Official Twitter Thread (3 Viewers)

[Sparky Polastri]

Wonder what changed recently for Facebook.

I assume this is sarcasm?

Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.

American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.

I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.

It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.

Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.

The part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.

“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”

People tend to have distain for things that challenge their worldview. We don't like to be wrong, much less be forced to admit we are wrong.

It’s not as complicated as you guys think (there is some irony in the being stuck in a specific worldview comment).

If legacy media was a thing it would look like one of those big marble building in DC where the people inside, who are largely cut of from the real life experiences of its citizens push out the narrative that you should think. Limited, sterile, propagandist takes.

Social medial would look like a Bazaar, there’s great ideas, crappy ideas, but you can find anything and everything, and it’s up you to decide what you want. Some people choose poorly, some choose wisely…but if you can’t see why people would rather shop here then

This is the disconnect I see most often. Social media is NOT a place where you can find anything/everything. Social media is a place where algos present to you WHATEVER is going to keep you on their site the longest. You aren't deciding anything on most of these sites without a TON of work/effort to curtail the experience and even then, you're being presented things to keep you on the site, not to inform you.

I've been watching this "community notes" discussion the last couple pages and it's quite amazing what some here have turned the concept into vs what it really is. Its just a place outside the comments for people to disagree with the content. You don't have to provide facts or data or any of that. Those that disagree are free to put their own mis/disinformation into the note as a "rebuttal".

It’s as much work as shopping in a Bazaar. Yes, you actually have to walk through and examine different wares. Yes, when you pick up a wood flute all the wood flute sellers are going to offer their wares to you.

To you this is a bug, to me it’s a feature. I trust myself, you don’t trust me, you’d rather I trust what the suit in the big monolithic marble building, who is also getting paid to drive my engagement and return business, wants me to buy.

That’s ok you use your seller and I’ll use mine. I’m just trying to help you understand why some people don’t want to obtain information from the same sources you do.

Please don't put words in my mouth. The work it takes on social media is significantly different than walking around a bazaar. That's the point. Everything is openly presented you in one scenario, but not the other.

 

[Max Power]

Wonder what changed recently for Facebook.

I assume this is sarcasm?

Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.

American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.

I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.

It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.

Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.

The part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.

“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”

People tend to have distain for things that challenge their worldview. We don't like to be wrong, much less be forced to admit we are wrong.

It’s not as complicated as you guys think (there is some irony in the being stuck in a specific worldview comment).

If legacy media was a thing it would look like one of those big marble building in DC where the people inside, who are largely cut of from the real life experiences of its citizens push out the narrative that you should think. Limited, sterile, propagandist takes.

Social medial would look like a Bazaar, there’s great ideas, crappy ideas, but you can find anything and everything, and it’s up you to decide what you want. Some people choose poorly, some choose wisely…but if you can’t see why people would rather shop here then

This is the disconnect I see most often. Social media is NOT a place where you can find anything/everything. Social media is a place where algos present to you WHATEVER is going to keep you on their site the longest. You aren't deciding anything on most of these sites without a TON of work/effort to curtail the experience and even then, you're being presented things to keep you on the site, not to inform you.

I've been watching this "community notes" discussion the last couple pages and it's quite amazing what some here have turned the concept into vs what it really is. Its just a place outside the comments for people to disagree with the content. You don't have to provide facts or data or any of that. Those that disagree are free to put their own mis/disinformation into the note as a "rebuttal".

Yes to the bolded. The leaked internal reports from TikTok really prove that and how dangerous it is. Their internal evidence shows how quickly people especially teens can become addicted. It’s shockingly quick and their studies show it does cause depression, decrease communication skills and disrupt relationships. Worst of all is that they are trying to figure out how to maximize how depressed it can make users just short of them killing themselves because their research shows higher levels of depression will lead to more time spent on the app. They are creating a product designed make users addicted and unhappy.

I'm looking forward to the TikTok ban in 11 days, but I'm certain a new version will pop up in its place.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I've been watching this "community notes" discussion the last couple pages and it's quite amazing what some here have turned the concept into vs what it really is. Its just a place outside the comments for people to disagree with the content. You don't have to provide facts or data or any of that. Those that disagree are free to put their own mis/disinformation into the note as a "rebuttal".

I don't know what's amazing or if anyone is turning this into something it's not. As @Max Power said, I assume it's not that simple as just posting a "rebuttal." But it's a question worth asking.

As to what this is, I defer to the CEO of the company who's actively involved in most aspects.

"Fact checkers have been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created," Zuckerberg said in a video post on Facebook that announced the changes. "What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it's gone too far."

Defer to whom you choose. Just remember you are deferring to a person who is trying to make more billions of dollars in his business. That's his top priority, above all else. All these CEOs have told us what their goals/ambitions are over and over again. For whatever reason some don't believe them and/or refuse to look at things through the lens their actions are telling us they are looking through.

 

[djmich]

Wonder what changed recently for Facebook.

I assume this is sarcasm?

Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.

American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.

I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.

It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.

Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.

The part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.

“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”

People tend to have distain for things that challenge their worldview. We don't like to be wrong, much less be forced to admit we are wrong.

It’s not as complicated as you guys think (there is some irony in the being stuck in a specific worldview comment).

If legacy media was a thing it would look like one of those big marble building in DC where the people inside, who are largely cut of from the real life experiences of its citizens push out the narrative that you should think. Limited, sterile, propagandist takes.

