5 ms·

I think one reasonable policy could be "form a council of diverse viewpoints and only ban someone if they all (or mostly all) agree the person should be kicked

I think one reasonable policy could be "form a council of diverse viewpoints and only ban someone if they all (or mostly all) agree the person should be kicked off" and another reasonable policy could be "form a council fo diverse viewpoints and ban someone if one (or a couple) think the person should be kicked off. I think its fair to say the committee will end up being a scapegoat - but to be charitable to the idea in general its pretty clear that not 100% or even 75% of the population thinks that Babylon Bee should be banned. If you have a system where one voice on the committee can ban someone then most liberal comedians would be banned for played up reasons, too.

josephcsible 4y ago
Your first policy is reasonable, but your second is definitely not.
- fasthands9 4y ago
  Sure. But ultimately there is some level of arbitrary lines where you have a trade-off of overbanning or underbanning. Say you have a committee of 9 people? What's your cut-off? There isn't a clear answer - especially as norms change a bit and the committee members change.
  - mbreese 4y ago
    I honestly don’t think it matters. The committee will answer to one person who can arbitrarily overrule the committee, whether formally or not. It’s his company and he can do what he wants with it. Any rules can be changed at any time without recourse. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. Well, it might be bad for Twitter the service, but as far as legal governance, it’s the way it works. The only limit will really be what advertisers will support. It is a business after all. But any type of council should be considered advisory at best.
- orblivion 4y ago
  You could use the second standard to flag a user as "spicy" and hide them for users who prefer to be exposed to more "normal" opinions.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
Twitter has become the de facto standard, so IMHO moderation should only ask one question: "is this tweet legal?" If the answer is 'yes' then it should be allowed. Of course, a corollary is that they should be able to filter content on a per country basis because, obviously, what's legal differs from country to country, but I think there is no escaping that for any platforms which claim to be global.
- fckgw 4y ago
  Sounds like a great way to foster a community filled with racist, unwelcoming, and generally toxic but perfectly legal content. Just like every other "free speech" platform devolves into.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Allow me to coin a hyperstitious and eponymous law. Frog's Law of Social Media: free speech or advertising revenue - choose one.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    Can we stick to a grown-up discussion, please? You are not replying to my points in any meaningful way. It's shocking that HN commenters could be so toxic, indeed.
    - fckgw 4y ago
      Not sure what there is to discuss? I wholly disagree with your idea. There's plenty of other social network sites that have a similar moderation policy and they are overrun by people who wish to turn it into a platform to spread hate. Any content moderation needs to extend beyond "Legal? (Y/N)" unless your main goal is to drive any real community away.
      - mytailorisrich 4y ago
        You're obviously ignoring 'de facto standard', which makes Twitter pretty much a utility in my opinion, hence my comment. Anyway, it is simply shocking that so many think it is the 'correct way' to disallow what they don't agree with and that they are, like you, so aggressive about it to the point of shutting down any dissenting opinions, as is happening here. It's a big regression from the heights of the enlightenment, or just the recent past, IMHO. Some would go as far as claiming that this is "little red guard" behaviour and they wouldn't be completely wrong. Good day.
pbreit 4y ago
As long as it's legal, why ban anyone? The bar should be VERY high.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  If you don't ban anyone, pretty soon the people who advertisers like leave the platform and you're left with free speech purists, hatemongers, and not too much else. Those people don't bring $$. So in this case, free speech and the free market are at odds.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Ostensibly Twitter has to make money, and most companies do not want their ads to be seen next to blatant antisemitic messages. In the crazy clown world in which we live, Twitter could theoretically kick off all the advertisers and become Elon Musk's self-promotion platform (which it already is), but I doubt the other investors would go along with this.
  - pbreit 4y ago
    Or just not show ads on those pages.
- Dobbs 4y ago
  Legal according to who? Different countries have different laws. As we see with India and Signal this week.
  - conradfr 4y ago
    Twitter already hides tweets in specific countries based on local laws.
- freejazz 4y ago
  Spam city coming right at ya
- smegger001 4y ago
  for the same reason you don't see laundry detergent ads on pornhub. most advertisers don't want their ads next to certain kinds of content. Whether for their own moral objections or fear of negative customer reaction they won't pay for ad space near it. As advertising pays the bills for this service you have to only host content that advertiser are willing to allow their ads near. It not about whats legal its about whats practical and profitable.

