5 ms·

> Maybe someone should tell twitter, google, etc that science isn't supposed to work on consensus. Politics works on consensus. The ads are politics, not scien

by jmull 5y ago

> Maybe someone should tell twitter, google, etc that science isn't supposed to work on consensus. Politics works on consensus. The ads are politics, not science. This is a case of twitter's political stance being at odds with some of their potential advertisers. I don't see why advertisers should have some right here that overrides twitter's. > authoritarian If you're interested in liberty here, you should be backing twitter's right to do this.

goodluckchuck 5y ago
No one’s saying Twitter doesn’t have the right to do this. They’re saying it’s a bad policy and Twitter should choose to allow content it disagrees with. Silencing others is not Liberty.
- gigatexal 5y ago
  Except it’s well within their rights to do this. They’re not beholden to be the platform that furthers false things like climate change denial
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    >> No one’s saying Twitter doesn’t have the right to do this. > Except it’s well within their rights to do this. Swing and a miss.
  - loceng 5y ago
    That's a very difficult thing to moderate, to manage, and from personal experience Twitter doesn't even enforce their existing rules accurately. For example, will posts denying the hysteria of climate change - let's say the ideology of climate change activism that has formed, perhaps fuelled by for-profit industrial complexes, perhaps also leveraged by some governments wanting to use fear to manufacture consent toward control - be ban on Twitter, will that be considered denial if they point out things like some parts of the world actually cooling - and "heat deaths" in those areas are actually going down? Climate change hysteria media seems to only want to report the increasing heat deaths annually, but not deducting the reduced deaths from the cooling areas. Now I don't even know for 100% if the above is true, or how true it is, as I haven't had a chance to dive into some of the leaders of that effort who're supposedly trying to have a grounded, balanced conversation on climate - referencing data, etc. An organization or individual claiming they can be or are an arbiter of truth is a recipe for disaster; what New Zealand Prime Minister once actually said comes to mind, that if you hear something not from government (about COVID, the pandemic) then it's not true.
sillysaurusx 5y ago
Actually, it’s the opposite. Liberty is for individual freedom, not institutional freedom. I would back a small business’s right to do this. Somewhere between there and twitter scale, the decision changes.
- the_gastropod 5y ago
  The outrage at one large corporation (Twitter) acting one way while implicitly defending other large corporations, e.g., Exxon-Mobil’s propaganda-spreading— seems a weird tightrope to walk. Not sure how large a problem small-business-climate-disinformation-spreading is.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - achikin 5y ago
    Twitter is not outraged for spreading a specific opinion but for muting the opposite side.
- gigatexal 5y ago
  So you’d impose the small business or political groups rights to advertise on twitter (a larger corporation)? Where’s the balance there?
  - version_five 5y ago
    This argument is so boring, it's the same every time. "They can build their own Twitter!" We have monopoly laws, they are not fundamentally at odds with liberty, they recognize that it's undesirable for society to have monopolies exercising market power. These need to be updated to reflect the current platform monopolies. Just like the phone company can't tell you what you can talk about on the phone, or railroads have to share their tracks under some conditions. Applying the same thing to Twitter and other bug tech platforms is a logical extension. The only difference is it would also involve the government/establishment giving up power
loceng 5y ago
> If you're interested in liberty here, you should be backing twitter's right to do this. Indeed, so long as it isn't the government enforcing it on everyone, then the free market will come up with a competitor that will arguably start attracting those most aware of the importance of and aligned with freedom, freedom of speech - those people who arguably are on average much more highly competent and earning a higher income to be able to financially support a better model, and likewise bring their network(s) with them; I am working on launching such a competitor and believe I'm designing a platform model and launch/growth strategy that will work very well.

by jmull 5y ago

goodluckchuck 5y ago

No one’s saying Twitter doesn’t have the right to do this. They’re saying it’s a bad policy and Twitter should choose to allow content it disagrees with. Silencing others is not Liberty.

gigatexal 5y ago
Except it’s well within their rights to do this. They’re not beholden to be the platform that furthers false things like climate change denial
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  >> No one’s saying Twitter doesn’t have the right to do this. > Except it’s well within their rights to do this. Swing and a miss.
- loceng 5y ago
  That's a very difficult thing to moderate, to manage, and from personal experience Twitter doesn't even enforce their existing rules accurately. For example, will posts denying the hysteria of climate change - let's say the ideology of climate change activism that has formed, perhaps fuelled by for-profit industrial complexes, perhaps also leveraged by some governments wanting to use fear to manufacture consent toward control - be ban on Twitter, will that be considered denial if they point out things like some parts of the world actually cooling - and "heat deaths" in those areas are actually going down? Climate change hysteria media seems to only want to report the increasing heat deaths annually, but not deducting the reduced deaths from the cooling areas. Now I don't even know for 100% if the above is true, or how true it is, as I haven't had a chance to dive into some of the leaders of that effort who're supposedly trying to have a grounded, balanced conversation on climate - referencing data, etc. An organization or individual claiming they can be or are an arbiter of truth is a recipe for disaster; what New Zealand Prime Minister once actually said comes to mind, that if you hear something not from government (about COVID, the pandemic) then it's not true.

sillysaurusx 5y ago

Actually, it’s the opposite. Liberty is for individual freedom, not institutional freedom. I would back a small business’s right to do this. Somewhere between there and twitter scale, the decision changes.

the_gastropod 5y ago
The outrage at one large corporation (Twitter) acting one way while implicitly defending other large corporations, e.g., Exxon-Mobil’s propaganda-spreading— seems a weird tightrope to walk. Not sure how large a problem small-business-climate-disinformation-spreading is.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- achikin 5y ago
  Twitter is not outraged for spreading a specific opinion but for muting the opposite side.
gigatexal 5y ago
So you’d impose the small business or political groups rights to advertise on twitter (a larger corporation)? Where’s the balance there?
- version_five 5y ago
  This argument is so boring, it's the same every time. "They can build their own Twitter!" We have monopoly laws, they are not fundamentally at odds with liberty, they recognize that it's undesirable for society to have monopolies exercising market power. These need to be updated to reflect the current platform monopolies. Just like the phone company can't tell you what you can talk about on the phone, or railroads have to share their tracks under some conditions. Applying the same thing to Twitter and other bug tech platforms is a logical extension. The only difference is it would also involve the government/establishment giving up power

loceng 5y ago

> If you're interested in liberty here, you should be backing twitter's right to do this. Indeed, so long as it isn't the government enforcing it on everyone, then the free market will come up with a competitor that will arguably start attracting those most aware of the importance of and aligned with freedom, freedom of speech - those people who arguably are on average much more highly competent and earning a higher income to be able to financially support a better model, and likewise bring their network(s) with them; I am working on launching such a competitor and believe I'm designing a platform model and launch/growth strategy that will work very well.