7 ms·

With a strong vision for freedom of speech and actual value enforcement (edit: of the transparency value, not just start censoring the other side), it would att

With a strong vision for freedom of speech and actual value enforcement (edit: of the transparency value, not just start censoring the other side), it would attract the right people. We can argue the recent dilution of Twitter's values to meddle with U.S. politics was the actual brain drain.

hexator 4y ago
Twitter's problems began way before the 2016 election.
vibrio 4y ago
what is actual value enforcement?
candiddevmike 4y ago
I don't understand how those two things (freedom and enforcement) are compatible with each other.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lovich 4y ago
  They’re not, they come in opposition to each other so the more you value one aspect the weaker the other becomes. I don’t know how people who describe themselves as free speech absolutists and claim no one will be censored are even given the time of day when they simultaneously discuss enforcement policies. We already have and had multiple sites for absolute free speech short of actual government intervention on the internet. They are either small(the various chans) or go out of business(voat and the like) because no advertiser wants to associate with the content that is created, and free speech absolutists only appear to value free speech as long as someone else is covering the costs for propagating said speech.
  - 5560675260 4y ago
    > people who describe themselves as free speech absolutists Are there actually people like that? Whenever I see this phrase it's used to vaguely describe some group that's obviously in the wrong.
    - lovich 4y ago
      Musk specifically has described himself as one several times. On a less public note, I run into people online describing themselves as such fairly frequently as well
halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
I think the Venn Diagram of free speech absolutists and competent developers is a lot smaller than Elon and most people realize. Twitter has never been nor propertied itself to be a bastion of free speech, so I always find this pearl-clutching at "meddling in X" funny. It's a private company, it can do as it please.
- amadeuspagel 4y ago
  > Twitter has never been nor propertied itself to be a bastion of free speech "We are the free speech wing of the free speech party"[1] [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/22/twitter-tony-wang-free-speech https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/22/twitter-tony-w...
- tunesmith 4y ago
  I think there are hardly any free speech absolutists these days. Who's standing up for free speech when it's free speech they detest? Instead it's a bunch of people loudly defending their free speech.
- dontknowwhyihn 4y ago
  “Free speech absolutists” is just a propaganda term for “People who say things I don’t like.”
phailhaus 4y ago
Given that it turned out that Twitter was already biased towards right-wing sources, I don't understand how any of this will help. [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-admits-bias-in-algorithm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-a...
- NDizzle 4y ago
  What? They ban most actual right-wing sources. What's left is crap like Fox news. They can't be biased towards stuff they ban. They are biased towards controlled opposition, which makes people feel warm and fuzzy. Big difference.
  - phailhaus 4y ago
    Read the article, can't argue with numbers. Twitter biases towards recommending right-wing sources. Your personal experience will differ because everyone is placed in their own echo chamber.
    - NDizzle 4y ago
      Sure I can. All the right-wing sources I followed on twitter were banned. Therefore I didn't get ANY content sent to me. How is that a bias FOR right-wing sources?
      - phailhaus 4y ago
        This is how, straight from the article: > According to a 27-page research document, Twitter found a “statistically significant difference favouring the political right wing” in all the countries except Germany. Under the research, a value of 0% meant tweets reached the same number of users on the algorithm-tailored timeline as on its chronological counterpart, whereas a value of 100% meant tweets achieved double the reach. There are crazy left-wing sources that are also banned, are you going to use that as "proof" that Twitter is biased against the left? You're cherrypicking.
three_seagrass 4y ago
>With a strong vision for freedom of speech and actual value enforcement, it would attract the right people. The social media company called Gab is the antithesis to that statement: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/rookie-coding-mistake-prior-to-gab-hack-came-from-sites-cto/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/rookie-coding-mistak...
scarface74 4y ago
There are a few reasons technical people go to work. 1. Interesting challenges 2. Exchange labor for money 3. Good working environment 4. As a nice to bullet point on their resume It would be a very naive thing to work for a for profit company owned by a billionaire to think that you have any other “mission” than to line the pockets of a reluctant owner.
- vanviegen 4y ago
  No, I don't subscribe to your cynicism. This is actually a reason some people choose a certain job: 5. For the greater good Whether you think the 'reluctant billionaire owner' is in it for the greater good as well is not relevant. Now, with regard to Twitter, I have little notion of what 'for the greater good' means. But I'm sure some people do.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    It’s not cynical. Do you actually believe any for profit company cares about “ideals”?
    - wewtyflakes 4y ago
      This might fit the bill, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        And most people who “believe in their company’s mission” aren’t working for one. Mostly it’s naive employees with statistically worthless “equity” in a startup who believed the founders Ted Talk hype. Even if the founder sincerely believes that, once he takes VC money it doesn’t matter what he believes.
    - vanviegen 4y ago
      Companies don't care. (Some) people working for those companies may, though.
Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
Social media are free because they act as a lubricant for commerce, especially e-commerce, via advertising. The whole freedom of speech thing, the public square, section 230 they are a bunch of distractions. At the end of the day you gotta do what media entrepreneurs have always done: shove stuff down people's throats in exchange for money. That's it. There is nothing tough, poetic or ideological about it. Twitter has been trying to monetize its users but they had scarce success. That was without an ideologue at the helm. Or an ideologue-lite when Dorsey was in charge. With an ideologue at the helm the bird will fly right into the ground. Twitter needed somebody who knows how attract the crowd which buys stuff online. Paradoxically Bezos was the right fit for the bird app.
unethical_ban 4y ago
I propose a new term for the "Free speech" to say whatever hateful, bad-faith, trolling and ignorant thing anyone wants to say on someone else's website: "Platform entitlement". >With a strong vision for platform entitlement and actual value enforcement, it would attract the right people. We can argue the recent dilution of Twitter's values to meddle with U.S. politics was the actual brain drain. After all, the ideological concept of "free speech" as is commonly used in the United States and regarding political freedom is the freedom from government persecution to say whatever you want. It is being transformed by propagandists and those who would see our democracy crumble to mean "being allowed to freeload off of dominant viral message boards to spread whatever misinformation is deemed beneficial to my worldview". I respect the idea that the Internet is a prerequisite to effective political speech in the Western world for audiences larger than a small town. I believe that certain layers of the World Wide Web, namely DNS/TLS/Network/Hosting do have a "common carrier" obligation to some extent which should possibly be codified. I do, however, take issue with the idea that individual websites currently have any obligation to be "neutral", though I do believe in being transparent in any potential bias. I also believe it's misleading to call taking down trolls and bad faith bots as "biased". To be straight to the point, I honestly doubt the motive of anyone who actively criticizes about free speech issues on twitter, given the kinds of democracy-destroying people who have been largely affected by their moderation policies.
- triceratops 4y ago
  Never have I ever agreed so much with a comment.
- vehemenz 4y ago
  Very well put. It should go both ways, and the perception that the platform is fair to each respective stakeholder need not be symmetrical. It should be possible that one political demographic is "deplatformed" more, based purely on their promotion of values that are antisocial and immoral in a community setting. Fairness cannot be determined on a demographic basis alone.

