
Twitter's community verification system will be a disaster - StuntPope
https://easydns.com/blog/2020/02/24/bias-and-b-s-would-be-baked-into-twitters-proposed-community-verification-system/
======
dijit
The post goes into it but I just want to double assert that the blue check
mark system is rather absurdly arbitrary. Not only is there a bias towards
“Lefty” (quotes) views, but it’s often handed out to people who have no worry
about impersonation because they are not a personality in of themselves.

Not only that, they (as a group) are not immune to spreading significant
amounts of misinformation[0].

Who watches the watchers?

[0]: [https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/04/twitter-
verifie...](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/04/twitter-verified-
accounts-misinformation/)

~~~
chipotle_coyote
> Not only is there a bias towards “Lefty” (quotes) views...

Is there a source for this? While it sounds credible, I don't think I've seen
any data on it, and I've certainly seen a lot of "Righty" folks with blue
checkmarks. (The ones the article you linked to talks about are entirely on
the far right, in fact, although of course that article is in _Mother Jones,_
which is...not on the far right.)

~~~
busterarm
Getting a blue check is pretty much standard starting procedure for any new
journalist at vice/buzzfeed/vox/etc. It's like part of the on-boarding
process.

Even if you don't have much of a following, your colleagues email someone they
know at Twitter and your verified check follows soon after.

Twitter's most important and most active users are journalists and they've
made that abundantly clear.

~~~
dlivingston
On an aside...maybe it’s just me, but being a journalist on Twitter and
sharing your personal opinions / philosophies / politics seems like a bad idea
to me.

We trust journalists - the standard, non-opinion column ones - to be something
of an impartial, truth-telling messenger on the state of the world.

When I go on a journalist’s Twitter page and see that she’s a staunch Marxist
or hardcore Randian libertarian, I can’t help but wonder if that strong bias
has seeped into her articles...both in what she’s writing to me, and in what
she’s omitting.

~~~
chipotle_coyote
A lot of journalists cite pressure from their employers to be online and
"engaged." I think it's probably a bad idea -- possibly in general, but
particularly for journalists/columnists -- to say anything on Twitter that you
wouldn't say in an an article or column. That doesn't necessarily preclude
sharing opinions, philosophies, and politics, but it definitely entails a
certain measure of restraint.

------
kick
Wow, this is a really terribly-written article. You'd imagine a company that
had been around for 20 years would have a sense of professionalism or
something. When someone is able to pinpoint your exact political alignment and
the news outlets you read from a corporate blog post, you're probably doing
something wrong.

Then again, the guy links to his book (with a subtitle of "Protect Yourself
from Deplatform Attacks, Cancel-Culture and other Online Disasters" no less)
at the end of the post, so this was probably intentional.

I share more or less the same political views as him, but this is ridiculous.

~~~
Thorentis
Ah, there's the comment I was expecting to find. Somebody assuming the
author's political alignment based on the (awful) Tweets they chose to
highlight. You claim to hold the same political views as him, so what are you
trying to achieve? More internet points?

I found the article to be objective, included good sourced examples, and
addressed a serious problem that has been discussed on HN many times before.
The blue check mark system is terrible. It unconsciously makes readers trust
the claims and assertions made by those that wield them. And as demonstrated
in the article, blue-check-marked Tweeter often make horribly unverified
claims, or incite outright violence. Both of these things I hope would be
condemned by every side of the political spectrum, regardless or who is saying
them.

~~~
kick
He takes several _obvious_ and _blatant_ jokes seriously, and he does this
because not long ago, two right- and right-libertarian outlets with relatively
large audiences posted pieces _intentionally_ misinterpreting them,
practically admitting to doing so in the pieces. At best, the bad faith seems
to be lost on him, of course.

The only thing worse than someone on an opposing side to you making a
horrendous argument is someone on your own side making a grotesque one, and
that's what he's doing here.

His "point" is completely invalidated by the examples he used, which (notably)
are all jokes, bar one. It only takes someone with the most basic amount of
social competency to tell that. It, later, is invalidated further by his claim
that "rubes can figure out how to sift through b/s," which he demonstrates to
be wrong with the contents of his post.

I don't think that twitter should be creating hierarchy on its site, and I'm
far from against him politically: an _abhorrent_ argument is still an
abhorrent argument, though, and anti-intellectualism like this should be
spoken out against wherever it appears, regardless of whose side it's on. This
type of person making this type of argument devalues the side they're on as a
whole, and should be strongly pushed out.

And that's not even getting into the idea that a corporate blog should stray
away from overtly-political posts.

