6 ms·

> Do you even Jan 6th insurrection? This is gross language. I assume apparently implying something so obvious as to make my points absurd? Regardless free spe

> Do you even Jan 6th insurrection? This is gross language. I assume apparently implying something so obvious as to make my points absurd? Regardless free speech should be welcomed in this case too. People can then just ridicule his opinions and tear them down directly. It's not like he can't reach his audience on Gab or some other network. For background, I'm not pro-Trump. I'm libertarian and think both sides of the spectrum are just legs of the same body that stomps on our freedoms and makes us poor. > Do you support letting the Russian bots reign free on Twitter? With regards to propaganda I think I have an operating brain. As such, I can make up my own mind. As for bots, I do think it would be nice if we could come up with a technical solution guaranteeing a human is posting the tweet. > In any case, having a "jackass" as the leader of Twitter (Pedo Tweet, Elon Musk "funding secured $420", and other such lies) is definitely a reason to leave the platform IMO. Elon Musk will attract other high-profile jackasses at a minimum. Sure. > since RSS itself is not as popular these days Which is really too bad. I really love RSS based podcasting though! > 2-sentence long debates is... not useful for any form of discussion I completely agree.

dragontamer 4y ago
> This is gross language. I assume apparently implying something so obvious as to make my points absurd? Jan 6th insurrection is what started this "Twitter moderation debate" when Donald Trump was banned from the platform. This is absolutely central to the entire discussion, and I'm trying to remind you of it. What should we, as an internet / online society do, to bad actors and/or trolls? I think the solution chosen is obvious. We ban bad actors from online platforms of note. Russia (particularly Russian propaganda sources like RT) are another group, like Trump, who likely deserve the axe. Once you and I agree that some actors deserve to be banned from online platforms, there's not much else to discuss. Its simply a matter of moderation, who truly deserves it or not. I think that moderation is a difficult and thankless job (I've done it myself on occasion). But I absolutely see value in moderating forums / discussions. Twitter banning some bad actors is just a continuation of the online moderation model that we've used for so many years (since USENET at least). ------- The #1 thing going all across conservative media right now, is how Elon Musk (might) bring Trump back to Twitter and reverse the Trump ban. Is this hypothetical something you'd support? There's "free speech", and then there's "inciting rebellion against our entire system of government". And alas, I don't think that supporting the Jan 6th insurrection falls under the "free speech" camp, and that Donald Trump's ban should remain firm. If a group of people want to spread conspiracy theories about the inadequacy of our election systems, then they no longer fall under "free speech" and are instead well within the category of "high treason" and/or "enemy of the state". That's the kind of talk that almost took down our entire country, and still threatens to do so in the next election cycle.
- reedjosh 4y ago
  > This is absolutely central to the entire discussion, and I'm trying to remind you of it. I don't think there's much to remind me of. I'm not on twitter and never really had the debate until now. > What should we, as an internet / online society do, to bad actors and/or trolls? Point out where they're factually incorrect. Ignore them. Ridicule them. > I think the solution chosen is obvious. This doesn't make it right. > Once you and I agree that some actors deserve to be banned from online platforms, there's not much else to discuss. I don't agree. And frankly, you just pointed out a a slippery slope that is exactly why I think you shouldn't ban anyone. > But I absolutely see value in moderating forums / discussions. I'm on the fence. Moderation is probably fine, but I don't like when megacorps do it. Centralization of power is my biggest concern. > The #1 thing going all across conservative media right now, is... I don't care. In my mind conservative and liberal media, cable news networks, and NPR, Etc... are just mouthpeices for the government and or corporatocracy. So long as the funding comes from a government or advertising, it's junk media in my mind. > There's "free speech", and then there's "inciting rebellion against our entire system of government". I would like you and me to peacefully rebel against our current system of government. Stop voting and stop paying taxes. Stop registering your vehicle, and stop getting government involved in marriage licensing. Let the whole dirtly system dissolve so we can be free individuals. There, I openly incited rebellion. I'm sure you disagree, but that's not the point. > I don't think that supporting the Jan 6th insurrection falls under the "free speech" camp I disagree. But I think we're running in circles now. > If a group of people want to spread conspiracy theories about the inadequacy of our election systems, then they no longer fall under "free speech" and are instead well within the category of "high treason" and/or "enemy of the state". Wow, that's pretty dogmatic. Who watches the watchers? At some point a hammer like that will be used against perfectly peaceful people. Your statement sounds like it belongs in 1984 bequeathed by the Ministry of Truth. What if there at some point is an issue with the voting systems? > particularly Russian propaganda sources like RT One man's propaganda is another's BBC. BBC and NPR are both sponsored by governments that have bad track records of abuse of human rights. Why is Voice of America still allowed to operate on Twitter?
  - dragontamer 4y ago