hexator 4y ago

Twitter's problems began way before the 2016 election.

vibrio 4y ago

what is actual value enforcement?

candiddevmike 4y ago

I don't understand how those two things (freedom and enforcement) are compatible with each other.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lovich 4y ago
They’re not, they come in opposition to each other so the more you value one aspect the weaker the other becomes. I don’t know how people who describe themselves as free speech absolutists and claim no one will be censored are even given the time of day when they simultaneously discuss enforcement policies. We already have and had multiple sites for absolute free speech short of actual government intervention on the internet. They are either small(the various chans) or go out of business(voat and the like) because no advertiser wants to associate with the content that is created, and free speech absolutists only appear to value free speech as long as someone else is covering the costs for propagating said speech.
- 5560675260 4y ago
  > people who describe themselves as free speech absolutists Are there actually people like that? Whenever I see this phrase it's used to vaguely describe some group that's obviously in the wrong.
  - lovich 4y ago
    Musk specifically has described himself as one several times. On a less public note, I run into people online describing themselves as such fairly frequently as well

halfmatthalfcat 4y ago

I think the Venn Diagram of free speech absolutists and competent developers is a lot smaller than Elon and most people realize. Twitter has never been nor propertied itself to be a bastion of free speech, so I always find this pearl-clutching at "meddling in X" funny. It's a private company, it can do as it please.

amadeuspagel 4y ago
> Twitter has never been nor propertied itself to be a bastion of free speech "We are the free speech wing of the free speech party"[1] [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/22/twitter-tony-wang-free-speech https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/22/twitter-tony-w...
tunesmith 4y ago
I think there are hardly any free speech absolutists these days. Who's standing up for free speech when it's free speech they detest? Instead it's a bunch of people loudly defending their free speech.
dontknowwhyihn 4y ago
“Free speech absolutists” is just a propaganda term for “People who say things I don’t like.”

phailhaus 4y ago

Given that it turned out that Twitter was already biased towards right-wing sources, I don't understand how any of this will help. [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-admits-bias-in-algorithm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-a...

