2 ms·

Sure. Keep in mind that I started reading this with an open mind, so might help for you to also 'step back' and try to view it from more neutral eyes; if you wa

Sure. Keep in mind that I started reading this with an open mind, so might help for you to also 'step back' and try to view it from more neutral eyes; if you want to call me a 'left wing nut' after this, no problem for me... You have some good points about how Twitter limits the API, and screws with your timeline and settings. I fully agree with those points. However, you seem to focus a lot on the 'bot' aspect of it. This made me suspicious as to why you would; we know a lot of disinformation campaigns use bots, so it can be a natural conclusion that some have grievances against Twitter for limiting what bots can do... You also mention S.230: "How they expect to retain 47 USC §230 (CDA) protections with this behavior" To me, that sounds like it's a reference to the EARN-IT Act, which is about the right's perceived censorship against them, and wanting to "punish" the likes of Twitter that "do that". Again, sounded suspicious to me. Finally (after which I stopped reading), your example of "search censorship" on Twitter is about some QANON slogan (or something like that, I'm glad so say I don't want to know enough about them) - to me, that sounded even more of a grievance by someone on the right. As you stated earlier in the blog post, "their site, their rules"; I don't see it as a question of censorship - does prohibiting someone to yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded room constitute censorship, or preventing harm? I see it as preventing harm, by limiting the reach of something harmful (Just like France and other countries prohibit the display of Nazi symbols/paraphernalia). Again, that's where I stopped; I don't write this to put you down, just that the way you say it doesn't validate your arguments in my eyes.

rndgermandude 6y ago
That's the most flimsy argumentation... The author likes some bots, so he must be a Russian bot? The author mentions §230, so he must be a right winger? The author mentions a Qanon slogan as an example for censorship happening on twitter, so he must be a Qanon nut (I cannot be sure if the author calling out Qanon as a conspiracy theory movement was already present when you commented... but it is now at least) As for censorship: yes, it's censorship that you're not allowed to scream fire, and it's one of the exceptions to free speech in the US that can be legally censored by the government. Not all censorship is automatically bad. Another example for "good" censorship would be child pornography. The questions always are who does censor? and why do they censor? (and how do they publicly justify that censorship) and how sound and "obvious" is their argument? Facebook censors nudity - as do most US TV stations (some under FCC rules) and a lot of other companies - even non-sexualized nudity, and arguments it's to protect viewers, especially kids, from naughty things. In Germany you will sometimes even see non-sexualized nudity - be it nipples or even "full-frontal" - on the public children TV channel (KiKa - Kinder Kanal). Is the US (corporate, sometimes government) approach to censorship of nudity the right one? Or the German one? Censorship, and the reasons for it are seldom really black-and-white, and communities, from small groups, to social networks, to societies at large, have to reach some kind of consensus what goes and what goes not and reevaluate that consensus frequently. The point is to justify when and why you censor, and from my understanding of what the author wrote, it seems the lack transparency, twitter implementing censorship with disregard for what their community wants (or at least part of it) from up top, and ever increasing amount of censorship that he disagrees with, not saying all censorship is automatically bad. I myself tend to find myself on the "censor less" side of the argument usually, in case you wonder, tho shit like Qanon/"pizza comet" and their success sowed a little doubt recently, to be completely honest.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sebastien_b 6y ago
  That's the most flimsy argumentation... Anyone could say so is yours. Like I said to the author, step back and view it from someone else's eyes. But if you don't want to try, your loss.
  - rndgermandude 6y ago
    That doesn't mean anything. And I didn't even put forth an argument of whether I consider the author left, right, center, whatever. I poked and prodded your argument, because I found it to be extremely unsound (excluding the censorship discussion). And frankly I fail to find any set of eyes I'd be comfortable with where I could follow your argument for the author being a Russian-bot supporting right wing Qanon based on what he wrote. Just too unsound and lacking any assumption of good faith on the authors part, casting him as what is - in these parts of the internet - almost (right wing) or defacto slurs (russian bot; Qanon). Again, as for seeing with somebody else's eyes... well, I did for the censorship argument, didn't dismiss what you said outright (sorry if that wasn't clear enough) but put forth my own argument, that in part even agrees with what you said yourself.

rndgermandude 6y ago

That's the most flimsy argumentation... The author likes some bots, so he must be a Russian bot? The author mentions §230, so he must be a right winger? The author mentions a Qanon slogan as an example for censorship happening on twitter, so he must be a Qanon nut (I cannot be sure if the author calling out Qanon as a conspiracy theory movement was already present when you commented... but it is now at least) As for censorship: yes, it's censorship that you're not allowed to scream fire, and it's one of the exceptions to free speech in the US that can be legally censored by the government. Not all censorship is automatically bad. Another example for "good" censorship would be child pornography. The questions always are who does censor? and why do they censor? (and how do they publicly justify that censorship) and how sound and "obvious" is their argument? Facebook censors nudity - as do most US TV stations (some under FCC rules) and a lot of other companies - even non-sexualized nudity, and arguments it's to protect viewers, especially kids, from naughty things. In Germany you will sometimes even see non-sexualized nudity - be it nipples or even "full-frontal" - on the public children TV channel (KiKa - Kinder Kanal). Is the US (corporate, sometimes government) approach to censorship of nudity the right one? Or the German one? Censorship, and the reasons for it are seldom really black-and-white, and communities, from small groups, to social networks, to societies at large, have to reach some kind of consensus what goes and what goes not and reevaluate that consensus frequently. The point is to justify when and why you censor, and from my understanding of what the author wrote, it seems the lack transparency, twitter implementing censorship with disregard for what their community wants (or at least part of it) from up top, and ever increasing amount of censorship that he disagrees with, not saying all censorship is automatically bad. I myself tend to find myself on the "censor less" side of the argument usually, in case you wonder, tho shit like Qanon/"pizza comet" and their success sowed a little doubt recently, to be completely honest.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sebastien_b 6y ago
That's the most flimsy argumentation... Anyone could say so is yours. Like I said to the author, step back and view it from someone else's eyes. But if you don't want to try, your loss.
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  That doesn't mean anything. And I didn't even put forth an argument of whether I consider the author left, right, center, whatever. I poked and prodded your argument, because I found it to be extremely unsound (excluding the censorship discussion). And frankly I fail to find any set of eyes I'd be comfortable with where I could follow your argument for the author being a Russian-bot supporting right wing Qanon based on what he wrote. Just too unsound and lacking any assumption of good faith on the authors part, casting him as what is - in these parts of the internet - almost (right wing) or defacto slurs (russian bot; Qanon). Again, as for seeing with somebody else's eyes... well, I did for the censorship argument, didn't dismiss what you said outright (sorry if that wasn't clear enough) but put forth my own argument, that in part even agrees with what you said yourself.