I don't understand why they don't just make the "reciprocity" argument. The fact that we allow Chinese social networks in the US while they block ours doesn't pass the smell test. To me, this line of argument is easier to rally around as it's more business focused and avoids free speech/national security debates which only serve to muddy the waters
I think here, the question of reciprocal digital communication and the (free) flow of information is markedly different from the reciprocity of physical goods, as the latter has historically had far stricter entry requirements, regulatory, monetary, or otherwise.
Regarding the former, none of the global players are perfect when it comes to unencumbered access to their respective digital markets, but as Tiktok (and recently Temu) demonstrate, getting a foothold in one may be easier than another.
PRC regulatory requirements for communication is expensive for domestic players, why should western entrants be spared? That's like allowing PRC auto in US on less stringent safety requirements. The reason FB and twitter pulled out in 09 after minority/terrorist attacks was because they didn't have the moderation system in place, while PRC platforms had 10000s of expensive, physical bodies doing the grunt work at the time. Which was prescient, and it wasn't until western platforms started implementing mass moderation post NZ shooting that they started initatives to retner PRC market (FB & Google at least), because they finally spent the money and can now scale it in PRC. It was only internal drama at FB and Google that killed the project. If anything TikTok has to bend backwards harder than US platforms to appease US gov because they don't know what "speech" triggers US politicians, whereas in PRC, western companies just had to say yes to censorship and access requests.
> unencumbered access to their respective digital markets
I wonder about this. Up until recently dominant networks were US native or backed by US companies (e.g. even Spotify for instance has a US office, is traded on the NY exchange and is backed by US cloud services) so we haven't seen what happens when a sheer foreign company gets a foothold in the market. Until Tiktok.
And as Tiktok is getting banned, I get the feeling any other foreign company reaching a dominant position with no US transparency would get the same treatment under national security or any other pretense, with US politicians opining that citizen data getting sucked away isn't acceptable. Especially as the foreign compnay's money doesn't land in their party's pockets the same Meta's or Alphabet's money does.
Except the US still wouldn’t have achieved reciprocity by banning tiktok. China can and does already enact whatever protectionist policies they want including against non tech.
I thought that only authoritarian regimes are blocking foreign medias and that’s a bad thing. At least that’s sth US was preaching. It seems freedom of press or free market is only good when it serves you.
Not really discovering anything new here. Just showing that countries only use values at their convenience.
I wonder if their A/B test showed that this was somehow "solving" the "spam of spam reports" problem. It would be fairy naive but I could envision a world where they tested this out, saw fewer (but more detailed) spam reports and concluded that the prior distribution of spam reports was itself not reliable (e.g overcounted the problem).
This is obviously self-serving but seems like it may at least be a "consistent" world view where they aren't totally cynical.
It's just bad UX and confusing. Consider this question "Who is this report for?". Here are the options:
1. Myself
2. Someone else or a specific group of people
-- This Tweet is directed at or mentions someone else or a specific group of people — like racial or religious groups.
Everyone on Twitter
3. This Tweet isn’t targeting a specific person or group, but it affects everyone on Twitter — like misleading info or sensitive content.
For the same Vitalik spam tweet you see everywhere, I'm guessing 3, but its kind of weird question
Then "Everyone on Twitter is being ..."
1. Attacked because of their identity
2. Slurs, misgendering, racist or sexist stereotypes, encouraging others to harass, sending hateful imagery
Harassed or intimidated with violence
3. Sexual harassment, group harassment, insults or name calling, posting private info, threatening to expose private info, violent event denial, violent threats, celebration of violent acts
4. Spammed
5. Posting malicious links, misusing hashtags, fake engagement, repetitive replies, Retweets, or Direct Messages.
Shown content related to or encouraged to self-harm
6. Shown misleading info
7. Offered tips or currency — or encouraged to send them — in a way that’s deceptive or promotes or causes harm
I guess spammed, but I'm pretty sure its a malicious link and misleading, so either 4 or 5 or 6
Then, "How is @... doing this?"
