4 ms·

So what? People should be free to discuss stupid and wrong ideas. Btw: I think conspiracy theories are good indicators for what certain people want to believe.

by Hermel 6y ago

So what? People should be free to discuss stupid and wrong ideas. Btw: I think conspiracy theories are good indicators for what certain people want to believe. I personally don't want to be disconnected from these indicators.

ardy42 6y ago
> So what? People should be free to discuss stupid and wrong ideas. And they are, but if they want to do it on Twitter, Twitter gets to have its say as well. However, the conspiracy theorists don't seem to like it when Twitter exercises its rights by labeling their tweets, like in this case. As for why this matters, people who want to live in functioning democracies have a strong interest in making sure the truth prevails in public discourse, and that lies find the habitat difficult.
- wernercd 6y ago
  "Twitter gets to have it's say" Free speech is more than just a law... it's an idea and a philosophy. Part of making sure "truth prevails" is having open discourse about topics. That involves people with "Wrong" ideas the ability to talk. When platforms like Facebook and Twitter become the arbiter of what's "right"? Then people will leave those platforms because lawfully they have the "right" to censor their platform... but people WILL talk about it elsewhere. Facebook/Twitter may win this "battle" by purposefully influencing an election by hiding disinformation they disagree with (while allowing disinformation they are okay with)... but they'll lose the war as other platforms gain momentum and legitimacy. The internet will route itself around the censorship.
  - berkes 6y ago
    What place does someone with the delusion that '2+2=7' have in 'prevailing the Truth'. Such a person only frustrates that search for truth. They don't make the outcome faster, easier or more true, do they?
    - wernercd 6y ago
      What place does "russian collusion" have? because "2+2=7" is provably true/false... but Russian collusion? not so much... meanwhile, it's "truth" that's allowed to be spoken of without repercussion... Because life isn't as simple as "2+2=7"... it's opinions and people saying "my opinion is valid and yours is banned from open discussion". Because I can find plenty of examples of stuff that isn't as clear as flat-earthers or pizzagate that's being blocked from public discorse.
      - berkes 6y ago
        Ok, but let's start with stuff that is provably false, yet is debated all along. For example: There is a climate crisis. This is a scientifically proven fact, not an opinion. Yet people deny it, often with the argument "I'm entitled to this opinion." No. You are not, because it is not an opinion; at most it is a delusion, at worst it is a lie (that you might honestly believe in). This is a 2+2=4 situation, or as near as one can get; yet one that even heads of "modern" states keep saying that is anything but 4. Once we start from the basis that "there is a climate crisis", we can move forward, make choices and so on. A choice might be "it's there, but we're not going to do anything against it, because our economy". That is effective. (albeit something I would have a strong opninion about). At least others can still move forward. But stating it does not exist (which is provably untrue) really harms effectiveness a lot.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Facebook and Twitter have the right to free speech as well. But I am assuming that doesn't count in your utopia.
    - humanrebar 6y ago
