EVNow
Well-Known Member
Yes - He is definitely a hot-shot developer.
He can atleast take a particular problem (like verification) and solve it in 12 weeks.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Elon & Twitter
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
- Status
He can atleast take a particular problem (like verification) and solve it in 12 weeks.
Hotz specifically got involved during some of the conversation about "1,000 RPC calls" and client performance and mentioned specifically he's good at optimization and performance in large code-bases. But his specialty is AI. So it's not clear what he'd work on.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Getting back on topic - Twitter complies with local laws by moderating content using automation.
That is the point I was making.
"High profile" manual moderation decisions haven't been stellar, anyway .... (infact may have contributed to Musk's desire to takeover Twitter).
EVNow
Well-Known Member
That's only his recent company. Considering he was the first to jailbreak iphone & PS2 (?) - he obviously has a lot of low-level code skills too.
ZenRockGarden
Active Member
I think you mean they USED to have the teams and capabilities and policies to comply with laws everywhere. Elon is firing the teams, changing policies and it's not at all clear that Twitter today is still able to comply in any realistic timeframe if users in Germany get out of line for example
EVNow
Well-Known Member
I think we are not talking about the same thing. See if you can follow this tl;dr below.
evnow : Musk said they will follow the local laws.
Response : Its not scalable.
evnow : Twitter already does this using automation.
Moreover - if Germany finds out Twitter is not able to follow the laws (because they let go of manual moderators), they will complain and Musk will bring back manual moderation. Remember Musk's issue with manual moderation is the way they handled some of the controversial high-profile topics (like banning Trump or suppressing Hunter's laptop news etc). He has no issues with getting manual moderators to comply with local laws.
ZenRockGarden
Active Member
I think you folks are not understanding that if humans were part of the process to comply with laws, and you fire the humans, you are not compliant any more even if you stand there and insist that you are and claim it's all done with magic automation
EVNow
Well-Known Member
What part of "automation" and "high-profile" don't you understand ?
Automation does 99.999% of moderation. "high-profile" cases are just a handful handled manually - and probably nothing to do with local laws, just a judgement thing.
ZenRockGarden
Active Member
Do any of you folks actually work at a company that has this kind of legal compliance requirement from millions of public customers?
I do.
It CANT be automated to 99.999% You cannot have "magic AI" solve it because AI requires a human to train it on what the right decisions are, and the behaviors and laws are constantly changing.
There is NO WAY automation can moderate 99999/100000 messages even if the automated system was just taking input already written and spitting out what's acceptable and dropping what's not. But then you throw humans into the equation and they will deliberately try to evade the moderation if they figure out that certain types of stuff is getting censored. It then becomes a constant cat and mouse game between the people doing the moderation and the people trying to evade it, and it is not easy. Just ask the CCP.
Spacep0d
Active Member
Except nobody was taken to court over that.
Also because it wasn't actually what hurt the stock- this was already debunked a while ago. Did you miss it? Here it is again:
Some folks are pointing out the twitter distraction IS causing this to their TSLA investment, based both on Elon dumping a ton of stock, and wasting a ton of time and goodwill on the whole thing
Eh, I'm not sure "Yet Another Crypto Thing Turns Out To Be Ponzi Scheme" is really the cracking journalism some suggest.
I mean, some folks are reporting some hilarious and interesting details about this SPECIFIC ponzi as points of interest, but anybody who finds the fact it WAS one news should be embarrassed
They didn't collapse because of some posts on twitter, they collapsed because they misappropriated like 8 billion actual-real dollars in customer funds and left nothing behind but a pile of magic beans.
Also since you like Omar as a source, he appears to not think the war on bots is going well
Do you?
unethical != illegal.
But scams ARE illegal.
It's weird you keep not understanding the difference.
(there's also a difference between criminal and civil law you seem to be missing, which is a whole other discussion)
But point being- impersonating someone as commentary or criticism (OR comedy- but comedy is not required) is explicitly legal. LOTS of the people with fake accounts and blue checkmarks were doing so as COMMENTARY OR CRITICISM of twitter. Which is legal 1000% legal.
Impersonating someone to illegally obtain money is not.
It's not the impersonating part that breaks the law, it's what you're trying to do by doing it that might be.
I listed a whole bunch of legal yet unethical practices from the past, some of which may still exist today. Looks like you totally missed the point. Sometimes that which is illegal isn't unethical. And, some of these points merit a conversation but Elon's starting point for free speech is both legality and what is factually true. Sometimes that which is factually true is wildly offensive to people. This was a major problem with LegacyTwitter™ because of ideological preferences from the top. Why else would Elon have spent 44B to acquire Twitter? It wasn't just so he could mess about with verification and solve monetization.