Social medial would look like a Bazaar, there’s great ideas, crappy ideas, but you can find anything and everything, and it’s up you to decide what you want. Some people choose poorly, some choose wisely…but if you can’t see why people would rather shop here then

This is the disconnect I see most often. Social media is NOT a place where you can find anything/everything. Social media is a place where algos present to you WHATEVER is going to keep you on their site the longest. You aren't deciding anything on most of these sites without a TON of work/effort to curtail the experience and even then, you're being presented things to keep you on the site, not to inform you.

I've been watching this "community notes" discussion the last couple pages and it's quite amazing what some here have turned the concept into vs what it really is. Its just a place outside the comments for people to disagree with the content. You don't have to provide facts or data or any of that. Those that disagree are free to put their own mis/disinformation into the note as a "rebuttal".

It’s as much work as shopping in a Bazaar. Yes, you actually have to walk through and examine different wares. Yes, when you pick up a wood flute all the wood flute sellers are going to offer their wares to you.

To you this is a bug, to me it’s a feature. I trust myself, you don’t trust me, you’d rather I trust what the suit in the big monolithic marble building, who is also getting paid to drive my engagement and return business, wants me to buy.

That’s ok you use your seller and I’ll use mine. I’m just trying to help you understand why some people don’t want to obtain information from the same sources you do.

Please don't put words in my mouth. The work it takes on social media is significantly different than walking around a bazaar. That's the point. Everything is openly presented you in one scenario, but not the other.

In what scenario is everything openly presented to you? Define openly please.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Wonder what changed recently for Facebook.

I assume this is sarcasm?

Dana White to Meta’s board, Joel Kaplan a new VP, FBook moderatoring team moving to Texas from CA, and ending fact checking. Zuck simply following Elon’s lead.

American voters showed they don’t care about the oligarchs taking over, and here they come.

I wasn't aware of the personnel moves.

It was sarcasm, but directed at the legacy media fact checking process that has lost all of it credibility over the recent years.

Consumer trust in mainstream media is at all time lows, so modeling a social media site after that process would be silly.

The part I can’t figure out is why so many consumers who have such distain and distrust for legacy media fact checking instead choose to get their news from social media sites that are far, far worse at getting the facts right.

“I’m sick of pulling for the 49ers, we can’t get over the top and winning means everything to me. I’m now a Jets fan.”

People tend to have distain for things that challenge their worldview. We don't like to be wrong, much less be forced to admit we are wrong.

It’s not as complicated as you guys think (there is some irony in the being stuck in a specific worldview comment).

If legacy media was a thing it would look like one of those big marble building in DC where the people inside, who are largely cut of from the real life experiences of its citizens push out the narrative that you should think. Limited, sterile, propagandist takes.

Social medial would look like a Bazaar, there’s great ideas, crappy ideas, but you can find anything and everything, and it’s up you to decide what you want. Some people choose poorly, some choose wisely…but if you can’t see why people would rather shop here then

This is the disconnect I see most often. Social media is NOT a place where you can find anything/everything. Social media is a place where algos present to you WHATEVER is going to keep you on their site the longest. You aren't deciding anything on most of these sites without a TON of work/effort to curtail the experience and even then, you're being presented things to keep you on the site, not to inform you.

I've been watching this "community notes" discussion the last couple pages and it's quite amazing what some here have turned the concept into vs what it really is. Its just a place outside the comments for people to disagree with the content. You don't have to provide facts or data or any of that. Those that disagree are free to put their own mis/disinformation into the note as a "rebuttal".

It’s as much work as shopping in a Bazaar. Yes, you actually have to walk through and examine different wares. Yes, when you pick up a wood flute all the wood flute sellers are going to offer their wares to you.

To you this is a bug, to me it’s a feature. I trust myself, you don’t trust me, you’d rather I trust what the suit in the big monolithic marble building, who is also getting paid to drive my engagement and return business, wants me to buy.

That’s ok you use your seller and I’ll use mine. I’m just trying to help you understand why some people don’t want to obtain information from the same sources you do.

Please don't put words in my mouth. The work it takes on social media is significantly different than walking around a bazaar. That's the point. Everything is openly presented you in one scenario, but not the other.

In what scenario is everything openly presented to you? Define openly please.

At bazaars or malls or whatever, everything is there for you to see....like in plain site Exceptions being things that people might dabble in that aren't the most legal etc, but I think we all agree there are exceptions to almost every rule. I'm also hoping the discussion is honest enough that we can acknowledge scenarios in a bazaar like "do you have any more X?" kinds of questions as not the sort of thing we are talking about.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Defer to whom you choose.

Thanks for that.

In this case, I feel ok deferring to Mark Zuckerberg on his assessment of a feature on his site and why he changed it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And yes, this change is plenty of material for people making jokes online.

“Social media users rejoiced today as in an initiative to fight back against censorship, the guy who said Facebook was not suppressing free speech announced that Facebook would stop suppressing free speech.

“Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg released a video statement outlining the upcoming changes that would be made to content restriction policies on Facebook and Instagram, revealing that Facebook would stop suppressing all the free speech he had previously insisted wasn't being suppressed on Facebook.

"’This is a major shift toward no longer doing the things I said we weren't doing," Zuckerberg said in the statement. "While we never suppressed free speech and expression at Facebook, we felt that the election of 2024 was a cultural pivot point that made it clear that we had to stop suppressing free speech and expression. Even though we absolutely never did it, starting now, we're going to stop doing it.’”

