5 ms·

Yeah... Also, the unbanning of users previously considered hateful also directly conflicts with "to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct"

bluescrn 4y ago
Remember way back before the era of social media mob justice, when there was this concept of 'forgiveness'? At least some of the banned deserve a second chance. Those who were total monsters will probably be quickly re-banned. Others have found their own echo chambers elsewhere and won't even bother coming back.
- dagmx 4y ago
  Banning is usually only for repeat offenders. Usually you get multiple suspensions before the ban. Which is basically what you described and therefore is already how it works.
- cyberphobe 4y ago
  Elon is pretty clearly unbanning violent right-wing extremists while banning rule-following accounts on the left, sometimes transparently at the direction of the right wingers. Why do you insist on pretending anything else?
  - memish 4y ago
    Speaking of "pretending", that is false on both counts.
    - cyberphobe 4y ago
      excellent argument, you sure changed my mind
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - hatefulmoron 4y ago
        Can't you see the irony in this when you didn't offer any evidence?
    - d23 4y ago
      He unbanned a right wing extremist who attempted to use Twitter to overthrow the government.
    - jeffbee 4y ago
      Twitter 2.0 is banning accounts as soon as Andy Ngo, the galaxy's biggest liar, demands they be banned. https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-ngo-antifascist/ https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...
      - memish 4y ago
        I don't see how you reached that conclusion. If you look at the referenced thread, he was reporting accounts that were inciting violence.
        jeffbee 4y ago
        The article describes Ngo's claims as "misleading, factually incorrect". Which would be in keeping with literally everything Ngo has ever written.
        memish 4y ago
        The article is misleading. You can go look at the thread to see for yourself.
  - toolz 4y ago
    Which rule following accounts on the left have been banned since musk bought the company? I only know of a couple accounts that were banned for very clearly violating terms of service, i.e. impersonating other people. I personally don't agree with even those bans, but I am curious to know which rule followers were banned.
    - cyberphobe 4y ago
      https://www.newsweek.com/activists-accuse-elon-musk-banning-anti-fascist-accounts-twitter-1761957 https://www.newsweek.com/activists-accuse-elon-musk-banning-... mentions a few, although there are far more.
      - spamuel 4y ago
        You need to be more specific - he wasn't banning George Takei or Occupy Democrats. He banned ANTIFA accounts that were being used to plan "direct action", ie: riots. Something that was previously against Twitter's TOS, but it wasn't being enforced specifically against ANTIFA accounts because Twitter employees were sympathetic to the cause.
        trs8080 4y ago
        Answered above, reproducing for you here: "As the Los Angeles City Councilmember Mike Bonin noted on Twitter, the suspended users include Chad Loder, an antifascist researcher whose open-source investigation of the U.S. Capitol riot led to the identification and arrest of a masked Proud Boy who attacked police officers. The account of video journalist Vishal Pratap Singh, who reports on far-right protests in Southern California, has also been suspended." "All four accounts had been singled out for criticism by Andy Ngo, a far-right writer whose conspiratorial, error-riddled reporting on left-wing protests and social movements fuels the mass delusion that a handful of small antifascist groups are part of an imaginary shadow army called “antifa.” In a public exchange on Twitter on Friday, Musk invited Ngo to report “Antifa accounts” that should be suspended directly to him." https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...
  - bluescrn 4y ago
    Same game as always, but now the other team now has the ball. With a propaganda weapon as powerful as Twitter, it's probably better for everybody if it's destroyed, rather than continues to be used/abused to escalate political divisions by either side of the great divide. And that seems to be the way things are going. It should never have been taken so seriously to begin with.
    - cyberphobe 4y ago
      By what metric was Twitter previously controlled by the "other team", by which you presumably the far left? Before Elon owned them, they were bending over backwards to allow right wing accounts ([0] for example), and they frequently banned left wing accounts that at all went afoul of the rules [0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-white-supremacy-gop-politicians-report-2019-4?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-...
    - chasd00 4y ago
      > it's probably better for everybody if it's destroyed At first I hoped Musk would see the nightmare, give up, just pull the plug, and go home. I think that's out though, now I hope it collapses under its own weight. Hope dies last.
- ABeeSea 4y ago
  Forgiveness usually requires some level of admitting fault and contrition. I have not seen that from the hateful accounts Elon unbanned.
jonfw 4y ago
Anybody would agree with you given the following two assumptions- That these previously banned users were banned for conduct that they would consider hateful That banning users is the only way to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct If twitter disagrees with either of these statements, you can see why they would disagree with your point
- bilbo0s 4y ago
  Problem in the long run is that it doesn't matter whether or not Twitter believes they are hateful. Heck, it doesn't even matter if the person you're responding to thinks they are hateful. For Musk to not lose gobs and gobs of money, it only matters whether advertisers, in their sole estimation, consider those people hateful. The guys with the nine figure ad budgets will almost certainly fall on the "cautious" side of that line. The only thing that will help here is finding small, less PR minded brands or businesses to replace the players in the nine figure club. This won't be easy, but I think it is the only reasonable way forward to create the kind of Twitter that Musk seems to want to create. Having worked at "DDB Need'em" long ago, I'd set his chances of pulling that off relatively low, but I don't think it's impossible.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > For Musk to not lose gobs and gobs of money, it only matters whether advertisers, in their sole estimation, consider those people hateful. Or, more accurately, “content they don’t want their advertising seen near”.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    > The only thing that will help here is finding small, less PR minded brands or businesses to replace the players in the nine figure club. My partner runs a small business that spends a few million on ads each year. Why would she take the risk (and it is a huge risk) of advertising on Twitter when Facebook, Google etc. give her the confidence and results her business depends on. Smaller businesses are far less likely to take risks.
    - 4y ago
lijogdfljk 4y ago
Yea.. how does he expect this to be interpreted? Their stance hasn't changed.. cool, except before Twitter said some people posted hateful content, and banned them. Now they unbanned them, so what is the non-change? Does twitter agree that the comments were hateful, did that not change? If didn't change, then twitter agrees they were hateful comments and twitter is now happy to have them on the platform. Musk can't keep his foot out of his mouth here it seems.. it's very confusing.
- dismantlethesun 4y ago
  Maybe their stance is that people shouldn't be banned forever? I personally, don't believe in eternal bans. I always hate the horror stories where someone has made a mistake and thus Google bans them from all non-related activities for life, then bans the account of anyone who gave that person privileges too. With respect to Twitter, I'd say sure Trump is an insurrectionist and a shameful individual, but it's been 2 years... while we can't all rightly forgive him, we can at least him speak his thoughts in 280 characters or less.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Maybe their stance is that people shouldn't be banned forever? They are entitled to that stance, and advertisers uncomfortable with either the actual or anticipated results of that stance are entitled to not advertise on Twitter.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gfodor 4y ago
No, because the thing that has changed explicitly is Twitter is no longer going to ban users based on hateful conduct, but deboost their tweets.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  Except they actually keep suspending accounts for violations of the hateful content policy, specifically for Tweets with fairly mild criticism of Musk and nothing that even superficially relates to what is prohibited by the hateful content policy.
  - andirk 4y ago
    The idea that the suspensions are restricted to only hateful content is simply false. It's a popular lie by political propagandists who know the truth and want to push the myth of systematic distortion, and I guess your argument is a natural way for someone who has internalized that propaganda, doesn’t know the methodology, but has seen the definition to try to rationalize what they have internalized, but its just not true.
NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
Simple, just define their beliefs as hateful/hate speech, then you can ban them for hate. reddit is also great at this.
lmm 4y ago
Only if you trust the judgement of the previous team.

