Twitter | Search | |
Yehuda Katz 🥨
Tilde Co-Founder, OSS enthusiast and world traveler.
41,473
Tweets
931
Following
66,444
Followers
Tweets
Yehuda Katz 🥨 retweeted
Yehuda Katz 🥨 22m
Replying to @chriseppstein
Machine learning encoded our biases in software that can operate much faster than us. It's the Singularity, but we're driving.
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 22m
Replying to @chriseppstein
Machine learning encoded our biases in software that can operate much faster than us. It's the Singularity, but we're driving.
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 28m
Replying to @SimonLevermann
It seems totally fine to me for a platform to ban people because they engaged in overtly hateful speech. Machine learning is a different story, and this example shows how we can easily encode our human biases into machines that can operate much faster than we can.
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 29m
Replying to @lawwantsin
And it seems VERY clear to me that in the context of Twitter's global userbase, "let's ban a bunch of Muslims by accident to get ISIS" is not a broadly held position.
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 30m
Replying to @lawwantsin
The Constitution (and laws in accordance with the Constitution) is our way of agreeing in a durable way, as a society, what broad free speech tradeoffs we are willing to make. Platforms can make other decisions, but on the basis of their users, not "society"
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 32m
Replying to @wycats
I just couldn't think of a great word for the (admittedly meta) question of "content that should not be restricted" that could be used rhetorically and clearly. 😕
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 32m
Replying to @wycats
P.S. I'm using "hateless" rhetorically because it was hard to find a term that means "not actively harmful" that didn't also pass a judgement about whether it was *acceptable* I also didn't want to say that Republican comments are "harmless", because they quite often aren't.
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 32m
Replying to @wycats
The only way to square these positions is to say that restricting the hateless speech of Muslim politicians is a substantially lower cost than restricting hateless speech of Republican politicians. This is pretty disgusting.
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 32m
Replying to @wycats
Both of these positions are coherent but: - their position on ISIS is not compatible with what they've said historically - their position on Nazis is not compatible with their position on ISIS
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 32m
Replying to @wycats
But they decided that hateless speech by Republicans cannot be restricted in order to restrict hateful Nazi speech.
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 32m
Replying to @wycats
They decided that hateless speech by Muslims (which includes Muslim politicians) can be restricted in order to restrict hateful ISIS speech.
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 32m
Replying to @wycats
In reality, technical leadership (and maybe corporate leadership) at Twitter took it upon themselves to decide which hateless speech could acceptably be restricted in order to restrict hateful speech.
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 32m
Replying to @wycats
I don't personally like this rubric for Twitter (and I think Twitter is entitled to create an environment for its users that is more restrictive on speech than the first amendment's restrictions), but it is absolutely what they said they were doing.
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 32m
Replying to @wycats
Very recently, Twitter claimed it was operating under the framework of "free speech", which does not allow banning massive categories of speech to get at some bad speech.
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 32m
It is not Twitter's job to decide which tradeoffs around speech "society deems acceptable"
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 55m
Replying to @wycats
THIS. IS. NOT. THEIR. JOB. TO. DECIDE. Sweeping up random Muslims in a dragnet because "society accepts the trade-off in order to ban ISIS" is almost literally the conspiracy theory that the conservative movement has about Twitter targeting them. It's not ok.
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 55m
Replying to @wycats
But society wouldn't accept the trade-off of banning Republican politicians.
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 55m
Twitter and Facebook constantly want to operate like governments. This article cites a Twitter machine learning engineer as saying that Twitter accepts the collateral damage to Muslims from banning ISIS "because society accepts that trade-off"
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 1h
<script type="module"> really should allow any app to be a module app given some time.
Reply Retweet Like
Yehuda Katz 🥨 1h
That's my preference as a TC39 member until such time as modules are fully ubiquitous.
Reply Retweet Like