4 ms·

Yes you do. You pay with your attention and with your ability to understand the world around you. Twitter is an extremely powerful bit of technology that can

• _qulr 6y ago
  > Twitter is an extremely powerful bit of technology that can basically make you believe anything. I don't believe this.
  • blhack 6y ago
    Then why does it matter if they censor things or not?
    • _qulr 6y ago
      It's a matter of freedom. The standard argument is that freedom of speech only applies to governments, but that's based on an outdated assumption. In human history, we've never before had individual companies like Facebook and Twitter that are so enormous and have so much control over our public speech. (2.7 billion and 330 million monthly active users, respectively.) They have become "the town square of the world", so to speak. Facebook and Twitter are not literally governments, but they're actually larger than many governments, with a larger population and more wealth than many nations. There's nothing special about governments with regard to freedom of speech except that it has always been assumed governments are the only entities with enough individual power to significantly restrict free speech. That assumption is no longer true. Indeed, the whole motivation behind this particular act of censorship is the idea that these platforms are so powerful that they can change the outcome of the election of one of the largest nations on Earth. I'm not sure I believe that, but it's clear in any case that Facebook and Twitter are not just normal "private companies". They're not little moderated discussion forums. They have effectively (unfortunately) become the public sphere. Twitter once locked me out of my account because I made a joke about bitcoin. Their stupid "algorithms" got me. And the only reason I was able to get my account unlocked was that I personally knew a Twitter engineer. I don't trust Jack or Zuck even one tiny bit to exercise the vast power they have to silence millions of people. It's not even a question of whether I agree with the NY Post article: the story is probably bullshit. But so were the news stories about Iraq having WMD. How about suspending the NY Times account too? How about suspending every news outlet that has published a debunked story? "Anonymous sources tell us that yadda yadda." By design, Facebook and Twitter allow everyone in the world to post anything they want. That includes lies. If they can't accept the consequences of the platform they created, then they should shut down. But as long as they exist, with the size of their user base, they are simply too big and too powerful to be allowed to restrict our freedom of speech.
      • valar_m 6y ago
        >The standard argument is that freedom of speech only applies to governments, but that's based on an outdated assumption. >There's nothing special about governments with regard to freedom of speech except that it has always been assumed governments are the only entities with enough individual power to significantly restrict free speech. The difference is that Twitter can't put you in prison and it can't seize your property. The government can. It's an extraordinary power wielded exclusively by the government. Consider this: If you think Twitter should be restrained from censoring their platform because the extent of their power is on par with the government, who will enforce any violations of that restraint?
        • _qulr 6y ago
          > The difference is that Twitter can't put you in prison and it can't seize your property. I specifically said I was talking about freedom of speech. There are many different kinds of freedom, and these aren't specifically free speech issues.
          • valar_m 6y ago
            The power to imprison and seize property is the core free speech issue. If the government can't enforce the law by putting you in prison or seizing your property, the entire issue is moot.
            • deleted 6y ago
              [deleted]
            • mopsi 6y ago
              > The power to imprison and seize property is the core free speech issue. There are more ways to control participation in public discourse than imprisonment and seizures of printing presses. Times have moved on. Instead of imprisonment, we have banning and filtering, with no independent oversight or appeal process. Twitter, Facebook, and a few other companies can do more to restrict the spread of certain information than most governments in the world have ever been able, so why shouldn't at least the same standard apply to them? Their virtual town squares are nowadays larger than any square ever under government control, and they have absolute control over who can and cannot participate. They are the absolute monarchies of 21st century, more powerful than ever.
  • fumar 6y ago
    Can you prove algorithmic based information from a Twitter feed does not influence your behavior or opinions? Twitter itself as a organization is not making you believe anything specifically. However the information presented to you may influence your ideas and potentially your behavior.
    • nsonha 6y ago
      everything influences your behaviors or options, do you sue your childhood neighbour for setting a bad example? Ultimately it's you who's responsible for your behaviors and if there's something wrong with you the only way to fix it is you learning to discern truth from lie, NOT everyone else shielding you from lies.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  • frogpelt 6y ago
    Then they've already got you.
• codecutter 6y ago
  I disagree respectfully. It is your choice to listen to Twitter or not. I don't have Twitter/Facebook accounts and don't miss them at all.