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

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120075073#Comment_120075073

Most people don’t fall for the “shout paedo and hope it distracts people” these days, given the extent to which it has been overplayed . You’ll need to come up with some new tricks.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120075281#Comment_120075281

As I said, I'm not in a position to argue the finances of Twitter. And I don't think either of us - or anyone apart from Musk, his fellow investors and his creditors - really care about them. I mean, do you? The real issue centers around Twitter's role in shaping public discourse.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120075474#Comment_120075474

Yeah, the old Trust and Safety team seemed to have the same priorities. Musk does think combatting CSAM takes priority, so I see that as a positive even if I'm otherwise underwhelmed.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120075797#Comment_120075797

His supporters cared right up until even they couldn't deny the finances would be bad.

It matters. The finances will drive the direction of twitter's future. It will drive who has the biggest voice going forward and it will drive whether it has the power to change public discourse in a year's time.

As for the discourse itself it will just get more rotten, the enforced rules will be remove anything that makes Elon look bad and push anything that makes him look good. To hell with public discourse, that will be the only thing that twitter cares about.

I stopped visiting when a blue ticked account named after an nfl team falsely announced a players death. That is the level of public discussion Elon wants (maybe not that announcement in particular but the level of it) and that was the point I realised twitter wasn't going to provide me the service I wanted going forward.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120075865#Comment_120075865

The discourse on Twitter can only improve tbh. As far as I can see the issue appears to be some people are enraged that there might be any discourse they don't approve of on the platform and that they don't get a free pass on harassing or doxxing people anymore. I'm not sympathetic.

As for your anecdote, that sounds like a user side problem. They've updated what a blue check mark means, which is reflected in the Twitter rules. Even prior to Musk, people with blue check marks would say dishonest nonsense. It is still against the policies to run a misleading or deceptive account so report one if you see one. Or don't.

People are acting as if Musk arrived in and deleted the entire Twitter ruleset and it became some chaotic hellscape. The hysteria is unwarranted. He's done very little - bar the crackdown on CSAM, which is a low bar - and likely wont do anything particularly dramatic.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120075993#Comment_120075993

People told Musk what would happen when he announced the blue tick mark. He did it anyway. He caused the problem, yeah blue ticked mark people lied, I don't care a out that. If I know who wrote it I can make my own judgement on their trustworthiness.

Elon just added extra steps to check if a source was trustworthy or a troll. As for anecdote the entirety of twitter was stuffed full of that for days after the blue tick mark. He only changed because people pretended to be him. Like I said, anything that makes him look bad will be suppressed, seems like the issue is the old twitter had too much discourse on certain topics for some people.

Elon was 100% OK with harassing anyone who wasn't him. Of course it is only ever harassment or doxxing if it to Elon, otherwise it is "discourse".

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120075797#Comment_120075797

I don't "care" about them but they are a massive part of the discussion around both Musk and Twitter so they interest me and like others have pointed out until they are stable they will be the only thing that decides what direction Twitter goes

McFly85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120073822#Comment_120073822

Not really. Obviously anyone who owns it can run it how they see fit, but Musk is the first person to routinely, publicly change his mind about what’s allowed, and makes policy decisions through twitter poll. My point stands, from a platform perspective, it’s less reliable and predictable since he’s taken charge.

And it’s hilarious to think Musks involvement with Twitter is anything but profit driven. In May he claimed he would increase annual revenue to $26 billion(it was $5 billion in 2021). Doesn’t sound like a man just interested in “owning public discourse” at whatever the cost.

I don’t think it’s possible to have a proper discussion about Musk and twitter leaving the finances to one side, since it’s so central to Twitters future. The only reason I would imagine anyone wouldn’t want to include numbers is that so far it makes him look like an incredibly foolish man.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120075993#Comment_120075993

Don’t suppose there’s any actual evidence of this claimed crackdown on CSAM?

How’s the crackdown working out?

https://twitter.com/lorakolodny/status/1611496184757260289?s=46&t=-4fDWchfOk31tnIpfU8UsA

Do you ever feel like you’ve been suckered?

PopePalpatine

He's still totally a centrist guys.

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1611439992651538432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1611439992651538432%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1611488174823571458?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1611488174823571458%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120076976#Comment_120076976

I often feel like people don't read my posts.

Who said all CSAM had been purged for evermore? See my post 5815 where I state myself that its not a permanent solution but Twitter still should have been nuking those hashtags/accounts ASAP. Now they are. That was what was noteworthy. As NBC admitted they gave the accounts/hashtag information to Twitter (apparently, Twitter had to ask...NBC didn't report or volunteer it for some reason) and the accounts were suspended/closed.

Musk has stated combatting CSAM on the platform is his #1 priority. It seems that the old T&S team had different priorities. Its a positive change, no matter how much you seethe about it.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120078041#Comment_120078041

Musk said it and therefore it has to be true....

