Connect with us

SOCIAL

Twitter’s Banning of Journalists Could Help to Establish a New Approach to Content Moderation in the App

Published

on

What to Make of Elon Musk's Buy-Up of Twitter Shares

In amongst all the angst and argument sparked by Elon Musk’s most recent actions in suspending journalists from the app, in between all the rage-bait and trolling from both sides of the political spectrum, there actually may be some new seeds of uneasy agreement forming, from which we could potentially see a new moderation approach grow and flourish within Elon’s ‘Twitter 2.0’ experiment.

I suspect that won’t be the eventual outcome, but the latest sequence of events has shown that there is a threshold at which almost everyone agrees that there needs to be some level of moderation at the app.

We even now have a direct aim for such, a barrier with which to base those future decisions.

To recap, earlier this week, Twitter abruptly banned an automated account which provided location info on the whereabouts of Elon’s private jet. According to Musk, somebody had used this info to seek him out in LA, eventually confronting a private car, which he wasn’t actually in, and harassing those inside, including Musk’s youngest child.

The rise in threat level prompted an immediate, angry response from Musk, who not only banned the @ElonJet account, but also implemented a new Twitter policy which outlaws all forms of live location tracking of individuals via tweet.

Advertisement

Which, as I wrote, will likely have implications beyond the edge case he’s trying to negate, and could even provide a new means for Government censorship of citizen dissent.

But nonetheless, Musk implemented the new policy anyway, which, the following day, he then also expanded to anyone, including journalists, who dared to share a link to the @ElonJet account on other platforms – which, in Musk’s view, was done in an effort to skirt the new rules.

Which it wasn’t, but Musk banned a handful of prominent tech reporters anyway, which sparked a whole new wave of criticism around freedom of the press, and Musk seeking to quell dissenting opinion, using, effectively, authoritarian powers in his new app.

In Musk’s view, the actions he took were merely an extension of his new rules, designed to protect his family. But to others, they’re a significant overstep in power, which has also raised the eyebrows of EU officials who have strict rules around freedom of the media built into social platform operating parameters.

Still, Musk has remained steadfast in his actions, even jumping into a Twitter Spaces chat with several journalists to defend his decision.

You’ll note that the @ElonJet account is a speaker in this Space, which shouldn’t be possible, because the account is actually suspended. Several other suspended accounts were also able to join the Space, and interact as normal, which is a bug that Musk eventually used as an excuse to shut down the conversation, and the entire Spaces functionality altogether, so the Twitter team could work on a fix (the Space carried on for around half an hour after Musk’s brief appearance).

Musk then went back to his own safe space, exchanging tweets with the same five or so people as always who offered support and endorsement of his actions.

This is the core assertion of Musk’s action to prevent location tracking, which is not entirely correct. Musk did apply for a PIA exemption, which would limit public tracking of his private jet, back in October, but it’s unclear if/when that exemption went into effect. And there are ways around this – basically, it is possible to track the location of Elon’s private jet via publicly available data, while any tracking of such doesn’t extend to what happens outside of airports. So the assertion that this was some kind of intricate personal tracking operation (Musk said that these accounts were publishing ‘assassination coordinates’) is a misnomer at best.

But that’s the line that Elon and Co. are taking. Musk’s friend Jason Calacanis also jumped on the Twitter Spaces chat before Musk, and repeatedly asked speakers ‘how would you feel if someone from Elon’s family got hurt’ as a result of the tracking data being published.

Which is a deliberate obfuscation of the core concern, or a blatant misunderstanding. But that’s the thing – on one side of the debate, you now have Elon’s biggest supporters, who are predominantly conservative commentators, saying things like:

Advertisement

Yet, on the other, they’re saying that Elon is fine with levelling unfounded claims of paedophilia against innocent people (which has now happened more than once), and unleashing his mob of supporters onto people who he personally doesn’t like. Musk seems to believe that this type of accusation, which can also cause real-world harm, should be allowed, but re-sharing public flight into should not.

Because one is a risk, and one isn’t?

