7 ms·

If some news network moves from Twitter (from being censored, or banned) to a Mastodon, for example, their 'reach' would drop by a factor of millions. Six order

If some news network moves from Twitter (from being censored, or banned) to a Mastodon, for example, their 'reach' would drop by a factor of millions. Six orders of magnitude. That makes them basically invisible. Do you really want nose-ring kids in Silicon Valley who're still mad at their parents having the power to shut down Presidents, Heads of State, and Media organizations? Come on man.

mattnewton 6y ago
I don’t follow your example. Heads of state and media weren’t dependent on “nose-ring kids” working on social media before and they certainly aren’t now just because Trump has shown a proclivity to communicate via Tweet. It’d be ridiculous to ossify twitter as a government communication platform through regulation, instead of continuing to invest in existing government-owned communication channels. Re: the change in reach that happens, I don’t see how this is different from a television network canceling a host.
- WClayFerguson 6y ago
  It's just a matter of objective fact that the world does now have a kind of 'public square' and it happens to be Twitter. Thru a series of events no one planned we just evolved into a situation where a public figure's main way of reaching out directly to their audience is over Twitter. The correct analogy here is the phone (not TV networks). When the telephone system was originally a monopoly (or even today) imagine if the phone company had started disconnecting lines or censoring calls? Alexander Graham Bell would've been hanged from the nearest tree. But if you want to use a TV Network analogy it's not like canceling an Anchor, it's like canceling a 'viewer'. It would be like if CNN had the power to stop any individual from either consuming CNN content or creating CNN content. Total Godlike control over the individual.
  - mattnewton 6y ago
    In this case it is like canceling an anchor, because the people are complaining that their speech is being moderated under section 230. Whether a network like facebook can ban someone is a separate issue of tech company power, this regulation protects them to moderate content while not being legally responsible for the content they don't moderate.
    - WClayFerguson 6y ago
      I think Section 230 is a distraction from the real issue. Here's the crux: Q) Can AT&T censor texts or cut service if an AT&T employee gets triggered by the content of speech? A) Not just no, but hell no. The same applies to Twitter for precisely all the same reasons.
      - mattnewton 6y ago
        Can Twitter remove a tweet because advertisers don't want to appear next to it? Can Twitter remove a tweet because it suspects it is an action from a bot? Is it censorship to rank a post lower on someone else's feed? Section 230 is absolutely the crux here because it's about what we expect from internet platforms. Do we expect them to be moderated or not? If we expect them to be unmoderated entirely they would look nothing like the current platforms.
        WClayFerguson 6y ago
        Sure there could be a checkbox somewhere to hide foul language, or even hide things that the progressive Twitter kids deem offensive (like "All lives matter" for example), ...so people who want to live in an online safe-space can run with "Safe Space" mode on. But AT&T can't cut service, nor cancel texts after sent, etc, and for all the same reasons you'd give for phone companies not censoring I'd claim apply to Twitter.
        mattnewton 6y ago
        If "safe space mode" is on by default, and you can't see a pundit without turning it on, I don't see how that is different from demoting or hiding a tweet behind a disclaimer. Or, for that matter, how it is really different from having to go to another platform where safe space mode doesn't exist, to even know it exists. As an aside, the constant bashing of "twitter kids" and allusions to political speech like "all lives matter" being censored (which is not happening, as far as I know) seems counterproductive.
cinquemb 6y ago
At some point, people have to terms with the downsides if they want to organize around non public entities that have the power to censor and banned wholesale when there are other alternatives; their 'reach' today may drop, but if people decided to abandon platforms because they are either locked out/censured/etc for those where they are not, their 'reach' will only grow in time. But hey, easy for me to say since I've pretty much abandoned twitter/facebook/etc nearly a decade ago and avoid things like snap/insta/etc for things like a mastodon instance.
- WClayFerguson 6y ago
  And when the phone was invented Alexander Graham Bell could have started listening in on phone calls and banning service to individuals who had differing opinions to his own right? Sounds like you'd be cool with that. Ya know. "non public entities" and all. And your reply about that would've been: "Hey people can still send information using radio and telegraph, so they should just come to terms with that and stop trying to rely on phone systems that belong to Bell?"
  - cinquemb 6y ago
    I'm not ok with it, so I actively chose not to be on those platforms, like everyone else could. If people want to be useds, that's their choice.
    - WClayFerguson 6y ago
      I agree with your actual sentiment there. I've actually built a platform myself that has 10x the features of Twitter, in some regards (although a different set of similar features) I'm a huge fan of decentralized social media, web3.0, IPFS, ActivityPub, Mastodon, Pleroma, and the Fediverse, and all that is the FUTURE to replace Twitter. However for today Twitter needs to stop censoring.
      - cinquemb 6y ago
        > However for today Twitter needs to stop censoring. Yeah, well that's not a battle I want to fight. Id rather twitter/fb keep pushing people off their platforms and kill themselves via death by 1000 cuts.

mattnewton 6y ago

I don’t follow your example. Heads of state and media weren’t dependent on “nose-ring kids” working on social media before and they certainly aren’t now just because Trump has shown a proclivity to communicate via Tweet. It’d be ridiculous to ossify twitter as a government communication platform through regulation, instead of continuing to invest in existing government-owned communication channels. Re: the change in reach that happens, I don’t see how this is different from a television network canceling a host.

