4 ms·

There's an extremely wide chasm between moderating trolls and banning subject experts and even the former president of the USA. It really doesn't matter what yo

by toolz 4y ago

There's an extremely wide chasm between moderating trolls and banning subject experts and even the former president of the USA. It really doesn't matter what you or I think of the president, he was a democratically elected leader of arguably, the most influential nation in the world. Musk claims to be all about freedom of speech. Moderation and freedom of speech are not antithetical to one another. You can downrank or make trolls more convenient to block and not stifle their ability to say something. If you solve the bot problem you make a lot of other moderation problems much easier to solve. Essentially my point is that we don't know what Musk will do, exactly, and any speculation proposed as an understood fact is simply spreading FUD and it makes me question (not a strong concern, mind you, but a concern none-the-less) if your concerns are sincere or if you have an agenda.

saxonww 4y ago
> he was a democratically elected leader of arguably, the most influential nation in the world This aspect of the discussion around Twitter constantly baffles me. They have no obligation to offer service to anyone, and they have no obligation to ensure freedom of speech, balanced representation, or any other thing you can think of that would ensure everyone gets a voice. General, universal freedom of speech in the US is not a right we have. We are protected via the 1st and 14th amendments from Federal or State governments (respectively) passing laws restricting our speech, which is not the same thing. Even with those amendments, some speech is restricted (hate speech, etc.). There's nothing preventing Twitter from moderating someone off its platform.
- toolz 4y ago
  You've misunderstood me. I don't believe twitter has an obligation to be a platform for free speech. You're arguing against points I never made which makes me believe you may be misunderstanding other arguments as well. Musk wants twitter to be a platform for free speech, that does not mean he or anyone else is legally obligated (or in my opinion even morally obligated) to make their platform a place for free speech.
  - saxonww 4y ago
    The way you wrote your reply certainly read to me like you believe Twitter should act as if it has that obligation. You start by drawing a line between moderation and what Twitter has done, which is ban the former President. You then point out that he was democratically elected and that the US is influential, neither of which are relevant to the discussion but are often brought up as reasons why it's astonishing he was banned (with the implication being that he should not have been). You continue by stating again that moderation and freedom of speech don't have to be at odds, and describe a scenario where accounts you would normally just ban can continue to post, instead. You then finish by suggesting that another commenter may have an agenda, when they were pointing out the need for moderation. So. I am definitely open to the idea that I just don't understand what you're trying to say, or even that I don't understand what anyone is trying to say. If it's the former, perhaps you can help me by restating your concerns more clearly. If it's the latter, I suppose there's no helping me and you can just ignore this reply.
- slibhb 4y ago
  Is the first amendment a good thing? If so, why? Does the reason you come up with magically not apply to twitter? Of course it applies. Twitter is not legally obligated to allow free speech but there are other reasons to do something than legal obligation.
  - saxonww 4y ago
    In short: yes, it's a good thing. As written, the amendment is designed to prevent me from being arrested or killed by the Federal Government for speaking my mind, disseminating my thoughts on paper, or congregating with like-minded people. I don't agree that this should be expected or required of businesses, because the dangers and incentives are different. Twitter is not going to have you arrested or killed for criticizing Twitter. I agree that it's reasonable for Twitter to try and get as many users onto its platform as possible, because that earns them more money (I guess?), but if they are faced with having to choose between two groups of users to support, and they like one group better than the other, they should be able to choose to withhold service from the other group to keep the first. Even if it means a group of users loses the ability to speak via Twitter.
