5 ms·

Moderation makes sense when somebody is hijacking your platform and ruining the experience for everyone else. How does someone ruin anything for anyone on twit

Moderation makes sense when somebody is hijacking your platform and ruining the experience for everyone else. How does someone ruin anything for anyone on twitter, when you can just unfollow/block on your own, and follow whomever you want? Seems to me that "moderation" these days is the same as "censorship". The same way the EU decided that their citizens cannot think for themselves and need to be protected from Russian lies like small children. I'd very much like Elon to take over Twitter, since he has clearly expressed he doesn't believe in pre-emptively censoring anyone just because their views are not aligned.

llbeansandrice 4y ago
> need to be protected from Russian lies like small children. You are not immune to propaganda.
- jollybean 4y ago
  It's kind of sad egoism that people think they are immune to misinformation or propaganda. Mark Twain said something along the lines of it's 10x more difficult to convince someone they've been duped, then duping them in the first place. Everyone, definitely including intelligent people, are very susceptible to propaganda and misinformation.
  - nullc 4y ago
    How many of the positions you strongly advocate for here on HN would you estimate are ultimately the result of misinformation or propaganda that you've fallen victim to?
  - mrleinad 4y ago
    Who gets to decide what's propaganda and what is not? You? The government?
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  No one is saying they are, only that they'd like the opportunity (read the right) to make up their own mind, and be wrong about things.
- mrleinad 4y ago
  Never said I was. But neither you nor the government (nor me for the sake of argument) can decide what's propaganda and what's actual information. Let people decide that on their own.
tuwtuwtuwtuw 4y ago
> The same way the EU decided that their citizens cannot think for themselves and need to be protected from Russian lies like small children. But there is vast amounts of empirical evidence that this is correct. Why in the world would you think otherwise?!
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  Every single argument that can be made in favor of speech restrictions can be made in favor of voting rights restrictions as well.
  - tuwtuwtuwtuw 4y ago
    Nope.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  The idea behind freedom generally is that despite the fact that most people don't behave optimally, it is unjust to curtail their right to behave suboptimally, so long as that behaviour doesn't directly impact others.
  - tuwtuwtuwtuw 4y ago
    So we agree then, because the spread of misinformation causes damage for other people, clearly.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      > so long as that behaviour doesn't directly impact others I'm not sure how one person being misinformed directly harms another. Can you elaborate? Surely the misinformed person would have to act to directly harm another person, which is already covered by existing laws I imagine.
alimov 4y ago
> How does someone ruin anything for anyone on twitter, when you can just unfollow/block on your own, and follow whomever you want? So if we don’t ignore bots or “troll farms” (or whatever they are called these days) then it’s pretty clear how the experience of any user on the platform can be “ruined”. If you’re spending a ton of time blocking / unfollowing instead of engaging with others on the platform, then that could be one way that many “someone’s “ can ruin Twitter for others.
- mrleinad 4y ago
  > If you’re spending a ton of time blocking / unfollowing Do you really spend hours doing that? I use twitter and really don't need to do all that maintenance, and there are TONS of trolls and nasty people. What are you doing on twitter that requires such high maintenance?
  - alimov 4y ago
    Personally I do not spend much time on twitter, I was merely trying to provide examples of things that could ruin it for people
jollybean 4y ago
First " since he has clearly expressed he doesn't believe in pre-emptively censoring anyone just because their views are not aligned. " This is completely false. Nobody is barred from Twitter pre-emptively, and nobody is barred because their 'views are not aligned' More importantly, it's naive to believe that the commons can decipher the truth. They cannot - neither can you or I - in a world of total disinformation. The 'truth' does not rise to the top, rather, the ideas that are the most seductive, that appeal to our impulses and beliefs, are the ideas that rise to the top and especially if there are potent interests - and there always are i.e. Economic or Political, that 'free forums' will be controlled by those interests which will likely have nothing to do with any kind of 'truth' - which is in the public good. People are busy, and the world is complicated - so we need centres of credibility. For example - Doctors and Medical Information. That's a hugely regulated sector, because we don't want Yahoos selling you 'Cures for Cancer' when they don't work at all. And there would be a Trillion dollar business there, if were allowed, causing untold harm. We already have a lot of problems there actually. There is no 'free speech' in Medical Information. I'll use your own example against you: Do you think that Europeans are magically smarter than Russians? How is it that large number of Russians, even those who technically have access to 'outside information' come to such a deluded view of reality established by Putin? Why do you think that Europeans are going to magically enlightened and not susceptible to his made up reality? Putin has not 'cut off' Russia, he just needs to raise the barriers a little bit (i.e. VPN), because most people will just watch the propaganda otherwise. That way, he can create a 66% buy-in in Russia. If he can aggressively drive his misinformation into Europe, he could create a 15% support, and maybe 25% disinclination, enough to tilt the tables in many political situations, based on complete fabrications. In the Weimar Republic, Stalin had direct control over 17% of the Bundestag via his direct control over the German Communist Party achieved through control over popular information ie propaganda in the commons. 30% of the USA public believes that the election was stolen, which is a lie. If you take a survey among progressives about police violence against African American and ask them to put some numbers down (i.e # of unarmed African Americans being killed by police) - you'll get outrageous answers, not really based on any kind of reality. And both of those things are problems even in the current system which has 'some integrity'. All un-moderated public places turn into chaos very quickly - that's the first problem. More importantly - they will be used by forces to create the reality they want. It's fine to have a view of what Twitter should and should not be of course, if you want Elon there, that's great. But nobody who is not a Twitter investor should really care that much about 'fiduciary responsibility'. The 'Truth' is a much, much more important public good that some random guys economic interest.
andrepd 4y ago
>Seems to me that "moderation" these days is the same as "censorship". Extremely funny that you say that in a forum that is so heavily moderated. >I'd very much like Elon to take over Twitter, since he has clearly expressed he doesn't believe in pre-emptively censoring anyone just because their views are not aligned. Yes, as we all know Elon Musk is an extremely trustworthy person and I'm sure he will go out of his way to keep his word (as he has always done in his life) in order to do good to the world, even to his own detriment. /s My god, some people are very gullible.
- mrleinad 4y ago
  > Yes, as we all know Elon Musk is an extremely trustworthy person He refused to ban Russian media through Starlink when everyone was banning them and anything that smelled like russian. So I'd say he can take the heat for free speach when it truly matters.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    Of course, he refuses to ban things when that doesn't impact his bottom line! (and in fact gives him good pr) But that's easy enough, it's free. But we do see how much he truly cares about freedom when his $$$ is on the line, say when he goes full gilded-age union-busting on his employees for example.
    - mrleinad 4y ago
      I'll re-evaluate my views on him in that case. So far, my case stands.
UncleMeat 4y ago
> Moderation makes sense when somebody is hijacking your platform and ruining the experience for everyone else. It makes sense to you. Moderation makes sense to me in very different circumstances.

