4 ms·

It is unfortunately not how Twitter works. It is very hard to restrict freedom of reach. If you follow a person with extreme opinions, you will still see their

It is unfortunately not how Twitter works. It is very hard to restrict freedom of reach. If you follow a person with extreme opinions, you will still see their posts. Even if Twitter managed to address that problem, there will be users that created curated list of Tweets of interest to their followers. ...and not to forget the mainstream media that love to refer to extremist tweets as it is an easy article to write.

nomel 4y ago
> If you follow a person with extreme opinions, you will still see their posts. Even if Twitter managed to address that problem The purpose of following a person is to see their tweets. How is this a "problem"?
- oxfordmale 4y ago
  Elon Musk is talking about restricting freedom of reach. That works for Google, however, not for Twitter. The entire point of Twitter is to be able to follow people you are interested in.
  - nomel 4y ago
    I don’t understand your answer to my question, or maybe I don’t understand your original statement. Were you saying it’s a problem that you can see extreme tweets of people you follow?
    - oxfordmale 4y ago
      My original point was directed on Elon's Musk belief he can solve hate issues on Twitter by limiting the reach of negative or hateful tweets. It is an approach that works for Google, as they can filter such results. As you point as well, Twitter is about networks and if you are interested in a controversial person, you will follow them. That is good from an individual perspective, as you should have this freedom, however, it can be negative for the society as a whole. A good example is fake news.
      - nomel 4y ago
        > however, it can be negative for the society as a whole. Society wouldn't see the persons tweets, only the followers would. So, it "protects" society, and lets the follower see the controversy they desire. Or, are you suggesting that the individual shouldn't be allowed to see the controversial speech, because they can influence society? I think there have been far too many examples, in history, where the individual was right and the larger opinion of society was incredibly wrong, for this to be a goal to move towards.

nomel 4y ago

> If you follow a person with extreme opinions, you will still see their posts. Even if Twitter managed to address that problem The purpose of following a person is to see their tweets. How is this a "problem"?

oxfordmale 4y ago
Elon Musk is talking about restricting freedom of reach. That works for Google, however, not for Twitter. The entire point of Twitter is to be able to follow people you are interested in.
- nomel 4y ago
  I don’t understand your answer to my question, or maybe I don’t understand your original statement. Were you saying it’s a problem that you can see extreme tweets of people you follow?
  - oxfordmale 4y ago
    My original point was directed on Elon's Musk belief he can solve hate issues on Twitter by limiting the reach of negative or hateful tweets. It is an approach that works for Google, as they can filter such results. As you point as well, Twitter is about networks and if you are interested in a controversial person, you will follow them. That is good from an individual perspective, as you should have this freedom, however, it can be negative for the society as a whole. A good example is fake news.
    - nomel 4y ago
      > however, it can be negative for the society as a whole. Society wouldn't see the persons tweets, only the followers would. So, it "protects" society, and lets the follower see the controversy they desire. Or, are you suggesting that the individual shouldn't be allowed to see the controversial speech, because they can influence society? I think there have been far too many examples, in history, where the individual was right and the larger opinion of society was incredibly wrong, for this to be a goal to move towards.