4 ms·

I think the problem with twitter clones is that they're free speech absolutist, which in principal is good, but it obviously attracts the worst and others get t

by bko 5y ago

I think the problem with twitter clones is that they're free speech absolutist, which in principal is good, but it obviously attracts the worst and others get turned off. I checked out alternatives and regularly within the first page you can see truly cringy stuff (name your -ism). How about an alternative that just has a sensible policy about what can and can't be posted? Or a "bring your own filter" feature where you can pick your filter and discover algo, and people can create open-source or private versions you can pick from. Want the wild west? There's a filter for that. Want something like twitter but without inflammatory politics? How about twitter with slightly looser censorship? All could be crowdsourced filters But it has to be easy. No separate domains or configurations. One shared global state but you can swap out rules.

conradludgate 5y ago
I think it sounds good in theory, but I wonder for the 'morbid curiosity'. I've found it's very common to just peek into the latest topic, even if it upsets you greatly. Right now, whenever I see JK Rowling tending on twitter, I get frustrated and I know I won't like what I will read, but I click through anyway. If it's as easy as you suggest, it's easy to disable the filters and expose yourself to this negative content, even if you know its not nice for you
edmcnulty101 5y ago
> "bring your own filter" feature This is literally the solution.
- mbrumlow 5y ago
  Not really. Those who hate free speech want to control your speech. There have been more than enough times the same folks who hate a subset of speech have complained about the same speech in private signal channels.
  - nr2x 5y ago
    Free to impart and to receive. The government can’t choose what I hear, but I have a right to listen to what I want.
    - xupybd 5y ago
      Yeah you should have the ability to block who ever you want.
  - gruez 5y ago
    Indeed. There was a poll done earlier this year[1] that reported 27% of all voters (48% of democrats, 14% of republicans, and 18% of independents) support fines or imprisonment for "individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications". https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/covid_19_democratic_voters_support_harsh_measures_against_unvaccinated https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/par...
    - adfgadfgaery 5y ago
      Take anything Rasmussen says with a grain of salt. They are not out-and-out fraudulent, but they are generally the least accurate of all major pollsters. Also, there's this: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen-quotes-stalin-in-discussing-us-election https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen... They weren't great in years past, but endorsing a coup d'état is pretty bad in my eyes. I didn't know this previously; I'll have to adjust my opinion of them.
      - gruez 5y ago
        > Take anything Rasmussen says with a grain of salt. They are not out-and-out fraudulent, but they are generally the least accurate of all major pollsters. >Also, there's this: >https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen... >They weren't great in years past, but endorsing a coup d'état is pretty bad in my eyes. I didn't know this previously; I'll have to adjust my opinion of them. How did you get the impression that they were "endorsing a coup d'état"? As your article said, they outlined a scenario where that could happen, but I couldn't find anything that's an endorsement of it. If anything, the fact that they quoted stalin by name makes me think they're against it.
        adfgadfgaery 5y ago
        First off, because everything they said about the law is bullshit. The vice president has no authority to throw out votes. This is a complete fabrication. Either the writer legitimately believe this is legal, in which case they are clueless, or they know it is illegal, in which case they are lying. Either is bad. Second, because of this: >If they are (as more than 70% of Republicans believe) certificates from non-electors appointed via voter fraud, why should he open & count them?" "Many people are saying": the classic weasel words. They can endorse this with an appeal to the authority of common knowledge and discuss it as if it's a reasonable hypothetical, all the while maintaining plausible deniability that they're just repeating what "everyone knows". Well, I don't find it plausible. Read the replies to the tweets. The fascist types definitely interpreted it as Rasmussen agreeing with their position,. The non-fascist types interpreted it the same way. People do not communicate with formal logic. The meaning of speech is the meaning people take from it, not the meaning you would get from dissecting it on a whiteboard.
rgoulter 5y ago
> How about an alternative that just has a sensible policy about what can and can't be posted? I'm reminded of https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ... """The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.""" If alternatives also decide to ban the stuff that Twitter bans, then (at best) that's only appealing to the narrow range of content bad enough to get banned by Twitter, but wouldn't be 'sensibly banned'.
mchusma 5y ago
I don't get why any of the social media platforms WANT to be involved in censorship. Just let people pick their own filters. It seems about 50% of the hate on Facebook involves them trying to be involved. The only answer I can come up with is that they feel their ability to control engagement completely is more important than user control.
- retox 5y ago
  Legacy media like to drum up shock stories about social media sites to defund them through grilling companies advertising there.

