6 ms·

I am also optimistic because of these 3 D's. 1. de-censoring 2. de-radicalize 3. de-politicize The twitter addicts aren't going anywhere. The de-censoring w

I am also optimistic because of these 3 D's. 1. de-censoring 2. de-radicalize 3. de-politicize The twitter addicts aren't going anywhere. The de-censoring will allow left and right to meet on a level playing field. This should help de-radicalize the fringe extremes and allow for discourse without discussion or users being banned. With more room for nuance the center of the road folks will feel better about discussing their views. Also this should ultimately de-politicize platform and be a win for, at least, America. -- PS. I would like to see censoring of violent terrorist groups increase. That would also be a win. Also new features!

tablespoon 4y ago
> The twitter addicts aren't going anywhere. The de-censoring will allow left and right to meet on a level playing field. This should help de-radicalize the fringe extremes and allow for discourse without discussion or users being banned. I'm highly skeptical that putting the extremes in greater contact would cause de-radicalization. I think it's more likely that would cause the extremes to further polarize and dig in for apocalyptic battle for the fate of the world. I think a more-likely "de-radicalization" path is to hyper-amplify the center while suppressing the extremes. Specifically exposing users to a lot of content one "notch" toward the center and some content two "notches" in that direction (e.g. extreme right user gets a lot of moderate right and some centrist; a moderate left user gets a lot of centrist and some moderate right).
- MathCodeLove 4y ago
  I think allowing both extremes makes it clearer where precisely the center is located. Look at it this way - In a balanced system you can see how far each side stretches. You're better able to understand what truly is the "extreme" and what isn't: LLLLLLLLLL <you> RRRRRRRRRR In a system where one side is censored, what you see doesn't change, but your perception of what you see is warped. The extreme L may not seem so extreme given how much closer you are to it. And even the mild R can begin to look more extreme compared to everything else you see. LLLLLLL <you> LLLRRRR Allowing both sides to speak without censorship may not have any impact on the actual L and R extremist, but it will hopefully have an impact on "normal" people and stop warping their perceptions.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    >> I'm highly skeptical that putting the extremes in greater contact would cause de-radicalization. I think it's more likely that would cause the extremes to further polarize and dig in for apocalyptic battle for the fate of the world. > I think allowing both extremes makes it clearer where precisely the center is located. Look at it this way - 1) That's not at all what I was talking about, to the point where your comment is kinda non-responsive. 2) I think you're likely basing your reasoning on false assumptions about the distribution. 3) The ability to more accurately label oneself one some spectrum seems kinda pointless. > Allowing both sides to speak without censorship may not have any impact on the actual L and R extremist, but it will hopefully have an impact on "normal" people and stop warping their perceptions. 4) I think the situation you're trying to engineer is likely to be alienating to "normal" people.
- TrispusAttucks 4y ago
  > I'm highly skeptical that putting the extremes in greater contact would cause de-radicalization. I think it's more likely that would cause the extremes to further polarize and dig in for apocalyptic battle for the fate of the world. Bubbles pop when reality collides with speculation and we get closer truth. Honest discourse through free speech where the facts are not censored will surely get us closer to the truth. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace, Infinite Jest
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    Those are vague slogans, and I don't think they're true (or more precisely: they rely on conditions that won't exist in the contexts where you're trying to apply them). For instance: put a committed extreme left-liberal in front of Fox News opinion programming for 8 hour a day, and they'll be more likely to die of an aneurysm due to constant rage than to moderate. If the distance is too great, throw-em-together online contact isn't going to do anything to bring people closer together. At large ideological distances, the only kind of contact that can bring people together is a very slow, deliberate, and personal kind (e.g. the opposite of social media). That's why my comment was about engineering smaller-distance contacts.
