TLDR: this post is entirely to calm advertisers, it can be boiled down to "don't worry, we still prioritize brand safety like before".
It does have this gem in it:
"What has changed, however, is our approach to experimentation. As you’ve seen over the past several weeks, Twitter is embracing public testing. We believe that this open and transparent approach to innovation is healthy, as it enables us to move faster and gather user feedback in real-time. We believe that a service of this importance will benefit from feedback at scale, and that there is value in being open about our experiments and what we are learning. We do all of this work with one goal in mind: to improve Twitter for our customers, partners, and the people who use it across the world."
What a weird thing to say... A/B tests are a thing, does anyone buy that experimenting with new things by rolling out new features to all users at once is a good strategy?
Twitter was previously doing A/B tests. Spaces, communities, downvotes, circles, and even moderation were applied only to a subset of accounts while they actively experimented. The new policy is an objectively less scientific approach to testing functionality than what was occurring before.
I think this new idea of "public testing" is really just a post hoc recasting of Elon's failed Twitter Blue rollout. Calling it by those words is...creative? But the failure was less an experiment as it was a lesson in humility.
How is that different from Tesla essentially using Tesla car owners as unpaid betatesters for their autonomous driving (and other) software while disclaiming all responsibility when anything happens?
This "learn by doing" is going to end up well ... not. Especially when trying to learn by repeating mistakes with completely foreseable consequences, like that blue "verified" badge being available for anyone who pays without any verification.
> What a weird thing to say... A/B tests are a thing, does anyone buy that experimenting with new things by rolling out new features to all users at once is a good strategy?
What it means: 'Elon looked bad when the blue checkmark fiasco happened. And more boo boos are on the way. Now Elon doesn't like to look bad. Solution? Everything we do is now covered by "it was just a test" disclaimer. Problem solved.'
I largely agree with your point, but I have to say as a user I generally don’t enjoy A/B testing at all. It’s invisible to me, and some part of the app or website I’m using is now either broken or annoying in some way, but still works normally for the people I mention it to, since they’re not in my group. Additionally, the changes are sometimes totally transient, so things are disrupted for me briefly, only to be distrusted again.
It's only weird, if you attempt to parse it with a straight face.
This is some B-grade best-effort spin on what has been uncontrolled chaos with predictably awful effects.
The only thing keeping Twitter rolling is the majority percentage of the casual niche user in non-political and non-technical niches, who haven't been paying attention to the chaos; and who by virtue of being casual users are not notably surprised at everything that has broken both culturally, wrt safety and content, and technically.
Unfortunately for Leon the money comes from corners who HAVE been paying attention and not only see what's happened, and ongoing—they see through this kind of comedic college-try at handwaving around it.
It sort of makes sense if the experiment is about judging not just individual user reactions but the wider reaction of the media, advertisers, "the conversation" to a change.
I don't think that makes it a good idea though, seems like each failed "experiment" poisons the pool and certainly makes it possible to do experiments in isolation.
The thing is Twitter already A/B tested a LOT and Twitter’s new owner is naive to those prior findings as well as the long-term effects of them. Any advertiser is going to want to know about attrition rates, and those were previously best reported through now-fired employees as well as earnings releases. This is Twitter’s new owner learning the hard way that there are dumb advertisers out there who do want quick lift but longer term he’ll retain only spam. No way Twitter ever gets better than Doubleclick now.
Musk literally said "we're going to dumb things" and keep the things that aren't dumb.
This "going to do dumb things" is completely on brand for him with his 5 step manufacturing improvement process, step 1 of which is "make your requirements less dumb".
This is actually how Nike works, having worked there. They try all kinds of weird things aren't aren't afraid to, and then drop the ones that don't work with no regrets, keeping what works. Try new things, fail fast isn't a bad strategy for innovation.
Whether or not it'll work out for twitter remains to be seen. Especially with the rest of biased tech still upset that they lost their monopoly on the narrative arrayed against him.
the marketing team writes a Grown Up , Adult blog post to try to look normal, then commander Elon will come out tomorrow high fiving more nazis [1] and banning more non-nazi accounts for supposedly belonging to "antifa" and saying things he doesn't personally like [2].
This is the same "trapped enabler" pattern we saw with Trump in the early days, with his staff constantly coming out to try to paper over whatever horrible thing he did. They had no shame, and neither does the Twitter staff that wrote this blog post.
I do not think it means A/B testing and such is going away, but that public testing is going to be more widespread about things most people will probably be interested in.
It might be just an escape plan when Musk uses platform for his own needs. Banning users he does not like or allowing certain speech when filtering others and so on….
I'm guessing that some product people finally managed to explain what an AB test is to Elon and why they use them to validate product ideas before rushing implementations out the door based on gut instinct. Aside from trying to assuage advertisers about his capricious product decisions he's also trying to act like he is now an expert on digital product development.
It could make sense in the context of twitter. They're a "public square" so to speak, so if everyone experiences the same change, they can discuss it at the same time instead of small subsets experiencing it and being confused (or getting back data from the wrong people)
He should unban Trump as an A/B test, like ones who answered Yes in that poll should be in B group, ones answered No in A group got him banned. It would be great even to separate these people completely into the A/B Twitter (2.0) so they don't see each other's tweets. The main metric should be better poll distribution. Like instead of stupid 51/49 polls better miniority-suppressing 85/15 polls, and these 15 go into C group then eventually getting us to fair 100/0 polls and poll-communism, preventing any pesky problems with different opinions, we all know they are easily solved by polls.
I wonder why they don't have 7/12 polls in court, surely 9/12 is enough to decide a sentence already, and all americans think it's fair, why twitter doesn't freakin comply with 75% poll rule?
It's kind of hard to calm your advertisers when the boss has basically cut most of the marketing staff responsible for keeping contact with them. That's been the biggest issue so far, aside from the right-wing favoritism that the boss (Musk) has online (he's banned Crimethinc on a whim of Andy Ngo's hearsay). Basically, I wouldn't bother advertising on Twitter since the new boss/owner has no one to filter his nonsense out of the daily decision making. It's one thing to spew platitudes for free speech and it's another to actually lay out the rules of free speech on the platform (i.e. trying not to trigger regulations or reprisals of big govt agencies).
It's just referencing the fact that the new Twitter is more open and transparent. I can't believe how many people are spinning this as a bad thing.
We heard almost nothing from Parag and little from Jack when he was running it and experiments were opaque from the outside.
Now we're hearing from the CEO and employees like George Hotz about what they are doing and planning, and they're involving the community, asking for feedback directly.
Our Trust & Safety team continues its diligent work to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct, abusive behavior, and any violation of Twitter's rules
Should have prefixed that with "What is left of our trust & safety team..."
Has anyone shown actual data that proves Twitter has dropped the ball on this front, despite all the raging commentary about how many people have been let go or left?
> What has changed, however, is our approach to experimentation
including I suppose Elon's experimental approach to management.
I hope that in 10 years, we will look back at this twitter 2.0 (= musk's debacle) as the impetus that lead to more widespread adoption of social media 2.0 (= federation)
I already see the snowball effect getting momentum with all this coverage (NPR, NYT...) and big name exits (Apple...)
>First, none of our policies have changed. Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
> First, none of our policies have changed. Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
They recently unbanned many controversial accounts based solely on Twitter polls. Who do they expect will believe these statements?
First Twitter was going to crash in a week, then it was everyone would flee to Mastodon, now it’s that all the advertisers would leave.
Maybe Twitter really didn’t need 7500 people, and maybe having more voices speak is a good thing (there is always block button), and maybe advertisers won’t flee forever. That seems more likely to me than Twitter imploding.
> First, none of our policies have changed. Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
"Nothing has changed, except..."
> Our Trust & Safety team continues its diligent work to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct, abusive behavior, and any violation of Twitter's rules. The team remains strong and well-resourced, and automated detection plays an increasingly important role in eliminating abuse.
It's undeniably less well-resourced than it was a few weeks ago, and people's experience indicate it's clearly less effective as a result.
What a non-statement. I doubt advertisers will react the way Elon hopes they will.
I thought they had sacked the entirety of the Trust & Safety team. Especially considered I got added to something like 30 spam DM threads over the last week, and that reporting them did exactly nothing.
