5 ms·

It's unsettling Musk is going to control the biggest political megaphone of this country.

memish 4y ago
It's less unsettling than who's currently in charge of it. At least he's committed to transparency in moderation and the algorithm.
- djbusby 4y ago
  Elmo doesn't seem like the type where "commitment" means what it does to the rest of us.
- MattGaiser 4y ago
  > he's committed He was just sued for his lack of commitment.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    And that was commitment to a legally enforceable contract, not just something he tweeted during a manic episode.
- helf 4y ago
  Hahahah ur funny! You really believe he is “committed to transparency in moderation and the algorithm”? I have some real estate on Mars for sale if you are interested.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- peppertree 4y ago
  If you believe Musk would deliver true transparency then I got a self driving car to sell you.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - memish 4y ago
    He delivered millions of electric cars. Re-usable rockets. Starlink. Moderation transparency is a slam dunk.
    - code_duck 4y ago
      The problem is that it's not as simple as he seemed to think. His statements about transparency were naive - he is apparently unaware of the reasons for which moderation teams don't explicitly state all of their bases for action.
      - nailer 4y ago
        > he is apparently unaware of the reasons for which moderation teams don't explicitly state all of their bases for action. Are you? Tell us.
        code_duck 4y ago
        Not sure why you would ask as I assume this is fairly common knowledge on HN. Most platforms don’t reveal the specifics of their anti-spam or fraud guidelines because that would serve as a guide on how to evade detection.
        nailer 4y ago
        Elon’s concern regarding moderation wasn’t about spam and fraud though, it was about behavioural bans.
        plgonzalezrx8 4y ago
        Thats like saying speed limits shouldn't be posted cause if they are, people will stay under the speed limit.
systemvoltage 4y ago
It is currently unsettling that the biggest megaphone of this country is governed by a small group of individuals in Silicon Valley.
- beebmam 4y ago
  So what should we do about it? Let another oligarch buy it and operate it? Why not nationalize it? Then at least the US constitution would apply, your first amendment rights would be protected, and it would truly be a public space.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    Nationalization might work but if it were 1950-1970's US Gov. Our government used to be so badass. I have no trust in the current government's abilities and specifically the current administration. They tried to form a misinformation department which was already a disaster: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/08/24/following-hsac-recommendation-dhs-terminates-disinformation-governance-board https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/08/24/following-hsac-recommend... Responding to the comment below: > Nationalize the news? We can be just like Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela! > Who needs pesky freedom of speech anyway. We have that dude. Voice of America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America No one, atleast domestically gives a shit about it. Which is just beautiful! The most American thing ever.
    - treeman79 4y ago
      /sarcasm Nationalize the news? We can be just like Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela! Who needs pesky freedom of speech anyway.
      - guerrilla 4y ago
        All of Europe has public service. Actually most of the world does, not just authoritarian countries. Even the US has NPR, PBS and (god forbid) VOA. I'm not saying it's not all propaganda, but it's definitely not the kind you're thinking about (in most countries anyway.)
throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
well, if you have no problem with the way it is currently "curated" then yeah, you're right to be worried.
- dr-detroit 4y ago
insane_dreamer 4y ago
Who do you think is controlling it now?
postsantum 4y ago
I can see this narrative replacing the "it's a private company, they can do whatever they want" one

It's less unsettling than who's currently in charge of it. At least he's committed to transparency in moderation and the algorithm.

djbusby 4y ago
Elmo doesn't seem like the type where "commitment" means what it does to the rest of us.
MattGaiser 4y ago
> he's committed He was just sued for his lack of commitment.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  And that was commitment to a legally enforceable contract, not just something he tweeted during a manic episode.
helf 4y ago
Hahahah ur funny! You really believe he is “committed to transparency in moderation and the algorithm”? I have some real estate on Mars for sale if you are interested.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
peppertree 4y ago
If you believe Musk would deliver true transparency then I got a self driving car to sell you.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- memish 4y ago
  He delivered millions of electric cars. Re-usable rockets. Starlink. Moderation transparency is a slam dunk.
  - code_duck 4y ago
    The problem is that it's not as simple as he seemed to think. His statements about transparency were naive - he is apparently unaware of the reasons for which moderation teams don't explicitly state all of their bases for action.
    - nailer 4y ago
      > he is apparently unaware of the reasons for which moderation teams don't explicitly state all of their bases for action. Are you? Tell us.
      - code_duck 4y ago
        Not sure why you would ask as I assume this is fairly common knowledge on HN. Most platforms don’t reveal the specifics of their anti-spam or fraud guidelines because that would serve as a guide on how to evade detection.
        nailer 4y ago
        Elon’s concern regarding moderation wasn’t about spam and fraud though, it was about behavioural bans.
        plgonzalezrx8 4y ago
        Thats like saying speed limits shouldn't be posted cause if they are, people will stay under the speed limit.

systemvoltage 4y ago

It is currently unsettling that the biggest megaphone of this country is governed by a small group of individuals in Silicon Valley.

beebmam 4y ago
So what should we do about it? Let another oligarch buy it and operate it? Why not nationalize it? Then at least the US constitution would apply, your first amendment rights would be protected, and it would truly be a public space.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Nationalization might work but if it were 1950-1970's US Gov. Our government used to be so badass. I have no trust in the current government's abilities and specifically the current administration. They tried to form a misinformation department which was already a disaster: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/08/24/following-hsac-recommendation-dhs-terminates-disinformation-governance-board https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/08/24/following-hsac-recommend... Responding to the comment below: > Nationalize the news? We can be just like Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela! > Who needs pesky freedom of speech anyway. We have that dude. Voice of America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America No one, atleast domestically gives a shit about it. Which is just beautiful! The most American thing ever.
  - treeman79 4y ago
    /sarcasm Nationalize the news? We can be just like Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela! Who needs pesky freedom of speech anyway.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      All of Europe has public service. Actually most of the world does, not just authoritarian countries. Even the US has NPR, PBS and (god forbid) VOA. I'm not saying it's not all propaganda, but it's definitely not the kind you're thinking about (in most countries anyway.)

throwaway0x7E6 4y ago

well, if you have no problem with the way it is currently "curated" then yeah, you're right to be worried.

dr-detroit 4y ago

insane_dreamer 4y ago

Who do you think is controlling it now?

postsantum 4y ago

I can see this narrative replacing the "it's a private company, they can do whatever they want" one