RIP Twitter

#5,002
#5,002
McDad said:
This thread is all over the place so I apologize in advance if you've offered previously, but what is your position with Twitter. Do you want it to be a free speech platform? a privately held company with established guidelines? Both? Neither? All the above? None of the above? I like pie?
Click to expand...

Twitter is a private company and should by law be able to do basically whatever they want with content moderation. I think they have to moderate content. It can't be unfettered free speech. I think they should be fair about it. I think the biggest threat to anybody in all of this is people wanting the government to step in (for example, amending section 230).

I encourage social pressure for making moderation fair. I think asking for perfect rules and perfect fairness is asking too much. I ditched twitter after Jack Dorsey stepped down and things seemed to be getting worse. I got back on when Musk announced purchase. He's pretty much done nothing but disappoint ever since. He's revealed he doesn't understand free speech at all. His rules are clumsy and seem to enable all kinds of control on speech. He's banning accounts over trivial things. Lots of accounts from days of old are still suspended. As someone who is 3rd party and doesn't get rock hard pwning the other side, Musk has been a failure up to this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#5,004
#5,004
n_huffhines said:
Twitter is a private company and should by law be able to do basically whatever they want with content moderation. I think they have to moderate content. It can't be unfettered free speech. I think they should be fair about it. I think the biggest threat to anybody in all of this is people wanting the government to step in (for example, amending section 230).

I encourage social pressure for making moderation fair. I think asking for perfect rules and perfect fairness is asking too much. I ditched twitter after Jack Dorsey stepped down and things seemed to be getting worse. I got back on when Musk announced purchase. He's pretty much done nothing but disappoint ever since. He's revealed he doesn't understand free speech at all. His rules are clumsy and seem to enable all kinds of control on speech. He's banning accounts over trivial things. Lots of accounts from days of old are still suspended. As someone who is 3rd party and doesn't get rock hard pwning the other side, Musk has been a failure up to this point.
Click to expand...
Whomever is regulating tweets should not be on the platform tweeting. I think that is the only way it will ever work correctly.
 
#5,006
#5,006
I think blocking live time tracking of people, which in this case, can only be for nefarious means, seems more than reasonable. If the journalists were doing that, that's not journalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joevol24 and McDad
#5,011
#5,011
n_huffhines said:
Twitter is a private company and should by law be able to do basically whatever they want with content moderation. I think they have to moderate content. It can't be unfettered free speech. I think they should be fair about it. I think the biggest threat to anybody in all of this is people wanting the government to step in (for example, amending section 230).

I encourage social pressure for making moderation fair. I think asking for perfect rules and perfect fairness is asking too much. I ditched twitter after Jack Dorsey stepped down and things seemed to be getting worse. I got back on when Musk announced purchase. He's pretty much done nothing but disappoint ever since. He's revealed he doesn't understand free speech at all. His rules are clumsy and seem to enable all kinds of control on speech. He's banning accounts over trivial things. Lots of accounts from days of old are still suspended. As someone who is 3rd party and doesn't get rock hard pwning the other side, Musk has been a failure up to this point.
Click to expand...
What's your primary reason (or reasons) for using the platform?
 
#5,012
#5,012
Weezy said:
I think blocking live time tracking of people, which in this case, can only be for nefarious means, seems more than reasonable. If the journalists were doing that, that's not journalism.
Click to expand...
I agree. Live tweeting where people are isn't necessary and potentially dangerous especially wrt a high profile person. A high profile person tweeting their own location is different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#5,013
#5,013
McDad said:
What's your primary reason (or reasons) for using the platform?
Click to expand...

I rarely tweet. Usually I just pull it up to see people's reactions to events (usually sports or pop culture). I would guess I spend less than half an hour a month on twitter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#5,014
#5,014
n_huffhines said:
I rarely tweet. Usually I just pull it up to see people's reactions to events (usually sports or pop culture). I would guess I spend less than half an hour a month on twitter.
Click to expand...
I think I saw where someone you follow deplatformed or got booted. Other than that, has your experience changed with the change in ownership?
 
#5,015
#5,015
McDad said:
I think I saw where someone you follow deplatformed or got booted. Other than that, has your experience changed with the change in ownership?
Click to expand...

My experience hasn't changed at all over the years. I don't really even go look at my feed to see what my follows are saying. Sometimes I get notifications that they tweeted something but I don't usually look. Most of the tweets I see either get shared here, via text messaging, or on facebook accounts I follow. So the popehat guy who quit twitter was somebody I was exposed to almost primarily through other people sharing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#5,016
#5,016
n_huffhines said:
My experience hasn't changed at all over the years. I don't really even go look at my feed to see what my follows are saying. Sometimes I get notifications that they tweeted something but I don't usually look. Most of the tweets I see either get shared here, via text messaging, or on facebook accounts I follow. So the popehat guy who quit twitter was somebody I was exposed to almost primarily through other people sharing.
Click to expand...
Thanks for answering. I appreciate it.
 
#5,017
#5,017
The flight-tracker-gate plot thickens. Maybe Beri Weiss will get to the bottom of it for us. Twitter files part 3?

Thread

 
#5,018
#5,018
"Look, I ****ing warned Elon that this is exactly how it would go. It’s how it always goes.

Remember Parler? They promised that they would moderate “based off the FCC and the Supreme court of the United States” (a nonsensical statement for a variety of reasons, including that the FCC does not regulate websites). Then, as soon as people started abusing that on the site, they suddenly came out with, um, new rules, including no “posting pictures of your fecal matter.”