> What has changed, however, is our approach to experimentation. As you’ve seen over the past several weeks, Twitter is embracing public testing.
"Everybody calm down, the building is not on fire, this is just a test of our fire suppresion system. After we fired staff handling it. Also due to miscommunication someone filled it with diesel.
> Our approach to policy enforcement will rely more heavily on de-amplification of violative content: freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.
This is the only part of the statement that might possibly be referring to the algorithms. I think the worst thing twitter (and FB as well) has done in the past was to use algorithms to boost outrage and thus boost engagement. Are they saying they're going to change how this works? I'm skeptical.
As a reminder to developers and tech workers that are accustomed to the benefits of working in one of the more flexible and well-compensated fields for traditional employment, if Elon succeeds with his management style at Twitter—nay, even if he doesn't terribly and visibly fail—many folks managing large tech organizations and corporations in general will conclude that that management style is acceptable and sufficiently effective.
tl;dr: if Twitter doesn't get seriously hurt over the medium and long term, this entire industry is going to be a lot less fun to work in as management concludes they can put the squeeze on.
[+] [-] andreyk|3 years ago|reply
It does have this gem in it:
"What has changed, however, is our approach to experimentation. As you’ve seen over the past several weeks, Twitter is embracing public testing. We believe that this open and transparent approach to innovation is healthy, as it enables us to move faster and gather user feedback in real-time. We believe that a service of this importance will benefit from feedback at scale, and that there is value in being open about our experiments and what we are learning. We do all of this work with one goal in mind: to improve Twitter for our customers, partners, and the people who use it across the world."
What a weird thing to say... A/B tests are a thing, does anyone buy that experimenting with new things by rolling out new features to all users at once is a good strategy?
[+] [-] jzelinskie|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davesque|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] janoc|3 years ago|reply
This "learn by doing" is going to end up well ... not. Especially when trying to learn by repeating mistakes with completely foreseable consequences, like that blue "verified" badge being available for anyone who pays without any verification.
[+] [-] eternalban|3 years ago|reply
What it means: 'Elon looked bad when the blue checkmark fiasco happened. And more boo boos are on the way. Now Elon doesn't like to look bad. Solution? Everything we do is now covered by "it was just a test" disclaimer. Problem solved.'
[+] [-] everdrive|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|3 years ago|reply
Regulators, too [1].
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/a07ca1ae-9f9a-46ee-9457-27bb30e18...
[+] [-] 14u2c|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vineyardmike|3 years ago|reply
They need to explain musks antics somehow. More polite wording than idve used.
[+] [-] aaroninsf|3 years ago|reply
This is some B-grade best-effort spin on what has been uncontrolled chaos with predictably awful effects.
The only thing keeping Twitter rolling is the majority percentage of the casual niche user in non-political and non-technical niches, who haven't been paying attention to the chaos; and who by virtue of being casual users are not notably surprised at everything that has broken both culturally, wrt safety and content, and technically.
Unfortunately for Leon the money comes from corners who HAVE been paying attention and not only see what's happened, and ongoing—they see through this kind of comedic college-try at handwaving around it.
[+] [-] sharkjacobs|3 years ago|reply
I don't think that makes it a good idea though, seems like each failed "experiment" poisons the pool and certainly makes it possible to do experiments in isolation.
[+] [-] choppaface|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Toxide|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s2radhak|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alfalfasprout|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NaturalPhallacy|3 years ago|reply
This "going to do dumb things" is completely on brand for him with his 5 step manufacturing improvement process, step 1 of which is "make your requirements less dumb".
This is actually how Nike works, having worked there. They try all kinds of weird things aren't aren't afraid to, and then drop the ones that don't work with no regrets, keeping what works. Try new things, fail fast isn't a bad strategy for innovation.
Whether or not it'll work out for twitter remains to be seen. Especially with the rest of biased tech still upset that they lost their monopoly on the narrative arrayed against him.
[+] [-] zzzeek|3 years ago|reply
This is the same "trapped enabler" pattern we saw with Trump in the early days, with his staff constantly coming out to try to paper over whatever horrible thing he did. They had no shame, and neither does the Twitter staff that wrote this blog post.
