wp-plugin-hostgator domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114ol-scrapes domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114Source: https:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2022\/4\/26\/23040879\/elon-musk-twitter-plans-free-speech-bots-anonymity-algorithm-open-source<\/a> Twitter has accepted a buyout offer from Tesla and SpaceX billionaire Elon Musk, leading to a day of frenzied speculation over one question: how is Musk going to change Twitter? Musk\u2019s stated plans are a series of features and principles that he may or may not be serious about pursuing, but they demonstrate a potentially conflicting series of goals and changes whose mechanics have been outlined very little \u2014 if at all.<\/p>\n Musk named his priorities in a press release, echoing earlier statements he\u2019s made<\/a> about potential changes. \u201cFree speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated,\u201d he said. \u201cI also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans.\u201d<\/p>\n In other words, he\u2019s got four main ideas for unlocking Twitter\u2019s potential, and every single one is a huge can of worms. Let\u2019s break them down one at a time.<\/p>\n Online speech is a minefield, and if Musk really intends on a minimally moderated Twitter worldwide, he could expect huge fights in countries that restrict things like hate speech and false information. But Musk\u2019s view of free speech doesn\u2019t seem too concerned with that<\/a>. In a TED interview, he indicated that Twitter should \u201cmatch the laws of the country,\u201d which suggests he could continue practices like region-locking certain content and follow rules like India\u2019s social media regulations.<\/p>\n Musk has a lot more leeway over changing Twitter\u2019s policies around what kinds of content are banned, of course, and when users are suspended. He\u2019s indicated that he would rather err on the side of \u201ctime-outs\u201d and leave borderline content online. Many have speculated that this would return former President Donald Trump to the platform, which isn\u2019t an unreasonable prediction, but Musk hasn\u2019t said anything about it publicly. (Trump has also claimed he wouldn\u2019t come back.)<\/p>\n There are some excellent overviews of how Musk might decide to tweak Twitter\u2019s policies and the hazards he\u2019d face, including from The Atlantic\u2019s<\/em> Charlie Warzel<\/a> and TechDirt\u2019s<\/em><\/a> Mike Masnick.<\/a> But, at this point, we don\u2019t know very much about how Musk would concretely change Twitter\u2019s speech policies. He\u2019d probably urge moderators to hand down fewer bans and potentially leave questionable content up. But virtually every site that claims a \u201cfree speech\u201d banner ends up banning something that makes it deeply unpleasant for users, advertisers, or the site owners themselves \u2014 so it\u2019s premature to say how far his commitment will go.<\/p>\n One of Musk\u2019s areas of concern is recommendation algorithms that amplify or downrank tweets and accounts in potentially biased ways. He\u2019s proposed publishing Twitter\u2019s algorithmic sorting systems on Github for people to publicly review and comment on, making something like the \u201ctop tweets\u201d ranking system more theoretically legible.<\/p>\n Musk has described making the algorithm<\/a> \u201copen source,\u201d but he hasn\u2019t outlined specific plans to follow the requirements of an open source license, so he could mean it in a more informal sense. He could also be describing something that works within Twitter\u2019s central product or through the separate but Twitter-funded open source Bluesky project \u2014 which would have different implications for Twitter\u2019s core app.<\/p>\n Transparency is generally welcome, and Twitter\u2019s former CEO Jack Dorsey has also suggested letting users pick between different recommendation systems. That said, many web platforms (including Google and Reddit) don\u2019t disclose precisely how their systems work because that would give spammers and other bad actors a guidebook for gaming the system. Twitter\u2019s algorithm also won\u2019t explain how any given<\/em> tweet was prioritized unless Twitter releases a huge amount of supplementary data, nor would it necessarily illuminate the rationale behind any human moderation that intersects with it. And it would be incredibly vulnerable to people who want to make bad-faith claims by taking pieces of it out of context, willfully misinterpreting them or sowing conspiracy theories about them.