Related: >>37136858
Using ten domains as an example is not evidence. Did anyone check the millions of sites on the internet?
How do you know there were not lots of sites Elon "likes" that were being throttled?
Did anyone test more than 100 domains?
This could have easily been a bug.
e.g. a bug that was happening temporarily because an in memory cache was breaking for certain indexes.
Oh well, people like casting stones — personally I am going to wait for more of the facts.
(Note: I haven't said whether I like Elon or not)
(Edit: If my post is so disagreeable, I would love if someone could take the time to give me a short reply as to why)
If there was a rule that made it illegal to differ in response times, would that world be more, or less free?
So, while I agree that you should ignore nobody trolls, I DO NOT think you should ignore famous, politically/economically relevant trolls. It's an act that comes with some risk, and is therefore courageous and admirable.
I think all this no freedom of reach or whatever anyone calls it, done by anyone, would be a lot easier to stomach if the settings and effect were completely public rather than secret.
Am I supposed to believe that Musk and his team is so dumb that they attempted to add a FIVE freaking seconds delay and thought they could get away?
If someone makes unethical moves (like taking peoples twitter handles or boosting alt-right memes), it makes sense to assume that unethical behavior is more likely in the future. The reason people get angry with you is that you don't maintain the same "reputation score" in your head within the brackets they find acceptable. That is, I allow for variation in perception to some degree, but if at a certain point someone says something really admiring of someone who's proven to be wholly untrustworthy or destructive over and over again, as a matter of public record, I start to judge that person as unreliable and lacking in judgement. This often comes out as anger, I think because it's a simple way to use our social emotional brain to "keep score".
(This is particularly applicable for individuals and individual actions; it's more difficult to apply this rule for groups. For example, do you have great faith in "academia"? This may or may not be acceptable to me, depending on your definition and your knowledge.)
All I've seen is between 10-20 websites were tested by HN users.
And a whole lot of "inference" based off that.
Is that a triple negative?
He banned journalists who reported on it, banned links to Mastodon, Substack, and Threads, changed the algorithm to boost his own content, slapped a warning label on NPR implying it was government funded and no more independent than the Global Times or Russia Today.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/journalists-who-wrote-ab...
https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/15/23512113/twitter-blockin...
https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/7/23674427/substack-twitter-...
https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/14/23600358/elon-musk-tweets...
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/02/1173422311/elon-musk-npr-twit...
So you could be right and this might be a bug, but your implication that we should give Twitter the benefit of the doubt doesn’t hold up.
I hope it's true. But these things often turn out to be myths.
(Open Item: A shorter name)
I don’t give them such benefit of the doubt because occams razor in this case is that the company has a vindictive and childish billionaire at the helm, with a history of prioritizing edgy and spiteful actions.
I couldn't even duplicate it for multiple NYT links on the site (last night). People were jumping to conclusions based on personal tests etc.
Anyways, usual sh*tshow all around, just kind of wary/embarassing to see it jump out of a random Tell HN: thread on here to news sites.
Your simplistic view of wanting to have a villian to hate who is always wrong and bad in everything they do is a very childish perspective, one that is sadly all too common online these days.
Tell HN: t.co is adding a five-second delay to some domains - >>37130060 - Aug 2023 (337 comments)
Elon Musk’s X is throttling traffic to news and websites he dislikes - >>37136858 - Aug 2023 (74 comments)
Your mistake is treating Musk as if he’s acting like a normal person, and believing he’s running Twitter like a normal company.
People care because Musk is actively bending and reshaping society with his actions, and we live in this society. And unfortunately he's reshaping society towards a more hostile, adversarial, dishonest society. Where you constantly identify enemies (he was even at "war" with Apple for a few days remember?), and you're constantly taking pleasure at confusing everyone, and teaching your fans to celebrate chaos and lack of meaning. "I'm serious, I'm joking, I'm serious, I'm joking, I'm serious, I'm joking". It’s also why no one could just ignore Trump for four years. You can’t just ignore all the president of the US does and says. You need a clear message, you need logical direction. And you never got it.
People want to live in a sane world where sane outcomes hold up. And Musk is repeatedly breaking this assumption and walking away unscathed or even gaining from it, showing us all anyone else also could.
His message is we can all be assholes. We can all be dicks to each other. We can all lie, constantly. We can all be frauds. We can all be sociopaths and narcissists. And many will go with it and do go with it. That is the problem. This is why people want to see him fail. Him failing, badly, will be healing for society and reverse some of this vast damage.
My guess is, that some engineer noticed the glitch and then someone decided not to allocate time to solve it, because the CEO would be more happy if the glitch stayed the way it is.
Like what is the point of "citing" a bunch of "sources" if the "sources" are only able to provide the necessary information at one particular point in time?
