4 ms·
Another voice here not happy about this. It’s as if the advocates here have no interest in learning anything from the history of science as a practice of argum
by onos 4y ago
Another voice here not happy about this. It’s as if the advocates here have no interest in learning anything from the history of science as a practice of argument by evidence. Banning arguments doesn’t convince anyone paying attention that the opponents are wrong it just makes people suspicious that the banners can’t defend their positions.
- olliej 4y agoIn what way is forcing companies to promote misinformation, cons, and deliberate deception not an attack on their freedom of speech? In what way is not being required to promote something “banning arguments”? Twitter isn’t banning idiots spouting idiot views, anymore than it’s really banning white supremacy. But they don’t let you run racist ad campaigns.
- owisd 4y agoIt's not banning arguments, just recognising that twitter ads aren't the best medium for certain arguments.
- bencollier49 4y ago"It's not banning arguments, just recognising that the public sphere isn't the best place for certain arguments." And so on. That feels like a slippery slope to me.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- olliej 4y agoIt seems like a slippery slope to say that Twitter must promote any message, regardless of content. Surely if Twitter has to publish content, it would be reasonable to require The New York Times to publish, and promote, an article from Storm Front. Or require Fox to publish, and promote, actual Climate Science content. Twitter is not even halting the argument, they’re just refusing to artificially promote it above other content.
- owisd 4y agoThat's like saying banning electing of representatives by a show of hands in favour of the secret ballot is just a slippery slope to banning democracy altogether.
- wtallis 4y ago> That feels like a slippery slope to me. It only feels like a slippery slope if you make no attempt to think about why Twitter is a bad place for certain kinds of debate, and instead assume that whatever traits make Twitter bad for that generalize to the entire public sphere.
- wittycardio 4y agoGo publish evidence in a scientific journal or stop pretending you're a scientist.
- samatman 4y agoHey, except for all the science which never enters journals, and all the nonsense which does, it's a great criterion!
- gunapologist99 4y agoDo most people on Twitter spend their time reading countervailing evidence in scientific journals?
- kozd 4y agoIf you want your theory to gain acceptance, shouldn't you be trying to convince other scientists and not... people on Twitter via ad campaigns?