------
_--__--__
Not only does Twitter frequently verify users that are not noteworthy (online
or off) or likely to be impersonated, the last I had seen they hadn't even
addressed the absurdly common fake Elon Musks shilling crypto scams. Even if
this has been fixed since the last time I saw it, it's much more likely that
they just trigger manual review of any account that uses a name/avatar similar
to Musk instead of actually fixing the real problems.

The bad behavior of the blue ticks is widely recognized independent of
ideological bend, and I predict that many of the accounts of actual value will
wear these scarlet letters as badges of honor if this system actually gets
implemented.

~~~
kevingadd
For a little while putting Elon Musk in your display name got your account
automatically suspended, I think when the crypto scam thing was at its worst.
I haven't seen anyone talk about that scam lately so they may have moved on to
better ones (like the relatively new scam where if someone asks you for a
paypal donate URL, a bot impersonates you and posts one in the replies almost
instantly)

------
bjt2n3904
I particularly enjoy Arthur the Aardvark's take on false information on the
internet[1].

The author is right. Letting the community decide what is true will be a
disaster. Really, truth (or lack there of) is outside Twitter's scope. Twitter
exists to allow users to communicate. Not to educate users on critical
thinking, or arbitrate truth. Even if they "democratize" truth.

1 - [https://youtu.be/YWdD206eSv0](https://youtu.be/YWdD206eSv0)

~~~
pwinnski
The very fact that people continue to use Twitter demonstrates that we
collectively are not good at filtering anything. The author writes as if they
themselves are somehow immune from something they clearly aren't.

I do think putting this power into the hands of blue checks is a mistake. But
then, I think using Twitter is a mistake.

~~~
Nasrudith
I don't see how that follows neccessarily, many aren't there for the filtering
or truth but access to the content. It is theoretically possible to filter or
avoid the BS.

I think they are trapped in a fool's errand no matter what personally given
the precedents set up and the problem being humanity which stubbornly refuses
to accept it or that there are no good solutions.

------
geofft
> _Ryan Broderick, a self-professed hebephile_

It's pretty clear that the tweet in question was satirizing people who use
terms like "hebephiles" to defend themselves. While you can argue in good
faith whether the satire worked, was a good idea, was appropriate, etc.,
taking the tweet at face value and saying that he's a "self-professed
hebephile" is not arguing in good faith.

So either the author doesn't understand what was going on or is choosing to
lie about it for rhetorical purposes - either way the author isn't a credible
voice.

~~~
StuntPope
Actually, no, that is not clear at all. What is clear is that Ryan Broderick
demonstrated ideation of a sexual nature with underage children on multiple
posts.

There were numerous other items from his tumblr and instagram which make it
clear broderick was not being satirical.

See the screengrabs captured here

[https://www.cernovich.com/ryan-broderick-racist-tweets-
vile-...](https://www.cernovich.com/ryan-broderick-racist-tweets-vile-jokes/)

OR here

[https://www.zerohedge.com/political/buzzfeed-journo-
reported...](https://www.zerohedge.com/political/buzzfeed-journo-reportedly-
blogged-about-pedo-fantasies-rape-jokes-and-doxing)

But it looks like you're willing to give a lefty a pass on behaviour that
would be career ending from a conservative, which is par for the course.

~~~
geofft
1\. None of that makes it clear he was not being satirical to me. Can you
explain? Again, it all seems like extremely questionable humor, and you can
question the humor in good faith (and you can also argue that ironic humor
still has harmful effects, etc.), and you can certainly say in good faith,
"Someone who makes these kinds of jokes should not have a moderation role at
Twitter." But saying that _it was not humor_ \- that Broderick was genuinely
claiming to be a hebephile - is a large logical leap that seems unjustified to
me. Can you justify it?

(As it happens, I did read Cernovich's page to confirm that I had the correct
understand of the tweet before I commented. I am _more_ confident in my
comment having read it.)

2\. I'm not sure this would be career-ending for a conservative, why would it
be?

3\. Par for what course?

~~~
StuntPope
How is taking a person who describes himself as "us hebephiles" a huge leap?
Either people say what they mean or they don't.

If they don't, then you _also_ have to give a pass to every conservative off-
hand remark that got their career derailed.

~~~
geofft
> _How is taking a person who describes himself as "us hebephiles" a huge
> leap? Either people say what they mean or they don't._

Genuine question. Are you familiar with the concept of jokes?

Again, I am not saying it is a good joke, or a funny joke, or an appropriate
joke, or a joke that should merit employment from BuzzFeed, or any such thing.
I am simply saying it was intended as a joke. Do you genuinely believe that
the point of that post was to earnestly petition the president?

> _If they don 't, then you also have to give a pass to every conservative
> off-hand remark that got their career derailed._

Sure, okay, pass given.

