4 ms·

Yeah, I like living in a democracy, so I appreciated when twitter silenced certain people that tried to use it to violently overthrow my democratically elected

Yeah, I like living in a democracy, so I appreciated when twitter silenced certain people that tried to use it to violently overthrow my democratically elected government. Donald Trump tweeted all the time, many of his tweets were of a very different political opinion than mine (when they were coherent), yet he was not silenced. Not until he tried to violently overthrow the US government.

Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
This is a brilliant example of a selective memory. What you have forgotten is that long before Jan6, Twitter blocked retweets of Trump's tweets, attached various warnings to his tweets, was selectively 'fact-checking' him, how that notebook story was banned on Twitter right before the elections. If that is not silencing, then what is? Can you name some other person on Twitter that had undergone a similar treatment?
- low_tech_love 4y ago
  The real question is, would they have done better by not acting on his antics? I think every moderation decision is a trade-off, and the final goal is always the health of the platform itself, not “society” or whatever. Yeah, some people will be hurt, but not acting would hurt too. So… I don’t know. It seems too “romantic” to me to believe that there is a handful of left-wing bigots in the company and all you need to do is get rid of them. I have a hunch the problem is more complex (and that Twitter cannot solve it, only try to survive).
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    > The real question is, would they have done better by not acting on his antics? Yes, they would have done better. Their business should be providing the platform, not telling the users that is 'true' and what is not. That everyone should decide for themselves. One thing is fighting spam, but what they were doing was Ministry of Truth stuff. And harm from that might be thousandfold greater than whatever Trump could ever do.
    - tchaffee 4y ago
      > Their business should be providing the platform That's not how capitalism works. Their business should be doing whatever they think will generate the most long term profit for the owners. It's an advertising platform. Advertisers don't want a platform where users get to decide what the truth is. Advertisers don't want their advertisement next to some anti-vaxxer nutjob or a vocal racist. This is common sense.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
        That's not how capitalism works. Their business should be providing value to their users, which, in turn, would make their platform attractive for advertisers. Trump provided a lot of engagement and popularity to the platform, so banning him was igealogy-driven and was very much against their business interests. Now, advertisers come from different parts of the political spectrum, and if some advertiser would decide to vacate their spot on the platform, some other business would fill the spot. You know, earlier this year a lot of western companies have quit the russian market, like Macdonalds. Do you think there are no burgers in Russia now?
        tchaffee 4y ago
        > Their business should be providing value to their users Yes, their paid users being the advertisers. The end "users" are the product. > Trump provided a lot of engagement and popularity to the platform Can you please give a source for your engagement figures? > banning him was igealogy-driven and was very much against their business interests. Again, please provide a source for this. Evidence of this could be grounds for a class action suit on the part of share holders.
        Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
        Are you seriously claiming that a person with 90 million followers with hundreds of thousands of retweets and countless replies didn't produce a lot of advertising revenue for Twitter? If so, I resign from arguing with you. For exact figures you might ask Elon himself.
- tchaffee 4y ago
  > long before Jan6 So Twitter moderators accurately predicted Trump's words could eventually end in violence long before it happened?
concordDance 4y ago
> Not until he tried to violently overthrow the US government. Try rereading twitters ban post: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... He got banned for tweets that require reading with an extra crinkly tin foil hat on to get "tried to overthrow the government".

Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago

This is a brilliant example of a selective memory. What you have forgotten is that long before Jan6, Twitter blocked retweets of Trump's tweets, attached various warnings to his tweets, was selectively 'fact-checking' him, how that notebook story was banned on Twitter right before the elections. If that is not silencing, then what is? Can you name some other person on Twitter that had undergone a similar treatment?

low_tech_love 4y ago
The real question is, would they have done better by not acting on his antics? I think every moderation decision is a trade-off, and the final goal is always the health of the platform itself, not “society” or whatever. Yeah, some people will be hurt, but not acting would hurt too. So… I don’t know. It seems too “romantic” to me to believe that there is a handful of left-wing bigots in the company and all you need to do is get rid of them. I have a hunch the problem is more complex (and that Twitter cannot solve it, only try to survive).
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  > The real question is, would they have done better by not acting on his antics? Yes, they would have done better. Their business should be providing the platform, not telling the users that is 'true' and what is not. That everyone should decide for themselves. One thing is fighting spam, but what they were doing was Ministry of Truth stuff. And harm from that might be thousandfold greater than whatever Trump could ever do.
  - tchaffee 4y ago
    > Their business should be providing the platform That's not how capitalism works. Their business should be doing whatever they think will generate the most long term profit for the owners. It's an advertising platform. Advertisers don't want a platform where users get to decide what the truth is. Advertisers don't want their advertisement next to some anti-vaxxer nutjob or a vocal racist. This is common sense.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      That's not how capitalism works. Their business should be providing value to their users, which, in turn, would make their platform attractive for advertisers. Trump provided a lot of engagement and popularity to the platform, so banning him was igealogy-driven and was very much against their business interests. Now, advertisers come from different parts of the political spectrum, and if some advertiser would decide to vacate their spot on the platform, some other business would fill the spot. You know, earlier this year a lot of western companies have quit the russian market, like Macdonalds. Do you think there are no burgers in Russia now?
      - tchaffee 4y ago
        > Their business should be providing value to their users Yes, their paid users being the advertisers. The end "users" are the product. > Trump provided a lot of engagement and popularity to the platform Can you please give a source for your engagement figures? > banning him was igealogy-driven and was very much against their business interests. Again, please provide a source for this. Evidence of this could be grounds for a class action suit on the part of share holders.
        Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
        Are you seriously claiming that a person with 90 million followers with hundreds of thousands of retweets and countless replies didn't produce a lot of advertising revenue for Twitter? If so, I resign from arguing with you. For exact figures you might ask Elon himself.
tchaffee 4y ago
> long before Jan6 So Twitter moderators accurately predicted Trump's words could eventually end in violence long before it happened?

concordDance 4y ago

> Not until he tried to violently overthrow the US government. Try rereading twitters ban post: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... He got banned for tweets that require reading with an extra crinkly tin foil hat on to get "tried to overthrow the government".