This is a huge problem with all the tech giants that needs to be addressed. I don't expect them to be perfect but I expect them to be open to communications on any level.
I also think Twitter is the Twitter today just because of the bots and fake accounts they have since those accounts were creating so much content and movement on the platform. I know people whose spending days by reading those fake accounts while they have no idea what's fake and what's real. So maybe -just may be- they may not want to get rid of all those fake accounts and bots.
And this isn't related at all to the bots and fake accounts (which I think is the bigger problem). But in the context of your argument, this is just non sequitur.
Thus any business decision isn't a problem? Whether it's their prerogative, it still a problem in tech.
> to ban content deemed unsafe
Like any links? Or even text itself? The only thing that makes JSFiddle "worst" is how easy it is, but even then almost anything else is just as easy. If there's money to be made too, unless you block everything that cost less than the money to be made, what you do won't stop it.
Why not just put that warning over EVERY single links and not block anything? Do a white list instead.
Thus any business decision isn't a problem?
Depends on your definition of "problem"... and thus your definition of who should care:
- legally (government): any business devising that comply with law are not a problem
- financially (investors): any decisions that increase profits are not a problem
- morally/ethically (users): any business decisions that you personally are okay with are not a problem.
Each of these has its own correction mechanism: persecution, lack of funding, customer outcry & abandonment.
In other words: there are ways to reverse bad decisions.
The only thing that makes JSFiddle "worst" is how easy it is
As pointed out in other comments, the problem is that anyone can anonymously create a malicious JSFiddle that runs undesired code. You could make a car that any website that similarly allows anonymous code execution should have that warning or be blocked. Most links, however, are better attributable. (Eg, require account creation).
I strongly disagree on that. The fact that you have an account behind it doesn't make it attributable at all. There's nearly no verification on 99% of the internet. Some studies consider that 9 to 15% of Twitter accounts are litteraly fake . TwitterAudit believe that 40-60% of Twitter accounts are fakes.
They aren't attributable to anyone except a username, which is worthless.
> You could make a car that any website that similarly allows anonymous code execution should have that warning or be blocked.
It was never about code execution but what they call "wallet code" which is what I did in another comment .
> Most links
You can easily register a domain anonymously. Most links are fine sure, most possible domains, aren't, which is my point. Show a warning (which they do on URL Shortener) instead of blocking a domain altogether on ALL links and use a white list (which would include MOST used domains) instead.
But if this was about getting people to click more ads, Twitter would be throwing enormous amounts of resources at it.
I mean, let's not pretend that this is an engineering problem.
That's not your point I think, but fake|bots accounts and subs are among the best things we got from twitter/reddit in my opinion.
Aside from the ones designed to be funny from the start, the nonsensical ones also blend perfectly with what we would call 'legit' users and serious posts/communities.
That's to a point where I find it really useful to purposefully inject fake and non sensical content in the timelines to get some daily critical training, but also an escape hatch for the mind when hitting some of the submissions that we think just can't be real.