~~~
StuntPope
How about this one,

[https://web.archive.org/web/20181223004937/https://ryanhates...](https://web.archive.org/web/20181223004937/https://ryanhatesthis.tumblr.com/post/1315924928/veronicathenoseylady-
thosekidssuck-i-dont)

I'm sure he's just riffing, right?

~~~
geofft
OK, so, you're not familiar with the concept of a joke, in fact.

Again - if you wanted to argue that Broderick's posts were in bad taste, sure,
that's a defensible argument (and I might even agree with you). But that's not
what you said. You said he's a self-proclaimed hebephile.

Of course, I don't expect everyone to be familiar with 4chan-style humor.
Oprah once earnestly warned her viewers about a message she received about
"over 9000 penises":
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7liYfhRgXGk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7liYfhRgXGk)
Last month, Congressional candidate Regina Marston started reporting the Navy
SEAL copypasta to the FBI:
[https://twitter.com/samosu_/status/1224169132410753024](https://twitter.com/samosu_/status/1224169132410753024)
But if you're running a popular DNS host and writing books about how to
protect yourself from cancel culture... yes, I expect you in particular to
understand what's going on here, and I stand by my claim that you're not a
credible voice.

~~~
Traster
It is _very_ clear the argument isn’t being made in good faith. It’s really
not worth pursuing further - I assume the aim of these accusations are
basically just hoping no one actually looks at the evidence. How could anyone
view a twitter post making a personal request to the president as anything
other than satirical?

They couldn’t. They don’t. Its not worth talking about beyond that.

------
xg15
> _Us rubes can figure out how to sift through b /s and make our own
> determinations on what passes the smell test._

Yeah, no. If "smell tests" worked, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first
place.

------
mc32
Yeah, who doesn't think this will devolve into voting rings and positive re-
enforcement loops?

I don't see how this will turn out well.

I think they are better off with self-regulated groups ala Flickr and Reddit
with some appeals system (like Flickr). Otherwise it will be abused because
it's set up that way.

------
Thorentis
The blue check mark should mean nothing other than "this account belongs to
who it says it does". And that's it.

Unfortunately, Twitter has reinforced the incorrect unconscious bias of
treating the blue tick as meaning "credibility/reliability", by removing it
from people who state opinions and hold views that Twitter (the company)
doesn't like. This has led to a severe imbalance on the political spectrum of
who holds blue ticks, and increases the ability for the celebrities and
journalists to control the narrative online.

This should only be seen as a bad thing for everybody, regardless of your
political alignment.

------
nodesocket
Twitter verified is inherently a flawed system. I personally know people who
got it simply because they knew people who worked at Twitter.

Let's not kid ourselves that most high-tech companies based out the bay area
are going to have very heavily biased political beliefs and opinions. Remember
the Twitter employee (now-ex) that deleted Trump's twitter account?

~~~
Nasrudith
I don't think not being biased is possible except /maybe/ an absolute null
set.

Any position on a mapping qualifies as a bias technically, it just may not map
to something considered such or sensible. What is meant most of the time is if
it is contentious or controversial which is utterly orthogonal to morals and
reality. If enough people dogmatically insist that using punctuation is
intellectual elitism or acknowledging gravity is then it may become a
"political issue". They would be objectively wrong in every stance but by
definition would be right about it being political. A cat walking across a
keyboard is biased compared to anyone actually writing even including the
worst typists chemically impaired.

------
Traster
>In other words, and this applies to all tech platforms, don’t worry about me.
Don’t worry about anybody. Us rubes can figure out how to sift through b/s and
make our own determinations on what passes the smell test.

Does this guy have memory loss or something. There is a reason why twitter is
looking at these changes and just saying "Oh yeah go back to how it used to
be" is not a sensible response to this.

------
djohnston
I am quite excited to see facebook and Twitter's opposing takes on this
problem play out over the next few years.

------
wyoh
From Twitter's perspective, it won't be a disaster, it will work exactly as
they plan.

------
sofaofthedamned
If easydns can't survive a HN flood then I wouldn't want to be a customer of
theirs.

~~~
annoyingnoob
I've never had a problem with their DNS service (only service I use). I don't
always agree with Mark.

------
davidw
> If somebody else has an issue with somebody’s tweets, I don’t know, maybe
> there could be some sort of “reply” function or something where somebody
> could rebut the contents of a tweet.

The problem is the asymmetric nature of the costs of producing bullshit vs the
costs of providing carefully reasoned rebuttals.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_pr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_principle)

