4 ms·

If his agenda is polar opposite of the current agenda, I can't wait to see it. I would love to see him turn Twitter into a free-for-all where all LEGAL under US

If his agenda is polar opposite of the current agenda, I can't wait to see it. I would love to see him turn Twitter into a free-for-all where all LEGAL under US law material is allowed. Where YOU as an individual can mute/block things you do not want to see. It's incredible this idea today is considered "dangerous".

saboot 5y ago
Yes, I can't wait to see the place I get real time news updates and tech discussions become a platform for Holocaust denial.
- mirceal 5y ago
  yes, but fReE SpEeCh! /s
- memish 5y ago
  It's EASY to counter Holocaust deniers because there is so much evidence that it happened. It's like debating flat earthers. No problem. Why be threatened by things that are easily debunked in day light? It's not hard to defeat bad ideas with good ideas. Or you can just ignore it by turning off the channel. That's always an option.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > It's not hard to defeat bad ideas with good ideas. That's a load of crap. You cannot debate with conspiracy theorists. Debates only work when both sides are acting in good faith.
  - mirceal 5y ago
    huh. this naive approach is cute. but here is the thing: the amount of effort required to refute bullshit is at least an order of magnitude higher than the effort required to produce it. we don’t have unlimited time an unlimited attention spans. we also deal with uneducated, easily manipulated people that will just discard anything that does not match their world view and just amplify the bs.
    - memish 5y ago
      Correct. No one can deal with all that shit. But it's distributed. You can ignore most of it, or all of it if you want. There are plenty of us autists to overwhelm it. Sending Flat Earthers off to their own dark corner is how they become entrenched. Leave them in the public square, in broad daylight, so they are exposed to evidence to the contrary. That's how you defeat bad ideas over time.
      - mrtranscendence 5y ago
        Empirically, that doesn’t work. Bringing misinformation into the public square simply allows it to spread. It’s almost immune to “evidence to the contrary”, at least for those who are apt to believe misinformation and conspiracy theories.
        sneak 5y ago
        Empirically, the church is still here, and yet we mostly now hold heliocentric beliefs. We didn't need to censor anyone to get here. On longer timescales, the truth wins, because it is real, and everything else is not. False beliefs are persistent but simply can't compete with reality.
      - mirceal 5y ago
        this approach of letting people air bs and having them be shamed by the level-headed individuals may work if the people airing the bs are just misinformed but are open to a discussion and changing their mind. a lot of people, on the internet, are not open to this and will chose the bs over any fact, argument, reason.
  - saboot 5y ago
    It puts the burden on me as a user to combat all the nonsense. I'll pass. And I'm sure many others will too.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - mikkergp 5y ago
    The problem is that those ideas spread because it’s not in most peoples best interest to challenge them intellectually. It’s in their self interest to promote that material because it feels good emotionally.
- sergiotapia 5y ago
  That's some sick shit but I can't see why Twitter cannot allow you to block that garbage from YOUR perspective. I want personal controls for my content.
memish 5y ago
It's dangerous if you can't defend your ideas based on their own merit. So it has to be done through authoritarian censorship and force.
- mirceal 5y ago
  have you ever defended your ideas? against someone that does not do this in good faith? and makes shit up on the fly? and lies when caught? and uses mental gymnastics when shown their are plain wrong? how many times would you try to debate that person before deciding it’s a waste if time?
  - skellington 5y ago
    You don't have to debate or acknowledge every idea. That's different then censoring it. I don't debate flat-earthers, but I also don't censor them. Free speech is measured by the tolerance for speech that you hate.
rootusrootus 5y ago
There are already Twitter alternatives that operate as a free-for-all. So we don't even need to speculate on how that plays out. It is interesting to ponder how Elon thinks that would make him any richer. Or maybe he values the free-for-all concept so highly that he's willing to burn billions of his own money on it when Twitter loses most of its advertisers. Of course, he may just do the opposite, and start banning people on the left. That would align more closely with how he runs the companies he is currently in control of.
- mirceal 5y ago
  Musk is part businessman, part clown. Twitter probably hits a sweet spot for both.
- sneak 5y ago
  Unfortunately your first sentence isn't true. There is no uncensored microblogging platform or protocol that is even a tiny fraction of Twitter's scale.
fzeroracer 5y ago
Twitter isn't just a US platform. It's a global one. As part of a global platform that means it has to adhere to laws in countries other than the US. Thing's like EU's anti-terrorism laws or data privacy laws. You could argue that they should strictly adhere only to US laws, but you're effectively arguing for Twitter to outright remove a large portion of its international audience and censor them as well.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

saboot 5y ago

Yes, I can't wait to see the place I get real time news updates and tech discussions become a platform for Holocaust denial.