Or how about Gettr? Founded by a former Trump spokesperson, and funded by a sketchy Chinese billionaire, it promised to be a “free speech” haven. Then it had to ban a bunch of white nationalists for, you know, doing white nationalist ****. Then, suddenly, it started banning anyone who mentioned that the sketchy billionaire funder might actually be a Chinese spy.

And then there’s Truth Social. It’s also supposed to be all about free speech, right? That’s what its pitch man, Donald Trump, keeps insisting. Except, an actual study that compared its content moderation to other sites found that Truth Social’s moderation was far more aggressive and arbitrary than any other site. Among the forbidden things to “truth” about on Truth Social? Any talk of the Congressional hearings on January 6th. Much freedom. Very speech.

So, look, it’s no surprise that Musk was never actually going to be able to live up to his notoriously fickle word regarding “free speech” on Twitter. I mean, we wrote many, many articles highlighting all of this.

But, really, it would be nice if he didn’t then insult everyone’s intelligence about this and pretend that he’s still taking some principled righteous stand. It would be nice if he admitted that “oh ****, maybe content moderation is trickier than I thought” and maybe, just maybe, “Twitter actually had a really strong and thoughtful trust & safety team."

- Mike Masnick
 
#5,019
#5,019
n_huffhines said:
"Look, I ****ing warned Elon that this is exactly how it would go. It’s how it always goes.

Remember Parler? They promised that they would moderate “based off the FCC and the Supreme court of the United States” (a nonsensical statement for a variety of reasons, including that the FCC does not regulate websites). Then, as soon as people started abusing that on the site, they suddenly came out with, um, new rules, including no “posting pictures of your fecal matter.”

Or how about Gettr? Founded by a former Trump spokesperson, and funded by a sketchy Chinese billionaire, it promised to be a “free speech” haven. Then it had to ban a bunch of white nationalists for, you know, doing white nationalist ****. Then, suddenly, it started banning anyone who mentioned that the sketchy billionaire funder might actually be a Chinese spy.

And then there’s Truth Social. It’s also supposed to be all about free speech, right? That’s what its pitch man, Donald Trump, keeps insisting. Except, an actual study that compared its content moderation to other sites found that Truth Social’s moderation was far more aggressive and arbitrary than any other site. Among the forbidden things to “truth” about on Truth Social? Any talk of the Congressional hearings on January 6th. Much freedom. Very speech.

So, look, it’s no surprise that Musk was never actually going to be able to live up to his notoriously fickle word regarding “free speech” on Twitter. I mean, we wrote many, many articles highlighting all of this.

But, really, it would be nice if he didn’t then insult everyone’s intelligence about this and pretend that he’s still taking some principled righteous stand. It would be nice if he admitted that “oh ****, maybe content moderation is trickier than I thought” and maybe, just maybe, “Twitter actually had a really strong and thoughtful trust & safety team."

- Mike Masnick
Click to expand...
This seems to me to be yet another “both/and” situation. Meaning, the problem with old Twitter wasn’t so much the concept of content moderation, but that government agencies had a finger on the scale. And the new Twitter is being faced with the reality that true “freedom” is still subject to some parameters.
 
#5,021
#5,021
Weezy said:
I think blocking live time tracking of people, which in this case, can only be for nefarious means, seems more than reasonable. If the journalists were doing that, that's not journalism.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine if Elon left these folks on Twitter and a leftist nutcase tracked down his family? Doxxing people should get you banned immediately. It's one thing to disagree but the left doesn't want debate. They view debate as dangerous so they are going to endanger lives to get even.
 
#5,023
#5,023
n_huffhines said:
"Look, I ****ing warned Elon that this is exactly how it would go. It’s how it always goes.

Remember Parler? They promised that they would moderate “based off the FCC and the Supreme court of the United States” (a nonsensical statement for a variety of reasons, including that the FCC does not regulate websites). Then, as soon as people started abusing that on the site, they suddenly came out with, um, new rules, including no “posting pictures of your fecal matter.”

Or how about Gettr? Founded by a former Trump spokesperson, and funded by a sketchy Chinese billionaire, it promised to be a “free speech” haven. Then it had to ban a bunch of white nationalists for, you know, doing white nationalist ****. Then, suddenly, it started banning anyone who mentioned that the sketchy billionaire funder might actually be a Chinese spy.

And then there’s Truth Social. It’s also supposed to be all about free speech, right? That’s what its pitch man, Donald Trump, keeps insisting. Except, an actual study that compared its content moderation to other sites found that Truth Social’s moderation was far more aggressive and arbitrary than any other site. Among the forbidden things to “truth” about on Truth Social? Any talk of the Congressional hearings on January 6th. Much freedom. Very speech.

So, look, it’s no surprise that Musk was never actually going to be able to live up to his notoriously fickle word regarding “free speech” on Twitter. I mean, we wrote many, many articles highlighting all of this.

But, really, it would be nice if he didn’t then insult everyone’s intelligence about this and pretend that he’s still taking some principled righteous stand. It would be nice if he admitted that “oh ****, maybe content moderation is trickier than I thought” and maybe, just maybe, “Twitter actually had a really strong and thoughtful trust & safety team."

- Mike Masnick
Click to expand...
It's odd how you are trying to equate banning those for sending live updates of a person's location for folks to confront (because why else would you) to the massive amounts of banning that was occuring for political speech, some at the urging of the FBI.

It's like you, and the media doing the same, just assume nobody is capable of critical thought. Nobody is buying it, just like nobody is buying that you represent some 3rd party view. Talk about insulting intelligence...

And I realize this is some quote but I can only assume you are sharing it because you think there's some wisdom in it and not just dog ****.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top