Something being 'legal' in the literal sense doesn't make it ethical, and the court may find that it's indeed illegal or harmful to one's reputation such that there will be legal repercussions. People test these laws all the time, and do people really want Eli Lilly suing them? For most people, even one lawsuit can be disastrous because they cannot afford to defend themselves with legal representation.
Judges also make decisions which can fly in the face of the law too, because the law can be interpreted differently, just like Elon running Twitter is interpreted differently. One side sees disaster, the other sees liberation.
Last edited:
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Cool. So tell me, how many people in Twitter are needed to comply with German laws.
BTW, you still haven't understood what I was saying. You are actually supporting what I was getting at - that Twitter had already figured out how to comply with local laws. Nothing new Musk had to figure out in terms of scaling.
Spacep0d
Active Member
Thanks for confirming that the stock price moved in reaction to an impersonated tweet. I mean, that's the point I was making. Degree doesn't matter quite as much, and the correction is less important than the damage. Impersonation should not be allowed on Twitter and Elon is working on a solution here.
You can't be against FUD for companies in which you're invested and logically support impersonation for others. How is that ethically consistent?
Sounds like you're talking about libel. The interesting thing about that is that Elon, as a public figure, has a much higher bar to meet if he files a libel lawsuit than someone who isn't famous. When your name is a household name, people are allowed to say stuff about you that would be defamation if they said it about someone who isn't a household name.
Spacep0d
Active Member
I think it's important to demonstrate why impersonation and misquoting is problematic. Note that I kept it light, but the Twitter mob isn't so nice.
Spacep0d
Active Member
I was not aware that existing Twitter prevented anyone from "being conservative". I'd mostly seen them banning people for advocating and encouraging insurrection, violence, racial hatred, and intentional misinformation.
Or are those two an overlapping set?
It's funny how you're arguing from personal incredulity. Your data is skewed by your political orientation. The tyranny which agrees with you is still tyranny. Old Twitter didn't even honor the principle of protecting the minority (conservatives, unpopular opinions, 'problematic' facts, etc.) from the tyranny of the majority, a basic U.S. principle. This is why speech we disagree with is still protected, and why groups you may despise can still peaceably assemble. WBC, anyone?
If that weren't the case, it would be illegal to be an atheist in the U.S., or gay, or trans, or anything the majority doesn't understand or fears/hates/bullies/excludes/etc. Thankfully, acceptance is higher for people as they are, but people seem far more intolerant of diversity of opinions these days.
An inclusive Twitter (you believe in inclusion, right?) must necessarily leave ideological thumbs off the scale. Conservative ideas should not be punished or banned or shadowbanned anymore than liberal ideas. And, both sides have common cause and areas they get wrong/right, at least from my POV.
Think about it. A very politically-biased 'digital town square' is not really 'free', even if you want to make yet another strawman about 'free speech absolutism'. Again, this was a primary motivation for Elon to buy the platform. I'm sure it felt good to fire Vijaya Gadde and the former CEO.
Cue: "Damn it feels good to be a Gangsta"
Last edited:
Spacep0d
Active Member
Sure, libel, slander, defamation, etc. People sue for this all the time, including suing tabloids known to be 'fake news' when they're particularly egregious. And, tangling with a wealthy organization/person because of some impersonated tweets which caused real or perceived harm isn't going to be a fun time if one faces an expensive and protracted lawsuit.
Sometimes the lawsuits are just to harass someone, even if there's no chance of winning.
Anything that is clearly comedy/entertainment is going to be summarily dismissed.
Spacep0d
Active Member
This is the very point in question, and it's also obvious when people have bad intentions. This is why people bring lawsuits where a judge will decide one's fate. Could be a conservative judge, a liberal/Leftist judge, or something else—but the lawsuit itself is already punishment for those who test these waters. That's before one considers the cost of a lawyer.
Obviously there's targeted harassment directed at Elon for having the audacity to buy and reshape Twitter. It's like an angry swarm of murder hornets. So, I doubt that this PaRoDy we're seeing is merely 'comedy'. It's harassment, and impersonating people on Twitter shouldn't be allowed anyway. If people aren't allow to work as a mob against any other individual (bullying considerations), then why is it okay when directed at Elon who's trying to do something good?
I get it, not everyone thinks it's 'good' but the targeted harassment is an issue as well, and impersonating him was a bridge too far when people were trying to act like he was in cahoots with Epstein or whatever nonsense they were dreaming up. This really is a form of libel in my view, not comedy. The least awful situation for those types is having their posts removed, because Elon doesn't take bullying or libel lightly. He can outspend pretty much everyone on Twitter if he decides to sue them (with his team of pitbull lawyers, of course). Whether he would win or not is immaterial.
What next, justified deep fakes ruining reputations under the guise of 'comedy'? How about right before a general election?
Last edited:
- Status
