4 ms·

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 th

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
        > 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? I didn't claim anything. I asked for your sources. You are the one who made a claim. And now you're acting astounded that someone would dare question your claim. Truth Social can't seem to become profitable [1]. So Trump's ability to produce (or drive away) advertising revenue is certainly open to being questioned. > For exact figures you might ask Elon himself. Elon didn't make the claim. You did. > If so, I resign If you can't back up your claims with a source, then yes, it's right of you to resign. [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DWAC?p=DWAC&.tsrc=fin-srch https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DWAC?p=DWAC&.tsrc=fin-srch
        Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
        I resign from communicating with you because you are not arguing in good faith. Demanding to provide data that is clearly not publicly available is pure demagoguery, as this figure is irrelevant for our discussion: it does not matter if ad revenue from user engagement created by Trump was XXXXX USD or YYYYYY USD, as it is beyond clear that this figure was above zero. So blocking him was against the commercial interests of the platform. Likewise, the success (or lack of it) of other platforms, like Truth social, is hardly relevant here. It is another demagogue technique called 'straw man', as you try to bait your opponent into arguing about a completely different social platform. Now, you may claim victory in this internet discussion, and celebrate it like your other imaginary victories.

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
        > 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? I didn't claim anything. I asked for your sources. You are the one who made a claim. And now you're acting astounded that someone would dare question your claim. Truth Social can't seem to become profitable [1]. So Trump's ability to produce (or drive away) advertising revenue is certainly open to being questioned. > For exact figures you might ask Elon himself. Elon didn't make the claim. You did. > If so, I resign If you can't back up your claims with a source, then yes, it's right of you to resign. [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DWAC?p=DWAC&.tsrc=fin-srch https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DWAC?p=DWAC&.tsrc=fin-srch
        Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
        I resign from communicating with you because you are not arguing in good faith. Demanding to provide data that is clearly not publicly available is pure demagoguery, as this figure is irrelevant for our discussion: it does not matter if ad revenue from user engagement created by Trump was XXXXX USD or YYYYYY USD, as it is beyond clear that this figure was above zero. So blocking him was against the commercial interests of the platform. Likewise, the success (or lack of it) of other platforms, like Truth social, is hardly relevant here. It is another demagogue technique called 'straw man', as you try to bait your opponent into arguing about a completely different social platform. Now, you may claim victory in this internet discussion, and celebrate it like your other imaginary victories.