[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 151372400.jpg (26 KB, 757x365)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
Twitter Engineers To "Ban a Way of Talking"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64gTjdUrDFQ

In the latest of a series of undercover operations targeting the mainstream media and now Social Media, James O'Keefe of Project Veritas has just dropped a new undercover video which reveals Twitter "shadow banning" and creating algorithms that censor certain ideas.
The first clip features a former Twitter software engineer who explains how/why Twitter "shadow bans" certain users:

Abhinav Vadrevu: "One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don't know they've been banned, because they keep posting but no one sees their content."
"So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it. I don't know if Twitter does this anymore."
Meanwhile, Olinda Hassan, a Policy Manager for Twitter’s Trust and Safety team explains on December 15th, 2017 at a Twitter holiday party that the development of a system of “down ranking” “shitty people” is in the works:
“Yeah. That’s something we’re working on. It’s something we’re working on. We’re trying to get the shitty people to not show up. It’s a product thing we’re working on right now.”

“Yeah you look for Trump, or America, and you have like five thousand keywords to describe a redneck. Then you look and parse all the messages, all the pictures, and then you look for stuff that matches that stuff.”
When asked if the majority of the algorithms are targeted against conservative or liberal users of Twitter, Singh said, “I would say majority of it are for Republicans.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-11/veritas-latest
>>
>>217152
They also emailed the DOJ that they would "love" to send them Trumps private messages and deleted posts?
Nuts.
>>
>Project Veritas

Nobody cares about selectively edited and out of context hit pieces especially after you got caught with your pants down by the Washington Post
>>
>>217162
Try reading the article and actually poking any holes in it cause it looks pretty damning to me
>>
>>217152
Treason. Twitter went way too far.
>>
Can you imagine the outcry and attention this would get if it were reversed against liberals
>>
>>217182
They'd be reeling. They freak out over smaller things than this besides.
>>
>>217164
>retarded Jew
uh.. Anon.. you know who funds Project Veritas, right?
>>
>>217164
>>217173

They've been caught lying and manipulating their pieces multiple times, why would you believe them?

Also:
>Zero hedge
Come the fuck on. Blogs aren't /news/worthy.

From Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/01/11/twitter-responds-to-project-veritas-allegation-that-it-can-share-trumps-direct-messages.html

>"Twitter does not shadowban accounts. We do take actions to downrank accounts that are abusive, and mark them accordingly so people can still to click through and see these Tweets if they so choose."

>A Twitter spokesperson told Fox News on Thursday that Haynes does not speak for the company and clarified the tech giant's policy around accessing users' direct messages and other issues raised by the video.

>“Twitter only responds to valid legal requests, and does not share any user information with law enforcement without such a request," the spokesperson said.
>>
>>217182
>>217189

Keep crying bitch niggas
>>
>>217206
>people state things so they are true

???
>>
>>217208
If you're going by that logic then why do you believe the video?
>>
>>217211
the people in the video aren't PR monkeys attempting damage control

they have no motive to lie
>>
>>217207
Case in point
>>
>>217214
It was produced by a group that is known to lie, selectively edit, and manipulate interview footage to fit a narrative, so that tells me that the entire thing might not be on the up and up.
>>
>>217217
never have i seen anyone say that that doesn't have an obvious motive to protect their own.

selective editing in this case is just a catch-all term for "please do not impugn our ideological friends."

i have seen nothing that hints that it even could be selective editing. each sentence is damning, and there is rarely mid-sentence editing.

veritas are ideological headhunters, but my experiences directly corroborate their findings. twitter shadowbans it's ideological opponents- so do many websites and sub-websites that tend towards certain ideologies.