    - TrispusAttucks 4y ago
      This study, "manifold effects of partisan media on viewers" [1], released earlier this month on April 3rd, 2022 disagrees with your premise. But I am glad we have a platform we can freely disagree on! :) [1] https://osf.io/jrw26/ https://osf.io/jrw26/
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > This study, "manifold effects of partisan media on viewers" [1], released earlier this month on April 3rd, 2022 disagrees with your premise. I'm not so sure. That study seems rather limited, and in any case it would be far from definitive.
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
- usrn 4y ago
  I think the online discourse will look ugly but having them butt heads instead of sit in an echo chamber dulls them. I don't think people appreciate the degree to which the Right has radicalized from people joining echo chambers after being banned from places like Twitter.
- prawn 4y ago
  Haven't studies shown that people aren't interested in perspectives that counter their own? I'm not on Twitter for these beefs anyway. I say demote all of it and promote the things that humans generally have in common - hobbies, sports, food, community, etc. But I can't see it happening because it would reduce engagement for the majority of people and thus Twitter's overall value. So many platforms go to crap chasing money. eBay went from auctioning off your second hand stuff to buy-it-now for small business. Craigslist is full of car dealers listing things for $1 and spamming keywords. Etsy was handmade things but gradually overwhelmed with AliExpress junk.
guelo 4y ago
The right pretends that they are persecuted on Twitter without evidence that Twitter has been biased in one or the other direction.
- TrispusAttucks 4y ago
  I disagree. Twitter literally censored facts and discussion about the Biden laptop, covid, and vaccines. They let Russia-gate accusations go unchallenged even after courts had decided it was false. I bet there are people here who still believe it was true and real. That's evidence. The bias is undeniable unless of course the media a person consumes tells them otherwise. In which case they'd have no facts or data to challenge the narrative they've been fed. Twitter censors the "right" at the drop of a hat. The "left" rarely ever. Honestly though I am not sure if the labels "right" and "left" really fit the discourse anymore. It seems more that the compass of the political spectrum [1] as defined by Nolan has shifted counter clockwise. Not unlike the shifting of the Overton window [2]. This shift roughly moves "Liberals" into the "Authoritarian" quadrant and "Conservatives" into the "Libertarian". So today we find ourselves in more of an "Authoritarian" vs "Libertarian" dynamic. The great centralization via the Internet and big technology services really gave the Authoritarian seed the fertile soil it needed to grow. There is a political realignment going on along those lines. I am ranting. Time for bed. Cheers. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > They let Russia-gate accusations go unchallenged even after courts had decided it was false. I bet there are people here who still believe it was true and real. What courts and what findings? What was found by the Special Counsel was that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign welcomed the help and then Trump personally obstructed the subsequent investigation into said interference. The Republican-lead Senate Select Committee on Intelligence then released a report that found the Trump campaign transferred internal campaign data to a Russian intelligence officer as they were in the process of running a psyops campaign targeting American citizens aimed at helping Trump, and they lied about it to everyone. If you believe Russia-gate was a hoax, please explain this finding of the Republican-lead Senate select committee: It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process[,] and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modern era.
kuraudo 4y ago
History shows that so-called radicals, if allowed to say what they really think, will end up taking over.