    - slibhb 4y ago
      > In short: yes, it's a good thing. As written, the amendment is designed to prevent me from being arrested or killed by the Federal Government for speaking my mind, disseminating my thoughts on paper, or congregating with like-minded people. You didn't say why. You restated the law. There are all kinds of arguments for free speech. I'll quote Mill: > First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience. That has nothing to do with required and there's no mention of a government, federal or not. People should be allowed to say what they think. That used to be a bedrock of American culture and I continue to find it sad that we're living through its recession.
krapp 4y ago
>It really doesn't matter what you or I think of the president, he was a democratically elected leader of arguably, the most influential nation in the world. The United States is not a monarchy, theocracy or autocracy. The President of the United States is a citizen like any other, with rights equal to any other. Being "a democratically elected leader of arguably, the most influential nation in the world" does not entitle one to a Twitter account, or to carte-blanche rights to endanger and undermine the legitimacy of the peaceful transfer of power of one's own nation, which is why Trump was banned in the first place. Not because of his beliefs, or his political views or because of some radical globalist agenda, but because people were legitimately afraid he was going to trigger a civil war. The President having to play by the same rules as everyone else, even to the degree that he can be banned from social media like anyone else (even though Trump was still given far more leeway than most people,) is a feature of American democracy, not a bug.
- toolz 4y ago
  This is just silly, do you know which tweets twitter cited as reason for Trumps ban? > “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” and > “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... Now let's contrast that to a politician tweeting just a few days ago that isn't banned (and likely won't be banned) https://twitter.com/LoriLightfoot/status/1523844510735908864 https://twitter.com/LoriLightfoot/status/1523844510735908864 > To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms. > We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory! and believe me, I wouldn't have to look hard at all to find much worse examples of things that could be interpreted as calls to violence from heads of states.
  - saxonww 4y ago
    The big difference being that Trump's two tweets came 2 days after an actual large scale violent event at the Capitol, where it was essentially invaded and trashed by a large mob almost certainly comprised of the same people Trump was speaking to via his tweets. Trump also was arguably the most powerful person in the entire world, at the time. The LGBTQ tweet is from the Mayor of Chicago. An important person to be sure, but at ~150k followers, does not have nearly the reach as Trump did (~88M followers at the time). And I don't really know what to tell you about the tweet content; I can read that and realize she's not actually advocating for armed violence, and more importantly, I don't believe the people she's speaking to would interpret her tweet that way. I know for a fact the people Trump was speaking to have interpreted things that way, because a lot of them showed up and trashed the Capitol on January 6th.
phillipcarter 4y ago
> At really doesn't matter what you or I think of the president, he was a democratically elected leader of arguably, the most influential nation in the world. And a beautiful thing about America is that we can build systems and institutions here where even the most powerful person in the world can be excluded for inappropriate behavior.
- toolz 4y ago
  Wholehearted agree that it's beautiful that twitter has the freedom to ban anyone, including the president. I disagree with the ban, but I don't really care what social media platforms do at all, to be frank. Musk buying twitter or banning everyone from twitter has little impact on my life.