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I've seen the community notes and have to admit I'm ignorant as to what exactly it is. I've heard its not moderation or "fact-checking" but what is it then? My uninformed opinion is that its kind of like Wikipedia where users can petition for a community note to be added to something they view as wrong or misleading. If this is more or less accurate, how is this better in terms of delivering accurate, quality content - or is that perhaps not the goal? I feel kind of stupid because I'm generally aware of political forces but honestly don't understand how the 2024 election relates to fact-checking and moderation as opposed to community notes and whatever facebook is doing.

In any event, I think the most important education our kids can get is to learn how to find reliable information online and carve out unreliable or agenda-driven information. This is a skill that will be more important than any other going forward. I'm at the point where I still enjoy using Twitter but have eliminated all references or association with politics or anything public policy related because it is such an un-navigable quagmire. Even looking for news about the California fires this morning I found it was nearly impossible to avoid tribal agendas. It feels like we're a short step away from a Twitter world where Ian Rapoport is breaking news about a quarterback's injury and he gets community noted for breaking some established but unwritten rule about DEI or fascisim.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I've been watching this "community notes" discussion the last couple pages and it's quite amazing what some here have turned the concept into vs what it really is. Its just a place outside the comments for people to disagree with the content. You don't have to provide facts or data or any of that. Those that disagree are free to put their own mis/disinformation into the note as a "rebuttal".

I don't know what's amazing or if anyone is turning this into something it's not. As @Max Power said, I assume it's not that simple as just posting a "rebuttal." But it's a question worth asking.

As to what this is, I defer to the CEO of the company who's actively involved in most aspects.

"Fact checkers have been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created," Zuckerberg said in a video post on Facebook that announced the changes. "What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it's gone too far."

I'm sure Zuckerberg had more to say about this, but this quote (kind of) explains why he's scrapping fact-checkers but says nothing about the new system or why its better. I've never had a facebook account so don't care about it as a user but I've not seen a meaningful explanation for why this new order is better in terms of improving content. My suspicion of course is that, as will all things, it is much more likely revenue-driven.

Upthread, @titusbramble explained is as "Community Notes generally requires people who are generally opposed to the person writing the note in question before it appears to the general public. That, and it's open source." For me, this already exists in the form of people replying to a tweet in the comments. It also sounds alot like the agenda-driven "fact-checking" we already have.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I've seen the community notes and have to admit I'm ignorant as to what exactly it is. I've heard its not moderation or "fact-checking" but what is it then? My uninformed opinion is that its kind of like Wikipedia where users can petition for a community note to be added to something they view as wrong or misleading. If this is more or less accurate, how is this better in terms of delivering accurate, quality content - or is that perhaps not the goal? I feel kind of stupid because I'm generally aware of political forces but honestly don't understand how the 2024 election relates to fact-checking and moderation as opposed to community notes and whatever facebook is doing.

In any event, I think the most important education our kids can get is to learn how to find reliable information online and carve out unreliable or agenda-driven information. This is a skill that will be more important than any other going forward. I'm at the point where I still enjoy using Twitter but have eliminated all references or association with politics or anything public policy related because it is such an un-navigable quagmire. Even looking for news about the California fires this morning I found it was nearly impossible to avoid tribal agendas. It feels like we're a short step away from a Twitter world where Ian Rapoport is breaking news about a quarterback's injury and he gets community noted for breaking some established but unwritten rule about DEI or fascisim.

Your understanding is basically right. It's essentially a way of crowd-sourcing the "fact check" function. I've seen the occasional dumb Community Note, but by and large they seem to work pretty well, in much the same way that Wikipedia works pretty well.

I agree with the bolded part in the strongest possible terms. It seemed like we spent a lot of time on media literacy when I was in school, and like @djmich I trust my ability to curate this stuff on my own. But it used to be that a person could reasonably outsource all of that to trusted gatekeepers (e.g. NYT, CNN) and while that might not be optimal, it would be basically fine. Now people who do that are getting a seriously warped view of the world. For better or for worse, the good old days of the legacy media are probably not coming back, and it's incumbent on folks to learn how to sort out the wheat and chaff.

 

[djmich]

I've been watching this "community notes" discussion the last couple pages and it's quite amazing what some here have turned the concept into vs what it really is. Its just a place outside the comments for people to disagree with the content. You don't have to provide facts or data or any of that. Those that disagree are free to put their own mis/disinformation into the note as a "rebuttal".

I don't know what's amazing or if anyone is turning this into something it's not. As @Max Power said, I assume it's not that simple as just posting a "rebuttal." But it's a question worth asking.

As to what this is, I defer to the CEO of the company who's actively involved in most aspects.

"Fact checkers have been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created," Zuckerberg said in a video post on Facebook that announced the changes. "What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it's gone too far."

I'm sure Zuckerberg had more to say about this, but this quote (kind of) explains why he's scrapping fact-checkers but says nothing about the new system or why its better. I've never had a facebook account so don't care about it as a user but I've not seen a meaningful explanation for why this new order is better in terms of improving content. My suspicion of course is that, as will all things, it is much more likely revenue-driven.

Upthread, @titusbramble explained is as "Community Notes generally requires people who are generally opposed to the person writing the note in question before it appears to the general public. That, and it's open source." For me, this already exists in the form of people replying to a tweet in the comments. It also sounds alot like the agenda-driven "fact-checking" we already have.