bluescrn 4y ago

Remember way back before the era of social media mob justice, when there was this concept of 'forgiveness'? At least some of the banned deserve a second chance. Those who were total monsters will probably be quickly re-banned. Others have found their own echo chambers elsewhere and won't even bother coming back.

dagmx 4y ago
Banning is usually only for repeat offenders. Usually you get multiple suspensions before the ban. Which is basically what you described and therefore is already how it works.
cyberphobe 4y ago
Elon is pretty clearly unbanning violent right-wing extremists while banning rule-following accounts on the left, sometimes transparently at the direction of the right wingers. Why do you insist on pretending anything else?
- memish 4y ago
  Speaking of "pretending", that is false on both counts.
  - cyberphobe 4y ago
    excellent argument, you sure changed my mind
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - hatefulmoron 4y ago
      Can't you see the irony in this when you didn't offer any evidence?
  - d23 4y ago
    He unbanned a right wing extremist who attempted to use Twitter to overthrow the government.
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    Twitter 2.0 is banning accounts as soon as Andy Ngo, the galaxy's biggest liar, demands they be banned. https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-ngo-antifascist/ https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...
    - memish 4y ago
      I don't see how you reached that conclusion. If you look at the referenced thread, he was reporting accounts that were inciting violence.
      - jeffbee 4y ago
        The article describes Ngo's claims as "misleading, factually incorrect". Which would be in keeping with literally everything Ngo has ever written.
        memish 4y ago
        The article is misleading. You can go look at the thread to see for yourself.
- toolz 4y ago
  Which rule following accounts on the left have been banned since musk bought the company? I only know of a couple accounts that were banned for very clearly violating terms of service, i.e. impersonating other people. I personally don't agree with even those bans, but I am curious to know which rule followers were banned.
  - cyberphobe 4y ago
    https://www.newsweek.com/activists-accuse-elon-musk-banning-anti-fascist-accounts-twitter-1761957 https://www.newsweek.com/activists-accuse-elon-musk-banning-... mentions a few, although there are far more.
    - spamuel 4y ago
      You need to be more specific - he wasn't banning George Takei or Occupy Democrats. He banned ANTIFA accounts that were being used to plan "direct action", ie: riots. Something that was previously against Twitter's TOS, but it wasn't being enforced specifically against ANTIFA accounts because Twitter employees were sympathetic to the cause.
      - trs8080 4y ago
        Answered above, reproducing for you here: "As the Los Angeles City Councilmember Mike Bonin noted on Twitter, the suspended users include Chad Loder, an antifascist researcher whose open-source investigation of the U.S. Capitol riot led to the identification and arrest of a masked Proud Boy who attacked police officers. The account of video journalist Vishal Pratap Singh, who reports on far-right protests in Southern California, has also been suspended." "All four accounts had been singled out for criticism by Andy Ngo, a far-right writer whose conspiratorial, error-riddled reporting on left-wing protests and social movements fuels the mass delusion that a handful of small antifascist groups are part of an imaginary shadow army called “antifa.” In a public exchange on Twitter on Friday, Musk invited Ngo to report “Antifa accounts” that should be suspended directly to him." https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-n...
- bluescrn 4y ago
  Same game as always, but now the other team now has the ball. With a propaganda weapon as powerful as Twitter, it's probably better for everybody if it's destroyed, rather than continues to be used/abused to escalate political divisions by either side of the great divide. And that seems to be the way things are going. It should never have been taken so seriously to begin with.
  - cyberphobe 4y ago
    By what metric was Twitter previously controlled by the "other team", by which you presumably the far left? Before Elon owned them, they were bending over backwards to allow right wing accounts ([0] for example), and they frequently banned left wing accounts that at all went afoul of the rules [0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-white-supremacy-gop-politicians-report-2019-4?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-...
  - chasd00 4y ago
    > it's probably better for everybody if it's destroyed At first I hoped Musk would see the nightmare, give up, just pull the plug, and go home. I think that's out though, now I hope it collapses under its own weight. Hope dies last.
ABeeSea 4y ago
Forgiveness usually requires some level of admitting fault and contrition. I have not seen that from the hateful accounts Elon unbanned.

