID deniers and anti-vaxxers. They're reportedly losing money like crazy because they bribed a bunch of non-right-wing writers to come write for their site and they're not bringing in enough money yet to cover those costs. Investors are starting to get doubtful of throwing more money at them, so they're launching a Twitter competitor in an attempt to get the investors excited again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 01:46
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Substack was always like this. The main reason it wasn't a right-wing hellhole already was because they bribed a bunch of prominent writers all over the ideological spectrum to come write for them, which made it less obvious that the site was a favorite of transphobes and COVID-deniers who'd gotten banned from almost every other platform. Also because it's not (was not?) a social network there is a lot less automated recommendation of people with vile views to stumble on compared to something like Twitter or Facebook (or I guess YouTube though I don't see that myself based on what I use it for).
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 02:39
|
|
|
It sounds like you guys are describing Medium lol. I refuse to read anything posted to Medium nowadays because of a combination of how annoying the website itself is and because it has like the worse articles. It’s like people who write articles on LinkedIn but decided to put it behind a paywall because they’re deluded and think people actually want to read their poo poo. Is(/was?) Substack better than Medium? Boris Galerkin fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Apr 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 04:51
|
|
|
Medium is literally just a blog site that looks all professional because it's not quite as slathered with ads. Also reminded of that one guy in auspol who keeps posting that 30k word and counting probably ramble on overanalysing right-wing propaganda in the most pointless ways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 05:28
|
|
|
Medium is monthly pay-for-site and substack is optional pay-per-writer, price determined by writer (free is fine). Like Patreon exclusively for writing. I’ve been told its pretty well done as a platform. But as a the interview covers, there’s no discovery, so twitter serves that purpose. If Elon had a quarter of a brain he’d buy substack at a huge discount or rip it off, not have a fit that they’re trying to fix their own problems. Given his drive to monetize the site I’d bet that’s underway anyway as a shittier version of OF/ Patreon. Given substack’s median user they should have merged with Truth Social.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 12:16
|
|
|
Musk seems to have the weird idea that everyone should stay on Twitter forever and that any off-site link is terrible, instead of Twitter being the glue that holds the internet together. I mean, obviously he wants eyes seeing ads, but he doesn't seem to understand that the more isolated it becomes, the less relevant it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 12:18
|
|
|
Clarste posted:I mean, obviously he wants eyes seeing ads Turning off the api that allows people to create content (like tsunami warnings) that people will go to twitter to look at alongside ads suggests he doesn't want that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 12:23
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Musk seems to have the weird idea that everyone should stay on Twitter forever and that any off-site link is terrible, instead of Twitter being the glue that holds the internet together. He wants to own Western WeChat, without understanding any of the reasons why WeChat is what it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 12:26
|
|
|
sinky posted:Turning off the api that allows people to create content (like tsunami warnings) that people will go to twitter to look at alongside ads suggests he doesn't want that. thats only if he understood the product and the implications of his choices
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 12:50
|
|
|
The only thing he wants eyes seeing is his posts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 13:16
|
|
|
Remulak posted:If Elon had a quarter of a brain he’d buy substack at a huge discount or rip it off He's working on the rip it off part in the most backwards way possible. https://twitter.com/TwitterWrite/status/1646674962055565319 @TwitterWrite posted:We’re making improvements to the writing and reading experience on Twitter! Starting today, Twitter now supports Tweets up to 10,000 characters in length, with bold and italic text formatting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 17:44
|
|
|
Old Twitter was the one opportunity to force people to learn how to be succinct. Rip
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Old Twitter was the one opportunity to force people to learn how to be succinct. Rip A lot of people simply learned how to break up their verbal diarrhea into smaller squirts. And then even their longform looks like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
Is the payout on monetization monthly? It’s going be a lot of D-tier twitter dipshits crying after getting like $0.13 checks
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 19:03
|
|
|
Monetization based on ad impressions, lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
Thats probably the one positive change Elon has actually made to Twitter. The 20 tweet long threads were terrible to read, it was like going back in time to SMS texting in 2003 with the stupid character limit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 21:28
|
|
|
Nah tweet treads are unironically good and great. Much better and easier to read than a wall of text. For example https://twitter.com/MedvedevRussiaE/status/1646780441175654400?s=20 E: looks like the embed cuts it off so here’s what it would look like on an iPhone:  Yeah I’d rather read 20 tweets of 1-2 sentences than a wall of text. E2: I’m not trying to promote that jerkbag but it’s the first super long tweet I can think of cause I remember seeing it recently and wondering what the hell happened to the character limit. Boris Galerkin fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Apr 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
I mean if my phone physical grew to the size of the tweet that might be uncomfortable but if I’m interested in the content the scroll doesn’t matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Musk seems to have the weird idea that everyone should stay on Twitter forever and that any off-site link is terrible, instead of Twitter being the glue that holds the internet together. He doesn't want eyes seeing ads, he wants to directly monetize all that stuff instead. Instead of paying Substack to subscribe to someone's articles, he wants people to pay Twitter to subscribe to people's Twitter articles. You say "glue that holds the internet together", and he hears "there's a lot of money going to people who aren't me". He sees the value people are getting from Twitter one way or another and is convinced he'll be able to get paid back for that value, either through directly charging people or by being an intermediary and taking a cut of everything. Except he doesn't understand the ecosystem at all, so he's doing poo poo like moving bots behind a ridiculously expensive paywall because he doesn't understand that there's a ton of funny or informative bots that don't really make any money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Nah tweet treads are unironically good and great. Much better and easier to read than a wall of text. Mein Gott... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 23:08
|
|
|
tl;dr Die Bart, Die
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 23:22
|
|
|
If you actually think tweet threads are good you've been on Twitter too long, and Elon is doing you a favor
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 23:24
|
|
|
They're not great but they're better than that wall of text
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
No, encouraging folks to be concise is a good habit, especially for all the non-thread stuff that made twitter good once. Many tweet threads should just go off and be their own article or whatever, unless they're composed of things can can more or less stand on their own or deserve their own replies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 23:37
|
|