I think it’s fair to say that the decision was revenue driven in so much that the marketplace has basically said “we prefer this fact checking method more than this one”. So Zuck is following the revenue by observing what the market wants, which is his job.

I think it says a lot that community notes survived three different CEO administrations at Twitter/X, each with different political philosophies.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It's essentially a way of crowd-sourcing the "fact check" function. I've seen the occasional dumb Community Note, but by and large they seem to work pretty well, in much the same way that Wikipedia works pretty well.

This has been my experience.

When I see a community note, it usually seems reasonable and often has a link to a source story. Like many things (including Wikipedia), I assume there's significant thought that goes into the system so it's not just chaos.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think it’s fair to say that the decision was revenue driven in so much that the marketplace has basically said “we prefer this fact checking method more than this one”. So Zuck is following the revenue by observing what the market wants, which is his job.

Absolutely.

I give him credit for fixing something he (or the market) seems to see as broken.

I thought his video message was remarkably forthright in admitting it had gone wrong and too far.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I think it’s fair to say that the decision was revenue driven in so much that the marketplace has basically said “we prefer this fact checking method more than this one”. So Zuck is following the revenue by observing what the market wants, which is his job.

Absolutely.

I give him credit for fixing something he (or the market) seems to see as broken.

I thought his video message was remarkably forthright in admitting it had gone wrong and too far.

This is fair.

I also think it’s fair to point out Zuck’s sudden shifts are extremely politically expedient. So much so that the President said yesterday that he thought Meta’s changes were a reaction to his threats.

(Not interested in discussing the actual politics - just pointing out that lots of people believe political pressure is the real catalyst here)

 

[djmich]

I think it’s fair to say that the decision was revenue driven in so much that the marketplace has basically said “we prefer this fact checking method more than this one”. So Zuck is following the revenue by observing what the market wants, which is his job.

Absolutely.

I give him credit for fixing something he (or the market) seems to see as broken.

I thought his video message was remarkably forthright in admitting it had gone wrong and too far.

This is fair.

I also think it’s fair to point out Zuck’s sudden shifts are extremely politically expedient. So much so that the President said yesterday that he thought Meta’s changes were a reaction to his threats.

(Not interested in discussing the actual politics - just pointing out that lots of people believe political pressure is the real catalyst here)

Based on Zuckerberg past comments I think this move can just as easily be interpreted as the result of the relief of existing political pressure.

Either way, politics is influential.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thank you @tommyGunZ and @djmich for keeping it politics free. I know that's a fine line. Thanks.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

FBG is a speck of sand on the beach compared to the big platforms and it takes what feels like a lot to keep our little thing going.

I can't imagine a platform a zillion times bigger.

Also - thankful for y'all.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

FBG is a speck of sand on the beach compared to the big platforms and it takes what feels like a lot to keep our little thing going.

I can't imagine a platform a zillion times bigger.

Also - thankful for y'all.

Being a part of these boards for 20+ years and following it’s moderation is by far one of my biggest windows into the relatively recent issue of social media moderation. So much so that I empathized greatly with Zuckerberg the past 8–10 years as he was butchered for an impossible task. And it’s why I was skeptical of Musk’s purchase of twitter and the ease he thought he would have in moderating that platform.

Decisions the FBG team made w/regard to moderation over the years have proven to be one of the main reasons there are constantly so many thoughtful and valuable discussions in this forum. The (relatively) strict moderation here keeps the sharper minds and more educated people around as they know ideas are to be discussed and personal attacks/vulgarity are a no-no.

In short - I think platforms that maintain stronger moderation will stick long term, while platforms that abandon it in the short term for political reasons will end up failing.

 

[titusbramble]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

Well, if you believe in the First Amendment then it only involves removing illegal content

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

Well, if you believe in the First Amendment then it only involves removing illegal content

Why would Joe, Musk, Zuck and other similarly situated business owners concern themselves with the first amendment? They have very strong incentives to moderate their platforms without regard to the US constitution whatsoever.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

FBG is a speck of sand on the beach compared to the big platforms and it takes what feels like a lot to keep our little thing going.

I can't imagine a platform a zillion times bigger.

Also - thankful for y'all.

Being a part of these boards for 20+ years and following it’s moderation is by far one of my biggest windows into the relatively recent issue of social media moderation. So much so that I empathized greatly with Zuckerberg the past 8–10 years as he was butchered for an impossible task. And it’s why I was skeptical of Musk’s purchase of twitter and the ease he thought he would have in moderating that platform.

Decisions the FBG team made w/regard to moderation over the years have proven to be one of the main reasons there are constantly so many thoughtful and valuable discussions in this forum. The (relatively) strict moderation here keeps the sharper minds and more educated people around as they know ideas are to be discussed and personal attacks/vulgarity are a no-no.

In short - I think platforms that maintain stronger moderation will stick long term, while platforms that abandon it in the short term for political reasons will end up failing.

Thanks GB. And yes, these forums are moderated massively different than the big platforms. As in I restrict a lot that wouldn't bat an eye in other places. My hope is that it creates a curated group of posters that know it's a place where real discussion is desired. I get plenty of people who mock that even but by and large, I think it's great.

I learned that lesson years ago on the old usenet rec boards that were totally unmoderated. I encouraged a super smart football writer I knew to post something. He put together a deep and thoughtful post that was great. And the first reply was "LOLZ YOU SUCK". And the guy said, "I'm done". He was too smart and too busy to put up with that.

