6 ms·
Say what you will but I would love to see some balance and tolerance.
by donatj 7y ago
Say what you will but I would love to see some balance and tolerance.
- iagovar 7y agoThat would be a breath of fresh air
- ajross 7y agoCan you be specific about what balance you'd like to see from Twitter? Are there people you'd like to see banned or something?
- donatj 7y agoThe opposite, I would like to see fewer people banned, on all sides. I know personally a large number of people banned for expressing pretty mainstream right-leaning beliefs on the platform. I also know people who have declared that we should kill Trump's children who my report on that went nowhere.
- logicallee 7y agoHere is a serious New York Times editorial suggesting that Donald Trump be banned from Twitter: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/opinion/trump-civil-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/opinion/trump-civil-war.h... I think everyone reading this honestly knows there was a serious chance that a liberal employee at Twitter would do that as a political statement. (I would have disagreed with that action.) There is, obviously, no chance that Obama's Twitter would be banned. This is clearly "out of balance". I don't think Republicans having a stake in Twitter would improve this situation, though. Also in this specific example, the ban did not happen. (Just answering the question.)
- ajross 7y agoDoesn't whether or not Trump gets banned depend only on what Trump says and not whether or not Obama was banned? Also: Trump isn't banned on Twitter.
- logicallee 7y ago>Doesn't whether or not Trump gets banned depend only on what Trump says and not whether or not Obama was banned? I don't believe so, no. I think "who said it" (Trump or Obama) also determines who would get banned. (Currently I think Trump would get banned for something Obama wouldn't get banned for.) This is the balance that I referred to.
- mnd999 7y agoAs you conclude , neither was banned. As such no conclusions can be drawn about the biases or lack of it at Twitter based on that evidence. Not sure why you then go on to do so.
- logicallee 7y agoLet's keep this civil. You are 100% correct that my comment did not show any bias at Twitter, as I referred to something that did not occur. Instead I appealed to the reader's intuition about a counterfactual, showing that the reader already knows and has internalized this balance at the moment, by appealing to the reader's intuition at how surprised the reader would be: not at all surprised to read "Twitter has banned Donald Trump" - though this is a counterfactual - and on reading that headline would know that a liberal employee would have done it. Do you consider the hypothetical headline I just quoted highly improbable? (I don't.) Not saying this status quo is good or bad - I was just answering the question. EDIT: So I'm walking with someone, and he said that he couldn't see it happening. The reasons that he gave were that it would be very bad for business because a lot of Republicans also use Twitter and that since it is the president of the United States, he could argue that this is a public function. So would be limiting his freedom of speech in a sense. So I guess I'm wrong and it would surprise many people.
- fortran77 7y agoYes. Spike Lee for one: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spike-lees-defense-tweet-lawsuit-656118 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spike-lees-defense... He tweeted the home address of a person who happened to share the same last name as an unpopular person in the news, inviting people to attack this person, causing this person to have to move for his own protection. He was never banned from Twitter for this. Disgusting.
- eyjafjallajokul 7y agoI wasn’t aware that balance was missing. Got a source on that?
- bergoid 7y agoIs Jack Dorsey, the Twitter CEO, a good enough source? https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left-leaning https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jac... > Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey: I 'fully admit' our bias is 'more left-leaning'
- loceng 7y agoYet they're aware of that and set their rules and follow them accordingly; people only get ban from Twitter after 3 strikes as far as I know, and that's bad behaviour related, which if bad behaviour happens more by "one side" than the other - how can you blame the platform/moderators for that?
- SlowRobotAhead 7y agoSo disagree with Twitter politics three times and you’re gone. That’s a fair system? I would agree with you if there weren’t so many examples of people getting banned for “wrong think” and not rule breaking.
