5 ms·

So free speech absolutist is starting to adapt rules which are roughly similar to Twitter's current rules. And those rules are existing for a reason, rules don'

So free speech absolutist is starting to adapt rules which are roughly similar to Twitter's current rules. And those rules are existing for a reason, rules don't popup from a thin air. What a surprise... Now he will figure out that the bloat of microservices and employees was there also for a reason.

commandlinefan 4y ago
> those rules are existing for a reason If they had applied the rules consistently, they'd be reasonable enough, but they never did or even particularly tried. I don't have any hope that Elon will, either, though.
- pixl97 4y ago
  For profit businesses will never apply rules consistently, there is too much profit in inconsistency. Hell, anything ran by humans, in by belief, is incapable of applying any set of complex rules consistently. Individuals can't even apply moderation rules consistently as our emotions and how we're feeling on a particular day can dictate what we ignore and the punishments we choose.
  - anticensor 4y ago
    > For profit businesses will never apply rules consistently, there is too much profit in inconsistency. A for profit business definitely could definitely codify how to profit and how to price in its charter. Too much profit is just a bad excuse.
- root_axis 4y ago
  "apply the rules consistently" is like "unbiased journalism", it is an impossible standard that literally nobody adheres to. Further, anyone claiming intentional bias in moderation behavior is just making it up because there are thousands of moderation decisions made every day, the details of which they are not privy to.
  - a1369209993 4y ago
    > "apply the rules consistently" is like "unbiased journalism", it is an impossible standard that literally nobody adheres to. Yes, but some claim to do so while deliberately doing the opposite, while others say they're bad at it while actually trying. Corporations (such as Twitter) are exclusively toward the former end of the spectrum.
    - root_axis 4y ago
      > Corporations (such as Twitter) are exclusively toward the former end of the spectrum. So it is claimed, but I don't think that's true and without data it's simply a matter of opinion.
fsckboy 4y ago
a person who holds free speech absolutism as a value, trying to navigate a compromise with advertisers is a far sight better than a person who does not believe in free speech. It is not true that what twitter was doing was already the inevitable perfect compromise, or that advertisers were demanding that the sitting POTUS be banned even though SCOTUS had ruled people had a right to interact with him on twitter.
- krapp 4y ago
  Either you believe free speech is absolute or you don't. If you're willing to compromise on those principles with advertisers, you don't.
krick 4y ago
I'm careful about formulating an opinion on the topic, because I still don't understand what "deboosted" will mean in practice, but I don't think your evaluation of the situation is fair. I'm pretty close to an "antifan" of Musk, but I don't really think he is a fool, and I don't think it is news to him. Maybe the public believed he meant "an absolute freedom of speech" (did they? lol), but I don't think he was really meaning it at any point. After all, he knows that revenue comes from ads, and those who pay for ads have some power to influence the rules. It's not like Twitter is totalitarian just because Dorsey is a totalitarian guy by nature. It even seems that he kinda isn't. It's just the fact, that there are other powers that at certain level start being far more influential, than the CEOs opinion. And these powers tend to be quite totalitarian. Musk it just a populist. Not living up to his promises isn't a sign of short-sightedness. In fact, it seems to be working great for him so far. Not sure if it will with Twitter, but it did, and still does with Tesla, FWIW.
elgenie 4y ago
The dude rolled in with an understanding of the space one would expect of a college sophomore doing just OK in an interview for a PM internship, but is somehow expecting everyone to be amazed by his keen insight. Being an engineer / content moderator in an environment where there's a guy constantly introducing chaos via idiotic "Couldn't we just…?" mandates can't be fun.
refurb 4y ago
It doesn’t seem “roughly similar” to me at all. Banning accounts vs reducing reach? Vastly different
proc0 4y ago
There is an inherent contradiction calling censorship = free speech. Censorship of any form is already a violation of free speech, and therefore cannot be free speech itself. That said, no platform can be absolutist or it would devolve into a porn site, however there is a "spirit" of free speech, that is meant to uphold the principle and allow for ANY subject matter to be discussed. This doesn't mean say anything you want, but for any given subject matter, there is absolutely a way to discuss it respectfully. This is the type of censorship that is common online right now. Platforms aren't just following guidelines, they are actively deciding which things can be discussed and which things cannot. In the case of Twitter, it seems this censorship is controlled by the stakeholder advertisers. Personally I would like to live in a world where society is not controlled by powerful capitalist interests.
- lancelot-ru 4y ago

commandlinefan 4y ago

> those rules are existing for a reason If they had applied the rules consistently, they'd be reasonable enough, but they never did or even particularly tried. I don't have any hope that Elon will, either, though.