And the net effect was the entire forum lost a potential great source of information.

So when we started our forums, I wanted something to not let that happen.

We're not for lots of people. I still get people telling me I'm a forum nazi. If you read my PM in box, I'm killing the forum and I don't have a clue what I'm doing. It's been that way for 25 years. But by and large, I think we have a great forum. In part as we try our best to not allow people to be unexellent to one another.

 

[Joe Schmo]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

Well, if you believe in the First Amendment then it only involves removing illegal content

But the entities are private companies which means they do not need to adhere to that strict reading of the first amendment and are free to place restrictions on speech they deem outside their policies of acceptable, much like Joe here in the ffa running a pg board and not allowing us to run amok.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Why would Joe, Musk, Zuck

at being included in that sentence. Thank you, GB.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Defer to whom you choose.

Thanks for that.

In this case, I feel ok deferring to Mark Zuckerberg on his assessment of a feature on his site and why he changed it.

I think that’s a reasonable opinion. But I also think reasonable people could see a statement saying that “fact checkers have become too politically biased” without any evidence provided to demonstrate that and question the legitimacy of that statement.

My guess is that for you Joe, you identify very easily with Zuck here because you have more awareness than most on how difficult moderation can be and everything that goes into it. I think you also are a very charitable individual that tends to take people at their word.

I probably lean more the other direction. Some of that is because I believe that Facebook/Facebook leadership has repeatedly demonstrated that they’ll lie, deceive, manipulate, and take advantage of their users as well as lie to regulators. So when one of the most wealthy and most powerful people in the world makes a pretty big statement like that without providing strong evidence to back it up, my initial reaction is to doubt that he’s either a) telling the truth or b) hiding the actual motivation.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

Well, if you believe in the First Amendment then it only involves removing illegal content

A place like Twitter can get by okay with very little moderation. I know there are Nazis, for example, on Twitter, but I literally never see them. They're on Twitter, but they're not on my Twitter, if that makes any sense. I have a huge amount of control over what I see and I don't see.

FBG isn't like that at all. This is more like a dinner party. Everybody has to share the same table. That means the host (Joe) shouldn't just throw open his doors and invite the local troublemakers to sit down with the rest of us. He needs to curate the guest list, which means asking people to leave when they're ruining the experience for others.

At least that's how I see it. I think Twitter is moderated about right for Twitter, and FBG is moderated about right for FBG. (Note: There is some obvious selection bias here since I've already indicated that I like both platforms.)

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Defer to whom you choose.

Thanks for that.

In this case, I feel ok deferring to Mark Zuckerberg on his assessment of a feature on his site and why he changed it.

I think that’s a reasonable opinion. But I also think reasonable people could see a statement saying that “fact checkers have become too politically biased” without any evidence provided to demonstrate that and question the legitimacy of that statement.

My guess is that for you Joe, you identify very easily with Zuck here because you have more awareness than most on how difficult moderation can be and everything that goes into it. I think you also are a very charitable individual that tends to take people at their word.

I probably lean more the other direction. Some of that is because I believe that Facebook/Facebook leadership has repeatedly demonstrated that they’ll lie, deceive, manipulate, and take advantage of their users as well as lie to regulators. So when one of the most wealthy and most powerful people in the world makes a pretty big statement like that without providing strong evidence to back it up, my initial reaction is to doubt that he’s either a) telling the truth or b) hiding the actual motivation.

You don't have to trust Zuckerberg at all. Just look around. Fact checkers do their work in public. When you see something get "fact checked" in the media, does the analysis of the fact checker make sense to you? Is their reasoning sound? Most importantly, when they make a mistake (they're human - they will make the occasional mistake) does the mistake always run in the same direction?

If your experience is that fact checkers are straight arrows who don't consistently err in one direction, great. That hasn't been my experience at all. When Zuckerberg tells me that he's noticed the same thing, I just take that as a data point that somebody else has apparently had a similar experience to me.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I will say that today was probably not the best day for the Mayor of Los Angeles to make an appearance on Twitter. I doubt the replies will remind anyone of the School of Athens.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Defer to whom you choose.

Thanks for that.

In this case, I feel ok deferring to Mark Zuckerberg on his assessment of a feature on his site and why he changed it.

I think that’s a reasonable opinion. But I also think reasonable people could see a statement saying that “fact checkers have become too politically biased” without any evidence provided to demonstrate that and question the legitimacy of that statement.

My guess is that for you Joe, you identify very easily with Zuck here because you have more awareness than most on how difficult moderation can be and everything that goes into it. I think you also are a very charitable individual that tends to take people at their word.

I probably lean more the other direction. Some of that is because I believe that Facebook/Facebook leadership has repeatedly demonstrated that they’ll lie, deceive, manipulate, and take advantage of their users as well as lie to regulators. So when one of the most wealthy and most powerful people in the world makes a pretty big statement like that without providing strong evidence to back it up, my initial reaction is to doubt that he’s either a) telling the truth or b) hiding the actual motivation.

You don't have to trust Zuckerberg at all. Just look around. Fact checkers do their work in public. When you see something get "fact checked" in the media, does the analysis of the fact checker make sense to you? Is their reasoning sound? Most importantly, when they make a mistake (they're human - they will make the occasional mistake) does the mistake always run in the same direction?

