4 ms·

> “all replies would be hidden by default and users would have to manually mark them as visible to their audience” That sounds horrible… the opposite of “socia

> “all replies would be hidden by default and users would have to manually mark them as visible to their audience” That sounds horrible… the opposite of “social”.

saurik 5y ago
99% of the value from Facebook or Instagram--both of which we call "social networks"--comes not from seeing content from strangers but by seeing posts and comments from our friends. I follow a bunch of people on Twitter, and they talk to each other: I find that social! (And, if someone new joins the conversation, and the people I follow want to introduce me to them by marking their content as kosher, well that's a "network"! <- In parentheses as you didn't care about "network".) (FWIW, the reason why that parenthetical you are responding to mattered was if you follow my other complaints about how this all ties into Section 230 and how and when platforms should be held legally--or merely morally--culpable for content and why, and you tried to square that with the idea that by letting users moderate threads you shift, in my framework, the culpability around. I do happily admit that there are some use cases for existing social networks--and Twitter likely in particular!--that I don't really support... but I don't even think they should be legal more than I simply think that some UI or another is better for them. But this is a wholly different conversation that isn't really really relevant on this post and involves a ton of content I have written before: I mentioned it only so people could see that I am not being inconsistent in my beliefs set, whereas I do feel like this complaint "stands alone".)
- DavideNL 5y ago
  > “ 99% of the value from Facebook or Instagram … comes not from seeing content from strangers but by seeing posts and comments from our friends.“ I personally disagree, as this is not the way i use social media. I fear the result of your suggested method would be that ALL people who don’t have friends/a network, would be severely limited in their freedom of speech. They deserve to be heard too, and not just when they say “something nice” and you/others allow them to be heard. Ciriticism should not be muted. I feel isolating them from the rest/majority will only cause more problems. > “platforms should be held legally--or merely morally--culpable for content“ I agree with that, and obviously something needs to change quickly. The current situation is a thread to our democracy.
  - saurik 5y ago
    FWIW, we just disagree on morals. I believe everyone has the right to say whatever they want to a willing recipient... but they DO NOT have a right to "be heard". The latter simply doesn't work, because there are too many people to give everyone the right to force random other people to hear what they say. Even with small numbers of people, you end up with some people who are simply going to spam, and you need a way to stop the spammers, so you empower someone to... strip away that right on some case by case basis :/. And then that person always always always ends up restricting actual speech in their quest to make everyone feel heard. Literally everyone--even people you think are spammers, or people who are spewing "hate speech", inciting treasonous, telling lies, or exposing "inconvenient truths"--should get to have a Twitter account and should get to post as much stuff as they want... to their followers. As someone who tells inconvenient truths, I am telling you (through my extended example elsewhere in this thread involving Apple) that this is important: this is what let's you build an audience, and it is what prevents people in power from taking away your audience! But it isn't possible to have freedom of speech with "a right to be heard", in no small part because "a right to be heard" is impossible to implement without utterly draconian control and rate limits on speech to prevent you from just dominating anyone's discussions by shouting louder. Seriously: people who think like you do are the reason why freedom of speech is so hard to come by in this day and age, as this mental model of "a right to be heard" fails to incorporate the ramifications of the very thing if asks for :/.

> “all replies would be hidden by default and users would have to manually mark them as visible to their audience” That sounds horrible… the opposite of “social”.

saurik 5y ago

99% of the value from Facebook or Instagram--both of which we call "social networks"--comes not from seeing content from strangers but by seeing posts and comments from our friends. I follow a bunch of people on Twitter, and they talk to each other: I find that social! (And, if someone new joins the conversation, and the people I follow want to introduce me to them by marking their content as kosher, well that's a "network"! <- In parentheses as you didn't care about "network".) (FWIW, the reason why that parenthetical you are responding to mattered was if you follow my other complaints about how this all ties into Section 230 and how and when platforms should be held legally--or merely morally--culpable for content and why, and you tried to square that with the idea that by letting users moderate threads you shift, in my framework, the culpability around. I do happily admit that there are some use cases for existing social networks--and Twitter likely in particular!--that I don't really support... but I don't even think they should be legal more than I simply think that some UI or another is better for them. But this is a wholly different conversation that isn't really really relevant on this post and involves a ton of content I have written before: I mentioned it only so people could see that I am not being inconsistent in my beliefs set, whereas I do feel like this complaint "stands alone".)

DavideNL 5y ago
> “ 99% of the value from Facebook or Instagram … comes not from seeing content from strangers but by seeing posts and comments from our friends.“ I personally disagree, as this is not the way i use social media. I fear the result of your suggested method would be that ALL people who don’t have friends/a network, would be severely limited in their freedom of speech. They deserve to be heard too, and not just when they say “something nice” and you/others allow them to be heard. Ciriticism should not be muted. I feel isolating them from the rest/majority will only cause more problems. > “platforms should be held legally--or merely morally--culpable for content“ I agree with that, and obviously something needs to change quickly. The current situation is a thread to our democracy.
- saurik 5y ago
  FWIW, we just disagree on morals. I believe everyone has the right to say whatever they want to a willing recipient... but they DO NOT have a right to "be heard". The latter simply doesn't work, because there are too many people to give everyone the right to force random other people to hear what they say. Even with small numbers of people, you end up with some people who are simply going to spam, and you need a way to stop the spammers, so you empower someone to... strip away that right on some case by case basis :/. And then that person always always always ends up restricting actual speech in their quest to make everyone feel heard. Literally everyone--even people you think are spammers, or people who are spewing "hate speech", inciting treasonous, telling lies, or exposing "inconvenient truths"--should get to have a Twitter account and should get to post as much stuff as they want... to their followers. As someone who tells inconvenient truths, I am telling you (through my extended example elsewhere in this thread involving Apple) that this is important: this is what let's you build an audience, and it is what prevents people in power from taking away your audience! But it isn't possible to have freedom of speech with "a right to be heard", in no small part because "a right to be heard" is impossible to implement without utterly draconian control and rate limits on speech to prevent you from just dominating anyone's discussions by shouting louder. Seriously: people who think like you do are the reason why freedom of speech is so hard to come by in this day and age, as this mental model of "a right to be heard" fails to incorporate the ramifications of the very thing if asks for :/.