mirceal 5y ago
yes, but fReE SpEeCh! /s
memish 5y ago
It's EASY to counter Holocaust deniers because there is so much evidence that it happened. It's like debating flat earthers. No problem. Why be threatened by things that are easily debunked in day light? It's not hard to defeat bad ideas with good ideas. Or you can just ignore it by turning off the channel. That's always an option.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > It's not hard to defeat bad ideas with good ideas. That's a load of crap. You cannot debate with conspiracy theorists. Debates only work when both sides are acting in good faith.
- mirceal 5y ago
  huh. this naive approach is cute. but here is the thing: the amount of effort required to refute bullshit is at least an order of magnitude higher than the effort required to produce it. we don’t have unlimited time an unlimited attention spans. we also deal with uneducated, easily manipulated people that will just discard anything that does not match their world view and just amplify the bs.
  - memish 5y ago
    Correct. No one can deal with all that shit. But it's distributed. You can ignore most of it, or all of it if you want. There are plenty of us autists to overwhelm it. Sending Flat Earthers off to their own dark corner is how they become entrenched. Leave them in the public square, in broad daylight, so they are exposed to evidence to the contrary. That's how you defeat bad ideas over time.
    - mrtranscendence 5y ago
      Empirically, that doesn’t work. Bringing misinformation into the public square simply allows it to spread. It’s almost immune to “evidence to the contrary”, at least for those who are apt to believe misinformation and conspiracy theories.
      - sneak 5y ago
        Empirically, the church is still here, and yet we mostly now hold heliocentric beliefs. We didn't need to censor anyone to get here. On longer timescales, the truth wins, because it is real, and everything else is not. False beliefs are persistent but simply can't compete with reality.
    - mirceal 5y ago
      this approach of letting people air bs and having them be shamed by the level-headed individuals may work if the people airing the bs are just misinformed but are open to a discussion and changing their mind. a lot of people, on the internet, are not open to this and will chose the bs over any fact, argument, reason.
- saboot 5y ago
  It puts the burden on me as a user to combat all the nonsense. I'll pass. And I'm sure many others will too.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- mikkergp 5y ago
  The problem is that those ideas spread because it’s not in most peoples best interest to challenge them intellectually. It’s in their self interest to promote that material because it feels good emotionally.
sergiotapia 5y ago
That's some sick shit but I can't see why Twitter cannot allow you to block that garbage from YOUR perspective. I want personal controls for my content.

memish 5y ago

It's dangerous if you can't defend your ideas based on their own merit. So it has to be done through authoritarian censorship and force.

mirceal 5y ago
have you ever defended your ideas? against someone that does not do this in good faith? and makes shit up on the fly? and lies when caught? and uses mental gymnastics when shown their are plain wrong? how many times would you try to debate that person before deciding it’s a waste if time?
- skellington 5y ago
  You don't have to debate or acknowledge every idea. That's different then censoring it. I don't debate flat-earthers, but I also don't censor them. Free speech is measured by the tolerance for speech that you hate.

rootusrootus 5y ago

There are already Twitter alternatives that operate as a free-for-all. So we don't even need to speculate on how that plays out. It is interesting to ponder how Elon thinks that would make him any richer. Or maybe he values the free-for-all concept so highly that he's willing to burn billions of his own money on it when Twitter loses most of its advertisers. Of course, he may just do the opposite, and start banning people on the left. That would align more closely with how he runs the companies he is currently in control of.

mirceal 5y ago
Musk is part businessman, part clown. Twitter probably hits a sweet spot for both.
sneak 5y ago
Unfortunately your first sentence isn't true. There is no uncensored microblogging platform or protocol that is even a tiny fraction of Twitter's scale.

fzeroracer 5y ago

Twitter isn't just a US platform. It's a global one. As part of a global platform that means it has to adhere to laws in countries other than the US. Thing's like EU's anti-terrorism laws or data privacy laws. You could argue that they should strictly adhere only to US laws, but you're effectively arguing for Twitter to outright remove a large portion of its international audience and censor them as well.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]