If your experience is that fact checkers are straight arrows who don't consistently err in one direction, great. That hasn't been my experience my all. When Zuckerberg tells me that he's noticed the same thing, I just take that as a data point that somebody else has apparently had a similar experience to me.

FWIW, the Harvard Kennedy school did a paper on this a year or two ago. The results after studying 20k+ fact checks from some of the major fact check orgs was that they were overwhelmingly in agreement as to what was true and what was false after accounting for discrepancies in their grading systems.

I’ll try and find it.

ETA: https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/fact-checking-fact-checkers-a-data-driven-approach/

 

[titusbramble]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

Well, if you believe in the First Amendment then it only involves removing illegal content

Why would Joe, Musk, Zuck and other similarly situated business owners concern themselves with the first amendment? They have very strong incentives to moderate their platforms without regard to the US constitution whatsoever.

Because it is the right thing to do? Just let people talk and make their own minds up on stuff, if someone is that much of a snowflake that nasty words or controversial topics upset you, then maybe they need to grow up

 

[GroveDiesel]

Defer to whom you choose.

Thanks for that.

In this case, I feel ok deferring to Mark Zuckerberg on his assessment of a feature on his site and why he changed it.

I think that’s a reasonable opinion. But I also think reasonable people could see a statement saying that “fact checkers have become too politically biased” without any evidence provided to demonstrate that and question the legitimacy of that statement.

My guess is that for you Joe, you identify very easily with Zuck here because you have more awareness than most on how difficult moderation can be and everything that goes into it. I think you also are a very charitable individual that tends to take people at their word.

I probably lean more the other direction. Some of that is because I believe that Facebook/Facebook leadership has repeatedly demonstrated that they’ll lie, deceive, manipulate, and take advantage of their users as well as lie to regulators. So when one of the most wealthy and most powerful people in the world makes a pretty big statement like that without providing strong evidence to back it up, my initial reaction is to doubt that he’s either a) telling the truth or b) hiding the actual motivation.

You don't have to trust Zuckerberg at all. Just look around. Fact checkers do their work in public. When you see something get "fact checked" in the media, does the analysis of the fact checker make sense to you? Is their reasoning sound? Most importantly, when they make a mistake (they're human - they will make the occasional mistake) does the mistake always run in the same direction?

If your experience is that fact checkers are straight arrows who don't consistently err in one direction, great. That hasn't been my experience at all. When Zuckerberg tells me that he's noticed the same thing, I just take that as a data point that somebody else has apparently had a similar experience to me.

To be honest, I’m not really sure how Facebook’s fact checker system previously worked. Was it individuals making calls on stuff? Was it collaborative in some way? Was it a specific group that had a specific political lean?

I know a lot of fact checking organizations out there were created specifically with intent on “face checking” mainly an opposing political viewpoint. It’s easy to see how bias would infect that system and I certainly have rolled my eyes at quite a few fact checks with obvious agendas.

I’m guessing you have a better idea of how Facebook’s fact check system worked and why their system would be biased? Were they allowing these partisan groups to do their fact checking?

Thinking out loud, I think one of my biggest quibbles oftentimes is more the definitive conclusion of “True” or “False” rather than the info provided. Often the info at least gives more context to a situation or statement but putting a True/False label in it pushed it into bias. Which would be an argument for the benefit of a “community note” versus a “fact checker”.

 

[Ilov80s]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

Well, if you believe in the First Amendment then it only involves removing illegal content

Why would Joe, Musk, Zuck and other similarly situated business owners concern themselves with the first amendment? They have very strong incentives to moderate their platforms without regard to the US constitution whatsoever.

Because it is the right thing to do? Just let people talk and make their own minds up on stuff, if someone is that much of a snowflake that nasty words or controversial topics upset you, then maybe they need to grow up

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Defer to whom you choose.

Thanks for that.

In this case, I feel ok deferring to Mark Zuckerberg on his assessment of a feature on his site and why he changed it.

I think that’s a reasonable opinion. But I also think reasonable people could see a statement saying that “fact checkers have become too politically biased” without any evidence provided to demonstrate that and question the legitimacy of that statement.

My guess is that for you Joe, you identify very easily with Zuck here because you have more awareness than most on how difficult moderation can be and everything that goes into it. I think you also are a very charitable individual that tends to take people at their word.

I probably lean more the other direction. Some of that is because I believe that Facebook/Facebook leadership has repeatedly demonstrated that they’ll lie, deceive, manipulate, and take advantage of their users as well as lie to regulators. So when one of the most wealthy and most powerful people in the world makes a pretty big statement like that without providing strong evidence to back it up, my initial reaction is to doubt that he’s either a) telling the truth or b) hiding the actual motivation.

You don't have to trust Zuckerberg at all. Just look around. Fact checkers do their work in public. When you see something get "fact checked" in the media, does the analysis of the fact checker make sense to you? Is their reasoning sound? Most importantly, when they make a mistake (they're human - they will make the occasional mistake) does the mistake always run in the same direction?

If your experience is that fact checkers are straight arrows who don't consistently err in one direction, great. That hasn't been my experience at all. When Zuckerberg tells me that he's noticed the same thing, I just take that as a data point that somebody else has apparently had a similar experience to me.

To be honest, I’m not really sure how Facebook’s fact checker system previously worked. Was it individuals making calls on stuff? Was it collaborative in some way? Was it a specific group that had a specific political lean?

