5 ms·

What's the problem? If you don't like it, go build your own platform right?

NationalPark 5y ago
The problem that the article is pointing out at least is that the free speech idealists don’t actually seem to have a vision to realize their ideals, and in many cases behave in ways that are counter to the absolutist rhetoric that they’re using to rally popular support for their new platforms or takeover bids. But yes, ultimately the (U.S.) government is not able to tell businesses what content to moderate (or not moderate) because that would be a first amendment violation, so the only solution for people unhappy with current platforms is to migrate to new ones.
- twofornone 5y ago
  >don’t actually seem to have a vision to realize their ideals It doesn't help when infrastructure also refuses to host or handle payments for your platform for wrongthink. That said you're right in that the alternatives have been built with perplexingly questionable data harvesting and security protocol.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- after_care 5y ago
  > But yes, ultimately the (U.S.) government is not able to tell businesses what content to moderate (or not moderate) because that would be a first amendment violation, so the only solution for people unhappy with current platforms is to migrate to new ones. Migration is not what's best for society. The migration to silos creates thought bubbles, is a barrier to cross-pollination of ideas, and potentially creates extremist. The ideal social network is a federated network with individuals selecting their own content filtering/moderator. It's possible for all nodes of the network to communicate, and the important responsibility of moderation is removed from the platform. Removing nodes form a network and adding them to a separate network (migration) doesn't solve anything at scale.
- cryptonector 5y ago
  The U.S. is very much "able to tell businesses what content to moderate (or not moderate)", it's just that those businesses legally can ignore that. But what if the businesses are happy to do as they're told because of other factors? Factors such as: being in agreement with the orders, fearing spurious SEC/IRS/... investigations and audits, etc.
- anamax 5y ago
  > But yes, ultimately the (U.S.) government is not able to tell businesses what content to moderate (or not moderate) because that would be a first amendment violation And yet, the US Govt has done exactly that and Twitter et al fell right in line.
LightG 5y ago
Such an embarassing admission of your own limitations of thought.
- cryptonector 5y ago
  Why respond in this way? GP was clearly using a facetious argument to indirectly make an interesting point, and that makes it a serious argument worthy of more respect than you gave it.
  - LightG 5y ago
    Fine, if you think that's a serious argument, go ahead. It's literally step 1 in this discussion which is currently at about step 3104 and climbing. Don't like it? Sorry about that.
    - cryptonector 5y ago
      You're choosing to be unnecessarily hostile and offended.
      - LightG 5y ago
        I think you're right. Put it down to immense frustration. My apoloigies. On the other hand, if we don't call this stuff out, we're going to continue in in reverse gear.
        cryptonector 5y ago
        Thanks. You don't have to accept others' opinions -indeed, you must reject many such-, but if we are to live in a civilized society, we have to accept that others have differing opinions. > On the other hand, if we don't call this stuff out, we're going to continue in in reverse gear. Please do not get hyperbolic about how deadly covid-19 is. I'm sure you know quite well that that's very much a matter of debate, and that there is a lot of room for debating various trade-offs in public policy, etc. It's trivially obvious that one can make covid policy absurd. For example, we could just exterminate all humans and stop worrying about covid cases and deaths! One need not reach such an absurd hypothetical to reach actually-applied policies that many -most, even- find too absurd. There must be a limit to covid-zero-like policies, and we must be free to debate it in order to find that limit. We must even be free to employ facetious, sarcastic, or sardonic humor -- these all can be legitimate modes of argument, especially when the other side is not open to any debate. Disallowing debate is a recipe for disaster, and also for mockery.
kgwxd 5y ago
I can tell you're being sarcastic and think this is some kind of "gottcha, ya hypocritical lefties", but that is exactly what will happen if he takes it over and tries to make it all about "free speech". It's happened plenty of time in the past. This will just end up being another version of the same story that's been repeating for decades now. It will turn into the cesspool and no one of any note will want to be on it anymore. Whatever new thing takes its place will be open-ish at first, eventually gravitate towards "left-leaning", become popular enough that businesses and news outlets start posting to it, and ultimately become a target for the rich to take over. The cycle has already started, kids do not have any interest in Twitter. I doubt Musk cares about free speech and I doubt much would actually change if he took it over. He might give powerful people less trouble, but it wouldn't mean anything for the plebs. He just wants to own a major platform because that's what billionaires do.
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  Isn't Twitter already a cesspool? Does it matter a hill of beans what one person controls it? Why will this time be different no matter who is CEO?

