10 ms·

Whoever you are, whatever your politics and positions are, you have to admit and appreciate the humor in the saying: “it’s a private company, they can do what t

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• Pxtl 4y ago
  Nobody who supports Twitter's (imho responsible) use of censorship thinks that Musk's plan to libertarianize Twitter should be illegal, unlike the folks who used to shout "First amendment! Free speech!" about Twitter's moderation. They're just saying that his actions are childish and will make the site substantially worse. And having seen the arc of many social media sites with "libertarian" moderation, I'm firmly in that camp. I mean, Hacker News would not be what it is today without firm-handed moderation.
  • lukeramsden 4y ago
    Hacker News is not a valid comparison. dang is not going around telling people what is "right" and what is "wrong" and what is "misinformation", or trying to control a narrative. Hacker News' heavy-handed moderation is specifically what allows a vast array of opinions to be discussed and debated honestly and openly, in a way that Twitter and YouTube would simply remove as "misinformation".
    • 1270018080 4y ago
      I think your first and second sentences contradict each other. If content gets removed, it's removed. Why do you care if the moderators remove it as "misinformation" (which is probably is), or for being hate speech, or being stupid?
    • np_tedious 4y ago
      I wish 1000 dangs could moderate / set moderation policy on most major platforms
    • robonerd 4y ago
      Dang is not without his biases. He seems more willing to tolerate nationalist flamebait when America is the target of it. And yes, I know his standard response of claiming whatever bias seen in him merely reflects your own bias... that is another of dang's biases.
      • Pxtl 4y ago
        My personal "anecdote is not data" has been that I was censured for arguing that opposing covid safety measures shows how American conservatism is post-truth, and delta's hospitalization rates showed the cost of that attitude. Repeatedly getting in arguments on this subject got me censored. It's his site, it's his prerogative. However, I see similar commentary of "anybody who supports inclusive language is just giving stupid prizes to weenies" or something like that. This, by contrast, is fine. It may be just that dang disagreed with my tone, or never saw the latter, or just thinks this is "my bias", or simply the large number of comments posted (which is kind of a natural effect of being heavily opposed -- agreement with the consensus on this site is intrinsically quieter than disagreement). I don't know. Either way, their site, their prerogative. Either way, I'm trying not to get into politics on this site anymore.
        • robonerd 4y ago
          No doubt, dang can moderate this website as he [and his employer] sees fit. That much at least seems beyond dispute.
• root_axis 4y ago
  You're claiming there's a 180 but I don't see it. I haven't seen anyone arguing that Musk shouldn't be legally allowed to operate the site as he sees fit were he the owner.
  • gambler 4y ago
    Ellen Pao literally wrote an op-ed arguing this in Washington Post. This was before he bid for the company, just because he was invited to sit on the board! https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/04/08/musk-twitter-equity-discrimination-speech/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/04/08/musk-twitt... "Musk’s appointment to Twitter’s board shows that we need regulation of social-media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication." ...said a multi-millionaire in a newspaper owned by a multibillionaire. There were also hundreds of notable comments and dozens of articles to that end across the usual websites. People should stop doubling down on their lies and just admit that their past positions weren't based on any real principles.
    • Traster 4y ago
      That's not a 180. To show a 180 you need to show Ellen Pao also saying that “it’s a private company, they can do what they want”. I don't think that was ever Ellen Pao's position. What you've done is taken two groups of people: * People think that twitter is private and should do whatever it wants (hence can moderate if they like), * People that think twitter has a big public influence and therefore has a responsibility to act in a certain way (ie, moderate a certain amount) And claimed that these two positions are in opposition and therefore hypocritical. But there is no hypocrisy because they're not the same people, they just disagree.
      • defen 4y ago
        https://twitter.com/ekp/status/1322641942463700992 https://twitter.com/ekp/status/1322641942463700992 A straightforward reading of that tweet is "It's a private company, they can remove hate and harassment if they want."
• noirbot 4y ago
  I don't think most of those people are saying Musk can't do this, just that it's going to make the whole site worse. There's a reason I prefer Twitter to 4chan. They can do whatever they want with Twitter, but I don't have to use it. Which is exactly what everyone complaining about "censorship" on Twitter was told as well. If Musk wants to make Twitter more hospitable to trolls and harassers, then they're welcome to go annoy each other in their new paradise.