llbeansandrice 4y ago

> need to be protected from Russian lies like small children. You are not immune to propaganda.

jollybean 4y ago
It's kind of sad egoism that people think they are immune to misinformation or propaganda. Mark Twain said something along the lines of it's 10x more difficult to convince someone they've been duped, then duping them in the first place. Everyone, definitely including intelligent people, are very susceptible to propaganda and misinformation.
- nullc 4y ago
  How many of the positions you strongly advocate for here on HN would you estimate are ultimately the result of misinformation or propaganda that you've fallen victim to?
- mrleinad 4y ago
  Who gets to decide what's propaganda and what is not? You? The government?
thegrimmest 4y ago
No one is saying they are, only that they'd like the opportunity (read the right) to make up their own mind, and be wrong about things.
mrleinad 4y ago
Never said I was. But neither you nor the government (nor me for the sake of argument) can decide what's propaganda and what's actual information. Let people decide that on their own.

tuwtuwtuwtuw 4y ago

> The same way the EU decided that their citizens cannot think for themselves and need to be protected from Russian lies like small children. But there is vast amounts of empirical evidence that this is correct. Why in the world would you think otherwise?!

inglor_cz 4y ago
Every single argument that can be made in favor of speech restrictions can be made in favor of voting rights restrictions as well.
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 4y ago
  Nope.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
thegrimmest 4y ago
The idea behind freedom generally is that despite the fact that most people don't behave optimally, it is unjust to curtail their right to behave suboptimally, so long as that behaviour doesn't directly impact others.
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 4y ago
  So we agree then, because the spread of misinformation causes damage for other people, clearly.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    > so long as that behaviour doesn't directly impact others I'm not sure how one person being misinformed directly harms another. Can you elaborate? Surely the misinformed person would have to act to directly harm another person, which is already covered by existing laws I imagine.

