3 ms·

This article is political propaganda. The concept is not dystopian because she's just proposing community moderation, like any message board has. She is not pr

by smt88 5y ago

This article is political propaganda. The concept is not dystopian because she's just proposing community moderation, like any message board has. She is not proposing government control. It's a bad idea that makes no sense, but it is far from "Orwellian".

salawat 5y ago
Community moderation doesn't involve someone else coming in and swapping content on you. Generally speaking, you'll get an upvote/downvote/color mechanic, and a bunch of other people's responses, perhaps with some admin or moderator actions/annotations.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- smt88 5y ago
  Her actual quote in this article is: “Verified people [could be allowed to] essentially start to ‘edit’ Twitter [in] the same sort of way that Wikipedia is so they can add context to certain tweets.” So she is not saying that content should be swapped without warning. She's describing essentially annotating tweets with community-edited Wikipedia articles. Again, not a feasible idea, but she is at least correct that Wikipedia is both community-moderated and also remarkably low in bad information.
arrakis2021 5y ago
Nothing to see here, folks. This article has been declared “political propaganda.” The article deviates from the establishment’s position. We don’t want you reading this. The Totally not dystopian thing being proposed is definitely not dystopian. Move along.
- smt88 5y ago
  There is a valid argument that this person's appointment, her role, and her office are taking things in a bad direction. The DHS is already policing disinformation, by the way -- and they should police it when it comes from other nation states as an attempt to destabilize the US. They should also help companies like Twitter identify concerted attacks from hackers or foreign governments. But it's currently unclear what this new appointment will actually do, and that's a problem. Your facile sarcasm isn't making your point. It just makes it seem like you don't have any point other than, "Everything is wrong when the mainstream believes it!" ...which is obviously ridiculous. The NY Post is not a neutral or factual reporter of this argument, and they have editorialized in a way that is politically-motivated and also plainly false.

by smt88 5y ago

salawat 5y ago

Community moderation doesn't involve someone else coming in and swapping content on you. Generally speaking, you'll get an upvote/downvote/color mechanic, and a bunch of other people's responses, perhaps with some admin or moderator actions/annotations.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
smt88 5y ago
Her actual quote in this article is: “Verified people [could be allowed to] essentially start to ‘edit’ Twitter [in] the same sort of way that Wikipedia is so they can add context to certain tweets.” So she is not saying that content should be swapped without warning. She's describing essentially annotating tweets with community-edited Wikipedia articles. Again, not a feasible idea, but she is at least correct that Wikipedia is both community-moderated and also remarkably low in bad information.

arrakis2021 5y ago

Nothing to see here, folks. This article has been declared “political propaganda.” The article deviates from the establishment’s position. We don’t want you reading this. The Totally not dystopian thing being proposed is definitely not dystopian. Move along.

smt88 5y ago
There is a valid argument that this person's appointment, her role, and her office are taking things in a bad direction. The DHS is already policing disinformation, by the way -- and they should police it when it comes from other nation states as an attempt to destabilize the US. They should also help companies like Twitter identify concerted attacks from hackers or foreign governments. But it's currently unclear what this new appointment will actually do, and that's a problem. Your facile sarcasm isn't making your point. It just makes it seem like you don't have any point other than, "Everything is wrong when the mainstream believes it!" ...which is obviously ridiculous. The NY Post is not a neutral or factual reporter of this argument, and they have editorialized in a way that is politically-motivated and also plainly false.