  • vmception 4y ago
    Twitter with a proper /b/ section would be great though Thanks for the idea
    • hemreldop 4y ago
    • saboot 4y ago
      I comment this as a parody last week and it's now being promoted as a desired outcome the next week.
      • vmception 4y ago
        lol, let me check that out your threads are more so focused on the threat of more bigoted stuff I’m focused on how it would be a hilarious meme factory, amplifying the amusement park that twitter already is to 4chan levels of entertainment, while inheriting a much better more modern interface than 4chan if they tweak twitter just a little more Yeah that comes with crazy, I’m looking forward to it. I really like that “but muh advertisers dictate what I do” goes away when reducing the options for advertisers. This could be a big and lulzworthy shakeup for the overton window.
        • saboot 4y ago
          For some mysterious reason, no one, including you, gets specific about what type of content and memes will now be allowed.
• ggpsv 4y ago
  Can you expand on what you're specifically referring to regarding TikTok?
  • WORMS_EAT_WORMS 4y ago
    Algo Literacy is just some crappy half-baked term I made up on the spot. It guess it is like Media Literacy where a person is able to contextualize the info they read about in a bigger picture sense. The second someone — especially a kid — opens TikTok / social media, they are essentially granting access and unlocking their mind for someone else to cram as much information as possible into it. The Clockwork Orange example is just a reference of mixing that concept with emotional videos and high screen time. The whole idea is not new and it has serious impact on your behavior and sense of self. Social media is easy to blame for problems but it would be better if people learned to guard themselves a bit.
    • ggpsv 4y ago
      I take TikTok is just an example and that this applies equally as well to other social media like Instagram/FB/Youtube? Or is there anything particularly notorious about TikTok? I haven't used TikTok myself but I have observed others using it and it certainly feels a lot more fast-paced and saturated compared to Instagram (which for me already feels like that anyway).
      • Avicebron 4y ago
        I'm not a behavioral expert, and I don't use tiktok, but I know people who do use it daily, almost as soon as they wake up even. I think the speed and short blasts of visual information acts as sort of a desensitizer to certain content, like if I said to you, in short 5 second bursts "facts", you might retain the 35th "fact" and not question it because you're already on the 50th "fact". I often am told certain things that might or might not be true, but are often couched in true things. The one i heard the other day was a long list of mandela effects, now some of them were true, but often had context around them that wasn't given ... e.g. Pikachu not having the black stripe on its tail, that could easily have context with regards to time that picture was used, lore in pokemon..etc. but it's reduced to a far more simple "fact"
• hannasanarion 4y ago
  What's the "full 180"? Where is the hypocrisy? "it's a private company they can do what they want" is a response to the right-wing claim that moderation is somehow illegal. It isn't, and it still isn't. Online forums are allowed to moderate as much or as little as they want to. Moderation isn't illegal. Reduced moderation also isn't illegal. I hold the the opinion that some moderation is preferable to no moderation, and I am disappointed that this move may lead to a reduction in moderation and an increase in spam and trolling on the platform. That's not hypocrisy.
  • hunterb123 4y ago
    It wasn't the response to it was illegal, it was the response to it wasn't right. Noone was saying what they were doing was illegal, they were saying they didn't like what was happening and perhaps it should be illegal. So people said "it's a private company, go make your own Twitter". Turns out the network effect is hard to overcome, so the solution is new management.
    • hannasanarion 4y ago
      No, it was absolutely in response to the claim that it was illegal. All the huxters and fascists who were banned from twitter cried "free speech" and filed lawsuits. Thus the response: it's legal for a private company to moderate their platform. It is not a violation of your first amendment rights for me to refuse to lend you a megaphone. In fact the opposite is true, if the government compelled me to give you my megaphone, that would be a violation of my free speech rights by compelling association. People who used to say "increasing moderation on twitter is good and legal" now say "decreasing moderation on twitter is bad, but legal". Those are not contradictory.
      • hunterb123 4y ago
        > No, it was absolutely in response to the claim that it was illegal. Every dispute of Twitter's moderation you read was claiming it was illegal? Like every single comment? Would you like to link to those comments on here? I can go to a thread and find plenty of arguments of people saying it should be illegal. I have to think that you aren't arguing in good faith because that's such a ridiculous statement. edit: I picked a random thread and found this exchange immediately: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17929780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17929780