3 ms·
If they have no influence, why bother censoring some information? Which is it?
by ddingus 6y ago
If they have no influence, why bother censoring some information?
Which is it?
- raarts 6y agoThis is a great point. Not to mention it is THE platform where ALL politicians, journalists and public reside. In that respect it has de facto become the public square for discussing politics.
- positr0n 6y agoAll the public does not reside on Twitter. Now I will grant you that 90% of my techie coworkers are heavy Twitter users, almost no one else I know in real life is on Twitter. I'm seeing stats online like "22% of US adults" and "38% of adults 18-29"
- yorwba 6y agoThey don't want to be known as the platform where hackers dump their leaks without repercussions. Not everything has to be about the US presidential election...
- ddingus 6y agoThere is whether those leaks are factual, or not too. Where it comes from isn't the same thing as what it is.
- yorwba 6y agoIf I factually published some random website's password database and posted the link on Twitter, I'd expect them to take it down. On the other hand, Twitter changed their rules now, so other people will be able to link to the data? I wouldn't be surprised if they have to add another epicycle soon when they don't suppress something the majority agrees they should.
- babesh 6y agoGood bye Watergate.
- ddingus 6y agoOr, it comes out on the Rogan show...
- pengaru 6y agoinfluence and reputation are orthogonal
- ddingus 6y agoIndeed, but reputation is taking a hit based on the nature of what they are censoring. Doesn't add up. And frankly, I'm not taking a political side as much as I am pointing out their actions don't add up either way.
- dry_soup 6y agoAdditionally, why would advertisers buy ads on an uninfluential platform?