dragontamer 4y ago

> This is gross language. I assume apparently implying something so obvious as to make my points absurd? Jan 6th insurrection is what started this "Twitter moderation debate" when Donald Trump was banned from the platform. This is absolutely central to the entire discussion, and I'm trying to remind you of it. What should we, as an internet / online society do, to bad actors and/or trolls? I think the solution chosen is obvious. We ban bad actors from online platforms of note. Russia (particularly Russian propaganda sources like RT) are another group, like Trump, who likely deserve the axe. Once you and I agree that some actors deserve to be banned from online platforms, there's not much else to discuss. Its simply a matter of moderation, who truly deserves it or not. I think that moderation is a difficult and thankless job (I've done it myself on occasion). But I absolutely see value in moderating forums / discussions. Twitter banning some bad actors is just a continuation of the online moderation model that we've used for so many years (since USENET at least). ------- The #1 thing going all across conservative media right now, is how Elon Musk (might) bring Trump back to Twitter and reverse the Trump ban. Is this hypothetical something you'd support? There's "free speech", and then there's "inciting rebellion against our entire system of government". And alas, I don't think that supporting the Jan 6th insurrection falls under the "free speech" camp, and that Donald Trump's ban should remain firm. If a group of people want to spread conspiracy theories about the inadequacy of our election systems, then they no longer fall under "free speech" and are instead well within the category of "high treason" and/or "enemy of the state". That's the kind of talk that almost took down our entire country, and still threatens to do so in the next election cycle.

reedjosh 4y ago
> This is absolutely central to the entire discussion, and I'm trying to remind you of it. I don't think there's much to remind me of. I'm not on twitter and never really had the debate until now. > What should we, as an internet / online society do, to bad actors and/or trolls? Point out where they're factually incorrect. Ignore them. Ridicule them. > I think the solution chosen is obvious. This doesn't make it right. > Once you and I agree that some actors deserve to be banned from online platforms, there's not much else to discuss. I don't agree. And frankly, you just pointed out a a slippery slope that is exactly why I think you shouldn't ban anyone. > But I absolutely see value in moderating forums / discussions. I'm on the fence. Moderation is probably fine, but I don't like when megacorps do it. Centralization of power is my biggest concern. > The #1 thing going all across conservative media right now, is... I don't care. In my mind conservative and liberal media, cable news networks, and NPR, Etc... are just mouthpeices for the government and or corporatocracy. So long as the funding comes from a government or advertising, it's junk media in my mind. > There's "free speech", and then there's "inciting rebellion against our entire system of government". I would like you and me to peacefully rebel against our current system of government. Stop voting and stop paying taxes. Stop registering your vehicle, and stop getting government involved in marriage licensing. Let the whole dirtly system dissolve so we can be free individuals. There, I openly incited rebellion. I'm sure you disagree, but that's not the point. > I don't think that supporting the Jan 6th insurrection falls under the "free speech" camp I disagree. But I think we're running in circles now. > If a group of people want to spread conspiracy theories about the inadequacy of our election systems, then they no longer fall under "free speech" and are instead well within the category of "high treason" and/or "enemy of the state". Wow, that's pretty dogmatic. Who watches the watchers? At some point a hammer like that will be used against perfectly peaceful people. Your statement sounds like it belongs in 1984 bequeathed by the Ministry of Truth. What if there at some point is an issue with the voting systems? > particularly Russian propaganda sources like RT One man's propaganda is another's BBC. BBC and NPR are both sponsored by governments that have bad track records of abuse of human rights. Why is Voice of America still allowed to operate on Twitter?
- dragontamer 4y ago