7 ms·

I don't think that's coherent. Twitter for example has been the host of many many harassment campaigns which are propped up by its algorithms, it also hosts vid

I don't think that's coherent. Twitter for example has been the host of many many harassment campaigns which are propped up by its algorithms, it also hosts videos of murder, decapitations and other gruesome crimes. There are also regular death threats, doxxings and hate speech on twitter which are tolerated. Conversely, KiwiFarms has been actively prohibiting and removing threats and posts that are considered illegal in its jurisdiction, including going to the extent of blocking all new registrations. By what objective standards do you distinguish these sites when choosing to ban one and to keep another?

Borgz 4y ago
Do you believe that KiwiFarms is making a good faith effort to remove objectionable content to the same extent that mainstream social media platforms are? I think it's pretty clear that they're not, simply based on the prevalence of that content on KiwiFarms, and the relative lack of it elsewhere.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  I don't think Twitter makes much of an effort; some of my reports on clear-cut cases like "shame if his face would be smashed in with a brick wink-emoji wink-emoji" have been rejected as they are, apparently, not promoting violence. I really appreciate the challenges Twitter is facing with a bazillion tweets a minute and who-knows-how-many reports a minute and I'm not attaching all that many conclusions to this, but let's not pretend there isn't a huge amount of pretty dubious content on Twitter.