The problem that the article is pointing out at least is that the free speech idealists don’t actually seem to have a vision to realize their ideals, and in many cases behave in ways that are counter to the absolutist rhetoric that they’re using to rally popular support for their new platforms or takeover bids. But yes, ultimately the (U.S.) government is not able to tell businesses what content to moderate (or not moderate) because that would be a first amendment violation, so the only solution for people unhappy with current platforms is to migrate to new ones.

twofornone 5y ago
>don’t actually seem to have a vision to realize their ideals It doesn't help when infrastructure also refuses to host or handle payments for your platform for wrongthink. That said you're right in that the alternatives have been built with perplexingly questionable data harvesting and security protocol.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
after_care 5y ago
> But yes, ultimately the (U.S.) government is not able to tell businesses what content to moderate (or not moderate) because that would be a first amendment violation, so the only solution for people unhappy with current platforms is to migrate to new ones. Migration is not what's best for society. The migration to silos creates thought bubbles, is a barrier to cross-pollination of ideas, and potentially creates extremist. The ideal social network is a federated network with individuals selecting their own content filtering/moderator. It's possible for all nodes of the network to communicate, and the important responsibility of moderation is removed from the platform. Removing nodes form a network and adding them to a separate network (migration) doesn't solve anything at scale.
cryptonector 5y ago
The U.S. is very much "able to tell businesses what content to moderate (or not moderate)", it's just that those businesses legally can ignore that. But what if the businesses are happy to do as they're told because of other factors? Factors such as: being in agreement with the orders, fearing spurious SEC/IRS/... investigations and audits, etc.
anamax 5y ago
> But yes, ultimately the (U.S.) government is not able to tell businesses what content to moderate (or not moderate) because that would be a first amendment violation And yet, the US Govt has done exactly that and Twitter et al fell right in line.

LightG 5y ago

Such an embarassing admission of your own limitations of thought.

cryptonector 5y ago
Why respond in this way? GP was clearly using a facetious argument to indirectly make an interesting point, and that makes it a serious argument worthy of more respect than you gave it.
- LightG 5y ago
  Fine, if you think that's a serious argument, go ahead. It's literally step 1 in this discussion which is currently at about step 3104 and climbing. Don't like it? Sorry about that.
  - cryptonector 5y ago
    You're choosing to be unnecessarily hostile and offended.
    - LightG 5y ago
      I think you're right. Put it down to immense frustration. My apoloigies. On the other hand, if we don't call this stuff out, we're going to continue in in reverse gear.
      - cryptonector 5y ago
        Thanks. You don't have to accept others' opinions -indeed, you must reject many such-, but if we are to live in a civilized society, we have to accept that others have differing opinions. > On the other hand, if we don't call this stuff out, we're going to continue in in reverse gear. Please do not get hyperbolic about how deadly covid-19 is. I'm sure you know quite well that that's very much a matter of debate, and that there is a lot of room for debating various trade-offs in public policy, etc. It's trivially obvious that one can make covid policy absurd. For example, we could just exterminate all humans and stop worrying about covid cases and deaths! One need not reach such an absurd hypothetical to reach actually-applied policies that many -most, even- find too absurd. There must be a limit to covid-zero-like policies, and we must be free to debate it in order to find that limit. We must even be free to employ facetious, sarcastic, or sardonic humor -- these all can be legitimate modes of argument, especially when the other side is not open to any debate. Disallowing debate is a recipe for disaster, and also for mockery.

kgwxd 5y ago

I can tell you're being sarcastic and think this is some kind of "gottcha, ya hypocritical lefties", but that is exactly what will happen if he takes it over and tries to make it all about "free speech". It's happened plenty of time in the past. This will just end up being another version of the same story that's been repeating for decades now. It will turn into the cesspool and no one of any note will want to be on it anymore. Whatever new thing takes its place will be open-ish at first, eventually gravitate towards "left-leaning", become popular enough that businesses and news outlets start posting to it, and ultimately become a target for the rich to take over. The cycle has already started, kids do not have any interest in Twitter. I doubt Musk cares about free speech and I doubt much would actually change if he took it over. He might give powerful people less trouble, but it wouldn't mean anything for the plebs. He just wants to own a major platform because that's what billionaires do.

nathanaldensr 5y ago
Isn't Twitter already a cesspool? Does it matter a hill of beans what one person controls it? Why will this time be different no matter who is CEO?