3 ms·

> should not be able to choose or express it’s own side in any matter of political contention It goes back to the conversations expressed elsewhere in this pos

> should not be able to choose or express it’s own side in any matter of political contention It goes back to the conversations expressed elsewhere in this post about twitter being an utility, de-facto. If it is given that status, then there are some expectations that come with it. Once a company takes a political position, then it cannot appeal on 'moral' or other subjective grounds. > How does that even work? I don't know... maybe an entity like the Swiss? Not sure if it is a good example, being a country itself? The reason people seem to be ok with the presence of the country is that it is strictly neutral, and both sides protected it. > Who gets to decide which topics or points of view are off-the-table for normal social-media moderation? How about no one? > I guess you’re saying government figures and major political parties could decide unilaterally. We’ll have to repeal the first amendment, anyway. The 1st amendment is for the US exclusively. This version of the Freedom of speech is a distinctively American concept, and for that reason, twitter actually finds some tepid support from conservatives. Each country is sovereign in the laws that govern their land, unless they breach some major crimes, and thats when the UN steps in. Nothing new here.

yibg 5y ago
Problem here is "favorable" and "political position" are pretty subjective. Who's to decide what is favorable to whom and what constitutes political position? Is saying wear a mask a political position? These days it seems to be. So someone still has to decide what is political and what is not right? So seems like we're back to square 1.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  the deeper point about the mask is that AFAICT, the people are not really opposing the mask, but the government that is directing those mandates, and the real root cause is the lack of trust in the government. it is also coinciding with a period of extreme distrust of the media, wherein, if some thing is spreading outside of the media, the position being taken is that it must be true, whereas one would expect the opposite to happen. The media and the government must introspect their roles in leading to this situation. Many lump twitter as being part of the media itself, because of its proactive actions.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    People distrust the media because one half of our political spectrum is busy as a beaver spreading lies so blatant that they can't be credibly presented as another side of the issue or an alternative perspective. Because the media is presenting reality in a fashion vastly closer to objective truth the liars are obliged to explain why their positions and the medias differ and the most trivial response is to continue lying and call the media liars. The liars audience has chosen their own alternative facts over objective reality and there is absolutely nothing the media could have done to prevent it.
    - foolinaround 5y ago
      > because one half of our political spectrum and the other half comes out smelling like roses? Let me ask you this, as atleast you know there are 2 universes (which many do not ): - Do you sample both of the universes and make up your mind? - Do you know which direction the media thats most accessible (otherwise called as mainstream) leans politically? - Do you lean that same direction yourself? - if so, it is that side that needs to seek out the alternate universe and figure if there is any truth to it. ( theoretically, there can be right?) -- The people on the right are generally exposed to the mainstream media, and therefore, and also consume alternate media from the right, and at least, get to hear both sides. The people on the left, on average, simply do not do this
      - michaelmrose 5y ago
        There aren't 2 universes there are n universes where n is the number of people. In most respects my politics are more progressive than the medias but I take a nuanced view and I think for myself. I HAVE sampled both sides mostly because I had an interest in watching the crazy. The far side of the fence from the "liberal media" is sadly stunted men swimming in a cloud of misinformation so thick that escape appears difficult. Explaining one wrong thing nearly always involves dealing with not only present issues but prior preconceptions. Although these men may possess in some areas of their life judgement, character, values but they are guided by not only fake information, but fake resources who will not only at need feed them more misinformation but has poisoned them against sources apt to contradict their line of bullshit.
anigbrowl 5y ago
Swiss neutrality was noticeable more in the breach than the observance: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/switzerland-neutral-wwii.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/switzerlan... Militarily, invading Switzerland would have been far more work than it was worth.
michaelmrose 5y ago
The way nations relate to one another is fundamentally different from the way parties relate to one another within a nation. The UN is a debating society that serves to provide a venue for potentially belligerent actors subject to different laws who ultimately can only truly enforce their will with bombs and bullets if debate fails. Parties within a nation are all subject to the same laws with established responsibilities and rights with established procedures for settling differences. The fact that some platforms choose to exclude a minority of players from using said platforms to spread ideas that the majority finds evil and harmful is a feature not a bug. There are established laws that protect actual rights and privileges. Just none that would privilege you to stand on others property and shout hateful offensive things. Get your own bullhorn and stop trying to make laws demanding your neighbor lend you his.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  The UN also theoretically can step in if a nation does bad things to its own citizens ( like genocide etc). What is being discussed here is Twitter, an American company in relation to countries like India, etc. > to spread ideas that the majority finds evil and harmful Who is the majority? And how did twitter find it? If twitter lets a ranking system similar to HN/reddit, and content below a particular ratio is hidden, that might be fine I guess. it would be a mob, I would'nt like it, but atleast, its uniform. > Get your own bullhorn and stop trying to make laws demanding your neighbor lend you his. What does that even mean? Is twitter my neighbour? Do I, a ordinary citizen have similar clout? In a way, I see twitter as a bully (a loud bullhorn) who was terrorizing the neighborhood one after the other. He walks into this one, where there is a stronger bully (with laws that have teeth) and slaps him silly. This bully now cries, and yeah, not getting much sympathy from the folks he bullied.

