4 ms·

There is a 0% chance that all moderation will be removed from Twitter. It would turn into a complete cesspool if that happened and alienate large segments of th

by saila 4y ago

There is a 0% chance that all moderation will be removed from Twitter. It would turn into a complete cesspool if that happened and alienate large segments of the user base. So the only question is how the moderation will differ from what they do now. It's easy to say it should be better, which I agree with generally, but it's an extremely hard problem to solve well.

brailsafe 4y ago
I agree that there's a 0% chance that 100% of moderation will go away, but isn't it the basic idea of communication that someone will always be alienated? Large segments of any user base are always alienated from things they aren't a part of by necessity.
overgard 4y ago
I think there's a real difference between moderation in line with the first amendment (dont make threats or shout fire in a theatre) vs. banning "misinformation". The latter is in the style of "don't question why big pharmaceutical companies don't want studies on cheap generic drugs that could help with covid". The latter gets branded "misinformation" with no real thought put behind it. Questions like that are central to healthy democracy and the current iteration of twitter is more than happy to silence things like that for the wealthy elites.
- avs733 4y ago
  Twitter is not the government. They are a corporation. Anything they choose to censor (or not) is perfectly in line with the first amendment.
  - overgard 4y ago
    Technically true, but you're missing the point and the heart of the debate. Yes they have legal standing to do this. Is it healthy for society though? A lot of people think not, hence why they're about to be bought and the board is likely to be replaced.
    - avs733 4y ago
      I'm not missing the heart of anything. If you want to talk about free speech, talk about free speech. If you want to talk about the first amendment, talk about the first amendment. If you want to talk about something else - label and define it precisely. It is critical to this debate that things be properly defined and labeled. As is patently visible in this discussion, people are trying to defend indefensible or unrealistic positions by shifting their meaning and playing with ambiguity. Words have meaning, that meaning can be flexible to include common usage, but there is nothing inappropriate about calling out objectively problematic uses of words - especially those that are disruptive or distracting (c.f., Canadian truckers making 1st amendment claims in Canadian courts).

by saila 4y ago

brailsafe 4y ago

I agree that there's a 0% chance that 100% of moderation will go away, but isn't it the basic idea of communication that someone will always be alienated? Large segments of any user base are always alienated from things they aren't a part of by necessity.

overgard 4y ago

I think there's a real difference between moderation in line with the first amendment (dont make threats or shout fire in a theatre) vs. banning "misinformation". The latter is in the style of "don't question why big pharmaceutical companies don't want studies on cheap generic drugs that could help with covid". The latter gets branded "misinformation" with no real thought put behind it. Questions like that are central to healthy democracy and the current iteration of twitter is more than happy to silence things like that for the wealthy elites.

avs733 4y ago
Twitter is not the government. They are a corporation. Anything they choose to censor (or not) is perfectly in line with the first amendment.
- overgard 4y ago
  Technically true, but you're missing the point and the heart of the debate. Yes they have legal standing to do this. Is it healthy for society though? A lot of people think not, hence why they're about to be bought and the board is likely to be replaced.
  - avs733 4y ago
    I'm not missing the heart of anything. If you want to talk about free speech, talk about free speech. If you want to talk about the first amendment, talk about the first amendment. If you want to talk about something else - label and define it precisely. It is critical to this debate that things be properly defined and labeled. As is patently visible in this discussion, people are trying to defend indefensible or unrealistic positions by shifting their meaning and playing with ambiguity. Words have meaning, that meaning can be flexible to include common usage, but there is nothing inappropriate about calling out objectively problematic uses of words - especially those that are disruptive or distracting (c.f., Canadian truckers making 1st amendment claims in Canadian courts).