alimov 4y ago

> How does someone ruin anything for anyone on twitter, when you can just unfollow/block on your own, and follow whomever you want? So if we don’t ignore bots or “troll farms” (or whatever they are called these days) then it’s pretty clear how the experience of any user on the platform can be “ruined”. If you’re spending a ton of time blocking / unfollowing instead of engaging with others on the platform, then that could be one way that many “someone’s “ can ruin Twitter for others.

mrleinad 4y ago
> If you’re spending a ton of time blocking / unfollowing Do you really spend hours doing that? I use twitter and really don't need to do all that maintenance, and there are TONS of trolls and nasty people. What are you doing on twitter that requires such high maintenance?
- alimov 4y ago
  Personally I do not spend much time on twitter, I was merely trying to provide examples of things that could ruin it for people

jollybean 4y ago

First " since he has clearly expressed he doesn't believe in pre-emptively censoring anyone just because their views are not aligned. " This is completely false. Nobody is barred from Twitter pre-emptively, and nobody is barred because their 'views are not aligned' More importantly, it's naive to believe that the commons can decipher the truth. They cannot - neither can you or I - in a world of total disinformation. The 'truth' does not rise to the top, rather, the ideas that are the most seductive, that appeal to our impulses and beliefs, are the ideas that rise to the top and especially if there are potent interests - and there always are i.e. Economic or Political, that 'free forums' will be controlled by those interests which will likely have nothing to do with any kind of 'truth' - which is in the public good. People are busy, and the world is complicated - so we need centres of credibility. For example - Doctors and Medical Information. That's a hugely regulated sector, because we don't want Yahoos selling you 'Cures for Cancer' when they don't work at all. And there would be a Trillion dollar business there, if were allowed, causing untold harm. We already have a lot of problems there actually. There is no 'free speech' in Medical Information. I'll use your own example against you: Do you think that Europeans are magically smarter than Russians? How is it that large number of Russians, even those who technically have access to 'outside information' come to such a deluded view of reality established by Putin? Why do you think that Europeans are going to magically enlightened and not susceptible to his made up reality? Putin has not 'cut off' Russia, he just needs to raise the barriers a little bit (i.e. VPN), because most people will just watch the propaganda otherwise. That way, he can create a 66% buy-in in Russia. If he can aggressively drive his misinformation into Europe, he could create a 15% support, and maybe 25% disinclination, enough to tilt the tables in many political situations, based on complete fabrications. In the Weimar Republic, Stalin had direct control over 17% of the Bundestag via his direct control over the German Communist Party achieved through control over popular information ie propaganda in the commons. 30% of the USA public believes that the election was stolen, which is a lie. If you take a survey among progressives about police violence against African American and ask them to put some numbers down (i.e # of unarmed African Americans being killed by police) - you'll get outrageous answers, not really based on any kind of reality. And both of those things are problems even in the current system which has 'some integrity'. All un-moderated public places turn into chaos very quickly - that's the first problem. More importantly - they will be used by forces to create the reality they want. It's fine to have a view of what Twitter should and should not be of course, if you want Elon there, that's great. But nobody who is not a Twitter investor should really care that much about 'fiduciary responsibility'. The 'Truth' is a much, much more important public good that some random guys economic interest.

andrepd 4y ago

>Seems to me that "moderation" these days is the same as "censorship". Extremely funny that you say that in a forum that is so heavily moderated. >I'd very much like Elon to take over Twitter, since he has clearly expressed he doesn't believe in pre-emptively censoring anyone just because their views are not aligned. Yes, as we all know Elon Musk is an extremely trustworthy person and I'm sure he will go out of his way to keep his word (as he has always done in his life) in order to do good to the world, even to his own detriment. /s My god, some people are very gullible.

mrleinad 4y ago
> Yes, as we all know Elon Musk is an extremely trustworthy person He refused to ban Russian media through Starlink when everyone was banning them and anything that smelled like russian. So I'd say he can take the heat for free speach when it truly matters.
- andrepd 4y ago
  Of course, he refuses to ban things when that doesn't impact his bottom line! (and in fact gives him good pr) But that's easy enough, it's free. But we do see how much he truly cares about freedom when his $$$ is on the line, say when he goes full gilded-age union-busting on his employees for example.
  - mrleinad 4y ago
    I'll re-evaluate my views on him in that case. So far, my case stands.

UncleMeat 4y ago

> Moderation makes sense when somebody is hijacking your platform and ruining the experience for everyone else. It makes sense to you. Moderation makes sense to me in very different circumstances.