josephcsible 4y ago

Your first policy is reasonable, but your second is definitely not.

fasthands9 4y ago
Sure. But ultimately there is some level of arbitrary lines where you have a trade-off of overbanning or underbanning. Say you have a committee of 9 people? What's your cut-off? There isn't a clear answer - especially as norms change a bit and the committee members change.
- mbreese 4y ago
  I honestly don’t think it matters. The committee will answer to one person who can arbitrarily overrule the committee, whether formally or not. It’s his company and he can do what he wants with it. Any rules can be changed at any time without recourse. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. Well, it might be bad for Twitter the service, but as far as legal governance, it’s the way it works. The only limit will really be what advertisers will support. It is a business after all. But any type of council should be considered advisory at best.
orblivion 4y ago
You could use the second standard to flag a user as "spicy" and hide them for users who prefer to be exposed to more "normal" opinions.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

Twitter has become the de facto standard, so IMHO moderation should only ask one question: "is this tweet legal?" If the answer is 'yes' then it should be allowed. Of course, a corollary is that they should be able to filter content on a per country basis because, obviously, what's legal differs from country to country, but I think there is no escaping that for any platforms which claim to be global.

fckgw 4y ago
Sounds like a great way to foster a community filled with racist, unwelcoming, and generally toxic but perfectly legal content. Just like every other "free speech" platform devolves into.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Allow me to coin a hyperstitious and eponymous law. Frog's Law of Social Media: free speech or advertising revenue - choose one.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  Can we stick to a grown-up discussion, please? You are not replying to my points in any meaningful way. It's shocking that HN commenters could be so toxic, indeed.
  - fckgw 4y ago
    Not sure what there is to discuss? I wholly disagree with your idea. There's plenty of other social network sites that have a similar moderation policy and they are overrun by people who wish to turn it into a platform to spread hate. Any content moderation needs to extend beyond "Legal? (Y/N)" unless your main goal is to drive any real community away.
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      You're obviously ignoring 'de facto standard', which makes Twitter pretty much a utility in my opinion, hence my comment. Anyway, it is simply shocking that so many think it is the 'correct way' to disallow what they don't agree with and that they are, like you, so aggressive about it to the point of shutting down any dissenting opinions, as is happening here. It's a big regression from the heights of the enlightenment, or just the recent past, IMHO. Some would go as far as claiming that this is "little red guard" behaviour and they wouldn't be completely wrong. Good day.

pbreit 4y ago

As long as it's legal, why ban anyone? The bar should be VERY high.

joshuamorton 4y ago
If you don't ban anyone, pretty soon the people who advertisers like leave the platform and you're left with free speech purists, hatemongers, and not too much else. Those people don't bring $$. So in this case, free speech and the free market are at odds.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
Ostensibly Twitter has to make money, and most companies do not want their ads to be seen next to blatant antisemitic messages. In the crazy clown world in which we live, Twitter could theoretically kick off all the advertisers and become Elon Musk's self-promotion platform (which it already is), but I doubt the other investors would go along with this.
- pbreit 4y ago
  Or just not show ads on those pages.
Dobbs 4y ago
Legal according to who? Different countries have different laws. As we see with India and Signal this week.
- conradfr 4y ago
  Twitter already hides tweets in specific countries based on local laws.
freejazz 4y ago
Spam city coming right at ya
smegger001 4y ago
for the same reason you don't see laundry detergent ads on pornhub. most advertisers don't want their ads next to certain kinds of content. Whether for their own moral objections or fear of negative customer reaction they won't pay for ad space near it. As advertising pays the bills for this service you have to only host content that advertiser are willing to allow their ads near. It not about whats legal its about whats practical and profitable.