<\/p>\n Beyond that, Musk hasn\u2019t described how he\u2019d integrate any suggestions made by other developers or readers \u2014 which, again, would probably involve a lot<\/em> of spammers \u2014 into Twitter\u2019s algorithm. Maybe he could follow the path suggested by Dorsey and let people fork their own versions of Twitter\u2019s recommendation system, turning it into an actual open source system? Maybe he could set up a Facebook Oversight Board-style committee that would approve suggested changes? We won\u2019t know for a while.<\/p>\n Musk has indicated that \u201cspam and scam bots\u201d and \u201cbot armies\u201d are Twitter\u2019s new Public Enemy No. 1. That makes sense, as Musk is a perennial subject of scammy crypto impersonators<\/a>. How he\u2019d police this, however, is an open question. Unlike with speech maximalism, there\u2019s no huge philosophical difference here \u2014 nobody likes spambots! Twitter already purges fake accounts<\/a> and has banned certain features<\/a>, like tweeting simultaneously from multiple accounts, that facilitate bot spam. So how would Musk do better?<\/p>\n Well, Musk could have some kind of hitherto-unannounced anti-spam tool in the works, although there\u2019s no indication he\u2019s spent more time thinking about this than Twitter\u2019s own engineers have. (Again: Twitter has lots of incentives to police spam already!) Or Musk could simply decide to err far more heavily on blocking non-malicious automated account activity, locking down access to Twitter\u2019s API, or demoting content from humans who act too much like bots.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, that goal would probably work in conflict with his push for freedom of expression and transparency. As mentioned above, publishing the inner workings of Twitter\u2019s amplification system would also give spammers more tools to work with. And a strict automation crackdown could block bots that perform interesting and valuable services on Twitter \u2014 like Big Tech Alert<\/a>, which tracks who Silicon Valley\u2019s big players (including Musk) are following and unfollowing, or Editing TheGrayLady<\/a>, which illuminates how The New York Times<\/em> tweaks its headlines and copy over time. Bots are a long-standing and beloved part of Twitter, and separating a good bot from a bad bot might be harder than Musk thinks.<\/p>\n The weirdest and arguably most disruptive part of Musk\u2019s Twitter pitch lies in his last three words: \u201cauthenticating all humans.\u201d Musk made a similar comment<\/a> on Twitter before the purchase, phrasing it as \u201cauthenticate all real humans,\u201d following a commitment to defeat bots. He hasn\u2019t been specific about the goal of this authentication, though, or how it would be carried out.<\/p>\n \u201cAuthentication\u201d could potentially mean a couple of different things here. It could refer to people having to pass some kind of captcha-style \u201cam I a human\u201d test to post \u2014 although, as with spambot bans, if there were an easy way to do this without affecting good-faith users, Twitter would probably have done it already. It could also mean asking people to submit identification that proves they\u2019re specific<\/em> humans, either to receive a verification checkmark (something Musk has previously suggested<\/a>) or to operate on the service at all.<\/p>\n Twitter has a long-standing commitment to allowing anonymous or pseudonymous speech, even submitting legal briefs<\/a> arguing for its benefits. Asking users to de-anonymize themselves undercuts that commitment significantly. Even if a name isn\u2019t revealed to other users, collecting information on real identities offers a trove of information for governments to request, and it\u2019s vulnerable to hacks or security flaws. \u201cThere are no easy ways to require verification without wreaking havoc for some users, and for free speech,\u201d the Electronic Frontier Foundation noted yesterday<\/a>.<\/p>\n Musk likes to throw out odd ideas as a provocation, so his statements yesterday may not end up reflecting where the platform goes. If Twitter\u2019s past moderation challenges are any indication, though, every change is going to open up a whole new set of questions to answer. The open question is how much interest Musk has in managing the fallout.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/br><\/code><\/p>\nFree speech<\/h2>\n
\u201cOpen source\u201d algorithms<\/h2>\n
Spam and scam bots<\/h2>\n
Authenticate all humans?<\/h2>\n