- loceng 7y agoAll of the examples I have seen, when have a response by Twitter associated with them, is that Twitter follows a 3 strikes and you're out rule - and they apply these rules to everyone. If there are a few examples where this isn't followed then okay, there were mistakes, problems - but that is then at a government level that needs some judiciary process for. Re: 'so many examples of people getting banned for "wrong think"'- have your sources been confirmed/provided confirmation by Twitter that's that what it was - and Moderation (parenting) is a very important and effort full work that is required to prevent a wild west of society. A wild west of society is more costly and leads to far more suffering than a managed home; if you want to raise children that are racist within your own home, or who where you find it acceptable for them threaten to kill others, you're allowed to - however forcing ALL platforms to allow all behaviour is insanity, and so Twitter needs to be allowed to have the rules they want to allow - and people can "vote" by using that service or not, and then other platforms can have their own rules - and that government as a whole will have to decide what those bounds are; perhaps should government provide a free speech platform like exist public parks as an option that everyone has available to them.
- no_wizard 7y agoNot really sure you will find the balance you may seek. I suspect strongly Jack Dorsey has little to do with moderation on the platform, if that’s the bone to pick here, which I don’t think is at all. If anything twitter has largely been silent on moderating anything at all beyond a few notable exceptions
- thu2111 7y agoWhich Twitter do you read? I've got so used to following links to conservative Twitter accounts and discovering they're banned it's not even worthy of note anymore. Twitter routinely even removes blue verification badges because of an expressed opinion. You have Twitter employees saying themselves they classify trump supporters as bots and ban them. I didn't even realise this was a matter for disagreement.
- coliveira 7y agoTwitter is the only company that will not allow the fake ads paid by trump supporters. This is what we need to do.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y agoWhat about the Mueller report that showed ads bought by Russians that supported Sanders and Clinton? Does a “ministry of truth” really sound like a good idea? Edit: well apparently very few people ACTUALLY READ the much hyped Mueller report.
- mnd999 7y agoWhat about them? If you ban all political ads then they all go away regardless of who they are supporting or who paid for them.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y agoI believe the context I replied to was “fake ads by Trump supporters” when the reality is no “side” has a monopoly on nonsense.
- kzrdude 7y agoDon't we have enough right-wing social media and media moguls already?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- charlesju 7y agoBalance is a false paradigm, not all ideas are valid, ie. just because some people believe the earth are flat doesn't mean that in school we have to teach the earth is both flat and round. (a more 50/50 idea would be evolution or carbon dating) I would also say Jack Dorsey has been pretty fair about the platform. I don't think the left feel like Twitter is exceptionally more open to them.
- robin_reala 7y agoI’m not sure that either evolution or carbon-dating approach 50/50…
- ravenstine 7y agoNot all ideas are valid, but that therefore means that balance is a false paradigm? I don't see how that follows. There was a time(supposedly) when the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun was considered invalid.
- Riverheart 7y agoApples to oranges. In the modern age we back up claims with science, not dogma. And I'm guessing they mean the idea of balance being "all ideas are equal regardless of merit" is the flawed paradigm.
- ravenstine 7y ago> Apples to oranges. In the modern age we back up claims with science, not dogma. There's lots of "scientific" claims that are dictated by dogma or other motivations. Various aspects of nutrition science, psychology, economics, and sociology are either made up or based on low quality evidence, yet people continue to believe them. Humans, including scientists and academics, are imperfect, despite how this is the "modern age". > And I'm guessing they mean the idea of balance being "all ideas are equal regardless of merit" is the flawed paradigm. Which I would consider a straw man. I don't believe anyone is saying that all ideas are equal regardless of merit. What people are asking for is a wider Overton window. If people were suggesting that all ideas are equal, then they'd have to accede that the ideas of racists, child molestors, and serial killers are perfectly valid and should be treated the same as other ideas, which I don't think is a very common point of view, at least when a person is tested on it.
- 12xo 7y agoBalance? How do you balance what is essentially a cesspool. The Internet, and specifically 'social media', always ends up at the lowest common denominator.
- donatj 7y agoA well mixed cesspool is balanced. People at least seeing each other opinions. Understanding that there is like half of the population that doesn't agree with them. A well mixed cesspool is healthier than what we have.
- 12xo 7y agoA well mixed cesspool? No one with any sense wants to hang out in a cesspool. That's the problem. You are expecting human behavior to change. And worse, on the internet none the less.
- fzeroracer 7y agoA 'well mixed' cesspool doesn't exist, because inevitably in the absence of moderation one side of the cesspool will chase out the other. It's usually the more racist, virulent side. See: Voat, Gab and so forth.