      Is their competition a medium like mobile calls and text messages? Or is their competition curated content streams like newspapers or cable news networks? Legally, maybe the distinction doesn't need to be made, but I think users of social media deserve to know up front what they're in for.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Part of making sure "truth prevails" is having open discourse about topics. That involves people with "Wrong" ideas the ability to talk. Yes, but for that to work, the discourse has to between people who are actually seeking out the truth and who have the ability to recognize it. Dead-enders and nutjobs fighting to spread (often obvious) lies do not qualify.
- Hermel 6y ago
  > And they are, but if they want to do it on Twitter, Twitter gets to have its say as well. And that's why they are exercising their right to move away from Twitter.
- odessacubbage 6y ago
  >And they are ask jim watkins or weev or dick masterson about that. alternative platforms get to exist on a small scale as long as they maintain obscurity, but as soon as old media releases a black pr scarepiece, they get Esther Aronowitz'ed pretty quickly. >people who want to live in functioning democracies have a strong interest in making sure the truth prevails in public discourse, and that lies find the habitat difficult. i think you will find that every conspiratorial thinker completely agrees with that sentiment.
- bluecalm 6y ago
  Once Twitter has a say it becomes a publisher not a platform. There is no practical difference between writing a piece yourself and choosing which piece to publish out of thousands other people write. After all you can always claim something you write was submitted by an anonymous donor. Twitter is a publisher and should be responsible for all that it publishes including calls for violence which it regularly features.
sparkie 6y ago
Recall that for at least 3 years, Reddit, here, and many other places were pushing the Russia collusion conspiracy theory. Nobody can fact check for you. You need to make your own opinions based on the knowledge you have, and suppressing information does not make you more informed.
- andybak 6y ago
  > many other places were pushing the Russia collusion conspiracy theory. I might be out of touch but isn't it fairly established at this point that - for certain definitions of "collusion" - it was factually true? i.e. not "Trump got together with Putin and hatched a plan" true but "both sides obliquely acknowledged the interests of the other with a nod and a wink" true?
  - dontcarethrow2 6y ago
    I'm not one for comprehension, but are you stating that if China prefers to have Biden at the helm, and if he wins that they colluded to get him there? Quite the gymnastics friend.
    - andybak 6y ago
      No - I'm saying in addition to "Russia prefers Trump at the helm", there was some (direct or indirect) contact between the two parties and some awareness and (implicit or explicit) encouragement from the Trump camp for Russian actions. Surely there is a meaningful distance between that and your formulation?
  - XorNot 6y ago
    It has also been proven more and more true as time goes on - i.e. the FBI's recent report that Rudy Guiliani was targeted by Russian intelligence to feed disinformation to Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-biden-ukraine-russian-disinformation/2020/10/15/43158900-0ef5-11eb-b1e8-16b59b92b36d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-bi... Not to mention this essentially public attempt at it from 2016 which for some reason everyone laughed off as "a joke": https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-clinton-emails.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-... (footage of the moment included in the article). Literally the only reason "oh it was just not true" is a prevailing bit of logic is because no one in power has cared to do a single thing about it, or even so much as announce that it's in no way acceptable.