[1] https://archive.ph/xYeYY - TPM article without paywall
[2] https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...
[+] [-] lesuorac|3 years ago|reply
How though, Twitter has had week(s) to prepare this post and its so bare.
> First, none of our policies have changed. ... The team remains strong and well-resourced.
If you're Eli Lily, why would you re-advertise on twitter. Nothings changed from when you stopped!
[+] [-] inquirerGeneral|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicce|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tootie|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guywithahat|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] awestley|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gloosx|3 years ago|reply
I wonder why they don't have 7/12 polls in court, surely 9/12 is enough to decide a sentence already, and all americans think it's fair, why twitter doesn't freakin comply with 75% poll rule?
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cpr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ladyattis|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] memish|3 years ago|reply
We heard almost nothing from Parag and little from Jack when he was running it and experiments were opaque from the outside.
Now we're hearing from the CEO and employees like George Hotz about what they are doing and planning, and they're involving the community, asking for feedback directly.
[+] [-] latchkey|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darknavi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheRealDunkirk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CrypticShift|3 years ago|reply
including I suppose Elon's experimental approach to management.
I hope that in 10 years, we will look back at this twitter 2.0 (= musk's debacle) as the impetus that lead to more widespread adoption of social media 2.0 (= federation)
I already see the snowball effect getting momentum with all this coverage (NPR, NYT...) and big name exits (Apple...)
[+] [-] Imnimo|3 years ago|reply
Sounds like a change in policy to me.
[+] [-] borbulon|3 years ago|reply
uh
https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/covid19.html
[+] [-] WallyFunk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] felipesoc|3 years ago|reply
They recently unbanned many controversial accounts based solely on Twitter polls. Who do they expect will believe these statements?
[+] [-] monero-xmr|3 years ago|reply
Maybe Twitter really didn’t need 7500 people, and maybe having more voices speak is a good thing (there is always block button), and maybe advertisers won’t flee forever. That seems more likely to me than Twitter imploding.
[+] [-] VikingCoder|3 years ago|reply
> ...impressions on violative content are down over the past month...
I think both of those claims are demonstrably false.
[+] [-] listless|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Macha|3 years ago|reply
"Nothing has changed, except..."
> Our Trust & Safety team continues its diligent work to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct, abusive behavior, and any violation of Twitter's rules. The team remains strong and well-resourced, and automated detection plays an increasingly important role in eliminating abuse.
It's undeniably less well-resourced than it was a few weeks ago, and people's experience indicate it's clearly less effective as a result.
What a non-statement. I doubt advertisers will react the way Elon hopes they will.
[+] [-] Communitivity|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frob|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alkonaut|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rcarmo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tbrownaw|3 years ago|reply
Switching from normal bans to something even shadowier than ordinary shadowbans?
[+] [-] ilyt|3 years ago|reply
"Everybody calm down, the building is not on fire, this is just a test of our fire suppresion system. After we fired staff handling it. Also due to miscommunication someone filled it with diesel.
[+] [-] arnvald|3 years ago|reply
* first joined the board then quit immediately
* made a purchase offer then almost immediately tried to withdraw it
* fired people then tried to rehire some of them
* claimed 20% of Twitter users are bots then let users decide to unban Trump
* announced absolute free speech then got angry when advertisers used their free speech to tell him they don't like how he runs the company
* allowed everyone to get verified checkmark then pulled it
* supported unlimited free speech then started banning people saying parody needs to be marked explicitly, then banned parody accounts anyway
And now they claim the moderation teams are well resourced and able to do their job just as before. How can anyone believe it?
[+] [-] UncleOxidant|3 years ago|reply
This is the only part of the statement that might possibly be referring to the algorithms. I think the worst thing twitter (and FB as well) has done in the past was to use algorithms to boost outrage and thus boost engagement. Are they saying they're going to change how this works? I'm skeptical.
[+] [-] Arubis|3 years ago|reply
tl;dr: if Twitter doesn't get seriously hurt over the medium and long term, this entire industry is going to be a lot less fun to work in as management concludes they can put the squeeze on.