by bko 5y ago

conradludgate 5y ago

I think it sounds good in theory, but I wonder for the 'morbid curiosity'. I've found it's very common to just peek into the latest topic, even if it upsets you greatly. Right now, whenever I see JK Rowling tending on twitter, I get frustrated and I know I won't like what I will read, but I click through anyway. If it's as easy as you suggest, it's easy to disable the filters and expose yourself to this negative content, even if you know its not nice for you

edmcnulty101 5y ago

> "bring your own filter" feature This is literally the solution.

mbrumlow 5y ago
Not really. Those who hate free speech want to control your speech. There have been more than enough times the same folks who hate a subset of speech have complained about the same speech in private signal channels.
- nr2x 5y ago
  Free to impart and to receive. The government can’t choose what I hear, but I have a right to listen to what I want.
  - xupybd 5y ago
    Yeah you should have the ability to block who ever you want.
- gruez 5y ago
  Indeed. There was a poll done earlier this year[1] that reported 27% of all voters (48% of democrats, 14% of republicans, and 18% of independents) support fines or imprisonment for "individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications". https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/covid_19_democratic_voters_support_harsh_measures_against_unvaccinated https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/par...
  - adfgadfgaery 5y ago
    Take anything Rasmussen says with a grain of salt. They are not out-and-out fraudulent, but they are generally the least accurate of all major pollsters. Also, there's this: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen-quotes-stalin-in-discussing-us-election https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen... They weren't great in years past, but endorsing a coup d'état is pretty bad in my eyes. I didn't know this previously; I'll have to adjust my opinion of them.
    - gruez 5y ago
      > Take anything Rasmussen says with a grain of salt. They are not out-and-out fraudulent, but they are generally the least accurate of all major pollsters. >Also, there's this: >https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen... >They weren't great in years past, but endorsing a coup d'état is pretty bad in my eyes. I didn't know this previously; I'll have to adjust my opinion of them. How did you get the impression that they were "endorsing a coup d'état"? As your article said, they outlined a scenario where that could happen, but I couldn't find anything that's an endorsement of it. If anything, the fact that they quoted stalin by name makes me think they're against it.
      - adfgadfgaery 5y ago
        First off, because everything they said about the law is bullshit. The vice president has no authority to throw out votes. This is a complete fabrication. Either the writer legitimately believe this is legal, in which case they are clueless, or they know it is illegal, in which case they are lying. Either is bad. Second, because of this: >If they are (as more than 70% of Republicans believe) certificates from non-electors appointed via voter fraud, why should he open & count them?" "Many people are saying": the classic weasel words. They can endorse this with an appeal to the authority of common knowledge and discuss it as if it's a reasonable hypothetical, all the while maintaining plausible deniability that they're just repeating what "everyone knows". Well, I don't find it plausible. Read the replies to the tweets. The fascist types definitely interpreted it as Rasmussen agreeing with their position,. The non-fascist types interpreted it the same way. People do not communicate with formal logic. The meaning of speech is the meaning people take from it, not the meaning you would get from dissecting it on a whiteboard.

rgoulter 5y ago

> How about an alternative that just has a sensible policy about what can and can't be posted? I'm reminded of https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ... """The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.""" If alternatives also decide to ban the stuff that Twitter bans, then (at best) that's only appealing to the narrow range of content bad enough to get banned by Twitter, but wouldn't be 'sensibly banned'.

mchusma 5y ago

I don't get why any of the social media platforms WANT to be involved in censorship. Just let people pick their own filters. It seems about 50% of the hate on Facebook involves them trying to be involved. The only answer I can come up with is that they feel their ability to control engagement completely is more important than user control.

retox 5y ago
Legacy media like to drum up shock stories about social media sites to defund them through grilling companies advertising there.