by toolz 4y ago

saxonww 4y ago

> he was a democratically elected leader of arguably, the most influential nation in the world This aspect of the discussion around Twitter constantly baffles me. They have no obligation to offer service to anyone, and they have no obligation to ensure freedom of speech, balanced representation, or any other thing you can think of that would ensure everyone gets a voice. General, universal freedom of speech in the US is not a right we have. We are protected via the 1st and 14th amendments from Federal or State governments (respectively) passing laws restricting our speech, which is not the same thing. Even with those amendments, some speech is restricted (hate speech, etc.). There's nothing preventing Twitter from moderating someone off its platform.

toolz 4y ago
You've misunderstood me. I don't believe twitter has an obligation to be a platform for free speech. You're arguing against points I never made which makes me believe you may be misunderstanding other arguments as well. Musk wants twitter to be a platform for free speech, that does not mean he or anyone else is legally obligated (or in my opinion even morally obligated) to make their platform a place for free speech.
- saxonww 4y ago
  The way you wrote your reply certainly read to me like you believe Twitter should act as if it has that obligation. You start by drawing a line between moderation and what Twitter has done, which is ban the former President. You then point out that he was democratically elected and that the US is influential, neither of which are relevant to the discussion but are often brought up as reasons why it's astonishing he was banned (with the implication being that he should not have been). You continue by stating again that moderation and freedom of speech don't have to be at odds, and describe a scenario where accounts you would normally just ban can continue to post, instead. You then finish by suggesting that another commenter may have an agenda, when they were pointing out the need for moderation. So. I am definitely open to the idea that I just don't understand what you're trying to say, or even that I don't understand what anyone is trying to say. If it's the former, perhaps you can help me by restating your concerns more clearly. If it's the latter, I suppose there's no helping me and you can just ignore this reply.
slibhb 4y ago
Is the first amendment a good thing? If so, why? Does the reason you come up with magically not apply to twitter? Of course it applies. Twitter is not legally obligated to allow free speech but there are other reasons to do something than legal obligation.
- saxonww 4y ago
  In short: yes, it's a good thing. As written, the amendment is designed to prevent me from being arrested or killed by the Federal Government for speaking my mind, disseminating my thoughts on paper, or congregating with like-minded people. I don't agree that this should be expected or required of businesses, because the dangers and incentives are different. Twitter is not going to have you arrested or killed for criticizing Twitter. I agree that it's reasonable for Twitter to try and get as many users onto its platform as possible, because that earns them more money (I guess?), but if they are faced with having to choose between two groups of users to support, and they like one group better than the other, they should be able to choose to withhold service from the other group to keep the first. Even if it means a group of users loses the ability to speak via Twitter.
  - slibhb 4y ago
    > In short: yes, it's a good thing. As written, the amendment is designed to prevent me from being arrested or killed by the Federal Government for speaking my mind, disseminating my thoughts on paper, or congregating with like-minded people. You didn't say why. You restated the law. There are all kinds of arguments for free speech. I'll quote Mill: > First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience. That has nothing to do with required and there's no mention of a government, federal or not. People should be allowed to say what they think. That used to be a bedrock of American culture and I continue to find it sad that we're living through its recession.

krapp 4y ago

>It really doesn't matter what you or I think of the president, he was a democratically elected leader of arguably, the most influential nation in the world. The United States is not a monarchy, theocracy or autocracy. The President of the United States is a citizen like any other, with rights equal to any other. Being "a democratically elected leader of arguably, the most influential nation in the world" does not entitle one to a Twitter account, or to carte-blanche rights to endanger and undermine the legitimacy of the peaceful transfer of power of one's own nation, which is why Trump was banned in the first place. Not because of his beliefs, or his political views or because of some radical globalist agenda, but because people were legitimately afraid he was going to trigger a civil war. The President having to play by the same rules as everyone else, even to the degree that he can be banned from social media like anyone else (even though Trump was still given far more leeway than most people,) is a feature of American democracy, not a bug.

toolz 4y ago
This is just silly, do you know which tweets twitter cited as reason for Trumps ban? > “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” and > “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... Now let's contrast that to a politician tweeting just a few days ago that isn't banned (and likely won't be banned) https://twitter.com/LoriLightfoot/status/1523844510735908864 https://twitter.com/LoriLightfoot/status/1523844510735908864 > To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms. > We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory! and believe me, I wouldn't have to look hard at all to find much worse examples of things that could be interpreted as calls to violence from heads of states.
- saxonww 4y ago
  The big difference being that Trump's two tweets came 2 days after an actual large scale violent event at the Capitol, where it was essentially invaded and trashed by a large mob almost certainly comprised of the same people Trump was speaking to via his tweets. Trump also was arguably the most powerful person in the entire world, at the time. The LGBTQ tweet is from the Mayor of Chicago. An important person to be sure, but at ~150k followers, does not have nearly the reach as Trump did (~88M followers at the time). And I don't really know what to tell you about the tweet content; I can read that and realize she's not actually advocating for armed violence, and more importantly, I don't believe the people she's speaking to would interpret her tweet that way. I know for a fact the people Trump was speaking to have interpreted things that way, because a lot of them showed up and trashed the Capitol on January 6th.

phillipcarter 4y ago

> At really doesn't matter what you or I think of the president, he was a democratically elected leader of arguably, the most influential nation in the world. And a beautiful thing about America is that we can build systems and institutions here where even the most powerful person in the world can be excluded for inappropriate behavior.

toolz 4y ago
Wholehearted agree that it's beautiful that twitter has the freedom to ban anyone, including the president. I disagree with the ban, but I don't really care what social media platforms do at all, to be frank. Musk buying twitter or banning everyone from twitter has little impact on my life.