nothing about the claim that far left sillicon valley companies manipulate their data for the purpose of propagating their ideology seems to me to be at all impossible or out of character. do you think these totally unaccountable megacorporate giants see themselves as somehow "neutral" gatekeepers of public speech? we already know google manipulates it's search results. they are all convinced that they are the "good guys" and that everyone who goes against them is on the "wrong side of history"

there's nothing in their psychology, philosophy, or technical capacity that makes this impossible, and there's nothing that i can see that makes it particularly unlikely, either.
>>
>>217218
So you automatically believe the video because it fits into your preconceived notions with zero critical thought about where the footage comes from. That pretty much tells me all I need to know about you.
>>
>>217152

>project veritas

Into the trash it goes.
>>
Pretty damning stuff. This shows twitter is using automated systems to reduce the influence of Trump supporters. This makes Twitter a political superpac. Superpacs fall under very strict regulations.

This will be a huge pain in the ass for twitter.
>>
>>217219
the video is not out of phase with what is possible or likely, so i believe it until i am shown direct evidence of this "tampering" or "selective editing" which in the past i have seen no evidence of whatsoever.

the footage comes from a bunch of people with no motive to lie and who are not aware they are being recorded while admitting that they make an effort to censor their ideological opponents.

are you asserting that the footage is fake? what sentences specifically are "selectively edited"?
>>
>>217223
The right wing is going for " guilty until proven innocent" once again. I wish for a time where conservatives wanted to restore the goverment in its 18th century form instead of its 8th century form
>>
>>217219
Why would you believe any video then? Your logic is that you can't accept anything unless what, It comes from the MSM? Fucking idiot.
>>
>>217226
Poor attempt at damage control. Watch the video and accept the evidence as is, even when it hurts your ego
>>
>>217228
There is as much proof to this as there is to trumps alledged sexual assault. Some people say it happened and thats it. I wont believe in eather until there is evidence without a reasonable doubt, but we should still investigate it. Alas we don't.
>>
>>217223
They've cried wolf so many times I'm disinclined to believe them on anything. The fact that their past antics don't make you question whats going on makes me think you're either retarded or you work for Project Veritas.

But just to humor you, lets talk about the shadowban claim. Abhinav Vadrevu worked for Twitter as an intern and software engineer two years ago. In his interview he says "I don't know if Twitter does this anymore," implying they did this in the past. Here's an article from about a year ago in which Fortune talked to Twitter about it's "shadowbans." http://fortune.com/2017/02/16/twitter-time-out/

In it, Twitter admits to limiting the reach of your tweets in a sort of "Twitter time out" where only your followers can see what you tweet. Each time that's done, you are notified of your limited tweeting ability and the amount of time that it will take to be restored to full status. After that period of time, your tweets go back online. Shadowbans are different, in that you don't know that you're banned from everyone else seeing your content.

Twitter has also admitted to using a filter to group low quality or harassing posts into a category that a user then has to click on to expand to see them all.

Both of these tactics are public knowledge and have been for awhile, but the reality is that neither of them are shadowbans, but a restriction on the outreach of a tweet.

So for the shadowban claim, what's so shocking about what they reported when they were scooped a year ago?
>>
>>217229
What proof to Trump's sexual assault? This is literally someone admitting they committed a crime.

You're right, Twitter should be investigated immediately
>>
>>217230
Veritas reports have led to the stepping down and firing of alot of people out of shame. They impact every company they investigate.
>>
>>217226
they're literally admitting it hombre

they're guilty because they've essentially been proven guilty

they're admitting it
>>
>>217230
shadowbanning is not really related to any of that other stuff

it's not shocking, because it's perfectly within their MO and ability to restrict the speech of people they disagree with, it's kind of just pathetic.
>>
>>217235
What, like ACORN? Because it was found after they shut down that they didn't break any laws:
https://www.politico.com/story/2009/12/crs-report-acorn-didnt-break-law-030919

Further, many of the reports who viewed the full video said they were selectively edited to show ACORN in the worst possible light.

Or how about they were trying to awkwardly seduce a reporter from CNN.