1. Posting misleading or deceptive links, leading to scams, phishing, or other malicious links
2. Misusing hashtags, such as unrelated hashtags and large number of hashtags
3. Sending a lot of aggressive, unwanted, repetitive or unrelated replies, Retweets, or Direct Messages
4. Fake engagement, such as aggressively Retweeting or buying and selling Likes, replies, or other Twitter features
5. Using multiple accounts to interact or coordinate with other people to manipulate accounts, Tweets, or other Twitter features
6. Following and then unfollowing large numbers of accounts so to inflate follower count
7. Something else
I guess its a deceptive link, but I'm not sure because I didn't click on it. I also didn't click 5 on the previous step which was "posting malicious links", I clicked spammed. But he's also using repetitive or unrelated replies so maybe 3 as well? And almost certainly the person running the scam is using multiple accounts.
That's a lot of words to read every time, and I'm pretty sure it has changed since I started reporting stuff regularly.
These questions are the kind of questions you put up when you want to funnel some (or most) of the reports into the trash can.
One thing Twitter certainly has to deal with is hordes of people reporting tweets, even if they're "ok" - I have to believe every single Trump tweet received hundreds if not thousands of reports immediately upon posting.
Reminds me of this excerpt from an Obama interview:
> When problems reached him in the White House, he said, it was because they were unsolvable. He generally was being asked to choose between two bad options. “By definition, if it was an easily solvable problem, or even a modestly difficult but solvable problem, it would not reach me, because, by definition, somebody else would have solved it,” he said. “So the only decisions that came were the ones that were horrible and that didn’t have a good solution."
This is only true where the system at least somewhat works. In other places you get police press conferences where they say "The president/governor has already given us orders to investigate the crime".
How can it be "by definition"? Is the president defined as someone who picks unsolvable problems? Are the subordinates
defined as people who solve every single solvable problem?
Not sure how heavily used it is, but FWIW Postmates does offer a $10/month subscription service for reduced fees/free delivery like most other food delivery services do
I’d say it’s more likely they have super advanced/clever ways of doing the latter. The algorithm could be a simple dot product and the result could be great or terrible depending on how good the feature extraction is.
Pulling useful features out of videos is no small task. The fact that everyone raves about how good the recommendations are indicates to me that this is where their innovation lies.
There's so much good meta-data (likes, comments, duration, sound used, views, like/view ratio, skips, loops, subscribes, etc.) that I'd be surprised if they were digging into the contents of the video at all right now.
They could also be digging only into audio, doing speech recognition on it, then clustering the text. Augment that with the text users have put into the video directly using the in-app editor and you have some pretty solid data.
If that were true, it'd be interesting to see if they push out support for close-captioning. It's an accessibility push, but also would leverage a lot of the same capabilities...
Would this have any advantage over just using video embeddings (or a sequence of frame embeddings?) which in theory should capture those things in vectorized form.
It can be a) very expensive b) also very difficult to implement.
Video understanding is an active field of research and I'm not sure state of the art is there yet for capturing nuance like engagement potential, categories etc.
Google was able to build a very useful search engine that ran for decades relying on the significance of links and keywords, without much understanding of the meaning of page content. You can get very far with the readily available data, before you need to delve into the fancy stuff to make it a few percent better.
That would be the "sound used". The music in the video is specified/labeled before upload so there's no need to actually process the sound of the video.
Again definitely not a lawyer but I’d imagine advertising an ETF or selling a subscription to an email list based on these trades (both ideas from this thread) would be pretty clear violations.
Having been through this recently I certainly empathize with feeling like you're doing something wrong when looking for a new job. What got me through it was realizing that if the company was looking to replace me they would do the exact same thing - it's just how business works.
That being said, as difficult as it is to continue to give 100% leaving well is very important for building references that could help you in the future.
I loved Dan Lyons fake Steve Job columns, but Disrupted didn't work for me at all. He presented himself as the lone adult in a sea of misfit children, but came across as a clueless and bitter crank. The same (admittedly keen) observations about the corporate culture would have gone down so much better (for me) if he hadn't tried to crammed every page with so much smug superiority.