Musk said it because it makes him good. No other reason and no need to follow through properly when his followers will just take his word for it.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120078063#Comment_120078063

I became aware of it, not through Musk, but the claim/observation of an anti-CSAM campaigner who noted that three well known, long running hashtags had been nuked quickly under the new Musk regime. Now, as I'll say again for the third time in the last 24 hours I cannot independently verify the claim but I don't see why this person would have any cause to lie about it. And it aligns with with Musk publicly claiming CSAM is his #1 priority, and with Twitter VP Ella Irwin saying in her response to NBC that they have been improving and are detecting more than Twitter has done for a long time. It also aligns with the departure of the old head of the T&S who wrote a PhD thesis that makes me think he's not the right person to be leading a fight against CSAM. These are all positive changes, in their own right and taken together.

I'll note though this idea of "followers" is a fairly sad indictment of how so many people have been conditioned to engage in debate by social media, particularly under the massive repression of free debate and ideas. It's all personality driven worship or hatred. It's the only way too many people can interpret events these days. People end up projecting this onto others, because that's how they think.

For the record, I'm not a follower of Musk - I think the guy is a dope. I think he's a dog that finally caught the car, and like all of his ilk when he finally gets some power he hasn't a clue how to exploit it. But I can still observe that the social media public square is and always has been privately owned, so Musk can do what he likes and its dumb to provoke him. And he has not made sweeping changes to the Twitter rules. And its good that he is prioritising the fight against CSAM on the platform.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120078123#Comment_120078123

What was it about the recognition of the reality that under 18s use adult hookup apps that got you thinking that the former head of T&S wasn't the right person?

When you hear Musk saying that CSAM is 'his #1 priority', what does that actually mean in terms of resources that he's putting into this issue? How well resourced is the T&S team now, vs three months ago?

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120078146#Comment_120078146

Call it just a gut feeling that a guy calling for children to be on adult networking sites isn't necessarily going to be the right person to fight CSAM. Though its probably just a coincidence that the change in Twitter prioritisation regarding CSAM occurred after his departure.

Prioritisation has more to do with will and leadership. The team could have been cut in half and still have more people working on fighting CSAM than there was three months ago. As it stands, an upsurge in Twitter taking action against CSAM has been noticed by those who have no reason to lie about it.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120078273#Comment_120078273

Once again, he wasn't calling for children to be on adult networking sites, his research showed that there were underage people (ie. 16-18) already using those sites/apps, and he proposed that those sites/apps should have better policies in place to facilitate them but separate them from the adult only side of things, rather than just saying "Well they clicked Yes when asked if they were over 18" and doing nothing.

His dissertation (ie. Not some sort of policy he was trying to implement anywhere) was based on increasing protection for teens who do access those sites/apps, not "calling for children to be on adult networking sites."

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120078123#Comment_120078123

He has made sweeping changes to the platform. He just had to reverse them because people provoked him. Provoking him isn't dumb, it shows off Musk's true character to the world and is the only reason a lot of the terrible changes to site got reversed.

You say you are not a fan but need to squeeze in the #1 priority everywhere. It isn't just I think this bit is a positive change, it is reinforcing this claim everywhere. Forgive for being skeptical, this thread has seen a lot of Musk's #1priorities for twitter from money, to truth/free/equal speech. Everyone has their own issue they want fixed and believe that Elon is 100% with them on it.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120078273#Comment_120078273

Where exactly did he call for children to be on adult networking sites please? A direct quote would be great.

And when you say “noticed by those”, are you still referring to one individual campaigner?

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120078313#Comment_120078313

No, he took a stronger stance than "Oh well, its happening anyway so we might as well facilitate it". Which by itself would be dumb.

He said, and I quote "Rather than merely trying to absolve themselves *OR, WORSE, trying to drive out teenagers entirely*, service providers should instead focus on crafting safety strategies that can accommodate a wide variety of use cases for platforms like Grindr"

So he viewed efforts to prevent children accessing platforms like Grindr - a platform he himself just a few lines before described as being "lewd" and "hook-up-orientated" - as being negative. That was the stance he took - it was bad for adult platforms attempt to "drive out" children from their platforms.

Its the sort of argument that makes my skin crawl. Even if I grant that somehow its entirely well meaning, its a dumb idea. How exactly does identifying the children work so that they can have restricted access? You seem to dismiss the ability of service providers to identify children for the purposes of removing or preventing their access. If we grant that, then how do the same service providers identify the same children for the purposes of limiting their access to the kids club version of their platform? Even worse, how do they identify adults masquerading as children so they can access the kids club version and interact with those kids?

It is an awful idea. The best option - despite the difficulties - is to work to identify and prevent child access to adult sites. But its probably just a coincidence that when this guy left Twitter that fighting CSAM seemed to get a higher priority.

bokale

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120078313#Comment_120078313

Conservatives never like this approach and prefer a head in the sand approach. You still see it Ireland but thankfully we have faced up to some things over the years.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120078836#Comment_120078836

How do you prevent child access to adult sites on the internet?

You’re putting one particular interpretation on one statement out of what is presumably a 100,000 word or similar thesis to suit your own narrative.

The reason why most people focus on mitigation strategies over prevention strategies is that prevention strategies don’t work. There is no way to definitively identify the age of an internet user. Recognising this reality leads to a far safer online world than burying your head in the sand.