Lets not forget the NPR "sting" that was heavily edited to make it seem like NPR was willing to accept $5 million from a group backed by the Muslim Brotherhood when in fact, they repeatedly told them that they wouldn't accept the money AND that there was no way that you can buy news coverage from their organization.
>>
>>217235
>Veritas reports have led to the stepping down and firing of alot of people out of shame.
Can you name some well-known examples?
>>
>>217234
what should they be investigated for exactly? none of this is illegal in any way.
>>
>>217271
Can you name some well-known examples?

NYTimes fired it's strategy editor, Nick Dutich

Robert Creamer was fired from the DNC supported group "democracy now" after he admitted to hiring paid protesters. He is also the husband of Dem congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, who knew about the arrangement.

Scott Foval, who worked for the DNC, was fired for fomenting violence on camera against conservative voters
>>
>>217271
They admitted they'd be willing to send the DOJ Trump's personal DMs and deleted tweets. Spying on the president is treason
>>
>>217276
So Twitter is ISIS?
>>
>>217222
Welp it's a good thing nobody credible believes Project Veritas then.
>>
>>217274
>things that never happened
t. Breitbart editor
>>
>>217293
Don't bang your head on the wall too hard

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/10/18/undercover-video-democratic-operatives-griffin-tell-lead.cnn
>>
>>217276
Trump signed over his privacy rights in regards to his activity on twitter when signing up. Even the President is bound to contracts he signs willingly
>>
>>217296
twitter doesn't have the right to do that. Enforce unconstitutional/illegal contracts. Judges have always ruled TOA as being worthless and unrelated to law because a checkbox is not a binding contract, doing it to children, not following the spirit of the laws etc.
>>
>>217297
content you create on a site that requires you to sign up belongs to the site owner unless specified otherwise, try finding a single case where a single court ruled against that
>>
>>217296
Yeah you're retarded
>>
>>217300
you can't own information.
>>
>>217303
Man its not like i want to live in this capitalist dystopia either, im just telling you how the law works in it, i didnt write them
>>
>>217305
>Capitalist
What you're looking for is "Corperate oligarchy"
>>
>>217178
>Treason
You wish, they are perfectly within their rights to treat the data they have however they like now that net neutrality has been repealed
>>
>>217162
>edited

ok.
So thats your argument?
>>
>>217182
or if they did that against *gasp* people of color?
>>
>>217305
the US law system is built on stone in protectionism. The boomers maneuvering against doesn't change the spirit of the majority of laws regarding ownership of property. Including information.
>>
>project veritas
how many times does one have to be caught red handed fabricating stories before the political right stops paying attention?
it hasn't even been 60 days since they were last outed.
>>
>>217359
do you have proof for your claim?
>>
>>217362
Not that anon, but you didn't hear about this time at least?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.b4fb24b883b9
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454123/project-veritass-washington-post-roy-moore-sting-backfires
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/us/washington-post-roy-moore-project-veritas.html
>>
>>217363
an attempted and failed infiltration is not really a proof of malfeasance.

they tested the defenses of the paper, the paper did a good job and exercised due dilligence, they failed.

i don't see how this proves they fabricate stories. am i wrong?
>>
>>217365
I think this is proof that, at least in this case, they were planning on fabricating a story that would help them push the "fake news" narrative. You send undercover people in with a falsified account, and if the other news organization takes the bait, well, that's just gotcha journalism 101.
>>
>>217367
It was a honeypot that didn't pan out. Not fake news, just investigative journalism
>>
>>217372
That's not what those words mean... The fake news part was what Veritas was hoping to catch the other group in the act of by providing the fake news bait.
>>
>>217379
That's not fake news, it wasn't news period. They honeypotted them into making fake news, and they declined
>>
>>217380
That's... what I said though. I don't understand how that is investigative journalism.
>>
>>217365
They were literally trying to bait them into publishing a fake account against Roy Moore so that they could come back afterwards and go "WE MADE IT ALL UP!" to embarrass Washington Post, then got salty and buttmad about it when the Washington Post called them out.
>>
>>217383
They were also doing it to try and discredit the other allegations.
>>
>>217372
>honeypot
>investigative
One of these things does not belong with the other.

