4 ms·

My primary issue with Twitter moderation is that the ban process is so opaque and inconsistent. They’ve certainly got it wrong many times, but it seems like con

My primary issue with Twitter moderation is that the ban process is so opaque and inconsistent. They’ve certainly got it wrong many times, but it seems like consistency and transparency are what’s missing most. > But I'd appreciate way more diversity in thought than they currently allow. I keep hearing this sentiment and I guess I don’t get it. Richard Spencer wasn’t banned for his “diverse thought”, he’s still on the platform. Trump wasn’t either. I see plenty of absolutely repugnant comments and tweets so what does this mean? These debates about what should and shouldn’t be allowed seem almost intentionally vague. What are people getting banned for saying that they shouldn’t be banned for?

silisili 5y ago
It seems to me Twitter has a policy that seems fair, but is applied in an unfair way, if that makes sense. Basically, if they don't like someone, they ban them for violating policies that thousands of others violate daily. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions A quick scroll through that is pretty telling they have no interest in allowing conservative people on their platform. Were most of them banned for cause? Probably. But again, there's thousands if not millions not banned for identical or worse behavior. So my 'diversity in thought' comment means just that... differing opinions. Even if some opinions are stupid. I think one giant problem today is that having an opposing opinion on many topics is called out as 'hate', which is a super broad and often misapplied label.