![]() ![]() I mean, there's been a lot of attention, obviously, on the decisions to flag some of Donald Trump's tweets. Lichfield: Let's talk a little bit about some of the things you've done over the last couple of years. Uh, and that's where some of the challenges and our understanding of what healthy public organization means is still emergent for us to be able to boil it down into these simple metrics. The challenges two years ago, as we understood them are very different today. The challenge lies in being able to measure them in a way that is able to evolve as the conversation evolves, in a way that is reliable and can stand the test of time, as the conversation two years ago was very different from the conversation today. Lichfield: Do you have a sense of what an example of such a metric would look like?Īgrawal: So when we set out to talk about this, we hypothesized, there were a few metrics around, do people share a sense of reality? Do people have diverse perspectives and can be exposed to diverse perspectives? We thought about is the conversation civil, right? So, conceptually these are all properties we desire in a healthy public conversation. But I'm also excited about all the other avenues of research this approach opens up for us. And I still hold out hope that with this open-ended approach, there'll be academics and our collaboration with them, which will ultimately lead us to understand public conversation and healthy public conversation enough to be able to boil down the measurement to few metrics. So in some sense, I'm glad that we set out on that journey. Uh, we've seen research across four 20 countries, access it. ![]() And one of the things that directly led to that conversation was in April, as we saw, uh, COVID, uh, we created an end point for COVID-related conversation that academic researchers could have access to. Uh, and there are a bunch of API related products that we'll be shipping in the coming months. But what's remained is us realizing that we need to work with academic researchers outside of Twitter, share more of our data in an open-ended setting, where they're able to use it to do research, to advance various fields. What's changed is whether or not we are prescriptive in trying to boil things down to a few numbers. And this conversation has informed a change in our approach. What we realized in working with experts from many places is that it's very, very challenging to boil down the nuances and intricacies of what we consider a healthy public conversation into a few simple to understand, easy to measure metrics that you can put your faith in. “They believe they can use their influence inside Twitter to either repress speech that they don’t like or potentially track their enemies.Agrawal: Two years ago in working with actually some folks at the MIT media lab and inspired by the thinking, we set out on a project to work with academics outside of the company, to see if we could define a few simple metrics or measurements to indicate the health of the public conversation. “My belief is that the Saudis stay in because they’ve got a political agenda, and that political agenda is likely not to increase political speech on Twitter’s platform,” Murphy previously told POLITICO. Murphy told POLITICO that if CFIUS fails to act, he wants Congress to investigate. Murphy wrote to CFIUS in late October calling for a review of the foreign investors in Musk’s purchase and if they have any outstanding influence in how Twitter operates. review would take place, Biden said, “there’s a lot of ways,” but declined to elaborate. transactions - could be reviewing the Saudi ties.Īsked how a U.S. government is currently retroactively reviewing the purchase, but recent reports indicate the Treasury Department’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States - tasked with investigating foreign investments in U.S. Responding to a reporter’s question, Biden didn’t confirm whether the U.S. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |