8 ms·

Your premise is wrong. Twitter's actions weren't as a result of something it disagreed with. Your comment/thought illustrates one of the REAL root problems

Your premise is wrong. Twitter's actions weren't as a result of something it disagreed with. Your comment/thought illustrates one of the REAL root problems ... and that is we are living in a state of two apparent states of "factual reality". Unfortunately this is not possible. There is only one set of facts. Until we can return to that, we will be repeating similar scenarios. In other words, there is nothing inappropriate about Twitter putting disclaimers on objectively factually incorrect statements.

vianneychevalie 6y ago
I’m sorry but how do you reconcile your second paragraph’s criticism of the coexistence of two factual realities and your last paragraph in which you simply pick the one you happen to personally favor?
- dlp211 6y ago
  Data supports one of those two realities. Joe Biden is President-Elect.
  - MacsHeadroom 6y ago
    The reality is that he's not. Not yet, since the Electors haven't gone to the Electoral College and still won't for a long time. In between now and then there will be court challenges. Will those challenges change the ultimate outcome? Almost certainly not. But it's still a fact that Biden is not the President-Elect. Should Twitter fact check people calling him the President-Elect? IMO, probably but only to look unbiased. Will they? No, because they don't care about looking biased despite 70M+ Americans siding with Trump.
    - GavinMcG 6y ago
      It's not "biased" and never has been to project a winner based on statistical data. But if we're sticking to a statistical conclusion, how do you think Biden should be described at this point? There is essentially no basis in history or law to believe that Biden will not take office, unless he dies before inauguration. There are no credible legal theories by which he will not be elected.
      - MacsHeadroom 6y ago
        I don't think it's biased either. That's why I didn't say they should do it to be unbiased, but to look unbiased. People are really not taking the loss of faith of 70M Americans as seriously as they aught to.
        GavinMcG 6y ago
        What should "people" do? The loss of faith is driven by four years of the President lying day in, day out. There have been plenty of voices throughout speaking up for truth and institutional respect, but they're baselessly attacked at the highest levels.
- tehwebguy 6y ago
  Because the question was not in good faith in the first place because the exact opposite is actually true: Twitter has bent the rules to no end in an effort to keep from banning Trump despite his constant breaking of the their rules.
- Angostura 6y ago
  I think you misunderstand. Its the co-existance of two claimed factual realities. You simply pick the one which is the factual reality, which relies on looking at facts. If someone says 'the election is rigged', the least they have to do is produce evidence. In the absence of that evidence, that's not a factual statement.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
ryandrake 6y ago
Echo chambers, algorithmic recommendations, and powerful filters all but guarantee multiple realities for different people. If all you see are facts X, Y, and Z, then those facts are as real and true as someone else's facts A, B, and C. I have family members and friends who live in seemingly totally alternate universes, dominated by what I see as conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and a cultural persecution complex. But as they describe it: it's I who live in a media-manufactured alternate reality characterized by trust in institutions, corruption, and a false belief in science and data. What everyone is missing is: both universes might as well be correct, to the observer. It's like measuring what speed someone is going in two different relativistic frames of reference. You can both be right and come up with different numbers. It's a tough problem to solve. We can't solve it by just pointing at the out-groups and saying "ha-ha how stupid are they for believing in rubbish!" They are just not going to be convinced by someone who believe a totally different set of facts.
peteretep 6y ago
I am strongly anti-Trump and pro truth and reasonably pro Jack Dorsey and don’t disagree with anything you say except — I’m not sure why Jack Dorsey should get to decide what’s true just because he invented a social media platform
- tehwebguy 6y ago
  Jack didn’t decide what’s true, in fact lies are posted to Twitter by users everyday. He just decided that these particular lies are too unreasonable for him to help spread them.
  - jariel 6y ago
    "Jack didn’t decide what’s true" It's a little bit naive to think that the truth is easily discerned by any individual, it's always a matter of shades. 'Stole the Election' can mean many different things in many different contexts, not literally election fraud. I detest Donald Trump and don't much like Jack Dorsey, but he should not be in a position to arbiter the truth. I'm very thankful he censored Trump on the eve of the election, not thankful he banned the Post, and very worried about the future. We probably need regulations over this. The free speech people have to come to terms with the fact that the big mediums have always been filtered, and it only takes one insane president to start a civil war, that the truth among the plebes is 'Whatever their Ideologue Says' and so there needs to be credibility in the system. The anti-Trump crowd who are happy with the censoring need to realize how dangerous of a game this is. Twitter and FB need to set up a completely independent public board, with established guidelines and public oversight to manage these things..
- rewgs 6y ago
  He's not deciding. Just observing and reacting.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- baby 6y ago
  I would expect them to have a team actually doing this in a more principled fashion, instead of Jack Dorsey calling the shot from his ivory tower.
justinzollars 6y ago
What about Twitter/Facebook disclaimers on Palestinian speech? Where do you draw the line? If Twitter could make money in China would flagging Human Rights Campaign be okay?
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  You're arguing from a presumption that truth doesn't exist or doesn't/won't matter, and a lot of us disagree with that notion.
  - justinzollars 6y ago
    I disagree with deploying tools of autocrats to control speech. How incredibly lame.
RonanTheGrey 6y ago
I wonder how you'll feel when they do this to you or someone you care about. I don't quite understand the epistemic certainty people have that such weapons will never be turned against them, especially when history so dramatically demonstrates the opposite.
- ianai 6y ago
  The entire Twitter platform seems totalitarian and a societal bad. Why would you ever want a billboard for your passing thoughts that literally not only can be read by a huge audience but will be read by a huge audience? Oh sure it’s great if you’re promoting something. But there’s clearly a reason beyond basic privacy to want your messages only readable by select few. I’ve been out of social media for years and never quite ‘got’ twitter. From the outside, it seems like it’s having a totalitarian effect on society. What you say will be widely viewed - and “judged.”
  - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    On that my friend we 100% agree. Widening the window of discussion, I would view it as a 100x societal good for Twitter itself and anything that pretends to it, to disappear.
rufus_foreman 6y ago
I do not accept Twitter as my authority on what is objectively factual correct. Do you?
paulddraper 6y ago
> There is only one set of facts. But what is that set of facts? Twitter felt no need to censor the Steele dossier for years despite it being a politically-funded piece of nonsense.
justin66 6y ago
> In other words, there is nothing inappropriate about Twitter putting disclaimers on objectively factually incorrect statements. Not necessarily inappropriate, but it might be ineffective. I don't know if this has already occurred but I'd bet a great deal of money that those click-through warnings about blatant or dangerous falsehoods will become a badge of honor among twitter conservatives, if they haven't already.
jtdev 6y ago
Who will watch the watchers?
throwawaylolx 6y ago
Twitter made plenty of controversial decisions during these days https://twitter.com/DavidShafer/status/1324537971215863808 https://twitter.com/DavidShafer/status/1324537971215863808

vianneychevalie 6y ago

I’m sorry but how do you reconcile your second paragraph’s criticism of the coexistence of two factual realities and your last paragraph in which you simply pick the one you happen to personally favor?

dlp211 6y ago
Data supports one of those two realities. Joe Biden is President-Elect.
- MacsHeadroom 6y ago
  The reality is that he's not. Not yet, since the Electors haven't gone to the Electoral College and still won't for a long time. In between now and then there will be court challenges. Will those challenges change the ultimate outcome? Almost certainly not. But it's still a fact that Biden is not the President-Elect. Should Twitter fact check people calling him the President-Elect? IMO, probably but only to look unbiased. Will they? No, because they don't care about looking biased despite 70M+ Americans siding with Trump.
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    It's not "biased" and never has been to project a winner based on statistical data. But if we're sticking to a statistical conclusion, how do you think Biden should be described at this point? There is essentially no basis in history or law to believe that Biden will not take office, unless he dies before inauguration. There are no credible legal theories by which he will not be elected.
    - MacsHeadroom 6y ago
      I don't think it's biased either. That's why I didn't say they should do it to be unbiased, but to look unbiased. People are really not taking the loss of faith of 70M Americans as seriously as they aught to.
      - GavinMcG 6y ago
        What should "people" do? The loss of faith is driven by four years of the President lying day in, day out. There have been plenty of voices throughout speaking up for truth and institutional respect, but they're baselessly attacked at the highest levels.
tehwebguy 6y ago
Because the question was not in good faith in the first place because the exact opposite is actually true: Twitter has bent the rules to no end in an effort to keep from banning Trump despite his constant breaking of the their rules.
Angostura 6y ago
I think you misunderstand. Its the co-existance of two claimed factual realities. You simply pick the one which is the factual reality, which relies on looking at facts. If someone says 'the election is rigged', the least they have to do is produce evidence. In the absence of that evidence, that's not a factual statement.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