jonfw 4y ago

Anybody would agree with you given the following two assumptions- That these previously banned users were banned for conduct that they would consider hateful That banning users is the only way to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct If twitter disagrees with either of these statements, you can see why they would disagree with your point

bilbo0s 4y ago
Problem in the long run is that it doesn't matter whether or not Twitter believes they are hateful. Heck, it doesn't even matter if the person you're responding to thinks they are hateful. For Musk to not lose gobs and gobs of money, it only matters whether advertisers, in their sole estimation, consider those people hateful. The guys with the nine figure ad budgets will almost certainly fall on the "cautious" side of that line. The only thing that will help here is finding small, less PR minded brands or businesses to replace the players in the nine figure club. This won't be easy, but I think it is the only reasonable way forward to create the kind of Twitter that Musk seems to want to create. Having worked at "DDB Need'em" long ago, I'd set his chances of pulling that off relatively low, but I don't think it's impossible.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > For Musk to not lose gobs and gobs of money, it only matters whether advertisers, in their sole estimation, consider those people hateful. Or, more accurately, “content they don’t want their advertising seen near”.
- threeseed 4y ago
  > The only thing that will help here is finding small, less PR minded brands or businesses to replace the players in the nine figure club. My partner runs a small business that spends a few million on ads each year. Why would she take the risk (and it is a huge risk) of advertising on Twitter when Facebook, Google etc. give her the confidence and results her business depends on. Smaller businesses are far less likely to take risks.
  - 4y ago

lijogdfljk 4y ago

Yea.. how does he expect this to be interpreted? Their stance hasn't changed.. cool, except before Twitter said some people posted hateful content, and banned them. Now they unbanned them, so what is the non-change? Does twitter agree that the comments were hateful, did that not change? If didn't change, then twitter agrees they were hateful comments and twitter is now happy to have them on the platform. Musk can't keep his foot out of his mouth here it seems.. it's very confusing.

dismantlethesun 4y ago
Maybe their stance is that people shouldn't be banned forever? I personally, don't believe in eternal bans. I always hate the horror stories where someone has made a mistake and thus Google bans them from all non-related activities for life, then bans the account of anyone who gave that person privileges too. With respect to Twitter, I'd say sure Trump is an insurrectionist and a shameful individual, but it's been 2 years... while we can't all rightly forgive him, we can at least him speak his thoughts in 280 characters or less.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Maybe their stance is that people shouldn't be banned forever? They are entitled to that stance, and advertisers uncomfortable with either the actual or anticipated results of that stance are entitled to not advertise on Twitter.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

gfodor 4y ago

No, because the thing that has changed explicitly is Twitter is no longer going to ban users based on hateful conduct, but deboost their tweets.

dragonwriter 4y ago
Except they actually keep suspending accounts for violations of the hateful content policy, specifically for Tweets with fairly mild criticism of Musk and nothing that even superficially relates to what is prohibited by the hateful content policy.
- andirk 4y ago
  The idea that the suspensions are restricted to only hateful content is simply false. It's a popular lie by political propagandists who know the truth and want to push the myth of systematic distortion, and I guess your argument is a natural way for someone who has internalized that propaganda, doesn’t know the methodology, but has seen the definition to try to rationalize what they have internalized, but its just not true.

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago

Simple, just define their beliefs as hateful/hate speech, then you can ban them for hate. reddit is also great at this.

lmm 4y ago

Only if you trust the judgement of the previous team.