tablespoon 4y ago

> The twitter addicts aren't going anywhere. The de-censoring will allow left and right to meet on a level playing field. This should help de-radicalize the fringe extremes and allow for discourse without discussion or users being banned. I'm highly skeptical that putting the extremes in greater contact would cause de-radicalization. I think it's more likely that would cause the extremes to further polarize and dig in for apocalyptic battle for the fate of the world. I think a more-likely "de-radicalization" path is to hyper-amplify the center while suppressing the extremes. Specifically exposing users to a lot of content one "notch" toward the center and some content two "notches" in that direction (e.g. extreme right user gets a lot of moderate right and some centrist; a moderate left user gets a lot of centrist and some moderate right).

MathCodeLove 4y ago
I think allowing both extremes makes it clearer where precisely the center is located. Look at it this way - In a balanced system you can see how far each side stretches. You're better able to understand what truly is the "extreme" and what isn't: LLLLLLLLLL <you> RRRRRRRRRR In a system where one side is censored, what you see doesn't change, but your perception of what you see is warped. The extreme L may not seem so extreme given how much closer you are to it. And even the mild R can begin to look more extreme compared to everything else you see. LLLLLLL <you> LLLRRRR Allowing both sides to speak without censorship may not have any impact on the actual L and R extremist, but it will hopefully have an impact on "normal" people and stop warping their perceptions.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  >> I'm highly skeptical that putting the extremes in greater contact would cause de-radicalization. I think it's more likely that would cause the extremes to further polarize and dig in for apocalyptic battle for the fate of the world. > I think allowing both extremes makes it clearer where precisely the center is located. Look at it this way - 1) That's not at all what I was talking about, to the point where your comment is kinda non-responsive. 2) I think you're likely basing your reasoning on false assumptions about the distribution. 3) The ability to more accurately label oneself one some spectrum seems kinda pointless. > Allowing both sides to speak without censorship may not have any impact on the actual L and R extremist, but it will hopefully have an impact on "normal" people and stop warping their perceptions. 4) I think the situation you're trying to engineer is likely to be alienating to "normal" people.
TrispusAttucks 4y ago
> I'm highly skeptical that putting the extremes in greater contact would cause de-radicalization. I think it's more likely that would cause the extremes to further polarize and dig in for apocalyptic battle for the fate of the world. Bubbles pop when reality collides with speculation and we get closer truth. Honest discourse through free speech where the facts are not censored will surely get us closer to the truth. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace, Infinite Jest
- tablespoon 4y ago
  Those are vague slogans, and I don't think they're true (or more precisely: they rely on conditions that won't exist in the contexts where you're trying to apply them). For instance: put a committed extreme left-liberal in front of Fox News opinion programming for 8 hour a day, and they'll be more likely to die of an aneurysm due to constant rage than to moderate. If the distance is too great, throw-em-together online contact isn't going to do anything to bring people closer together. At large ideological distances, the only kind of contact that can bring people together is a very slow, deliberate, and personal kind (e.g. the opposite of social media). That's why my comment was about engineering smaller-distance contacts.
  - TrispusAttucks 4y ago
    This study, "manifold effects of partisan media on viewers" [1], released earlier this month on April 3rd, 2022 disagrees with your premise. But I am glad we have a platform we can freely disagree on! :) [1] https://osf.io/jrw26/ https://osf.io/jrw26/
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > This study, "manifold effects of partisan media on viewers" [1], released earlier this month on April 3rd, 2022 disagrees with your premise. I'm not so sure. That study seems rather limited, and in any case it would be far from definitive.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
usrn 4y ago
I think the online discourse will look ugly but having them butt heads instead of sit in an echo chamber dulls them. I don't think people appreciate the degree to which the Right has radicalized from people joining echo chambers after being banned from places like Twitter.
prawn 4y ago
Haven't studies shown that people aren't interested in perspectives that counter their own? I'm not on Twitter for these beefs anyway. I say demote all of it and promote the things that humans generally have in common - hobbies, sports, food, community, etc. But I can't see it happening because it would reduce engagement for the majority of people and thus Twitter's overall value. So many platforms go to crap chasing money. eBay went from auctioning off your second hand stuff to buy-it-now for small business. Craigslist is full of car dealers listing things for $1 and spamming keywords. Etsy was handmade things but gradually overwhelmed with AliExpress junk.

guelo 4y ago

The right pretends that they are persecuted on Twitter without evidence that Twitter has been biased in one or the other direction.

TrispusAttucks 4y ago
I disagree. Twitter literally censored facts and discussion about the Biden laptop, covid, and vaccines. They let Russia-gate accusations go unchallenged even after courts had decided it was false. I bet there are people here who still believe it was true and real. That's evidence. The bias is undeniable unless of course the media a person consumes tells them otherwise. In which case they'd have no facts or data to challenge the narrative they've been fed. Twitter censors the "right" at the drop of a hat. The "left" rarely ever. Honestly though I am not sure if the labels "right" and "left" really fit the discourse anymore. It seems more that the compass of the political spectrum [1] as defined by Nolan has shifted counter clockwise. Not unlike the shifting of the Overton window [2]. This shift roughly moves "Liberals" into the "Authoritarian" quadrant and "Conservatives" into the "Libertarian". So today we find ourselves in more of an "Authoritarian" vs "Libertarian" dynamic. The great centralization via the Internet and big technology services really gave the Authoritarian seed the fertile soil it needed to grow. There is a political realignment going on along those lines. I am ranting. Time for bed. Cheers. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > They let Russia-gate accusations go unchallenged even after courts had decided it was false. I bet there are people here who still believe it was true and real. What courts and what findings? What was found by the Special Counsel was that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign welcomed the help and then Trump personally obstructed the subsequent investigation into said interference. The Republican-lead Senate Select Committee on Intelligence then released a report that found the Trump campaign transferred internal campaign data to a Russian intelligence officer as they were in the process of running a psyops campaign targeting American citizens aimed at helping Trump, and they lied about it to everyone. If you believe Russia-gate was a hoax, please explain this finding of the Republican-lead Senate select committee: It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process[,] and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modern era.

kuraudo 4y ago

History shows that so-called radicals, if allowed to say what they really think, will end up taking over.