Indeed, after recently being named and shamed by Musk over his work at Twitter, former platform Trust and Safety head Yoel Roth was forced to flee his home due to fears that Musk’s supporters may target him in real life.

Musk’s supporters expressed little sympathy for Roth’s plight.

But the same question that Calacanis posed to journalists could be put to Musk and his fans in this instance – what if Yoel Roth was actually attacked as a result of Musk’s ‘name and shame’ approach?

Advertisement

The question itself gets the core of the moderation issue at social platforms, which is not about political censorship and making calls on content along ideological lines, as has been suggested by Musk via his recent ‘Twitter Files’ expose of internal discussions around key moderation concerns.

If anything, social platforms want to leave as much borderline content up on the platform, as it generates more engagement – because as past research has shown, the closer people get to the borderline of the platform’s rules, the more interaction their posts see.

Social platforms are incentivized to leave the worst, most divisive comments up – but at some point, they need to ask whether that comment or post could actually lead to real-world harm.

In this sense, both sides of the discussion here are absolutely correct – Elon Musk should not be vilifying past employees by name, and making them a target, because that could lead to real world harm. An account dedicated to sharing Elon Musk’s private flights, whether it’s publicly available data or not, arguably shouldn’t be posting such to a platform of millions of people, because that could also lead to real-world harm as a result.

That’s the right threshold that we should be using for critical moderation decisions – which would also relate to this:

Tweet from Donald Trump

Elon Musk has been a vocal critic of Twitter’s past decisions to censor and suspend the former President. But Trump’s comments, viewed through the same prism of assessment, could indeed lead to real-world harm.

Which is why this comment was removed, and what led to Trump, eventually, being banned.

Advertisement

As Musk himself said in his brief appearance in yesterday’s Spaces chat:

“There’s not going to be any distinction in the future between journalists and regular people, everyone’s going to be treated the same. You’re not special because you’re a journalist, You’re a twitter user, You’re a citizen.”

That same approach should apply to politicians – if this is the barrier at which we rule what should and should not be allowed in the app, then all users should be held to the same standards, and the red line should be ‘potential for harm’.

Could this tweet lead to real world harm? Then it should be removed.

There’s nuance and complexity within that question, as it’s difficult to ascertain the actual potential of harm in each comment. But that’s been the challenge of online content moderation forever, and the positive here is that we’re getting to the core of it with Elon and Co. quickly, which could lead to meaningful reform in approach.

Though I suspect it won’t. Right now, the platform is being split into sides, with both accusing one another of opposing their perspectives, and Twitter, seemingly, benefitting (at least in some ways) from the increased engagement.

Advertisement

But in reality, this incident shows that they aren’t in opposition. The Musk jet tracking controversy shows that both are actually closer to agreement than they seemingly realize, with the ‘free speech’ crew acknowledging that there are limits to such, and the left-leaning group conceding that, yes, there could be harm from an account that tracks the location of Musk’s vehicles.

So the meeting point here is ‘harm’ and the potential of a tweet to cause such in real life.

Now we know the limit, that seemingly everyone accepts. Hopefully, Musk and Co. can use this to formulate more effective moderation parameters moving forward.

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

SOCIAL

Snapchat Explores New Messaging Retention Feature: A Game-Changer or Risky Move?

Published

on

By

Snapchat Explores New Messaging Retention Feature: A Game-Changer or Risky Move?

In a recent announcement, Snapchat revealed a groundbreaking update that challenges its traditional design ethos. The platform is experimenting with an option that allows users to defy the 24-hour auto-delete rule, a feature synonymous with Snapchat’s ephemeral messaging model.

The proposed change aims to introduce a “Never delete” option in messaging retention settings, aligning Snapchat more closely with conventional messaging apps. While this move may blur Snapchat’s distinctive selling point, Snap appears convinced of its necessity.

According to Snap, the decision stems from user feedback and a commitment to innovation based on user needs. The company aims to provide greater flexibility and control over conversations, catering to the preferences of its community.

