5 ms·
> turning into a cesspit of toxicity because ‘free speech’ Twitter is already a cesspit of toxicity because of the lack of free speech. This won't make it any
by bakugo 4y ago
> turning into a cesspit of toxicity because ‘free speech’
Twitter is already a cesspit of toxicity because of the lack of free speech. This won't make it any worse.
- socialismisok 4y agoI mean, you don't have free speech here either. Mods will absolutely come in and remove content and ban you for many of the same things Twitter will.
- bakugo 4y agoNot entirely untrue, but the difference is that here, if someone posts "I really hate [group of people] and I wish they'd die" it's generally considered breaking the rules, but on twitter whether or not this statement breaks the rules depends on what group of people you targeted.
- socialismisok 4y agoCitation needed. Can you find a tweet that says that, report it and tell if me it's found to have violated the rules? I see leftists in my communities getting banned all the time.
- bakugo 4y agoHere's a compilation from verified accounts only: https://i.imgur.com/nkN539Q.png https://i.imgur.com/nkN539Q.png Vast majority of these accounts were never banned and many of the tweets are still up today.
- socialismisok 4y agoI'll take a look when I'm not on mobile. My guess is that I'll say many of these should be deleted.
- socialismisok 4y agoTook a look at these. Some should be deleted. "End white people" is arguably a call to violence akin to what gets the right banned. Some lack context. The first one, for instance, still exists but it's a reply to a tweet that doesn't. It's possible this is sarcasm. Some are clearly in bounds, like, what's Jack May's tweet saying that should be against the rules? (Third column). Or Lena Dunham arguing that we're not causing the extinction of white men? Or someone saying, "can you cite a recent example of a figure expressing racism against white people?" And then there are all the "I hate white people" comments. Personally we're likely to disagree about them. I think it's important to contextualize history and who has power when you moderate. Punching up is different than punching down, in my opinion. It's different to say "I hate the wealthy" and "I hate the poor". "I hate a minority" is different than "I hate the majority [who have a history of being oppressors]". I think it's really tacky for these folks to tweet this, and it's not something I'd tweet, so for me it falls into a grey area. I can reasonably see your argument that these are the same as, e.g., "I hate gay people" because it's expressing hate based on identity. If Twitter went the way of saying "expressing hate towards an group based on traits they cannot control is against the rules" I'd say that I don't think that's nuanced enough, but I could live with it. Thanks for sharing a source, it was interesting to dive in here.
- bakugo 4y agoFunny, I was expecting you to come up with some contrived justification as to why racism is totally different depending on what race it's against, like all leftists do, and you did exactly that.
- socialismisok 4y agoI disagree, I believe racism, discrimination, and prejudice are all separate concepts. Prejudice is the internal feeling that another group is inferior. Nearly all of the tweets above exhibited prejudice. Discrimination is acting on that prejudice. Feeling someone is inferior is one thing, acting on it is a notable different thing. Again, nearly all the tweets there were discriminatory. No disagreements from me. Here's where we'll disagree: Racism is discrimination with social power. There's a clear difference between a weak, powerless group discriminating and a powerful group discriminating. In both cases, the discrimination is absolutely wrong. Discrimination against white folks is wrong. But it's clear there is some type of discrimination against a race where the powerful impact the minority disproportionally. Sentencing of criminals, for instance. The phenomenon of disproportionate impact absolutely exists, but we can disagree whether that should be the definition of racism. That's fine. If you believe racism is "any discrimination based on race", then yes, these tweets would be racist. If you believe "racism is discrimination based on race with a systemic power imbalance", then no, most of these tweets are not racist. I believe both definitions are valid and cultural. I'm happy to engage with your definition if it's different. Both definitions are in common use, and obviously clash, but I think it's useful to say, "which definition are we using, and using that definition, would these tweets be racist?" There's no need for you to throw jabs or make sweeping generalizations. We, you and I, can chat politely about this.
- rascul 4y agoThe text is so blurry that it's unreadable. Edit: Although apparently someone else was able to. Maybe imgur is giving a different image to mobile? I tried with both Firefox and chrome on Android.
- ZGDUwpqEWpUZ 4y agoimgur has taken to sometimes redirecting image links to the website instead of the file itself. For me, clicking the link twice worked to get the full 5000x5000 image.
- electrondood 4y agoYeah, citation needed here. If you feel that different groups are participating in the same TOS violations, but only one set of groups is experiencing consequences for it, you may want to reassess your assumption in the first clause.
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoHN doesn’t have the best track record on this one, with people publicly defending intentionally harmful speech and downvoting and reporting dissenting voices. Look no further than this same thread where people argue that twitter simply enforced their TOS and people get downvoted whereas others are publicly arguing that they should be able to make fun of minorities (read make shitty remarks and pass them off as jokes wink wink nudge nudge). It’s all a dog whistle.
- thedorkknight 4y agoYeah this is the thing I don't get. If you don't like the terms, then don't agree to them. If you agree to them, then you lose all right to complain when they hold you to your word in my opinion
- thedorkknight 4y agoAnecdotally, I find the discussions here to be far less aggressively stress inducing and rude than the rest of the web
- socialismisok 4y agoI mostly agree, until I try to politely share any opinion about socialism, anarchism, gender, or speech when it comes to how those things intersect tech. Whew, do I get a lot of hateful comments here.