by Hermel 6y ago

ardy42 6y ago

> So what? People should be free to discuss stupid and wrong ideas. And they are, but if they want to do it on Twitter, Twitter gets to have its say as well. However, the conspiracy theorists don't seem to like it when Twitter exercises its rights by labeling their tweets, like in this case. As for why this matters, people who want to live in functioning democracies have a strong interest in making sure the truth prevails in public discourse, and that lies find the habitat difficult.

wernercd 6y ago
"Twitter gets to have it's say" Free speech is more than just a law... it's an idea and a philosophy. Part of making sure "truth prevails" is having open discourse about topics. That involves people with "Wrong" ideas the ability to talk. When platforms like Facebook and Twitter become the arbiter of what's "right"? Then people will leave those platforms because lawfully they have the "right" to censor their platform... but people WILL talk about it elsewhere. Facebook/Twitter may win this "battle" by purposefully influencing an election by hiding disinformation they disagree with (while allowing disinformation they are okay with)... but they'll lose the war as other platforms gain momentum and legitimacy. The internet will route itself around the censorship.
- berkes 6y ago
  What place does someone with the delusion that '2+2=7' have in 'prevailing the Truth'. Such a person only frustrates that search for truth. They don't make the outcome faster, easier or more true, do they?
  - wernercd 6y ago
    What place does "russian collusion" have? because "2+2=7" is provably true/false... but Russian collusion? not so much... meanwhile, it's "truth" that's allowed to be spoken of without repercussion... Because life isn't as simple as "2+2=7"... it's opinions and people saying "my opinion is valid and yours is banned from open discussion". Because I can find plenty of examples of stuff that isn't as clear as flat-earthers or pizzagate that's being blocked from public discorse.
    - berkes 6y ago
      Ok, but let's start with stuff that is provably false, yet is debated all along. For example: There is a climate crisis. This is a scientifically proven fact, not an opinion. Yet people deny it, often with the argument "I'm entitled to this opinion." No. You are not, because it is not an opinion; at most it is a delusion, at worst it is a lie (that you might honestly believe in). This is a 2+2=4 situation, or as near as one can get; yet one that even heads of "modern" states keep saying that is anything but 4. Once we start from the basis that "there is a climate crisis", we can move forward, make choices and so on. A choice might be "it's there, but we're not going to do anything against it, because our economy". That is effective. (albeit something I would have a strong opninion about). At least others can still move forward. But stating it does not exist (which is provably untrue) really harms effectiveness a lot.
- threeseed 6y ago
  Facebook and Twitter have the right to free speech as well. But I am assuming that doesn't count in your utopia.
  - humanrebar 6y ago
    Is their competition a medium like mobile calls and text messages? Or is their competition curated content streams like newspapers or cable news networks? Legally, maybe the distinction doesn't need to be made, but I think users of social media deserve to know up front what they're in for.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Part of making sure "truth prevails" is having open discourse about topics. That involves people with "Wrong" ideas the ability to talk. Yes, but for that to work, the discourse has to between people who are actually seeking out the truth and who have the ability to recognize it. Dead-enders and nutjobs fighting to spread (often obvious) lies do not qualify.
Hermel 6y ago
> And they are, but if they want to do it on Twitter, Twitter gets to have its say as well. And that's why they are exercising their right to move away from Twitter.
odessacubbage 6y ago
>And they are ask jim watkins or weev or dick masterson about that. alternative platforms get to exist on a small scale as long as they maintain obscurity, but as soon as old media releases a black pr scarepiece, they get Esther Aronowitz'ed pretty quickly. >people who want to live in functioning democracies have a strong interest in making sure the truth prevails in public discourse, and that lies find the habitat difficult. i think you will find that every conspiratorial thinker completely agrees with that sentiment.
bluecalm 6y ago
Once Twitter has a say it becomes a publisher not a platform. There is no practical difference between writing a piece yourself and choosing which piece to publish out of thousands other people write. After all you can always claim something you write was submitted by an anonymous donor. Twitter is a publisher and should be responsible for all that it publishes including calls for violence which it regularly features.

sparkie 6y ago

Recall that for at least 3 years, Reddit, here, and many other places were pushing the Russia collusion conspiracy theory. Nobody can fact check for you. You need to make your own opinions based on the knowledge you have, and suppressing information does not make you more informed.

andybak 6y ago
> many other places were pushing the Russia collusion conspiracy theory. I might be out of touch but isn't it fairly established at this point that - for certain definitions of "collusion" - it was factually true? i.e. not "Trump got together with Putin and hatched a plan" true but "both sides obliquely acknowledged the interests of the other with a nod and a wink" true?
- dontcarethrow2 6y ago
  I'm not one for comprehension, but are you stating that if China prefers to have Biden at the helm, and if he wins that they colluded to get him there? Quite the gymnastics friend.
  - andybak 6y ago
    No - I'm saying in addition to "Russia prefers Trump at the helm", there was some (direct or indirect) contact between the two parties and some awareness and (implicit or explicit) encouragement from the Trump camp for Russian actions. Surely there is a meaningful distance between that and your formulation?
- XorNot 6y ago
  It has also been proven more and more true as time goes on - i.e. the FBI's recent report that Rudy Guiliani was targeted by Russian intelligence to feed disinformation to Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-biden-ukraine-russian-disinformation/2020/10/15/43158900-0ef5-11eb-b1e8-16b59b92b36d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-bi... Not to mention this essentially public attempt at it from 2016 which for some reason everyone laughed off as "a joke": https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-clinton-emails.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-... (footage of the moment included in the article). Literally the only reason "oh it was just not true" is a prevailing bit of logic is because no one in power has cared to do a single thing about it, or even so much as announce that it's in no way acceptable.