3 ms·

You and I see different problems here. To me, the problem is a platform (and therefore legitimacy) has been granted to someone who abuses that power at every tu

by eunoia 6y ago

You and I see different problems here. To me, the problem is a platform (and therefore legitimacy) has been granted to someone who abuses that power at every turn. We (those arguing against you) are not empowering Twitter as the new POTUS, merely trying to minimize the current one’s ability to cause damage via lies and hateful rhetoric. (Things you or I would have been banned for years ago) There will come a time to deal with Twitter’s societal overreach too.

tw000001 6y ago
>lies and hateful rhetoric There is simply no objective definition for either of these concepts and if you may be fine with Twitter having this kind of power now, but you may regret it if the shoe is ever on the other foot. Having a corporate arbiter of truth is antithetical to a free society, especially when creating one's own platform is impractical because of network effects. Who is going to fact check the fact checker? Effectively Twitter has the final word because this is their platform - not because they are correct, and if these political squabbles had an objectively correct answer then we wouldn't have multiple parties. People are find with it right now because it's en Vogue to hate on the president, but that doesn't mean the fact checking is justified or even honest - and I reiterate, the dangerous part here is that people implicitly take Twitter to be an authority when they absolutely are not. Their fact check isn't even accurate, but people don't tend to question what they want to hear. Twitter's role is a neutral party - the same way that journalists are ultimately doing a disservice to society by editorializing everything while claiming to be neutral. It is dishonest and divides society from the top down.
- eunoia 6y ago
  I actually agree with everything you’re saying. But the real world demands compromise. There is no ideal authority.
ueueshitashita 6y ago
> lies and hateful rhetoric If Twitter really cared about the "lies and hateful rhetoric" they would have put their money where their mouth is and banned him years ago. It's just a meaningless gesture to drum up more drama, more clicks, more views.

by eunoia 6y ago

tw000001 6y ago

>lies and hateful rhetoric There is simply no objective definition for either of these concepts and if you may be fine with Twitter having this kind of power now, but you may regret it if the shoe is ever on the other foot. Having a corporate arbiter of truth is antithetical to a free society, especially when creating one's own platform is impractical because of network effects. Who is going to fact check the fact checker? Effectively Twitter has the final word because this is their platform - not because they are correct, and if these political squabbles had an objectively correct answer then we wouldn't have multiple parties. People are find with it right now because it's en Vogue to hate on the president, but that doesn't mean the fact checking is justified or even honest - and I reiterate, the dangerous part here is that people implicitly take Twitter to be an authority when they absolutely are not. Their fact check isn't even accurate, but people don't tend to question what they want to hear. Twitter's role is a neutral party - the same way that journalists are ultimately doing a disservice to society by editorializing everything while claiming to be neutral. It is dishonest and divides society from the top down.

eunoia 6y ago
I actually agree with everything you’re saying. But the real world demands compromise. There is no ideal authority.

ueueshitashita 6y ago

> lies and hateful rhetoric If Twitter really cared about the "lies and hateful rhetoric" they would have put their money where their mouth is and banned him years ago. It's just a meaningless gesture to drum up more drama, more clicks, more views.