I know a lot of fact checking organizations out there were created specifically with intent on “face checking” mainly an opposing political viewpoint. It’s easy to see how bias would infect that system and I certainly have rolled my eyes at quite a few fact checks with obvious agendas.

I’m guessing you have a better idea of how Facebook’s fact check system worked and why their system would be biased? Were they allowing these partisan groups to do their fact checking?

Thinking out loud, I think one of my biggest quibbles oftentimes is more the definitive conclusion of “True” or “False” rather than the info provided. Often the info at least gives more context to a situation or statement but putting a True/False label in it pushed it into bias. Which would be an argument for the benefit of a “community note” versus a “fact checker”.

Sorry. To be clear, I was talking about fact-checking more generally. I'm not on Facebook and I don't know how this works there. My fault.

 

[titusbramble]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

Well, if you believe in the First Amendment then it only involves removing illegal content

Why would Joe, Musk, Zuck and other similarly situated business owners concern themselves with the first amendment? They have very strong incentives to moderate their platforms without regard to the US constitution whatsoever.

Because it is the right thing to do? Just let people talk and make their own minds up on stuff, if someone is that much of a snowflake that nasty words or controversial topics upset you, then maybe they need to grow up

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Well, no, but your other customers do not have the ability to press one button and have them gone forever as you do on any reputable social media platform, so that is a pretty weird and irrelevant analogy

 

[Joe Bryant]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

Well, if you believe in the First Amendment then it only involves removing illegal content

Why would Joe, Musk, Zuck and other similarly situated business owners concern themselves with the first amendment? They have very strong incentives to moderate their platforms without regard to the US constitution whatsoever.

Because it is the right thing to do? Just let people talk and make their own minds up on stuff, if someone is that much of a snowflake that nasty words or controversial topics upset you, then maybe they need to grow up

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Well, no, but your other customers do not have the ability to press one button and have them gone forever as you do on any reputable social media platform, so that is a pretty weird and irrelevant analogy

The curation / blocking is a fair point.

I've struggled a bit too on that. Most forums have a blocking feature. We do here. But I don't like it too much as maybe it's naive but I'd prefer the whole forum be good.

And I don't like the echo chamber angle.

But also I fully admit I'm being hypocritical there as in some ways my moderating creates an "echo chamber" of people mostly operating in a way I think is best.

So I guess I'm saying it's complicated. And I'm glad I don't have to run Facebook.

 

[the moops]

I have tried to unfollow Musk several times but his inane takes still pop up on my feed. He may have the most community notes corrections of anyone ever with all the nonsense he posts/reposts

 

[titusbramble]

I have tried to unfollow Musk several times but his inane takes still pop up on my feed. He may have the most community notes corrections of anyone ever with all the nonsense he posts/reposts

Let me guess, you are using the For You tab rather than the Following tab?

 

[Ilov80s]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

Well, if you believe in the First Amendment then it only involves removing illegal content

Why would Joe, Musk, Zuck and other similarly situated business owners concern themselves with the first amendment? They have very strong incentives to moderate their platforms without regard to the US constitution whatsoever.

Because it is the right thing to do? Just let people talk and make their own minds up on stuff, if someone is that much of a snowflake that nasty words or controversial topics upset you, then maybe they need to grow up

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Well, no, but your other customers do not have the ability to press one button and have them gone forever as you do on any reputable social media platform, so that is a pretty weird and irrelevant analogy

Except unlike a normal bar, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of new patrons streaming in constantly and each customer having toblock them one by one is kind of an impossible mission.

 

[Ilov80s]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

I don't know about that. Here's an article full of really nasty hateful things posted on X that were reported and deemed acceptable. I've reported posts of people calling Black people the n word and monkeys, reported and gotten back messages saying there was no violation. Some of the things said about women on there regularly, good lord.

 

[tommyGunZ]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

This is EXACTLY it. And it’s why the “Twitter files” were more interesting for what they didn’t show than what they did, in my opinion. Weiss and Taibbi’s reporting showed exactly what I would have expected to find: a team of well meaning individuals struggling to moderate at the margins. Going back and forth about how far a post went, etc. There was debate and disagreement, and in the end sometimes they were right and sometimes they went a step too far. But again, that’s what a rational person should expect.

Despite having access to all the files, what Weiss and Taibbi DIDN’T find was some conspiracy amongst biased moderators to shut down a particular viewpoint or side. There were no emails or chat logs coordinating a conspiracy, and no smoking gun. Which would be expected if there was this grand conspiracy that many claim.

 

[tommyGunZ]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

I don't know about that. Here's an article full of really nasty hateful things posted on X that were reported and deemed acceptable. I've reported posts of people calling Black people the n word and monkeys, reported and gotten back messages saying there was no violation. Some of the things said about women on there regularly, good lord.

In fairness, I don’t think Musk is even pretending to censor Nazis, misogynists, and racists at this point, is he? I’m no longer on Twitter but I’ve heard it’s a cesspool.

 

[titusbramble]

Bigger picture thought - I can't imagine the work it takes to moderate a big platform.

Well, if you believe in the First Amendment then it only involves removing illegal content

Why would Joe, Musk, Zuck and other similarly situated business owners concern themselves with the first amendment? They have very strong incentives to moderate their platforms without regard to the US constitution whatsoever.