NDizzle 4y ago
What? They ban most actual right-wing sources. What's left is crap like Fox news. They can't be biased towards stuff they ban. They are biased towards controlled opposition, which makes people feel warm and fuzzy. Big difference.
- phailhaus 4y ago
  Read the article, can't argue with numbers. Twitter biases towards recommending right-wing sources. Your personal experience will differ because everyone is placed in their own echo chamber.
  - NDizzle 4y ago
    Sure I can. All the right-wing sources I followed on twitter were banned. Therefore I didn't get ANY content sent to me. How is that a bias FOR right-wing sources?
    - phailhaus 4y ago
      This is how, straight from the article: > According to a 27-page research document, Twitter found a “statistically significant difference favouring the political right wing” in all the countries except Germany. Under the research, a value of 0% meant tweets reached the same number of users on the algorithm-tailored timeline as on its chronological counterpart, whereas a value of 100% meant tweets achieved double the reach. There are crazy left-wing sources that are also banned, are you going to use that as "proof" that Twitter is biased against the left? You're cherrypicking.

three_seagrass 4y ago

>With a strong vision for freedom of speech and actual value enforcement, it would attract the right people. The social media company called Gab is the antithesis to that statement: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/rookie-coding-mistake-prior-to-gab-hack-came-from-sites-cto/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/rookie-coding-mistak...

scarface74 4y ago

There are a few reasons technical people go to work. 1. Interesting challenges 2. Exchange labor for money 3. Good working environment 4. As a nice to bullet point on their resume It would be a very naive thing to work for a for profit company owned by a billionaire to think that you have any other “mission” than to line the pockets of a reluctant owner.

vanviegen 4y ago
No, I don't subscribe to your cynicism. This is actually a reason some people choose a certain job: 5. For the greater good Whether you think the 'reluctant billionaire owner' is in it for the greater good as well is not relevant. Now, with regard to Twitter, I have little notion of what 'for the greater good' means. But I'm sure some people do.
- scarface74 4y ago
  It’s not cynical. Do you actually believe any for profit company cares about “ideals”?
  - wewtyflakes 4y ago
    This might fit the bill, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      And most people who “believe in their company’s mission” aren’t working for one. Mostly it’s naive employees with statistically worthless “equity” in a startup who believed the founders Ted Talk hype. Even if the founder sincerely believes that, once he takes VC money it doesn’t matter what he believes.
  - vanviegen 4y ago
    Companies don't care. (Some) people working for those companies may, though.

Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago

Social media are free because they act as a lubricant for commerce, especially e-commerce, via advertising. The whole freedom of speech thing, the public square, section 230 they are a bunch of distractions. At the end of the day you gotta do what media entrepreneurs have always done: shove stuff down people's throats in exchange for money. That's it. There is nothing tough, poetic or ideological about it. Twitter has been trying to monetize its users but they had scarce success. That was without an ideologue at the helm. Or an ideologue-lite when Dorsey was in charge. With an ideologue at the helm the bird will fly right into the ground. Twitter needed somebody who knows how attract the crowd which buys stuff online. Paradoxically Bezos was the right fit for the bird app.

unethical_ban 4y ago

I propose a new term for the "Free speech" to say whatever hateful, bad-faith, trolling and ignorant thing anyone wants to say on someone else's website: "Platform entitlement". >With a strong vision for platform entitlement and actual value enforcement, it would attract the right people. We can argue the recent dilution of Twitter's values to meddle with U.S. politics was the actual brain drain. After all, the ideological concept of "free speech" as is commonly used in the United States and regarding political freedom is the freedom from government persecution to say whatever you want. It is being transformed by propagandists and those who would see our democracy crumble to mean "being allowed to freeload off of dominant viral message boards to spread whatever misinformation is deemed beneficial to my worldview". I respect the idea that the Internet is a prerequisite to effective political speech in the Western world for audiences larger than a small town. I believe that certain layers of the World Wide Web, namely DNS/TLS/Network/Hosting do have a "common carrier" obligation to some extent which should possibly be codified. I do, however, take issue with the idea that individual websites currently have any obligation to be "neutral", though I do believe in being transparent in any potential bias. I also believe it's misleading to call taking down trolls and bad faith bots as "biased". To be straight to the point, I honestly doubt the motive of anyone who actively criticizes about free speech issues on twitter, given the kinds of democracy-destroying people who have been largely affected by their moderation policies.

triceratops 4y ago
Never have I ever agreed so much with a comment.
vehemenz 4y ago
Very well put. It should go both ways, and the perception that the platform is fair to each respective stakeholder need not be symmetrical. It should be possible that one political demographic is "deplatformed" more, based purely on their promotion of values that are antisocial and immoral in a community setting. Fairness cannot be determined on a demographic basis alone.