Currently undergoing trials in select markets, the new feature empowers users to adjust retention settings on a conversation-by-conversation basis. Flexibility remains paramount, with participants able to modify settings within chats and receive in-chat notifications to ensure transparency.

Snapchat underscores that the default auto-delete feature will persist, reinforcing its design philosophy centered on ephemerality. However, with the app gaining traction as a primary messaging platform, the option offers users a means to preserve longer chat histories.

The update marks a pivotal moment for Snapchat, renowned for its disappearing message premise, especially popular among younger demographics. Retaining this focus has been pivotal to Snapchat’s identity, but the shift suggests a broader strategy aimed at diversifying its user base.

Advertisement

This strategy may appeal particularly to older demographics, potentially extending Snapchat’s relevance as users age. By emulating features of conventional messaging platforms, Snapchat seeks to enhance its appeal and broaden its reach.

Yet, the introduction of message retention poses questions about Snapchat’s uniqueness. While addressing user demands, the risk of diluting Snapchat’s distinctiveness looms large.

As Snapchat ventures into uncharted territory, the outcome of this experiment remains uncertain. Will message retention propel Snapchat to new heights, or will it compromise the platform’s uniqueness?

Only time will tell.

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

SOCIAL

Catering to specific audience boosts your business, says accountant turned coach

Published

on

Catering to specific audience boosts your business, says accountant turned coach

While it is tempting to try to appeal to a broad audience, the founder of alcohol-free coaching service Just the Tonic, Sandra Parker, believes the best thing you can do for your business is focus on your niche. Here’s how she did just that.

When running a business, reaching out to as many clients as possible can be tempting. But it also risks making your marketing “too generic,” warns Sandra Parker, the founder of Just The Tonic Coaching.

“From the very start of my business, I knew exactly who I could help and who I couldn’t,” Parker told My Biggest Lessons.

Parker struggled with alcohol dependence as a young professional. Today, her business targets high-achieving individuals who face challenges similar to those she had early in her career.

“I understand their frustrations, I understand their fears, and I understand their coping mechanisms and the stories they’re telling themselves,” Parker said. “Because of that, I’m able to market very effectively, to speak in a language that they understand, and am able to reach them.” 

“I believe that it’s really important that you know exactly who your customer or your client is, and you target them, and you resist the temptation to make your marketing too generic to try and reach everyone,” she explained.

Advertisement



“If you speak specifically to your target clients, you will reach them, and I believe that’s the way that you’re going to be more successful.

Watch the video for more of Sandra Parker’s biggest lessons.

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

SOCIAL

Instagram Tests Live-Stream Games to Enhance Engagement

Published

on

Instagram Tests Live-Stream Games to Enhance Engagement

Instagram’s testing out some new options to help spice up your live-streams in the app, with some live broadcasters now able to select a game that they can play with viewers in-stream.

As you can see in these example screens, posted by Ahmed Ghanem, some creators now have the option to play either “This or That”, a question and answer prompt that you can share with your viewers, or “Trivia”, to generate more engagement within your IG live-streams.

That could be a simple way to spark more conversation and interaction, which could then lead into further engagement opportunities from your live audience.

Meta’s been exploring more ways to make live-streaming a bigger consideration for IG creators, with a view to live-streams potentially catching on with more users.

That includes the gradual expansion of its “Stars” live-stream donation program, giving more creators in more regions a means to accept donations from live-stream viewers, while back in December, Instagram also added some new options to make it easier to go live using third-party tools via desktop PCs.

Live streaming has been a major shift in China, where shopping live-streams, in particular, have led to massive opportunities for streaming platforms. They haven’t caught on in the same way in Western regions, but as TikTok and YouTube look to push live-stream adoption, there is still a chance that they will become a much bigger element in future.

Advertisement



Which is why IG is also trying to stay in touch, and add more ways for its creators to engage via streams. Live-stream games is another element within this, which could make this a better community-building, and potentially sales-driving option.

We’ve asked Instagram for more information on this test, and we’ll update this post if/when we hear back.

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

Trending

Follow by Email
RSS