ryandrake 6y ago

Echo chambers, algorithmic recommendations, and powerful filters all but guarantee multiple realities for different people. If all you see are facts X, Y, and Z, then those facts are as real and true as someone else's facts A, B, and C. I have family members and friends who live in seemingly totally alternate universes, dominated by what I see as conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and a cultural persecution complex. But as they describe it: it's I who live in a media-manufactured alternate reality characterized by trust in institutions, corruption, and a false belief in science and data. What everyone is missing is: both universes might as well be correct, to the observer. It's like measuring what speed someone is going in two different relativistic frames of reference. You can both be right and come up with different numbers. It's a tough problem to solve. We can't solve it by just pointing at the out-groups and saying "ha-ha how stupid are they for believing in rubbish!" They are just not going to be convinced by someone who believe a totally different set of facts.

peteretep 6y ago

I am strongly anti-Trump and pro truth and reasonably pro Jack Dorsey and don’t disagree with anything you say except — I’m not sure why Jack Dorsey should get to decide what’s true just because he invented a social media platform

tehwebguy 6y ago
Jack didn’t decide what’s true, in fact lies are posted to Twitter by users everyday. He just decided that these particular lies are too unreasonable for him to help spread them.
- jariel 6y ago
  "Jack didn’t decide what’s true" It's a little bit naive to think that the truth is easily discerned by any individual, it's always a matter of shades. 'Stole the Election' can mean many different things in many different contexts, not literally election fraud. I detest Donald Trump and don't much like Jack Dorsey, but he should not be in a position to arbiter the truth. I'm very thankful he censored Trump on the eve of the election, not thankful he banned the Post, and very worried about the future. We probably need regulations over this. The free speech people have to come to terms with the fact that the big mediums have always been filtered, and it only takes one insane president to start a civil war, that the truth among the plebes is 'Whatever their Ideologue Says' and so there needs to be credibility in the system. The anti-Trump crowd who are happy with the censoring need to realize how dangerous of a game this is. Twitter and FB need to set up a completely independent public board, with established guidelines and public oversight to manage these things..
rewgs 6y ago
He's not deciding. Just observing and reacting.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
baby 6y ago
I would expect them to have a team actually doing this in a more principled fashion, instead of Jack Dorsey calling the shot from his ivory tower.

justinzollars 6y ago

What about Twitter/Facebook disclaimers on Palestinian speech? Where do you draw the line? If Twitter could make money in China would flagging Human Rights Campaign be okay?

GavinMcG 6y ago
You're arguing from a presumption that truth doesn't exist or doesn't/won't matter, and a lot of us disagree with that notion.
- justinzollars 6y ago
  I disagree with deploying tools of autocrats to control speech. How incredibly lame.

RonanTheGrey 6y ago

I wonder how you'll feel when they do this to you or someone you care about. I don't quite understand the epistemic certainty people have that such weapons will never be turned against them, especially when history so dramatically demonstrates the opposite.

ianai 6y ago
The entire Twitter platform seems totalitarian and a societal bad. Why would you ever want a billboard for your passing thoughts that literally not only can be read by a huge audience but will be read by a huge audience? Oh sure it’s great if you’re promoting something. But there’s clearly a reason beyond basic privacy to want your messages only readable by select few. I’ve been out of social media for years and never quite ‘got’ twitter. From the outside, it seems like it’s having a totalitarian effect on society. What you say will be widely viewed - and “judged.”
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  On that my friend we 100% agree. Widening the window of discussion, I would view it as a 100x societal good for Twitter itself and anything that pretends to it, to disappear.

rufus_foreman 6y ago

I do not accept Twitter as my authority on what is objectively factual correct. Do you?

paulddraper 6y ago

> There is only one set of facts. But what is that set of facts? Twitter felt no need to censor the Steele dossier for years despite it being a politically-funded piece of nonsense.

justin66 6y ago

> In other words, there is nothing inappropriate about Twitter putting disclaimers on objectively factually incorrect statements. Not necessarily inappropriate, but it might be ineffective. I don't know if this has already occurred but I'd bet a great deal of money that those click-through warnings about blatant or dangerous falsehoods will become a badge of honor among twitter conservatives, if they haven't already.

jtdev 6y ago

Who will watch the watchers?

throwawaylolx 6y ago

Twitter made plenty of controversial decisions during these days https://twitter.com/DavidShafer/status/1324537971215863808 https://twitter.com/DavidShafer/status/1324537971215863808