- reitanqild 4y agoMods here are really great. Obviously (IMNSHO) Twitter must be a little less strict than a niche forum, but it would be a great start for Twitter if they were as balanced as HN is: here you get a talking to or a ban if you deserve it - regardless of what side you belong to. On Twitter it seems you can get away with some amazing things (haven't I seen death wishes?) if you are clearly left leaning.
- socialismisok 4y agoI think, but I do not have the data, that there is plenty of left speech that is banned on Twitter. I mean left as in, not Democrat (which Americans seem to think is a lefty party), but actual leftists discussing socialism and anarchism theory. And not even the autocratic leftist stuff (which sucks. Leftist dictators suck), just like every day "we should tax more and build social housing and stop evictions" leftists.
- reitanqild 4y agoI'm a member of NAFO. I've spent a lot of time on Twitter the last 8 months. I've not seen signs of this: on the contrary we have had to work hard to get Twitter to ban the worst of the worst (e.g. socialist accounts who argue openly for military attacks on Ukrainian civilians far from the front lines - or even worse). It would be great if the same Twitter that finds it OK to throw out Babylon Bee for having fun with a government official would also be consistent enough to throw out tankies that more or less (you should see some of the things I have seen) argue for genocide of Ukrainians. Same goes for hate speech against Jews, it is amazing what some people can get away with on Twitter.
- socialismisok 4y agoYeah, fuck tankies. Fuck antisemitism. What you describe should be banned as well.
- takoid 4y agoIt will only become worse for those who benefited from Twitter’s censorship.
- bediger4000 4y agoI had to think a minute, but I agree with you. Lots of unmoderated free speech will make Twitter worse for ordinary folks, who don't want to be spammed with ads, but also an assortment of porn, aggressive politics bot and weirdos.
- bakugo 4y ago> who don't want to be spammed with ads, but also an assortment of porn, aggressive politics bot and weirdos. Are we talking about the same website here? Because twitter has been full of this for many years. Maybe you just don't notice it because the content in question is politically agreeable to you.
- pessimizer 4y agoThere has never been a point on twitter where you couldn't repeatedly accuse a person of sucking Putin's cock after every single tweet they made, and no point when you had to attempt at all to conceal your association with organized, named groups who coordinate this outside of twitter. That being said, Musk relies on government contracts and subsidy for almost every aspect of his empire, so I don't see any changes coming.
- bediger4000 4y agoThe "ergonomics" and incentives of Twitter do seem to encourage all-or-nothing, ignoring or dogpiling, on something. See the "Main Character of the Day" phenomenon.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y agoI guess it depends on which side you believe is more toxic. It's strange you would take the side that limiting bigotry, racism, homophobia, and transphobia is what creates toxicity.
- bakugo 4y agoStopping people from stating facts and forcing them to respect the emperor's new clothes by force creates toxicity, yes.
- socialismisok 4y agoWhich facts, specifically. Please go on the record.
- bakugo 4y agoNice try! I assume you're a distraught twitter user because this feels like an exchange that would happen there.
- socialismisok 4y agoSo you are unwilling to say what, specifically, you believe in and instead prefer to gesture vaguely. And nope, I'm not a Twitter user. I was, until about 4 years ago. Not a Facebook user either. I was, until about a decade ago. I don't think either are particularly healthy places.
- Nicksil 4y ago>Which facts, specifically. Please go on the record. This is incitement.
- socialismisok 4y agoLOL. Incitement of "to have a discussion we need concrete opinions".
- thedorkknight 4y agoI agree with your first sentence but completely disagree with the second one
- electrondood 4y agoI don't understand how people keep conflating First Amendment Constitutional rights with the additional layer of "this is a private platform, we prefer not to have it overrun with assholes that make it really unpleasant for everyone else." 1A rights apply to GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE in your expression. There is no "lack of free speech on Twitter," nor do they owe anyone unrestricted freedom to spread disinfo and hate speech.
- bakugo 4y agoAnd yet many Twitter users are acting like they are entitled to being provided a safe space away from what they consider to be "disinfo" and "hate speech" by Elon. Why is this?
- gremlinsinc 4y agoThis! So much... No body is owed a platform. I grew up in the 80s you had to be a news personality or famous to reach people. Echo chambers weren't a thing because the chamber was your neighbors and some of them would probably laugh in your face at crazy things or slap you if it's offensive. When you can join groups where you know it's safe to say whatever, you will, and you'll be emboldened and think that's how everyone thinks she it's dangerous to operate in the world with that level of group think, especially if the group values ignorance and conformity(fascism) over free thought, expression, and diversity.
- xigoi 4y agoMost people would also laugh at you if you said you're demiromantic bunnygender.
- 5560675260 4y agoYou confusion stems from conflating 1A and freedom of speech. It's reasonable to expect a corporation of Twitter's influence and size to recognise this particular human right.
- wayeq 4y agoever been to 4chan?