4 ms·

Before it was that private companies could do whatever they wanted, now many trying to impose their will on Twitter’s actions all of a sudden. Huh

evgen 4y ago
In what delusional world could private companies ever 'do whatever they wanted'? We have huge legal tomes filled with laws to prevent this sort of sociopathic thinking from becoming reality for the sake of profit.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  Before it was about freedom of speech for private corporations to control their platforms however they wanted. Now it’s all about rules and regulations. Huh
kjeetgill 4y ago
> Huh Before you let that cynicism build up too much, for the record, not all of us Elon+Twitter skeptics have a problem with the $8 thing. You're just not going to hear from any one who didn't have an issue with it. Related: Is there a quippy term or a fallacy for the (very natural!) habit of treating a random sample of a million voices and expecting a coherent message from them? I feel like it's related but distinct from a strawman.
- lmm 4y ago
  "Weak man" is when you take a genuine-but-weak take from one of your opponents and treat them as representing your opposition in general. (That's not quite what you're asking for though, I think)
  - kjeetgill 4y ago
    That's definitely close, thanks!
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Perhaps a miss-atribution error
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- smoothman11 4y ago
  Are you looking for logical fallacies used in debates/arguments? Conflation might work as well but Im not good at debating
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  After thinking on it, maybe it is a form of unintentional straw man. People are attacking a hypothetical position and view that is a synthesis of many people and only is combined in their mind. There is also a reverse no true Scotsman, I've seen referenced as dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid. Not as catchy as no true Scotsman but you're basically imagining a perfect Scotsman and then attacking them when they don't exist
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Before it was that private companies could do whatever they wanted, No, it was that “free speech” means private actors are free to make decisions about what content to relay. Not that everything they choose on that (or any other) is equally good, nor that they shouldn’t be punished in the marketplace (not by the state) for their bad choices.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  Yup That’s why in a free marketplace, Elon asserted his free speech to take over Twitter due to their perceived poor management. Maybe if they had managed more equitably, none of this would have happened. But the market giveth and the market taketh
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > That’s why in a free marketplace, Elon asserted his free speech to take over Twitter due to their perceived poor management. That’s not really accurate. Twitter’s management took Elon to court to force him to take over so the stockholders they worked for could reap thr windfall ofnthe premium price he regretted offering and tried to tun away from.
kaba0 4y ago
Private companies explicitly shouldn’t do whatever they want at all. They don’t even get to decide totally whom to serve, as doing so against a protected class will quickly lead to a really bad outcome for the company. And that’s a good thing. It is frankly ridiculous that private companies get to decide the public opinion by tweaking their algorithms, it should be managed in a similar way how we don’t allow food companies to put cocaine into their products.

evgen 4y ago

In what delusional world could private companies ever 'do whatever they wanted'? We have huge legal tomes filled with laws to prevent this sort of sociopathic thinking from becoming reality for the sake of profit.

adam_arthur 4y ago
Before it was about freedom of speech for private corporations to control their platforms however they wanted. Now it’s all about rules and regulations. Huh

kjeetgill 4y ago

> Huh Before you let that cynicism build up too much, for the record, not all of us Elon+Twitter skeptics have a problem with the $8 thing. You're just not going to hear from any one who didn't have an issue with it. Related: Is there a quippy term or a fallacy for the (very natural!) habit of treating a random sample of a million voices and expecting a coherent message from them? I feel like it's related but distinct from a strawman.

lmm 4y ago
"Weak man" is when you take a genuine-but-weak take from one of your opponents and treat them as representing your opposition in general. (That's not quite what you're asking for though, I think)
- kjeetgill 4y ago
  That's definitely close, thanks!
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Perhaps a miss-atribution error
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
smoothman11 4y ago
Are you looking for logical fallacies used in debates/arguments? Conflation might work as well but Im not good at debating
s1artibartfast 4y ago
After thinking on it, maybe it is a form of unintentional straw man. People are attacking a hypothetical position and view that is a synthesis of many people and only is combined in their mind. There is also a reverse no true Scotsman, I've seen referenced as dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid. Not as catchy as no true Scotsman but you're basically imagining a perfect Scotsman and then attacking them when they don't exist

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Before it was that private companies could do whatever they wanted, No, it was that “free speech” means private actors are free to make decisions about what content to relay. Not that everything they choose on that (or any other) is equally good, nor that they shouldn’t be punished in the marketplace (not by the state) for their bad choices.

adam_arthur 4y ago
Yup That’s why in a free marketplace, Elon asserted his free speech to take over Twitter due to their perceived poor management. Maybe if they had managed more equitably, none of this would have happened. But the market giveth and the market taketh
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > That’s why in a free marketplace, Elon asserted his free speech to take over Twitter due to their perceived poor management. That’s not really accurate. Twitter’s management took Elon to court to force him to take over so the stockholders they worked for could reap thr windfall ofnthe premium price he regretted offering and tried to tun away from.

kaba0 4y ago

Private companies explicitly shouldn’t do whatever they want at all. They don’t even get to decide totally whom to serve, as doing so against a protected class will quickly lead to a really bad outcome for the company. And that’s a good thing. It is frankly ridiculous that private companies get to decide the public opinion by tweaking their algorithms, it should be managed in a similar way how we don’t allow food companies to put cocaine into their products.