pixl97 4y ago
For profit businesses will never apply rules consistently, there is too much profit in inconsistency. Hell, anything ran by humans, in by belief, is incapable of applying any set of complex rules consistently. Individuals can't even apply moderation rules consistently as our emotions and how we're feeling on a particular day can dictate what we ignore and the punishments we choose.
- anticensor 4y ago
  > For profit businesses will never apply rules consistently, there is too much profit in inconsistency. A for profit business definitely could definitely codify how to profit and how to price in its charter. Too much profit is just a bad excuse.
root_axis 4y ago
"apply the rules consistently" is like "unbiased journalism", it is an impossible standard that literally nobody adheres to. Further, anyone claiming intentional bias in moderation behavior is just making it up because there are thousands of moderation decisions made every day, the details of which they are not privy to.
- a1369209993 4y ago
  > "apply the rules consistently" is like "unbiased journalism", it is an impossible standard that literally nobody adheres to. Yes, but some claim to do so while deliberately doing the opposite, while others say they're bad at it while actually trying. Corporations (such as Twitter) are exclusively toward the former end of the spectrum.
  - root_axis 4y ago
    > Corporations (such as Twitter) are exclusively toward the former end of the spectrum. So it is claimed, but I don't think that's true and without data it's simply a matter of opinion.

fsckboy 4y ago

a person who holds free speech absolutism as a value, trying to navigate a compromise with advertisers is a far sight better than a person who does not believe in free speech. It is not true that what twitter was doing was already the inevitable perfect compromise, or that advertisers were demanding that the sitting POTUS be banned even though SCOTUS had ruled people had a right to interact with him on twitter.

krapp 4y ago
Either you believe free speech is absolute or you don't. If you're willing to compromise on those principles with advertisers, you don't.

krick 4y ago

I'm careful about formulating an opinion on the topic, because I still don't understand what "deboosted" will mean in practice, but I don't think your evaluation of the situation is fair. I'm pretty close to an "antifan" of Musk, but I don't really think he is a fool, and I don't think it is news to him. Maybe the public believed he meant "an absolute freedom of speech" (did they? lol), but I don't think he was really meaning it at any point. After all, he knows that revenue comes from ads, and those who pay for ads have some power to influence the rules. It's not like Twitter is totalitarian just because Dorsey is a totalitarian guy by nature. It even seems that he kinda isn't. It's just the fact, that there are other powers that at certain level start being far more influential, than the CEOs opinion. And these powers tend to be quite totalitarian. Musk it just a populist. Not living up to his promises isn't a sign of short-sightedness. In fact, it seems to be working great for him so far. Not sure if it will with Twitter, but it did, and still does with Tesla, FWIW.

elgenie 4y ago

The dude rolled in with an understanding of the space one would expect of a college sophomore doing just OK in an interview for a PM internship, but is somehow expecting everyone to be amazed by his keen insight. Being an engineer / content moderator in an environment where there's a guy constantly introducing chaos via idiotic "Couldn't we just…?" mandates can't be fun.

refurb 4y ago

It doesn’t seem “roughly similar” to me at all. Banning accounts vs reducing reach? Vastly different

proc0 4y ago

There is an inherent contradiction calling censorship = free speech. Censorship of any form is already a violation of free speech, and therefore cannot be free speech itself. That said, no platform can be absolutist or it would devolve into a porn site, however there is a "spirit" of free speech, that is meant to uphold the principle and allow for ANY subject matter to be discussed. This doesn't mean say anything you want, but for any given subject matter, there is absolutely a way to discuss it respectfully. This is the type of censorship that is common online right now. Platforms aren't just following guidelines, they are actively deciding which things can be discussed and which things cannot. In the case of Twitter, it seems this censorship is controlled by the stakeholder advertisers. Personally I would like to live in a world where society is not controlled by powerful capitalist interests.

lancelot-ru 4y ago