I'm guessing you've seen spy thrillers and stuff where a honeypot is used, right? It's not used for investigation of any kind, is it -- it's used to extrap and extort. That's why spies use it and not, say, FBI agents.
>>
>>217394
yeah man, if the child porn wasnt there, then those people who wanted the child porn wouldnt want the child porn
>>
>>217365
>i don't see how this proves they fabricate stories. am i wrong?
They literally fabricated a story and tried to sell it to a Washington Post. That's libel.
>>
>>217226
>The right wing is going for " guilty until proven innocent" once again.
UH they are one tape admitting it.

There was no "editing" they flat out said it.
>>
>>217229
>There is as much proof to this as there is to trumps alledged sexual assault.
There is zero proof of any "Sexual assault" Heck its been shown that these woman had to be paid to make their claims.
>>
>itt shills post stale pasta
the absolute STATE of progressivism.
>>
>>217432
They said that about the last set of tapes they released as well until it was proven they did actually edit it after all.
>>
>>217226
Many conservatives would like to see the enlightenment and age of reason overturned. NRx and Nazism both make it their stated goals. NRx believes that a meritocratic corporate feudal system is what is most natural and best for people. Hitler saw the enlightenment as the primary cause of the degeneration of the West, and wanted to create a new Roman Empire. Many of the things that the mainstream would call barbaric, both would say was good for building real men and evolving the human race.
>>
>>217477
The fact they need to hire and pay people to pursue an adgenda is proof the adgenda is retarded
>>
I can't believe some people are actually defending Twitter. They're blatantly abusing their social influence (ergo owning one of the biggest social media platforms ever) to thought-police dissenting opinions. This might seem fairly innocent right now, but wait until you get sued for having the wrong opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-FI6D8ZXpc
>>
>>217566
Lawsuits happen through the legal system and the First Amendment prevents you from being sued for having an opinion. Corporations, though, are bound by no such requirement to respect your speech.

In the end the corporate dystopia was run by tech rather than finance. Who would have thought.
>>
>>217566
>Twitter fucking matters!

No it doesn’t you baby
>>
>>217182
No, because there is no such thing as just liberals and just stupid cucks. In between are assholes who sometimes agree with liberals rational arguments. Given they are smarter than the irrational (stupid) cucks, the cucks get cucked with the technology the assholes develop.

Outcome, smart assholes get along with liberals (read drink with them and fuck their hot daughters) and run away with the spoils taken from the stupid cucks.

Relevant: I'm a smart asshole. We're coming for you and we're doing it with Tensorflow, which you have no fucking clue how to operate.
>>
>>217713
Wubalubadudub I'm pickle rick!!
>>
>>217381
If they had accepted it would be pretty obvious that they weren't credible
It's not rocket science man
>>
>>217152
>implying i dont stop using each of my twitter account after 1000 tweets and stsrt new ones to minimize the efficency of flag systems.

Heh, greetings.
>>
>>217565
to begin with a confession
>no refunds
i donated and phone banked for sanders. joined the trump train when it became clear that he was controlled opposition. that and bernouts found out how fucking awful the dnc is.
>>
>>217752
Understandable, but now that the campaigns are over they still have people from all over the globe hired to online shill. Very odd tactic, very worrisome
>>
>>217235
>>217752
>>no refunds
Can someone help me understand this criticism from the political right of expecting Sanders to refund campaign contributions?