You're probably talking about this HN comment [1], but he was typing in the command wrong, and thus not querying it without a User-Agent (important, as Twitter has known different behaviour with different UAs), and once he got it right - same behaviour [2].
Like, sure, it could be a weird technical glitch. But as of yet, nobody could find a counter-example of a web property Musk didn't have an issue with, where this behaviour was exhibited.
[1]: >>37136776
[2]: >>37139792
Instead of downvoting me this time, I would appreciate some discussion of how the alleged throttling is somehow so much worse than the actual censorship of an important news story about blatant corruption and multiple criminal acts by a politician's son that abused his father's position of privilege for personal gain.
One difference is transparency.
In the prior administration NY Post case, twitter leadership responded to the issue, acknowledged that the company made a mistake, and both pledged and acted to refrain from repeating the behavior. In the current case twitter has failed to acknowledge, discuss, or commit to any future actions.
Think about the kind of outages and system failures we see at any large SaaS provider. At scale, mistakes will happen, including bad ones. How the organization responds and what sort of transparency it provides tells us whether we can trust that organization going forward. Was there a post-mortem? Are there next steps?
Denial that the mistake happened and denial that the mistake was a problem is the worst response an organization can have after an incident. The current Twitter administration is thus far taking that path. The prior administration owned its mistake and corrected for it. That is the difference.
I don’t see any apologies for any of the bad actions Twitter has taken since the purchase, and the hypocrisy of doing this while claiming to be a center of free speech is astounding.
Of course Twitter had bias before because every group of people has a bias. But that doesn’t mean that everything they do is wrong or malicious, just because you don’t like them. The real tragedy is letting your own bias blind you to what’s in front of your face.
This is the sentiment I am getting from everyone. But it would seem to be the pot calling the kettle black.
Everyone is making an assumption off _their_ bias, I am asking for data before I decide.
Feel like I am taking crazy pills.
It's like with school shooters and serial killers, you shouldn't mention their names, publish their manifesto or do movies about them precisely to avoid copy cats or to give them what they want. If elon messes up twitter, leave it, don't give him attention for it.
When you accuse someone of "vast damage", destroying society, lies, and wishing them to fail among other things, it's you who is spreading hate. You are the problem.
> "People want to live in a sane world where sane outcomes hold up."
No idea what that means, but after reading your post I'm not confident you're a reliable source on what people want, or what a sane world looks like!
And I was quite clear how, and I notice you didn't address anything I said about how Musk makes the world worse. Would you like if your boss was like Elon Musk? Get ready to implement surprise rebranding at 2AM on a Sunday, I guess. Don't like a competitor or a journalist? A critic? Ban them. Then praise yourself for being a free speech absolutist. Banana republic methodology in 21st century Silicon Valley. Hurray.
A lot of this behavior, can be excused if his ideas were brilliant. But no. He's just an idiot. And 2/3 of the value of the company he bought are lost now. More to come.
You've presented zero measurements to qualify that statement. Your personal dislike of Musk's methods have nothing to do with your wishful projection of a super-villain doing harm to the world.
> "He's just an idiot."
I see. Maybe you should consider whether your personal dislike of Musk isn't getting the better of you. Your comment amounts to "trust me bro, Musk is an idiot".
> "surprise rebranding at 2AM on a Sunday"
You'd prefer an 11am rebrand? That's nice, but the new CEO has already stated she knew about the rebrand when she started.
He has repeatedly said he welcomes his haters and anyone from any side of politics. That's the "free speech" part you're missing. Even Stephen King hates Musk and yet Musk still replies to him and has a joke about it. Your claim he bans his critics is false. Whatever isolated incidents there are with bans, isn't representing the whole.
> "I like thinking about systems...how their parts merge into a whole"
No. You like calling people idiots and posting emotional uninformed rants. You enjoy wallowing in the logical fallacy wastelands. "How parts merge into the whole" are absent from your contributions (the two posts I've read of yours). If you truly cared about "systems", your approach would be balanced, analytical, less emotionally charged, less "the sky is falling".
Ah, fuck it. Your moderation is inconsistent. Lots of frivolous and low quality comments sail right on by you, shitting up threads all over the site, but here you go picking on, yes, an admittedly low-quality yet heart-felt sub-thread starter that resulted in quality commentary that is now hidden from sight. What a stupid decision, axing good discussion because it started off poorly.
Ima fuck on off, no need to put up with your shit. Screw your head on right, guy.
That said, if you're participating here, we need you (like other users) to follow the rules regardless of what other commenters are doing. It always feels like the other person (a) started it, and (b) did worse. Since everyone feels that way, using that as a guide for one's own behavior just leads to a downward spiral.