Because it is the right thing to do? Just let people talk and make their own minds up on stuff, if someone is that much of a snowflake that nasty words or controversial topics upset you, then maybe they need to grow up

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Well, no, but your other customers do not have the ability to press one button and have them gone forever as you do on any reputable social media platform, so that is a pretty weird and irrelevant analogy

Except unlike a normal bar, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of new patrons streaming in constantly and blocking them one by one is kind of an impossible mission.

True, but at the same time, if you're just using the following tab, you're only going to see absolute clowns in two spots - if you go into deep dives of comments, or if you follow people who continually repost such clowns. Both are on you, and if you use the For You tab (which is deliberately algorithmed to give you content you are more likely to interact with, namely stuff that you may not agree with), you're on your own. You only see them if you actively look for them.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

I don't know about that. Here's an article full of really nasty hateful things posted on X that were reported and deemed acceptable. I've reported posts of people calling Black people the n word and monkeys, reported and gotten back messages saying there was no violation. Some of the things said about women on there regularly, good lord.

In fairness, I don’t think Musk is even pretending to censor Nazis, misogynists, and racists at this point, is he? I’m no longer on Twitter but I’ve heard it’s a cesspool.

I'm careful about who I follow but it works great for me.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I have tried to unfollow Musk several times but his inane takes still pop up on my feed. He may have the most community notes corrections of anyone ever with all the nonsense he posts/reposts

Let me guess, you are using the For You tab rather than the Following tab?

To be fair, I don't follow Musk, but he is definitely the most quoted/RTed person in my TL. That doesn't bother me, but that's probably because I voluntarily follow people who RT Elon's greatest hits.

On the other hand, I honestly can't recall ever seeing the N-word used in anger on Twitter. I definitely know that it happens, but I don't follow those people. (In reference to @Ilov80s above).

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don't know about that.

What is "that" I said you don't know about?

My point is I think there's a lot of gray area and I think it's often difficult.

 

[Joe Bryant]

In fairness, I don’t think Musk is even pretending to censor Nazis, misogynists, and racists at this point, is he? I’m no longer on Twitter but I’ve heard it’s a cesspool.

I'm not knowledgeable about what all is censored. I'm on Twitter more than any site I visit and I don't see anything like that even in the "for you" tab.

And certainly nothing close to that in the "following" tab.

I'd pay $100 a month for X. It's that crucial to what we do as a business in staying informed.

 

[titusbramble]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

I don't know about that. Here's an article full of really nasty hateful things posted on X that were reported and deemed acceptable. I've reported posts of people calling Black people the n word and monkeys, reported and gotten back messages saying there was no violation. Some of the things said about women on there regularly, good lord.

In fairness, I don’t think Musk is even pretending to censor Nazis, misogynists, and racists at this point, is he? I’m no longer on Twitter but I’ve heard it’s a cesspool.

Well, ignoring that I've never seen anything you speak of (if anything, the only political extremists I see are on the far left, even after most of them have moved to the echo chamber that is BlueCry), this goes back to the fundamental point - do you not believe in freedom of speech? Yeah, some people say stuff I don't like. We have one of them running my country. I'll still defend his right to say it, and it doesn't take much to stop you hearing it.

 

[uwillbsoon]

I think it’s fair to say that the decision was revenue driven in so much that the marketplace has basically said “we prefer this fact checking method more than this one”. So Zuck is following the revenue by observing what the market wants, which is his job.

Absolutely.

I give him credit for fixing something he (or the market) seems to see as broken.

I thought his video message was remarkably forthright in admitting it had gone wrong and too far.

I'd argue the market finds Twitter's community notes much worse based on their steep ad revenue decline following the replacement of the trust and safety team by community notes.

I've heard revenue dropped by somewhere around fifty percent. It's why Musk is desperately flailing for other revenue models.

What market are you all referring to?

 

[Ilov80s]

I don't know about that.

What is "that" I said you don't know about?

My point is I think there's a lot of gray area and I think it's often difficult.

That it isn't that clear cut. Sure not always, but there are a lot of very clear cut accounts on X allowed to exist and post whatever they want. You are ofc right about grey areas as well.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If I was the owner of a bar and NAZIs kept coming in to mock and harass my other customers, it wouldn’t be the other customers I would expect to grow up.

Agreed. But the challenge is for most of the things, it's never quite that clear cut.

It's not nazi's harassing the customers. That one is easy. It's the guy coming in and talking a little too loud and cutting in line at the bar in front of the other customers. Or the guy who constantly complains there aren't enough televisions on the game he wants. Or the guy who curses a little too loud when there are people there that prefer not to have that. It's the gray area that gets you.

At least that's been my experience.

Devil's in the details seems like an apt line.

I don't know about that. Here's an article full of really nasty hateful things posted on X that were reported and deemed acceptable. I've reported posts of people calling Black people the n word and monkeys, reported and gotten back messages saying there was no violation. Some of the things said about women on there regularly, good lord.

I think we're sort of talking around the main issue. I just don't care if people on Twitter -- or any other platform -- say things that I consider over the line, as long as I can opt out. When I say I don't care, I mean that it truly doesn't bother me in the slightest and I never even think about it. If I don't see the Nazis and racists, they don't affect my enjoyment of the platform in any way.

This place is different. Even with the ignore feature, you can't really tune out the the discussion here. If somebody was dropping N-bombs and Joe inexplicably let it go, it would be in all of our faces all the time. But you sure can tune that out on Twitter.