yibg 5y ago

Problem here is "favorable" and "political position" are pretty subjective. Who's to decide what is favorable to whom and what constitutes political position? Is saying wear a mask a political position? These days it seems to be. So someone still has to decide what is political and what is not right? So seems like we're back to square 1.

foolinaround 5y ago
the deeper point about the mask is that AFAICT, the people are not really opposing the mask, but the government that is directing those mandates, and the real root cause is the lack of trust in the government. it is also coinciding with a period of extreme distrust of the media, wherein, if some thing is spreading outside of the media, the position being taken is that it must be true, whereas one would expect the opposite to happen. The media and the government must introspect their roles in leading to this situation. Many lump twitter as being part of the media itself, because of its proactive actions.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  People distrust the media because one half of our political spectrum is busy as a beaver spreading lies so blatant that they can't be credibly presented as another side of the issue or an alternative perspective. Because the media is presenting reality in a fashion vastly closer to objective truth the liars are obliged to explain why their positions and the medias differ and the most trivial response is to continue lying and call the media liars. The liars audience has chosen their own alternative facts over objective reality and there is absolutely nothing the media could have done to prevent it.
  - foolinaround 5y ago
    > because one half of our political spectrum and the other half comes out smelling like roses? Let me ask you this, as atleast you know there are 2 universes (which many do not ): - Do you sample both of the universes and make up your mind? - Do you know which direction the media thats most accessible (otherwise called as mainstream) leans politically? - Do you lean that same direction yourself? - if so, it is that side that needs to seek out the alternate universe and figure if there is any truth to it. ( theoretically, there can be right?) -- The people on the right are generally exposed to the mainstream media, and therefore, and also consume alternate media from the right, and at least, get to hear both sides. The people on the left, on average, simply do not do this
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      There aren't 2 universes there are n universes where n is the number of people. In most respects my politics are more progressive than the medias but I take a nuanced view and I think for myself. I HAVE sampled both sides mostly because I had an interest in watching the crazy. The far side of the fence from the "liberal media" is sadly stunted men swimming in a cloud of misinformation so thick that escape appears difficult. Explaining one wrong thing nearly always involves dealing with not only present issues but prior preconceptions. Although these men may possess in some areas of their life judgement, character, values but they are guided by not only fake information, but fake resources who will not only at need feed them more misinformation but has poisoned them against sources apt to contradict their line of bullshit.

anigbrowl 5y ago

Swiss neutrality was noticeable more in the breach than the observance: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/switzerland-neutral-wwii.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/switzerlan... Militarily, invading Switzerland would have been far more work than it was worth.

michaelmrose 5y ago

The way nations relate to one another is fundamentally different from the way parties relate to one another within a nation. The UN is a debating society that serves to provide a venue for potentially belligerent actors subject to different laws who ultimately can only truly enforce their will with bombs and bullets if debate fails. Parties within a nation are all subject to the same laws with established responsibilities and rights with established procedures for settling differences. The fact that some platforms choose to exclude a minority of players from using said platforms to spread ideas that the majority finds evil and harmful is a feature not a bug. There are established laws that protect actual rights and privileges. Just none that would privilege you to stand on others property and shout hateful offensive things. Get your own bullhorn and stop trying to make laws demanding your neighbor lend you his.

foolinaround 5y ago
The UN also theoretically can step in if a nation does bad things to its own citizens ( like genocide etc). What is being discussed here is Twitter, an American company in relation to countries like India, etc. > to spread ideas that the majority finds evil and harmful Who is the majority? And how did twitter find it? If twitter lets a ranking system similar to HN/reddit, and content below a particular ratio is hidden, that might be fine I guess. it would be a mob, I would'nt like it, but atleast, its uniform. > Get your own bullhorn and stop trying to make laws demanding your neighbor lend you his. What does that even mean? Is twitter my neighbour? Do I, a ordinary citizen have similar clout? In a way, I see twitter as a bully (a loud bullhorn) who was terrorizing the neighborhood one after the other. He walks into this one, where there is a stronger bully (with laws that have teeth) and slaps him silly. This bully now cries, and yeah, not getting much sympathy from the folks he bullied.