It’s difficult to see this narrow focus on one sentence from a very long thesis from many years ago as a good faith argument.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120078324#Comment_120078324

What "sweeping changes" did he have to reverse? Provoke him if you want - it just bemuses me that people then act outraged that Twitter acts when they do. And nobody cares about his character - he owns the site, he can do what he wants. He's hardly the worst character to have been involved with Twitter.

If I'm forced to repeat myself at times, its because other posters insist on strawmanning me. And I'm not responsible for the whole thread - just my own views.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120078937#Comment_120078937

You're moving the goalposts. First its a challenge to quote where he said children should be on adult networking sites. When I provide the quote, now it needs to be more than a quote. You seem to be arguing from a conclusion, searching for evidence. And I was as generous as possible to him - that statement I quoted is completed by a view that Grindr (a "lewd" and "hook-up-orientated" platform) could play a role in connecting "young adults". The usage of "young adults" is bizarre in the context of arguing for underage access to adult networking platforms. Adults can freely access those platforms already. Children shouldn't. "Young adults" seems to be a deliberate effort to blur the lines between the two. But despite it making me roll my eyes, I left that bit out to be as generous as I could.

He didn't make a typo in an offhand text message. He's writing his dissertation for his PhD. It is a serious document into which he would have put considerable thought, care and effort. He made the statement I quoted. Indeed, he led into that statement by describing several cases linked to Grindr where underage children had been sexually assaulted including a 14 year old. He acknowledged that those cases were the tip of the iceberg and that many more cases could go unreported. He did the old sensible chuckle routine about the DA who prosecuted one case urging parents to protect their children. And then - with that context established - he argued that platforms like Grindr needed to facilitate the access of children to their platform, rather than prevent it.

And to follow on from that he further stated "It's not altogether clear *IF* or how Grindr should approach the task of credentialing its users".

IF. Not just how. But IF. So he argues that children should have access to adult networking sites, but its not a given that the users of those sites should even be credentialed at all. So his argument is to facilitate underage children accessing an adult "hook-up-orientated" platform with uncredentialled users and hope for the best!

So, maybe this guy is just a well meaning idiot. But on a gut-check, he is not the guy I want leading a team tasked with combatting CSAM given he is arguing for children's access to adult networking platform. But still, its probably just a coincidence that he leaves Twitter and then Twitter seems to take CSAM more seriously. Totally unconnected.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120079274#Comment_120079274

You're telling absolute and blatant lies here.

You mention a "quote where he said children should be on adult networking sites" (my bolding for emphasis). There is no such quote, because he said no such thing. He recognised the reality that children ARE on adult networking sites. He didn't say they should be on those sites.

The only one blurring lines around young adults is you. Young adults are adults. The hint would be in the 'adult' bit of 'young adults'. You're now trying to turn it into something that it's not.

You say "he argues that children should have access to adult networking sites", but he doesn't actually say that.

His point about credentialing users refers to the effectiveness of credentialing, not the righteousness of credentialing. There is no way to ensure that an internet user is of a certain age. If there was, we wouldn't be facing the challenge of young children having access to pornography. And just before you start twisting my words, I'm not saying that young children SHOULD have access to pornography, I'm recognising the reality that young children DO have access to pornography.

If you want someone leading a trust and safety team who doesn't recognise the reality of the world that they operate in, they're probably not going to be very effective.

There is no evidence of course that Twitter is actually taking CSAM more seriously, except your hearsay comment about what one campaigner said.

Please stop telling lies about this.

Tony EH

Why is it that there are some people who would rather cling to a falsehood or a lie rather than the facts of a given matter?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120078273#Comment_120078273

Wow what a conclusion to come to. You've been guzzling on the Musk cool aid

pixelburp

To no great surprise, there hasn't been a sustained bump to Mastodon; it makes sense. It's leagues more complex for the average user just wanting some social media, and the drop-off would track with impatience over servers and so on.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2023/jan/08/elon-musk-drove-more-than-a-million-people-to-mastodon-but-many-arent-sticking-around

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120080832#Comment_120080832

What’s the complexity? You just register and away you go.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120078893#Comment_120078893

Considering culturally, "we" can't even get consensus on the simple notion to teach teenagers about sex in schools, even the basics of protecting against pregnancy - acknowledging the reality that they're just seeking all this online without adults' consent seems further away again. 2022 and people still seem to think you can stick teenagers in amber til they're 18 and that's fine, nothing can go wrong.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120080837#Comment_120080837

You gotta find a server, attempt to join it etc right? That's demonstrably more barriers to entry than Twitter. Or different enough to have put off casual users. The absence of some larger outlets and public figures probably didn't help, a reduced landscape less appealing. Decentralisation isn't enticing the masses and remains niche, mastadon clearly no exception here.

prosaic

I came across an article looking at Musk's back story:

https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/i-talked-to-elon-musk-about-journalism

One thing that struck me with this article was the quality of English used. I find so many news articles so badly written they are hard to wade through.