>joined the trump train
what policy or character coincidence did you see there that made trump an alternative to sanders?
>>
how come conservatives don't distrust them after they're caught so many times editing shit and lying to them
>>
>>217828
In what specific instances are you referring to, I've never seen anything other than unsubstantiated hearsay
>>
>>217830
ACORN, NPR, and Planned Parenthood videos come to mind.
>>
>>217853
What were the edits
>>
>>217885
mostly editing out the signs that the ACORN workers were mostly interested in keeping O'Keef busy while they called the police.
>>
no interest in climate guys?
>>
>>217909
I don't get it, does that change anything?
>>
>>217853
>>217828
Those were legit.
>>
>>217765
it's much bigger than the democrats. people are scared. the worst actors in influential places are suddenly finding that the global environment doesn't support them the way it used to. its like a really big ass salt water fish just got stuck in a fresh water lake, it can pick on anything, but its still gonna die. trump was the first and biggest break, so once again 'murica stands smugest.
>>
>>217976
According to whom?
>>
>>217716
Now pass the butter.
>>
>>217208
If individual unsubstantiated allegations by low-level drones are proof that something happens then you should be believing every last allegation in that stupid fucking book about Trump.

>>217246
Is there any evidence that shadowbanning ACTUALLY occurs in the wild? You know, you have only the entire Twitter ecosystem to analyze for "shadowbanning." Old accounts, new accounts, search hits, APIs. You'd think if somebody alleged something that should be obviously visible (I'll claim someone says Trump rapes children in his White House basement rape dungeon) you'd expect to be able to look under the White House and see a rape dungeon there.

Instead you have a single unsubstantiated shitter by an intern alleging a massive conspiracy that nobody else at Twitter, or anywhere else on the internet, has seen any evidence of or knows anything about.
>>
>>218429
Nobody -you- would believe, making your question pointless.
>>
>>217152
>"So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it.
Shadow banning has become so commonplace that anyone that doesnt get replies will check their own posts on a separate device that isnt logged in. You can even check on the same device with another browser often, too.
It's best to simply not use sites that employ shadow banning in the first place.
>>
>>218663
>Shadow banning has become so commonplace that anyone that doesnt get replies will check their own posts on a separate device that isnt logged in. You can even check on the same device with another browser often, too.
So since everybody checks, do we have firsthand reports of this actually happening on Twitter?
>>
>>218698
yes, there is plenty of evidence of shadow banning, not exactly shadow banning like the tech in the video says, but shaping what individuals see.

plenty of evidence youtube, facebook and twitter do it.

a few youtubers have covered youtube doing it, facebook admitted to doing during the elections, showing a group of people their friends who have voted and another group nothing, to see if it would effect voter turnouts, theres a TED talk about creating a dystopian future one click at a time about it and explains facebooks experiment which they didnt even try to hide.
youtubers have also covered the twitter manipulation when it became clear that only contrarian replies were being shown on trumps reply timeline.

so yes, we do have firsthand reports.
>>
>>218698
they didnt just decide to investigate this out of the blue. its been all over the internet for the last year and a half since trump became POTUS
>>
>>218701
>not exactly shadow banning like the tech in the video says, but shaping what individuals see.
Shadow banning has a specific definition. It's not code for everything you don't like about content moderation. It's like accusing someone of rape and then, when challenged, bringing up examples of someone putting his hand on a woman's shoulder.

If the only "proof" you have is locked up in fucking YouTube videos rather than actual explanations of what's going on whatever position you're arguing is a fucking joke.

>>218702
So... do you have any verifiable firsthand reports of this actually happening on Twitter? All we need is an example of a single tweet that its viewer can see but nobody else can.
>>
>>218703
>Shadow banning has a specific definition. It's not code for everything you don't like about content moderation. It's like accusing someone of rape and then, when challenged, bringing up examples of someone putting his hand on a woman's shoulder.
its certainly not as the outcome of their manipulation is the same effect shadowbanning has.
>>
>>218703
let me help you with that

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=proof+of+twitter+shadowbanning&t=ffab&ia=images

have fun
>>
>>217152
Damn look at all these poor software engineers that got catfished by roasties for some dude's stink piece
This drink's to you, fallen brothers
>>
>>218707
Wow, it's fucking nothing.
>>
>>218728
taking it upon yourself to do damage control or do they pay you really well to look like an idiot online?




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.