WClayFerguson 6y ago
It's just a matter of objective fact that the world does now have a kind of 'public square' and it happens to be Twitter. Thru a series of events no one planned we just evolved into a situation where a public figure's main way of reaching out directly to their audience is over Twitter. The correct analogy here is the phone (not TV networks). When the telephone system was originally a monopoly (or even today) imagine if the phone company had started disconnecting lines or censoring calls? Alexander Graham Bell would've been hanged from the nearest tree. But if you want to use a TV Network analogy it's not like canceling an Anchor, it's like canceling a 'viewer'. It would be like if CNN had the power to stop any individual from either consuming CNN content or creating CNN content. Total Godlike control over the individual.
- mattnewton 6y ago
  In this case it is like canceling an anchor, because the people are complaining that their speech is being moderated under section 230. Whether a network like facebook can ban someone is a separate issue of tech company power, this regulation protects them to moderate content while not being legally responsible for the content they don't moderate.
  - WClayFerguson 6y ago
    I think Section 230 is a distraction from the real issue. Here's the crux: Q) Can AT&T censor texts or cut service if an AT&T employee gets triggered by the content of speech? A) Not just no, but hell no. The same applies to Twitter for precisely all the same reasons.
    - mattnewton 6y ago
      Can Twitter remove a tweet because advertisers don't want to appear next to it? Can Twitter remove a tweet because it suspects it is an action from a bot? Is it censorship to rank a post lower on someone else's feed? Section 230 is absolutely the crux here because it's about what we expect from internet platforms. Do we expect them to be moderated or not? If we expect them to be unmoderated entirely they would look nothing like the current platforms.
      - WClayFerguson 6y ago
        Sure there could be a checkbox somewhere to hide foul language, or even hide things that the progressive Twitter kids deem offensive (like "All lives matter" for example), ...so people who want to live in an online safe-space can run with "Safe Space" mode on. But AT&T can't cut service, nor cancel texts after sent, etc, and for all the same reasons you'd give for phone companies not censoring I'd claim apply to Twitter.
        mattnewton 6y ago
        If "safe space mode" is on by default, and you can't see a pundit without turning it on, I don't see how that is different from demoting or hiding a tweet behind a disclaimer. Or, for that matter, how it is really different from having to go to another platform where safe space mode doesn't exist, to even know it exists. As an aside, the constant bashing of "twitter kids" and allusions to political speech like "all lives matter" being censored (which is not happening, as far as I know) seems counterproductive.

cinquemb 6y ago

At some point, people have to terms with the downsides if they want to organize around non public entities that have the power to censor and banned wholesale when there are other alternatives; their 'reach' today may drop, but if people decided to abandon platforms because they are either locked out/censured/etc for those where they are not, their 'reach' will only grow in time. But hey, easy for me to say since I've pretty much abandoned twitter/facebook/etc nearly a decade ago and avoid things like snap/insta/etc for things like a mastodon instance.

WClayFerguson 6y ago
And when the phone was invented Alexander Graham Bell could have started listening in on phone calls and banning service to individuals who had differing opinions to his own right? Sounds like you'd be cool with that. Ya know. "non public entities" and all. And your reply about that would've been: "Hey people can still send information using radio and telegraph, so they should just come to terms with that and stop trying to rely on phone systems that belong to Bell?"
- cinquemb 6y ago
  I'm not ok with it, so I actively chose not to be on those platforms, like everyone else could. If people want to be useds, that's their choice.
  - WClayFerguson 6y ago
    I agree with your actual sentiment there. I've actually built a platform myself that has 10x the features of Twitter, in some regards (although a different set of similar features) I'm a huge fan of decentralized social media, web3.0, IPFS, ActivityPub, Mastodon, Pleroma, and the Fediverse, and all that is the FUTURE to replace Twitter. However for today Twitter needs to stop censoring.
    - cinquemb 6y ago
      > However for today Twitter needs to stop censoring. Yeah, well that's not a battle I want to fight. Id rather twitter/fb keep pushing people off their platforms and kill themselves via death by 1000 cuts.